Government publishing office

7
brought down the Soviet Union without an actual military con-
frontation between our two societies. But we did that by supporting 
and financing and bolstering the efforts of those people who were 
struggling for freedom in their own country, in the Soviet Union, 
and in those countries that the Soviet Union was trying to domi-
nate. 
And, in 1989, the moment came for China to reverse its course 
from dictatorship and totalitarianism. And we let them down; we 
let ourselves down. We let ourselves down because that cowardice 
that we showed in not confronting the Chinese leadership was 
something that we are now beginning to experience the negative 
side of that decision. 
People said, well, what would you have done to back them up? 
Ronald Reagan, who I worked for for 7
1
⁄
2
years, was not President 
at the time. Had he been President at the time, there would have 
been a phone call as soon as he got an intelligence report that the 
Chinese Army was going into Tiananmen Square, and that would 
have said, ‘‘I am sorry, if you destroy the democracy movement in 
China, the deal is off. No open markets, no technology transfers, 
no interaction and cooperative efforts and social interaction. It is 
all off. Don’t destroy the democracy movement.’’
George Herbert Walker Bush’s telephone call, it went like this: 
There was no telephone call. And after they invaded Tiananmen 
Square and slaughtered the democracy movement, there was no 
price for the Communist Party of China to pay. And we continued 
having policies that enriched them and their control over their 
country. 
China’s evolution stopped that day, and, since then, there has 
been no democratic reform in China. Although, we have been told, 
even after Tiananmen Square, if we just have this interaction, eco-
nomically and socially and like the education programs we are talk-
ing about today, China will evolve into a better country. I have al-
ways called that the ‘‘hug a Nazi, make a liberal’’ theory. 
And there has been no evolution toward political freedom in 
China. But we have seen an enrichment and an empowering of an 
elite, a despotic and brutal and belligerent elite, in China. And it 
is now becoming very evident that this new China that is emerging 
poses, at least in the future, not only as a symbol of repression to 
their own people but as a belligerent threat to the rest of the 
world. 
When we don’t stand up for freedom and those people struggling 
for freedom in these countries, we pay the price in the end. And 
that is what is happening. 
And we have seen all of these proposals, like we are going to dis-
cuss today, with interaction on education. And there have been lots 
of these various programs that, supposedly, we are going to make 
China evolve toward a freer direction. We have instead enriched 
them and empowered them in the economic arena. 
And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record, at this 
point, a letter that I have just sent out describing and alerting our 
Government to the fact that—a major American company has 
brought this to my attention—that the Chinese have a predatory 
strategy when it comes to business. And, especially, they are trying 
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 
14:25 Sep 29, 2015
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\WORK\_AGH\062515\95248
SHIRL

---

8
to get control of the chip manufacturing, get control or at least 
have a dominating influence on the manufacture of computer chips. 
And, with your permission, I would like to submit for the record 
a letter that I have just sent today alerting our Government to that 
fact. 
Mr. S
MITH
. Without objection, so ordered. 
Mr. R
OHRABACHER
. Okay. 
Now, this was brought to my attention by an American company 
there. And I have the letter—it is to the Secretary of the Treas-
ury—right here, right now. And I hope that we pay attention to 
that predatory and that negative strategy on the part of the Com-
munist Party of China. 
However, what we talk about today, I think, has—where that is 
an immediate threat, this idea that we are having—and I disagree 
with my friend Mr. Sherman on this, and we usually agree on 
things. I do not believe that we need to bring Chinese students 
over here and train them in our technology schools. If they want 
to come over and take some courses in social studies, I think maybe 
that is okay. 
But I would like to hear from the panel today. I understand 
many of these students that are coming over are taking graduate-
level classes in the sciences, number one, which puts them in a po-
sition to out-compete us, but puts us in jeopardy in terms of knowl-
edge that we have spent billions of dollars trying to develop in our 
scientific research. That should not be just shared with individuals 
from another country if they are going to take it home to that coun-
try. 
So we need to start using, number one, a moral system to guide 
our decisionmaking in terms of countries like China, but we need 
to be courageous, and we need to make sure that we are honest 
with ourselves about what these policies are accomplishing. 
Thank you again. Thanks to the witnesses for alerting us what 
is going on with our universities, how that is impacting this whole 
dynamic at play. 
So thank you very much. 
Mr. S
MITH
. Thank you very much, Chairman Rohrabacher. 
You underscored—and I think most members of the panel know 
this, that Mr. Rohrabacher was a speechwriter for Ronald Reagan. 
And the opposition to what George Herbert Walker Bush did, espe-
cially in sending Brent Scowcroft soon after Tiananmen Square to 
assure the dictatorship that they had nothing to fear from the 
United States, was one of the most infamous betrayals, in my opin-
ion, that is only paralleled by, not exceeded or matched but par-
alleled by, President Clinton, when he de-linked human rights and 
trade, infamously, on a Friday afternoon, when the Chinese took 
the measure of the United States of America and said, profits 
trump human rights. 
And the Executive order, which I had lauded—held press con-
ference after press conference thanking President Clinton for—only 
to find out it was a ruse. That was when they realized that Amer-
ica, at least the administration, cared only about making more 
money, at the expense of human rights activism. And none of the 
matriculation from dictatorship to human rights protections have 
occurred. 
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 
14:25 Sep 29, 2015
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\WORK\_AGH\062515\95248
SHIRL

---