Speech #1020058666

Speaker. I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 263. According to section 402 of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974. the true factor in determining whether a Communist country should receive MFN treatment is whether it maintains an emigration policy that is free and open. or is becoming free and open. Chinas emigration policy. never free and open. has only become more restrictive since the Tiananmen Square massacre. Since Tiananmen. the Chinese Government has required exit permit and passport applicants to file two new reports describing their performance during Tiananmen Square. Regrettably. these reports. which are expected to be confessional in nature. are being used to restrict free emigration. Also instituted after Tiananmen is the socalled cultivation fee that must be paid to the Chinese Government by students wishing to go abroad for selffinanced graduate studies. Given that this fee amounts to what the average Chinese college gro(.aate earns over an 8year period of lme. this clearly precludes free movement and open emigration. Existence of the cultivation fee also undermines a primary objective of the 1974 Trade Act: To deny MFN treatment to countries which imrose more than a nominal fee. tax or fine on those citizens wi3hing to emigrate. During 1984 debate on the Romania MFN issue. many of us opposed renewing that countrys MFN status because it had instituted a similar fee. This fee. known as the education tax. had to be paid to the Government by those wishing to leave Romania. and amounted to what the average Romanian citizen earned over 3 to 5 years. Back then. our colleague PHIL CRANE justifibly referred to this onerous tax as a form of ransom. Chinas cultivation fee is no different. Consider an excerpt from a May 1991 Library of Congress report on Chinas emigration policy. I quote: Since the Tiananmen Square Massacre. the central authorities have made it more difficult for people to leave the country. These additional controls very much seem to be aimed at discouraging people who disagree with the policies of the hardliners from leaving the country. either for shorter stays abroad or for emigration. Even the State Department concedes thatand I quote Existing restrictions on foreign travel were tightened in 1989. Regrettably. though it admits that Chinas policy has worsened since Tiananmen. the State Department contends that Chinas emigration policy is open because it fills the annual U.S. permanent immigrant visa quota of 17.000 people. While State has its own interpretation of the law. the 1974 Trade Act does not specify or imply that the degree of openness of a countrys emigration policy should be based solely on whether it fills the U.S. quota. According to the portion of the 1974 Ways and Means Committee report devoted to section 402. Congress soughtand I quote-"to assure the continued dedication of the United States to fundamental human rights." Congress is just as concerned about the fate of those seeking to leave Communist nations on a temporary basis. as it Is for those struggling to become permanent immigrants elsewhere. The fact remains that the Peoples Republic of China does not meet the 1974 Trade Acts freedom of emigration requirements. and that its MFN status should be revoked immediately. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote "aye" on House Joint Resolution 263.