[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 198 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18575-S18579]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE NEXT PANCHEN LAMA

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar 266, S. J. Res. 43.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S. J. Res. 43) expressing the sense of 
     the Congress regarding Wei Jingsheng; Gudhun Choekyi Nyima, 
     the next Panchen Lama of Tibet; and the human rights 
     practices of the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection, to the immediate 
consideration of the joint resolution?
  There being no objection the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, citizens all over the world are 
protesting--and after all major Western countries have complained to 
the Chinese Government--about the mistreatment of a courageous Chinese 
citizen named Wei Jingsheng because Wei has spent most of his life 
trying to bring democracy and decent human rights to his 1.2 billion 
fellow Chinese citizens.
  In return, the Chinese Government has sentenced him to another 14 
years in a jail after a trial that lasted 6 hours and to which no 
officials representing the United States Government were allowed to 
attend.
  The Wei Jingsheng trial follows on the heels of last week's Communist 
Chinese Government's announcement that for the first time in Tibetan 
history, Red China has selected a successor to the Panchen Lama, the 
second 

[[Page S18576]]
highest-ranking official in Tibetan Buddhism, His Holiness the Dalai 
Lama being the No. 1, of course.
  Madam President, these significant events deserve the attention of 
all Americans and other citizens around the world. Senate Joint 
Resolution 43 is a sense-of-the-Congress resolution objecting to the 
treatment of Wei Jingsheng, who, by the way, is known as the father of 
democracy in China. Senate Joint Resolution 43 expresses regret 
concerning the Chinese Government's decision to name its own Panchen 
Lama of Tibet for the first time in Tibetan history. The resolution 
calls upon the United States Government to sponsor, and aggressively 
push for, passage of a resolution at next spring's meeting of the U.N. 
Human Rights Commission condemning Red China's human rights record.
  In drafting this resolution, I decided that it is important to 
highlight both the plight of Wei Jingsheng and the Chinese Government's 
invasion into the religious freedoms of the Tibetan people. Both 
issues--religious freedom and political freedom--are human rights 
issues and should therefore be linked.
  This is not the first linkage of these two issues. In fact, when 
President Clinton and Jiang Zemin met in New York, it was emphasized to 
the Chinese leader that it is imperative for China to make progress on 
these two human rights issues. In fact, at that meeting, the Chinese 
were requested to give special attention to the fate of Wei Jingsheng, 
and of other political prisoners.
  Did the Chinese believe that charging Wei Jingsheng with attempting 
to overthrow the government and sentencing him to 14 years in jail was 
what was when the United States specified special attention? Of course 
not; the Chinese actions are mere examples of the in-your-face attitude 
of the Beijing government.
  Madam President, Senate passage of this resolution is vital. If the 
Senate fails to make a clear definitive statement protesting these 
actions, the Chinese will decide that the American people don't care.
  That, of course, is simply not the case. If the U.S. Congress does 
not act now on Wei Jingsheng's behalf, we will be forfeiting the 
opportunity to make a difference.
  I further understand the Clinton administration is to decide in the 
near future, whether the United States should support a China human 
rights resolution at the next meeting of the U.N. Human Rights 
Commission in Geneva. We have supported a China/human rights resolution 
for the past 3 years.
  This year should not be different. I encourage the President to think 
long and hard about that decision. President Clinton has said over and 
over that the best way to pressure the Chinese on human rights issues 
is to pursue them in international arenas. The U.N. Human Rights 
Commission is an opportunity that should not be missed.
  Some Senators maintain that quiet diplomacy will work better than a 
congressional resolution. I differ. Since July, the United States 
Congress, and effectively the United States Government, have engaged in 
quiet diplomacy and has shied away from strong statements about events 
in China. Look where those efforts have gotten us on issues about which 
we care deeply.
  That brave young man fighting for democracy in Communist China and 
that poor 6-year-old boy and his parents who have disappeared because 
he was chosen as the next Panchen Lama of Tibet need our help.
  I encourage Senators to support this resolution and say a prayer for 
all Chinese citizens who one day could be mistreated just as these 
young men have been.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, on Monday the distinguished chairman of 
the Foreign Relations Committee introduced Senate Joint Resolution 43 
relative to two recent moves by the central government in the People's 
Republic of China which are of great concern to me as the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs: the formal charging 
and trial yesterday of Chinese human rights activist Wei Jingsheng, and 
the selection by the central authorities in Beijing of a new Panchen 
Lama. I am an original cosponsor of that legislation, and rise today to 
express my full support for it.
  Wei Jingsheng is known as the father of the PRC's modern democracy 
movement, and has spent a good deal of his adult life in prison as a 
result of his beliefs. Wei was first arrested in the spring of 1979 for 
allegedly ``providing foreigners with confidential military information 
and engaging in activities which pose a threat to state security and 
designed to overthrow state power;'' the fact that the ``secrets'' had 
been previously published in a widely-circulated government journal was 
apparently seen as immaterial. His true offense was participating in 
the ``Democracy Wall Movement'' by penning a work entitled ``Diwu 
Xiandaihua--The Fifth Modernization.'' That piece argued that the 
Communist Party's ``Four Modernizations'' program--to modernize 
industry, agriculture, science/technology, and the armed forces--would 
be incomplete without a ``fifth modernization:'' democracy. In 
addition, he had circulated an article warning that Deng Xiaoping was 
developing Mao-like dictatorial tendencies. For this, he was sentenced 
to a loss of political rights for 3 years and 15 years in prison of 
which he served 14\1/2\ years.
  As part of its bid to host the 2000 Olympics, the PRC released a 
number of political prisoners in a quid pro quo attempt to influence 
the choice of the selection committee. As a result, Wei was paroled in 
September 1993 but was kept under constant surveillance since that 
time. Upon his release he resumed his prodemocracy activities, writing 
articles and speaking with foreign journalists and government officials 
in support of democracy in China.
  On April 1, 1994, just a few weeks after he had met with Assistant 
Secretary of State John Shattuck to discuss human rights in the PRC, 
Wei vanished. While it was known at the time that he had been arrested, 
no warrant had been issued for his arrest; no formal charges were 
instituted against him; members of his family were never notified of 
his arrest or subsequent whereabouts, and the authorities would not 
even confirm he was being held. Inquires as to his status from 
organizations and leaders outside of China were rebuffed.
  On November 21, of this year, 20 months after first being arrested 
and held without charge, the Xinhua News Agency announced that Wei was 
being formally charged with ``activities to overthrow the government.'' 
Although the exact nature of his ``crimes'' was left nebulous, the 
charge carries the death penalty in the PRC. The PRC, which seems to 
have learned a thing or two about public relations over the years, 
conveniently timed the announcement to occur after the completion of 
the recent APEC meetings in Osaka, Japan, and after the announcement of 
the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize for which Wei had been nominated; both 
events would have provided an uncomfortable forum for international 
criticism of the charges. Instead, they have until the next meeting of 
the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva next March to try and 
convict Wei and the hope that any international uproar will die down.
  A Xinhua report this last Sunday noted that Wei's trial would begin 
today (late yesterday, Beijing time) in the Beijing Intermediate 
People's Court. As of 48 hours before the trial was scheduled to begin, 
Wei's attorney--Zhang Sishi--had still not received written notice of 
the charges against his client, nor had he been allowed to meet with 
him. Although it has been announced that the trial will be--somewhat 
uncharacteristically--``open,'' that means only that some of Wei's 
family members may be allowed to attend along with other individuals 
picked by the government. Late yesterday, after a 6-hour trial, Wei was 
sentenced to a 14 year term of imprisonment.
  I am deeply concerned with the use of the Chinese criminal code to 
silence those who peacefully advocate democratization and who exercise 
their rights to free speech. I am equally worried by the response, or 
should I say lack of response, from the Clinton administration. 
Candidate Clinton was long on talk about Republicans ``coddling 
dictators,'' and how he would make human rights the foundation of his 
foreign policy. But as we have seen with so many other issues, he 
apparently did not mean what he said; as far as I can tell, that 
foundation is cracked. The Clinton administration has been slowly 
ceding ground on this issue with the Chinese since he took office. 
Instead of high-level reactions to 

[[Page S18577]]
the Wei arrest and trial, I have seen only low-level, lukewarm, 
noncommittal expressions of concern from Foggy Bottom.
  In 1986, in a speech urging his fellow party leaders to take a hard-
line on domestic critics of the government, Deng Xiaoping used Wei as 
an example:

       Didn't we arrest Wei Jingsheng? We arrested him and have 
     not let him go, yet China's image has not suffered.

  Whether Wei's predicament is to be a bargaining tool for the March 
U.N. meeting, or signals a shift towards the conservatives in the party 
hierarchy, President Clinton's lack of response at this time can only 
embolden China, and place at risk the freedom of others in the 
democracy movement such as student leader Wang Dan, activist Li Guotao, 
trade unionist Liu Nianchun, academician Yuan Hongbing and religious 
activist Xiao Biguang. All have disappeared in the last 2 years.
  Turning to the issue of the Panchen Lama, it is a central belief in 
Tibetan Buddhism that certain deities take human form in the bodies of 
important lamas to lead believers toward enlightenment. It is believed 
that the souls of these lamas are reborn shortly after their deaths 
into the bodies of newborn infants in order to continue their task on 
earth. Known generically as tulku, the two most important of these 
lamas are the Dalai Lama, the temporal and spiritual head of Tibet, and 
the Panchen Lama. The Panchen Lama is believed to be a reincarnation of 
the Buddha Amitabha, the Buddha of Infinite Light. Because he wields 
the highest temporal as well as spiritual authority, the Dalai Lama is 
considered preeminent to the Panchen in the lamaist hierarchy.
  Since the occupation of Tibet beginning in the late 1940's, the 
Chinese have sought to coopt the Panchen Lama in an attempt to counter 
the role and authority of the Dalai Lama. When the Chinese invaded 
Tibet and overthrew the legitimate government, the Dalai Lama fled to 
northern India where he established a Tibetan government-in-exile. The 
10th Panchen Lama remained behind however, effectively becoming over 
the years the Vidkun Quisling of Tibet, assisting the Chinese in the 
``peaceful liberation'' of Tibet. As reported in the November 11 
edition of Xzang Ribao:

       In March 1959, Tibet's upper-level reactionary clique 
     launched a counter-revolutionary armed revolt in a vain 
     attempt to undermine the motherland's unification. Great 
     Master Panchen [the Panchen Lama] immediately cabled Chairman 
     Mao and Premier Zhou [Enlai] to express his support for the 
     State Council's order to dissolve the Tibetan local 
     government and to quell the rebellion. At a rally held by 
     people of all circles of Xigaze [Shigatse], he urged all 
     monks, ordinary people, and patriotic people of Tibet to 
     clearly distinguish right from wrong and good from evil, to 
     draw a clear line between them and the reactionary clique, 
     and, under the party's leadership, to unite in resolutely 
     assisting the People's Liberation Army to quell the 
     rebellion. Since September 1987, a small number of separatist 
     elements have created disturbances and made troubles in 
     Lhasa, but the Great Master Panchen always maintained a firm 
     stand, held high the banner of patriotism, and unequivocally 
     and resolutely upheld the motherland's unification and 
     national unity.
  He became a member of the Chinese-installed Communist government, and 
regularly called on Tibetans to submit to the new order. In frequent 
statements he praised the new Communist government, and over the years 
gave legitimacy to the Chinese occupation. Although he apparently had a 
change of heart at the beginning of the Cultural Revolution, for which 
he was jailed for nearly a decade, after his rehabilitation in 1978 he 
continued to refuse to back calls for Tibetan independence.
  Since the death of the Panchen Lama in January 1989, observers have 
expected a clash between the Tibetans and the Chinese over the choice 
of the lama's reincarnation. The reason is simple: this conflict is not 
simply some arcane religious tussle, but is part of the ongoing 
collision of interests over who really rules Tibet. For the first time, 
the Chinese were presented with the opportunity of hand-picking and 
shaping in their own political image from his youth a traditional 
leader of the Tibetan people. With the prospect of grooming a credible 
and more compliant alternative leader for the Tibetan people, few 
believed that the Chinese would acquiesce to the rightful authority of 
the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhist hierarchy in the choice.
  Soon after the Panchen's death, negotiations took place between the 
central government and the group charged with searching for his 
reincarnation, the monks of Tashilhunpo-- ``Mass of Glory''--Monastery 
in Shigatse, the traditional seat of the Panchen Lama. The compromise 
reached provided that the monks would look for the reincarnate lama 
only in China and Tibet, thus precluding a candidate being found among 
the Dalai Lama's Tibetan supporters in exile in India. In return, the 
monks were promised that they could use traditional procedures to 
select the reborn lama.
  A committee of monks from the Tashilhunpo began to search for the 
reincarnate lama by consulting religious oracles and searching for 
omens in the reflective waters of a lake high in the Himalayas. The 
committee then visited children in villages around the country who were 
reported to have certain physical and mental indications of being 
reincarnate. The committee spent more than 5 years examining various 
candidates. As they finalized their choice, to the chagrin of the 
authorities in Beijing word was leaked from the search committee to the 
Dalai Lama of the identity of the candidates. This allowed the Dalai 
Lama, who the Chinese for the first time had excluded from his 
traditional role in the process, to act preemptively and announce on 
May 14 that the search committee had found the reincarnation of the 
Panchen Lama in the person of 6-year-old Gedhum Chokyi Nyima in the 
Tibetan village of Nagchu, Lhari District, north of Lhasa.
  Their loss of control over the process infuriated the Chinese, who 
denounced the proclamation in predictably Communist rhetoric. The 
government press labelled the Dalai Lama's action ``splittist'' and 
``illegal and invalid,'' and condemned him for ``his vicious intention 
of disrupting Tibet's stability and undermining China's national unity 
through religious means.''
  Having been beaten to the punch by the Dalai Lama, the Chinese 
government attempted to regain the initiative. The Dalai Lama's 
candidate disappeared, and is said by authoritative sources to be held 
under house arrest in Beijing with his parents. Moreover, the Chinese 
launched an unprecedented media campaign to discredit the Dalai Lama 
and his choice, and to justify their brazen interference in the 
selection process. The complete irony of a secular atheist Communist 
government completely usurping such a purely religious issue as the 
choice of a reincarnated soul should be lost on no one. The Chinese 
have spent years attempting to destroy Tibetan Buddhism as a remnant of 
the ``feudal, oppressive past,'' and as a competitor to Communism; it 
is, after all, a central tenant of Marxist-Leninist thought that 
religion is the opiate of the masses. Thousands of Buddhist monks and 
nuns have been arrested and imprisoned since the annexation of Tibet; 
thousands of monasteries and temples have been destroyed, and countless 
works of religious devotion such as statues have been melted down or 
shipped out of the country. Yet the government in Beijing has devoted a 
significant amount of press and other resources to the reincarnation 
question. The cover and many of the articles in a recent issue of the 
Beijing Review were devoted to it; countless articles have appeared in 
official party newspapers such as Renmin Ribao. For example, for over a 
week the front page of the party daily in Tibet, Xzang Ribao, carried a 
lengthy and detailed series called ``Questions and Answers Regarding 
the Reincarnated Child of the 10th Panchen.''
  The attacks have extended to the Dalai Lama himself. For example, a 
four-part series on Lhasa Tibet People's Radio Network broadcast over a 
period of 4 days vilified His Holiness and exposed his so-called 
``crimes.'' He has suffered similar attacks from Gyatsen Norbu, the 
Chairman of the Tibet Autonomous Regional People's Government, the 
Communist-controlled Executive Council of the Buddhist Association of 
China, and Pagbalha Geleg Namgyai, Chairman of the Tibet Autonomous 
Region Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. The official 
media have also done everything to slander and tarnish the Dalai Lama's 
choice for Panchen, including accusing the boy's parents of having bad 
reputations among their 

[[Page S18578]]
neighbors, and the boy of killing a dog by drowning it--an thoroughly 
un-Buddhist act.
  The amount of coverage the issue has received in the communist media 
has reached the point of overkill, even for the Chinese press, and has 
risen to the level that it indicates that the government in Beijing 
believes that if they repeat something enough it will eventually become 
the truth. I am reminded of the line from Act III of Shakespeare's 
``Hamlet'', which I paraphrase: ``The government doth protest too much, 
methinks.''
  Coincident with the increase of official propaganda, the Chinese 
continued to try to regain control of the process. In September the 
Chinese ousted Chadrel Rinpoche--the head abbot of the Tashilhunpo 
Monastery and head of the search committee--and replaced him with their 
own candidate, Sengchen Lobsang Gyatsen. Chadrel Rinpoche is believed 
to be in detention with several other noncompliant monks from the 
monastery. Three new names for finalists --Gyaltsen Norbu of Nagchu, 
Tsering Wangdu of Nagchu, and Ngawang Namdrol of Lhasa--were then 
identified by the Chinese government, which announced that the finalist 
would be chosen by drawing lots from a golden urn, a procedure used 
once in 1792 by a Qing dynasty emperor. Chinese television showed State 
President Jiang Zemin meeting with the monks remaining on the 
committee, urging them to complete their work as soon as possible in 
order to ``ensure stable development in Tibet.''
  On November 6, the Chinese government convened a meeting of senior 
lamas at the Jingxi Guest House in Beijing to finalize the selection 
process. On November 10, Li Ruihuan, a member of the Standing Committee 
of the Central Political Bureau and Chairman of the National Committee 
of the Chinese People's Consultative Conference, addressed the meeting 
and gave it its marching orders. At the end of November, the Chinese 
chose 6-year-old Gyaltsen Norbu as the 11th Panchen Lama; he was 
enthroned in Lhasa on December 8. In its haste to put the official 
imprimatur on the child, the Chinese brushed aside the several years of 
monastic training usually afforded a candidate before his enthronement. 
Senior monks were required to attend the ceremony at Lhasa's Jokhang 
Cathedral, and those supportive of the Dalai Lama and feigning illness 
in order to avoid attendance were warned on the consequences of such 
action. State Councilor Li Tieying oversaw the ceremony, delivering a 
message from Jiang Zemin for the boy to ``safeguard the motherland and 
work in the interests of the people.'' In reply, the boy reportedly 
responded by ``express[ing] his gratitude to the central government, 
President Jiang Zemin, Premier Li Peng, and representatives of the 
State Council * * * and saying that he loves the motherland [China] and 
the Tibetan religion.''

  The blatant interference in a purely religious Tibetan affair is of 
great concern. Without getting bogged down in a detailed and somewhat 
esoteric discussion of the historical precedents, let me just outline 
some of the objections to the Chinese position. First, it completely 
ignores the Dalai Lama's centuries-old right to participate actively in 
the choice of the Panchen Lama. By eschewing the Dalai Lama's 
traditional role, the Chinese are completely flouting the historical 
precedent they claim they are upholding. The confirmation of either the 
Dalai or Panchen Lama is not complete until mutually recognized by the 
other. Chinese scholars, whom the government is so fond of quoting, 
have previously reiterated this requirement. For example, Ya Hanzhang, 
in his Biographies of the Tibetan Leaders Panchen Erdeni, wrote:

       By Tibetan tradition a reincarnation of the Panchen could 
     not be religiously legal without the Dalai's recognition, and 
     the same was the case with the Dalai.

  Thus, the exclusion of the Dalai Lama renders the validity of 
Beijing's choice void ab initio.
  Second, for the first time in history it puts the Chinese government 
in the place of the Dalai Lama. In the past, Beijing's role was one 
limited to nominal approval of the selection already made by the 
Tibetans. There existed a unique relationship between the high lamas of 
Tibet and the Chinese imperial court; it was called ``priest-patron.'' 
The Chinese emperors looked to the lamas as spiritual advisers. In 
return for that advice, the Chinese offered gifts to the high lamas and 
military protection to the region. Therefore, any involvement by the 
Chinese in the choice of a Dalai or Panchen Lama during the Qing 
dynasty, under Emperors such as Kangxi and Qianlong, stemmed not from a 
desire to dictate the outcome from Beijing but because those Emperors 
were fervent followers of Tibetan Buddhism.
  Mr. President, I can already predict with certainty the Chinese 
reaction to this joint resolution. The Foreign Ministry is sure to 
declare both issues solely within the purview of China's internal 
affairs which are, ipso facto, none of the rest of the world's 
business. In fact, in response to world criticism of the Wei arrest 
Shen Guofang, the Ministry spokesperson, has already stated:

       The case of Wei Jingsheng is not a human rights affair. On 
     the contrary, it is those people and organizations who try to 
     interfere in China's judicial procedures that have actually 
     violated international standards by interfering in China's 
     internal affairs.

  Rather than rehash this old human rights/internal affairs song and 
dance, then, let me take a new approach an give the PRC another reason 
why these issues are important to us and should, consequently, be 
important to them. The Chinese have made a great deal of noise lately 
about being allowed to assume their rightful place among important 
powers on the world stage, and have complained vociferously that the 
West is unfairly trying to prevent them from that place.
  I and several of my colleagues have tried to make it clear to Beijing 
that there is not some organized plot attempting to keep them from 
doing so. Rather, what we have emphasized to them is that a place at 
that particular table is not a right free for the taking, but a 
privilege which comes with it a panoply of responsibilities. Foremost 
among those is to adhere to international norms of conduct and to 
treaty and similar legal commitments.
  If the PRC does not live up to its present commitments, then they can 
be sure that the rest of the world is going to be hesitant to enter 
into any others with it; and the problem is, they are not. Beijing says 
that it is fully living up to all its obligations. However, as the 
Chinese are fond of saying, words are fine but only if followed up by 
deeds. An examination of their deeds, unfortunately, shows that these 
do not match their words. In the case of Wei Jingsheng, the maximum 
amount of time a criminal suspect can be detained without charge is 
twelve months; yet he was held for over twenty. China is a signatory to 
the universal Declaration of Human Rights, yet the handling of Wei's 
case clearly violates Article III of that document. Finally, the 
language of the Xinhua announcement of the charges against Wei noted 
that his actions ``were in violation of the criminal law and 
constituted crimes;'' an article in the December 11 Beijing Review 
notes that his actions leading to this arrest ``[were] in violation of 
the Criminal Law and constitute crimes.'' This, and the fact that his 
trial took only 6 hours, seems to me to indicate that his guilt had 
been determined long before his trial began. This presupposition of 
guilt also runs counter in international standards of justice.
  As for the Panchen issue, the PRC's constitution guarantees freedom 
of religion and freedom from being discriminated against on the basis 
of religious belief. Yet thousands of Tibetans have been persecuted for 
their religious faith over the years. Moreover, Beijing's manipulation 
of the selection of the Panchen Lama is clear meddling in a purely 
religious issue for political gain, and violates the religious rights 
of believing Tibetans. Similarly, as Senator Feinstein mentioned 
yesterday in a meeting of the full Foreign Relations Committee, she has 
been repeatedly assured over the years by officials in the highest 
levels of the Chinese Government that Tibet ``is entitled to manage its 
own cultural and religious affairs.'' The actions regarding the Panchen 
Lama would seem to contradict that assertion.
  Time and time again China calls into question its commitment to the 
rule of law and to international norms, whether it be in regards to 
agreements on intellectual property, the enforcement of international 
arbitration awards, or the proliferation of nuclear or other 

[[Page S18579]]
weapons. The cases of Wei Jingsheng and the Panchen Lama are just two 
more unfortunate examples. If as a result the rest of the world is a 
bit reticent to enter into other agreements with the PRC--for example, 
the WTO agreement--for fear that the Chinese will continue to say one 
thing but do another, then before it points the finger of accusation at 
us for denying it its ``rightful place'' in the world, it should 
realize that it has no one to blame but itself.
  I urge my colleagues to support Senate Joint Resolution 43, and thank 
the distinguished Chairman and ranking member of the Committee for 
their leadership on these important issues.
  Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent the joint resolution be deemed 
read a third time, passed, the amendment to the preamble be agreed to, 
the preamble as amended be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid 
upon the table, and that the statements relating to the resolution be 
placed at the appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 43) was deemed read the third time 
and passed.
  The preamble, as amended, was agreed to.
  The joint resolution, with its preamble, is as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 43

       Whereas on November 21, 1995, the Government of the 
     People's Republic of China formally arrested Wei Jingsheng, 
     who is known internationally as the father of the democracy 
     movement in China;
       Whereas the Government of the People's Republic of China 
     has held Wei Jingsheng incommunicado and without charge since 
     April 1994 and has rebuffed international calls to release 
     him;
       Whereas Wei Jingsheng has spent all but 6 months of the 
     last 16 years in detention because of this unwavering support 
     for freedom of speech and the development of democracy in 
     China;
       Whereas at an October 1995 meeting in New York between 
     President Clinton and President Jiang Zemin of China, the 
     Administration urged the Government of the People's Republic 
     of China to release political prisoners and specifically 
     included Wei Jingsheng and others among such prisoners;
       Whereas the treatment of Wei Jingsheng by the Government of 
     the People's Republic of China raises concern over the future 
     of other jailed dissidents in China, including Wang Dan, a 
     student leader in the 1989 pro-democracy movement in China;
       Whereas on May 14, 1995, His Holiness the Dalai Lama 
     announced recognition of 6-year-old Gedhun Choekyi Nyima as 
     the next Panchen Lama;
       Whereas recognition of the successor to the Panchen Lama in 
     Tibet has always been within the authority of the Dalai Lama;
       Whereas for the first time in Tibetan history, the 
     Government of the People's Republic of China has imposed on 
     Tibet its own candidate for a new Panchen Lama and has 
     rejected the new Panchen Lama selected by the Dalai Lama;
       Whereas Gedhun Choekyi Nyima and his family have been 
     missing for 6 months and are reported being held 
     by authorities of the Government of the People's Republic 
     of China;
       Whereas Chatrel Rinpoche, who is the head of the original 
     search committee for the new Panchen Lama and who refused to 
     denounce the Dalai Lama's selection of the new Panchen Lama, 
     is also missing and believed to be held by authorities of the 
     Government of the People's Republic of China;
       Whereas the Panchen Lama is one of the highest-ranking 
     religious official of Tibetan Buddhism;
       Whereas the rejection of the Dalai Lama's selection of 
     Panchen Lama by the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China, and the selection of its own candidate for Panchen 
     Lama, is seen by many Tibetans as politicizing a purely 
     religious affair and as a violation of fundamental Tibetan 
     human rights;
       Whereas since the invasion of Tibet in 1949, the Government 
     of the People's Republic of China has taken any expression by 
     the Tibetan people of their distinct religious or cultural 
     identity as a direct challenge to that government's political 
     control of Tibet;
       Whereas Chinese officials have repeatedly maintained that 
     the Tibet Autonomous Region is entitled to manage its own 
     cultural and religious affairs, and the intervention of 
     Chinese government authorities in the selection of the next 
     Panchen Lama is a clear violation of that principle;
       Whereas for 3 consecutive years, the United States has been 
     a primary sponsor of resolutions criticizing the human rights 
     practices of the Government of the People's Republic of China 
     in China and Tibet at the annual meetings of the United 
     Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva;
       Whereas these resolutions call upon the Government of the 
     People's Republic of China to take measures to ensure the 
     observance of all human rights, invite that government to 
     cooperate with all special rapporteurs and working groups, 
     and request the Secretary General of the United Nations to 
     prepare a report for the United Nations Human Rights 
     Commission on the human rights situation in China and Tibet;
       Whereas at the March 1995 meeting of the United Nations 
     Human Rights Commission in Geneva, the resolution lost by 
     only 1 vote;
       Whereas it is important to maintain international pressure 
     on the Government of the People's Republic of China in order 
     to induce that government to respect internationally-
     recognized standards of human rights; and
       Whereas in May 1994, the President of the United States 
     pledged strong support for efforts at international forums to 
     criticize the human rights practices of the Government of the 
     People's Republic of China: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     United States Government should--
       (1) press for the immediate and unconditional release of 
     Wei Jingsheng and other political prisoners by the Government 
     of the People's Republic of China;
       (2) urge the Government of the People's Republic of China 
     to respect the wishes of the Tibetan people by supporting the 
     selection of the new Panchen Lama by His Holiness the Dalai 
     Lama;
       (3) work to ensure the safety of the new Panchen Lama as 
     selected by the Dalai Lama; and
       (4) sponsor and aggressively push for the passage of a 
     resolution regarding the human rights situation in China at 
     the annual meeting of the United Nations Human Rights 
     Commission in Geneva scheduled for March 1996.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

                          ____________________