[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 19 (Tuesday, March 3, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1215-S1217]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         HUMAN RIGHTS IN CHINA

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be on the floor at 11 o'clock 
with an amendment to the ISTEA legislation, but let me pick up on 
comments I made yesterday on the floor of the Senate about a resolution 
that Senator Mack from Florida and I have submitted dealing with the 
whole question of human rights in China.
  There is an editorial today in the Washington Post--and I think it is 
a very important editorial--called ``A Choice on China.'' I ask 
unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

                           A Choice on China

       The Clinton administration long ago abandoned human rights 
     as a primary consideration in dealing with China, but it 
     claimed an intention at least to continue speaking out on the 
     issue. The substance of U.S.-China relations--in other words, 
     trade, military contacts, high-level summits--would go 
     forward no matter what abuses China's leaders committed 
     against their own people, but the United States would, in 
     Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's famous phrase, ``tell 
     it like it is'' nonetheless. Now, however, it

[[Page S1216]]

     seems the administration may sacrifice even truth-telling so 
     as not to offend China's Communist regime.
       The immediate issue is whether to sponsor a resolution at 
     the United Nations Commission on Human Rights when it 
     convenes in Geneva next month. You wouldn't think this would 
     be a tough call. Such a resolution would moderately criticize 
     China's record and call for improvements; it would impose no 
     penalty beyond well-deserved embarrassment. Democracy 
     advocate Wei Jingsheng nevertheless calls the resolution ``a 
     matter of life and death'' for reform in China. President 
     Clinton explicitly promised, back when he delinked trade and 
     human rights in 1994, that the administration ``would step up 
     its efforts'' to get such a resolution approved. China's 
     regime remains as oppressive today as it was then.
       That much is clear, in fact, from the State Department's 
     own human rights report, which--despite a touch of whitewash 
     this year--does mostly tell it like it is, painting a dismal 
     picture of China's ``widespread and well-documented human 
     rights abuses.'' These include torture, extrajudicial 
     killings, arbitrary arrest and detention, forced abortion and 
     sterilization, crackdowns on independent Catholic and 
     Protestant bishops and believers, brutal oppression of ethnic 
     minorities and religion in Tibet and Xinjiang and, of course, 
     absolute intolerance of free political speech or free press. 
     Just this month, the FBI arrested two Chinese citizens for 
     allegedly marketing human organs harvested from some of the 
     6,000 prisoners China executes each year. If prisoners are 
     being killed in order to provide organs, it ``would be among 
     the grossest violations of human rights imaginable,'' Stanley 
     O. Roth, assistant secretary of state for East Asian affairs, 
     said last summer.
       Yet from Mr. Clinton, still no word on plans for Geneva. 
     Last year the administration similarly dithered and delayed, 
     eventually hiding behind tiny Denmark, which sponsored a 
     resolution. China responded, with grace matching America's 
     courage, by warning that the human rights resolution would 
     ``become a rock that smashes on the Danish government's 
     head.'' This year, while the administration again has been 
     unable to make up its mind, the entire European Union opted 
     out, cravenly vowing not to co-sponsor any resolution. The EU 
     then cited a series of inadequate ``benchmarks'' to measure 
     future Chinese progress in the human rights field, such as 
     that the visit of the U.N. human rights commissioner to China 
     ``should be taken seriously by the Chinese leadership.''
       It may be too late now for the United States to rally a 
     coalition of countries that would guarantee a fair hearing 
     for a resolution on China, but it is not too late for Mr. 
     Clinton to support such a measure nonetheless. He can still 
     send a message that America supports, or at least sympathizes 
     with, the fighters for freedom inside China; alternatively, 
     he can send a message that his friendship with their 
     oppressors is too important to put at risk with any impolite 
     words. For someone who hopes to become this year the first 
     president to visit China since the massacre at Tiananmen 
     Square, this should be an easy choice.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the immediate issue, as the Post 
editorial points out, is whether or not the United States is going to 
sponsor a resolution at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights gathering 
in Geneva, which is going to be coming up, I think, this month, or 
maybe at the beginning of next month, but within a very short period of 
time.
  I had a chance to meet with Wei Jingsheng who wrote a wonderful book 
called ``The Courage to Stand Alone.'' He spent many years in prison in 
China, I think 16 years, for his courage to speak out. He has made it 
very clear, and I quote the Post editorial, that the resolution is `` 
`a matter of life and death' for reform in China. President Clinton 
explicitly promised, back when he delinked trade and human rights in 
1994, that the administration `would step up its efforts' to get such a 
resolution approved.''
  Mr. President, China remains as oppressive today as it was a few 
short years ago. I want colleagues to know that this is a separate 
question from whether or not you were in favor of most-favored-nation 
status for China. Some people believe trade policy is too blunt an 
instrument to be focused on human rights. Others do not. I do not share 
that sentiment. Regardless, let me repeat for colleagues what we know.
  The State Department's own human rights report, which has been 
somewhat controversial because some think it is a bit of a whitewash 
this year, still nevertheless paints a dismal picture of China's 
``widespread and well-documented human rights abuses'':

       These include torture, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary 
     arrest and detention, forced abortion and sterilization, 
     crackdowns on independent Catholic and Protestant bishops and 
     believers, brutal oppression of ethnic minorities and 
     religions in [countries like] Tibet . . .

  And the list goes on.

       Just this month, the FBI arrested two Chinese citizens for 
     allegedly marketing human organs harvested from some of the 
     6,000 prisoners China executes each year. If prisoners are 
     being killed in order to provide organs, it ``would be among 
     the grossest violations of human rights imaginable,'' Stanley 
     O. Roth, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian Affairs, 
     said last summer.

  We haven't yet heard from the White House as to whether or not they 
are going to be sponsoring a resolution which would raise all of these 
questions. I think this is a commitment we have made as a country.
  Let me conclude by reading the last paragraph of this Post editorial:

       It may be too late now for the United States to rally a 
     coalition of countries that would guarantee a fair hearing 
     for a resolution on China, but it is not too late for Mr. 
     Clinton to support such a measure nevertheless. He can still 
     send a message that America supports, or at least sympathizes 
     with, the fighters for freedom inside China; alternatively, 
     he can send a message that his friendship with their 
     oppressors is too important to put at risk with any impolite 
     words. For someone who hopes to become this year the first 
     president to visit China since the massacre at Tiananmen 
     Square, this should be an easy choice.

  The resolution that Senator Mack and I submitted yesterday calls on 
the President to move forward with this resolution at the U.N. 
Commission on Human Rights, which is going to be meeting in Geneva. My 
understanding was that we were going to mark up this resolution in the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, but one Senator on the 
committee has basically blocked that and has exercised his prerogative 
so we won't be able to mark it up in committee.
  I want to make it clear to colleagues that I have every intention--
and I hope I will be joined by other Senators--of bringing this 
resolution to the floor as an amendment on a bill, probably the ISTEA 
bill. I will wait and see and work, of course, very closely with my 
colleague Senator Mack.
  It is extremely important that the U.S. Senate go on 
record supporting a resolution passed by this U.N. Commission on Human 
Rights at its meeting in Geneva. Sometimes I get the feeling that when 
I speak on the floor of the Senate--in a few minutes we will have a 
debate, there will be more people here--but when I am on the floor of 
the Senate and speaking about something like this, I sometimes get the 
feeling it is unimportant. It is not unimportant. When Wei Jingsheng 
who spent all those years in prison, when Harry Wu, and others, who 
have given up years of their life because of their courage to speak up 
for just basic human rights, call on us in the U.S. Senate, ``Won't you 
please at least adopt a resolution''--I guess it is going to have to be 
an amendment now--``which really calls on the President and your 
country to take leadership at this U.N. Commission on Human Rights and 
have some criticism of what has been going on in China, the torture of 
people, the execution of people, the imprisonment of people just for 
speaking up, the persecution of religious groups, won't you at least do 
that,'' I am telling you, when I get a request from someone like Wei 
Jingsheng, who I think is a giant, then I am certainly going to follow 
through on it.

  I believe that in the U.S. Senate there will be overwhelming support 
for this resolution, which I think now will be an amendment since we 
have been blocked from being able to mark it up in the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee.
  I guess I will say to colleagues, if you don't agree that our country 
at the very least ought to be speaking up on these human rights 
questions and supporting people like Wei Jingsheng, that that is at 
least the minimum we can do at this very important U.N. Commission on 
Human Rights, then you can come to the floor of the Senate and you can 
debate it.
  From my own point of view, one Senator, who happens to be my 
colleague from Minnesota who doesn't agree and is not going to let this 
go forward on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I would be 
pleased to debate him and other Senators as well. But my hope is that 
we will have overwhelming support for this.
  Again, this doesn't say you are for or against most-favored-nation 
status. This doesn't say you are for or against assistance for IMF or 
not. This is not

[[Page S1217]]

about GATT. This is not about NAFTA. This is about something else which 
we ought to have a consensus on, which is, at this upcoming meeting in 
Geneva--I think our Government has given people in China every reason 
to believe that we would--and I guess I will quote Secretary of State 
Madeleine Albright's famous phrase, ``Tell it like it is.'' We ought to 
tell it like it is. We ought to tell it like it is. The Post editorial 
is right on the mark, we ought to do it at this very important meeting 
of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. That is the time for the United 
States to speak out.
  Silence is betrayal, and our country must not be silent in the face 
of these kinds of abuses of elementary human rights of citizens in 
China and, for that matter, in other countries as well.
  I hope that I will be doing this on the floor with Senator Mack. I 
certainly am going to be bringing an amendment to the floor. We have to 
have a vote on this. I can't let one Senator block a committee from 
marking up this bill and then have it delayed a month, which will be 
too late for this U.N. Commission on Human Rights. We will take action 
on it before the Senate. I hope we get 98, 99 Senators voting in favor 
of it. It is the least we can do.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________