Mr. Speaker, a lot has been made about the label of this debate. Is it over "normal trade relations" or is it over "Most-Favored-Nation status?" In reality, it is over $64 billion. It is a $64 billion question, because we send to China $64 billion more each year than they send to us. The second question we should ask is, is it in America's interests to send $64 billion a year to China? Well, let us examine some of the things they are doing with that money. They are buying missile cruisers that were designed by the then-Soviet Union to do one thing: kill American aircraft carriers and the men and women who operate those aircraft carriers. That is one thing they bought with the money we have given them. What are some of the other things they have done with the money we have given them, some of that $64 billion? They have upgraded their strategic systems. That means the Long March missiles, some of which are aimed at American cities like New York, like San Diego, like Los Angeles. So they have built and deployed and aimed nuclear weapons at some of our cities with some of the money that we have given them. What are some other things they have done with some of the $64 billion we have given them? They have proliferated poison gas components and nuclear weapons components to such adversaries of the United States as Iran, Iraq, Libya, and North Korea.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of U.S. trade relations with China during a House floor debate.
Share
More from Andrew P. Hunter
It is concerning; and, of course, it fits a pattern, a long-term pattern of efforts by China to obtain intellectual property and technology from the United States.
first let me express my great respect for the gentleman who is offering this amendment. He does wonderful work on the committee and truly has a heart for those who have been impacted by the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. On that…
But let me register my objection to the Rules Committee's determination that one of the amendments that I had offered was not made in order, and that is the amendment that goes to the so-called tanker deal. Let me just explain to my…
But we are in a different situation now. And so we have an opportunity to come up with a strategy that is focused on meeting these new challenges, not simply trying to avoid more harm.





