Given the fact that the President will veto anything we submit to him. sending messages seems to be our only viable option. It does not make sense to send a feeble message such as H.R. 4939. to a brutally repressive Chinese regime that only deals in and understands extremes. Since 1980. as permitted under JacksonVanik. we have granted MFN treatment in hopes of encouraging that nation to adopt emigration and human rights policies consistent with our requirements. Essentially. we chose the softer carrot approach over the tougher stick method. For 9 years. until 1989. we can say that Chinas emigration policy simply contradicted the JacksonVanik law. clearly a travesty in and of itself. Since June 1989s Tiananmen massacre. Chinas leadership has violated and made an absolute mockery of our law. and we have stood by and watched. We must defeat this measure unless it is radically ch.i ged because it is wrong. because Chi) s emigration policy violates our trade :aws. and because the policy of granting MFN status as an enticement has proven a failure. Madam Chairman. we have had. and we will hear stated on the floor that the Chinese leaders have softened their approach. have changed. I would just like to read from the October 1. 1990. current edition of the Free Chinese Journal. and a story about the Communist Party President in China.
Keywords matched
emigration