[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 26 (Thursday, March 12, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1859-S1867]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              RESOLUTION ON THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now 
proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 325, S. Res. 187, and that 
the resolution be considered under the following limitations: That 
there be 1 hour for debate on the resolution and preamble, with no 
amendments or motions in order thereto, with the time divided as 
follows: Senator Grams controlling 20 minutes and Senator Mack 
controlling 10 minutes, Senator Wellstone controlling 30 minutes, or 
their designees; and, upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate 
proceed to a vote on the adoption of the resolution, and, if the 
resolution is adopted, the preamble be agreed to, with the above 
occurring without intervening action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Senators then can proceed 
under the time agreement that we have entered into.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution will be stated by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 187) expressing the sense of the 
     Senate regarding the human rights situation in the People's 
     Republic of China.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks, I want to thank 
the Members of the Senate for their cooperation in this effort. Senator 
Wellstone and I have been attempting to get this resolution to the 
floor for some time now, but because of the cooperation of Chairman 
Helms and many others, we have now worked our way through to the point 
where we, in fact, could bring this resolution to the floor and, 
hopefully, within not too long a period of time have agreement on this 
resolution.
  My resolution, introduced with Senator Wellstone and 11 other 
Senators, urges the President to take all action necessary to introduce 
and pass a resolution at the annual meeting of the U.N. Human Rights 
Commission critical of the human rights abuses in China and Tibet. I 
hope the President will take note and take action. This resolution 
passed out of the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday by a vote of 16 
to 1. Again, I express my appreciation to Senators Wellstone, Helms, 
Thomas, Lugar, Coverdell, Feingold, Hagel, Biden, and a number of 
others. With this action, the committee voiced its strong support for 
the passage of this resolution unamended.
  Now I would like to state five points as to why we should pass the 
resolution now.
  First, we know that offering and debating this resolution at the 
annual U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva advances human rights in 
China and Tibet. We know that in past years the Government in Beijing 
has made gestures towards improving human rights just prior to the 
annual Human Rights Commission consideration of a China resolution.
  We know from testimony by Wei Jingsheng, Harry Wu, and many other 
political prisoners, that conditions for political prisoners improve 
when the resolution is being debated and they deteriorate when the 
resolve of the United States weakens. Again, I learned this not just 
from testimony before committees but I learned it from personal 
experiences and discussion with both Mr. Wei Jingsheng and Mr. Harry 
Wu, who actually told us they could tell the rhythm, if you will, of 
what was going on in the world by the way they were treated in prison 
in

[[Page S1860]]

China. They knew, when things were slackened, that there was resolve in 
the world to take China to task over its human rights violations. And 
they knew as well, when they were in difficult times and experiencing 
tremendous abuse, that the world had turned its back on those who found 
themselves in prison in China.
  Mr. President, we know our approach to China must include public and 
private actions and must encompass trade, national security, and human 
rights. This Commission is uniquely suited to be the forum for the 
world to express disapproval of human rights violations in China and in 
Tibet.
  Finally, we know the United States assessment of human rights in 
China and Tibet, according to the State Department, is abysmal by any 
standard. The United States must state plainly and clearly our 
objection to Beijing's denial of basic freedoms to the people of China 
and to Tibet.
  Mr. President, at this point I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I know the Chair, Senator Hutchinson of 
Arkansas, wishes to speak. I will be brief. I am anxious to hear from 
him.
  Let me, first of all, thank Senator Mack. I have really enjoyed 
working with him on this. I think it is extremely important.
  Sometimes when you speak on the floor of the Senate, you do not know 
whether or not what you are doing is going to crucially affect the 
lives of people. You hope it will. This resolution does.
  I had a chance to meet with Wei Jingsheng last week, and I have met 
with a number of other courageous men and women from China, and they 
all have said the same thing.
  Mr. President, could I have order in the Chamber?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mack). We are debating a very important 
resolution. The Senate will be in order.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if the Senator from Arkansas is ready, 
I am pleased to yield time to the Senator from Arkansas. I ask my 
colleague, will 10 minutes be all right?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Ten minutes will be sufficient.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for yielding time.
  Mr. President, for the last 4 years this Congress has been engaged in 
an intense debate on this country's trade relationship with the 
People's Republic of China. On the one side of this debate are those 
who view the abhorrent and declining human rights conditions in China 
as a cause for revoking the special trade treatment currently given to 
Chinese-produced goods. On the other side of this debate are those who 
view free trade as a paramount virtue and believe linking trade with 
human rights is an inappropriate foundation on which to build our 
national trade policy. Last month, the two sides of this debate came 
colliding together in one chilling event, the indictment and arrest of 
two Chinese ``businessmen'' for trade in human body parts harvested 
from executed prisoners in the People's Republic of China.
  Trade and human rights, delinked by our Government, were unalterably 
linked together by this tragic event last month. This arrest, more than 
any other event, brings the human rights crisis in China to the feet of 
those kneeling at the altar of free trade. No longer can free traders, 
the Chinese Government, or this administration turn a blind eye to the 
gruesome conditions now prevalent in the People's Republic of China. In 
matters related to trade with China, we must now move beyond the issue 
of trade deficits and move on to the issue of moral deficits. In 
particular, this country and this Congress must strongly reconsider the 
moral basis of our special trade relationship with this repressive 
regime.
  The history leading up to last month's arrest is telling. For years, 
human rights organizations charged that the Chinese Government was at 
the center of an international market in human organs harvested from 
Chinese prisoners. The Chinese Government denied these reports, 
charging that these accusations were malicious and conspiratorial and 
outrageous. They totally rejected the charges.
  Then, in 1994, the British Broadcasting Company, the BBC, aired a 
documentary detailing its evidence concerning China's trade in body 
parts. Again China issued a strong denial. Representative Chris Smith 
held a hearing on this issue in 1996. The Chinese Government again 
stood firm in its denials.
  Then, last year, confronted with hidden video captured by ABC's 
``Prime Time Live'' documenting an actual transaction of a kidney, 
complete with footage of the military hospital in China used to harvest 
the organs and of a U.S. business which operated a kidney dialysis unit 
in China to facilitate the transaction, even in spite of this, China 
stood ever stronger in its adamant denial.
  When I visited China in January of this year, when I raised this 
issue, once again it was dismissed out of hand as being a fabrication 
of the opponents of China.
  The Chinese policy of lies and denials and distortions relating to 
its involvement in the marketing of human body parts may work well in 
the court of public opinion, but it will fail, I believe, in the court 
of law. With the arrest of Wang Cheng Yong and Fu Xingqi, the Chinese 
Government and its sympathizers will have to rethink their party line. 
More important, this Government will have to rethink the credence it 
gives to the word of the Chinese Government and its spokesmen. It is 
now certain that, in China, the judge, the executioner, and the 
profiteer are all wrapped in one.
  As the Washington Post editorialized in the wake of these arrests, 
``the Clinton administration long ago abandoned human rights as a 
primary consideration dealing with China. . . .'' But even Stanley O. 
Roth, the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian Affairs, had to 
admit that if prisoners were being killed in China in order to provide 
organs, ``it would be among the grossest violations of human rights 
imaginable.''
  This indictment right here provides clear and convincing evidence 
that China now ranks as one of the worst human rights violators in 
history. I encourage my fellow Senators and the President to read 
carefully the chilling facts detailed in this document and to watch 
closely as the case is brought to trial. I ask unanimous consent it be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   [Southern District of New York, Complaint: Violation of 18 U.S.C. 
                 Sec. 371; County of Offense: New York]

 United States of America v. Cheng Yong Wang, Xingqi Fu, a/k/a ``Frank 
                            Fu,'' Defendants

       Jill A. Marangoni, being duly sworn, deposes and says that 
     she is an agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and 
     charges as follows:

                               Count One

       1. In or about February 1998, in the Southern District of 
     New York and elsewhere, Cheng Yong Wang and Xingqi Fu, a/k/a 
     ``Frank Fu,'' the defendants, and others known and unknown, 
     unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly did combine, conspire, 
     confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit 
     an offense against the United States, to wit, to violate 
     Section 274e of Title 42, United States Code.
       2. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that Cheng 
     Yong Wang and Xingqi Fu, a/k/a ``Frank Fu,'' the defendants, 
     and others known and unknown, unlawfully, willfully and 
     knowingly would acquire, receive and otherwise transfer human 
     organs, to wit, kidneys and corneas, for valuable 
     consideration for use in human transplantation, which 
     transfer would affect commerce and the movement of articles 
     and commodities in commerce.

                               Overt Acts

       3. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the 
     objects thereof, the following overt acts, among others, were 
     committed in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere:
       a. On or about February 13, 1998, Cheng Yong Wang the 
     defendant, attended a meeting in New York, New York.
       b. On or about February 20, 1998, Cheng Yong Wang and 
     Xingqi Fu, a/k/a ``Frank Fu,'' the defendants, attended a 
     meeting in New York, New York, where they both discussed the 
     sale of organs to a person purporting to be a member of the 
     board of directors of a dialysis center.

              (Title 18, United States Code, Section 371)

       The basis for deponent's knowledge and for the foregoing 
     charges are, in part, as follows:
       1. In or about February 1998, I received information from a 
     person (``Person A'') that

[[Page S1861]]

     Cheng Yong Wang, the defendant, had represented to Person A 
     that, prior to coming to the United States, he was a 
     Procurator in the Hainan Province in China and, in that 
     capacity, had participated in the execution of Chinese 
     prisoners. Person A provided me with a copy of employment 
     papers that Cheng Yong Wang, the defendant, had provided to 
     him. A Mandarin interpreter informed me that these papers, 
     which contain the photograph of Cheng Yong Wang, identify 
     Cheng Yong Wang, the defendant, as a procurator in Hainan 
     Province, China. A person familiar with the Chinese legal 
     system told me that the job of a Procurator in China is 
     similar to the job of a prosecutor in the United States.
       2. I have spoken to an agent of the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service (``INS'') who told me that Cheng Yong 
     Wang, the defendant, entered the United States from China on 
     May 8, 1997 on a B-1 (work) visa.
       3. Person A further informed me that on or about February 
     13, 1998, he met with Cheng Yong Wang, the defendant, in a 
     hotel room in New York, New York. Person A stated that at 
     this meeting, Cheng Yong Wang, the defendant, told him that 
     he was interested in selling organs, specifically kidneys, 
     from executed Chinese prisoners to Person A. In addition, 
     Person A told me that he and Cheng Yong Wang had signed two 
     contracts at this meeting, the second contract being a 
     revised copy of the first contract. Person A provided me with 
     copies of these contracts, both of which purport to carry the 
     signature of Cheng Yong Wang.
       4. I have reviewed a translation of the contracts 
     referenced in the preceding paragraph. In substance and in 
     part they provide that the purpose of the contract is to 
     provide organ transplant services in China for people who 
     live outside of China. Under the contract, Cheng Yong Wang, 
     the defendant, is responsible for coordinating with the 
     relevant Chines government agencies and hospitals in 
     providing and securing organs for transplant. The contract 
     further provides that Person A, who represents a dialysis 
     center, will pay for the entire cost for each kidney 
     transplant, not including the patient's travel expenses. 
     In addition, under the contract, Person A agrees to pay 
     Cheng Yong Wang, the defendant, a commission of 25% of the 
     total costs for each transplant case.
       5. On or about February 17, 1998, I participated in tape 
     recording a telephone conversation between Cheng Yong Wang, 
     the defendant, and another person (``Person B.'') This 
     conversation was in Mandarin. Based on conversations that I 
     have had with a Mandarin translator and a partial draft 
     transcript that I have read, it is my understanding that 
     during this telephone conservation, Cheng Yong Wang, the 
     defendant, told Person B, in substance and in part, that he 
     recently had met with Person A in a hotel room and signed a 
     contract.
       6. Also during the telephone conversation referenced in the 
     preceding paragraph, Cheng Yong Wang, the defendant, told 
     Person B, in substance and in part, that he planned to enter 
     into an agreement with XINGQI Fu, a/k/a ``Frank Fu,'' the 
     defendant, relating to the sale of organs. Cheng Yong Wang 
     also told Person B that Xingqi Fu, a/k/a ``Frank Fu,'' had 
     not participated in the meeting between Cheng Yong Wang and 
     Person A, but that Xingqi Fu had been present in the lobby of 
     the hotel where the meeting had taken place. Cheng Yong Wang 
     explained to Person B that Xingqi Fu had decidedly that his 
     services were not necessary in relation to the kidneys but 
     that Xingqi Fu planned to sell corneas in the United States. 
     Cheng Yong Wang further states that Xingqi Fu planned to 
     smuggle the corneas into the United States and that Xingqi Fu 
     had spoken to doctors about his selling them corneas.
       7. Also during the telephone conversation between Person B 
     and Cheng Yong Wang, the defendant, told Person B that he 
     believed that the profit on the sale of corneas would be 
     approximately 1000%.
       8. On or about February 20, 1998, an agent of the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation, posing as a member of the board of 
     directors of a dialysis center (``FBI agent''), met with 
     Person B, Cheng Yong Wang and Xingqi Fu, a/k/a ``Frank Fu,'' 
     the defendants, in New York, New York. From my conversations 
     with the FBI agent, I have learned that during this meeting 
     Cheng Yong Wang discussed the methods by which Chinese 
     prisoners are executed and indicated that the organs he 
     proposed to sell to the FBI agent would come from executed 
     Chinese prisoners. In addition, Cheng Yong Wang and Xingqi Fu 
     specifically agreed that they would sell the FBI agent two 
     corneas for $5,000 and indicated that this price included a 
     profit for them, Cheng Yong Wang and Xingqui Fu, the 
     defendants, also discussed selling the FBI agent other 
     organs, including kidneys, skin, lungs, pancreases and livers 
     and agreed on the prices for these organs. Among other 
     things, Xingqi Fu inquired about any maximum age for sources 
     of skin and stated that lungs would come from non-smokers. In 
     addition, both defendants acknowledged that although the 
     contract referenced in Paragraph 5 above discussed that Cheng 
     Yong Wang would provide transportation services, the true 
     purpose of the agreement was to provide organs.
       Wherefore, deponent prays that the above-named individuals 
     be arrested and imprisoned or bailed as the case may be.
                                                Jill A. Marangoni,
                                               Special Agent, FBI.
       Sworn to me this    of February 1998.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. This case only builds upon the repeated efforts from 
Chinese dissidents, Amnesty International, and the U.S. Department of 
State concerning the declining human rights conditions in China.
  Again, as the Washington Post reported last month, these human rights 
abuses 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 Tibet and Xinjiang and, of course, 
absolute intolerance of free political speech or free press.''
  Mr. President, how long must this list of oppression get before this 
Government acts?
  The increased arrogance of China's leadership in the face of the 
world's silence is evident in President Jiang's statement late last 
year that ``both democracy and human rights are relative concepts and 
not absolute and general.''
  Accepted absolutes are now considered relative by China's leadership. 
This brutal Communist regime has now decided to determine the moral 
parameters within which civilized countries can stand within its 
judgment. In short, religious persecution, organ harvesting, and 
torture are now within the bounds of moral behavior in China. The 
unacceptable is now acceptable and the inhuman is now humane. While the 
world stands silent, China has managed to redefine the very nature of 
what is right and what is wrong.
  Last week, I and 11 of my Senate colleagues sent a letter to 
President Clinton to remind him of his promise to the American people 
to ``step up efforts, in cooperation with other states, to insist that 
the United Nations Human Rights Commission pass a resolution dealing 
with the serious human rights abuses in China.''
  On Wednesday, under the able leadership of Chairman Helms, the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee adopted a resolution submitted by Senators 
Mack and Wellstone expressing the sense of the Senate denouncing the 
human rights conditions in China. This resolution, which we now debate 
and which we will soon vote upon, and which I believe this body will 
adopt overwhelmingly, as did the committee, criticizes the People's 
Republic of China and asks for the U.N. Commission on Human Rights to 
pass a resolution acknowledging what is going on in China today, and 
for this Government to make that request of the United Nations.
  While it is far short of the effort I believe should be made, it is a 
welcome first step in the right direction. I commend Senator Wellstone 
and Senator Mack for their outstanding leadership on this, and Senator 
Helms and all of those on the committee who voted 16 to 1 in favor of 
the resolution.
  If I might just close with this--and I know I have taken longer than 
I had requested--when I visited China in January--and I can spend an 
hour or much longer talking about those 10 days in China--the most 
moving moment was on a Sunday morning at 7:30 a.m. when I went to 
Tiananmen Square where, all of us remember so vividly almost 9 years 
ago, the images came across our TV sets through CNN cameras, and we saw 
those tens of thousands of students who stayed there for months 
peacefully asking their government to improve human rights conditions 
and to democratize the largest nation in the world.
  While I was in China, I had a chance not only to visit Tiananmen 
Square and see that red banner that still flies, but to visit Ray 
Burghardt who was charged to be in Beijing at the time of the massacre 
when the Chinese Government, the hardliners, won out and the troops and 
the tanks moved in. He spent 3 hours over dinner telling us about the 
events leading up to the massacre.
  He said on the night that the tanks moved in, the Chinese Communist 
Government waited until 2 in the morning. They did not want the world 
to see what was about to happen. The floodlights that showered over the 
many, many acres of Tiananmen Square were turned off. They did not want 
to see any cameras rolling.
  As the troops moved in and the tanks moved in, he said from the 
Beijing Hotel, watching through binoculars, that he could see, as the 
troops came out, as the weapons were fired, the profiles of the 
students as they fell. The

[[Page S1862]]

silence continued, broken a few moments later by more gunfire, more 
students falling. Through those morning hours, the massacre continued.
  By the time the Sun came up the next morning, the tanks had cleared 
the mall. They had cleared Tiananmen Square so that no one was to know, 
so that no one would have a hint of the massacre, of the thousands who 
died in the surrounding blocks, or of the tens of thousands who lost 
their lives.
  Those students looked to the United States as the emblem of freedom, 
as the shining city on a hill. They built a 30-foot model of our Statue 
of Liberty and it, too, went under the tanks as they rolled in.
  I just ask my colleagues, as they vote for this resolution, to 
remember what those students were fighting for, what they were standing 
for and to whom they looked as the symbol of freedom. I ask for a good 
vote, a solid vote, and a message to the world that we still stand for 
freedom.
  I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his indulgence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me just say to my colleagues, 
Senator Hutchinson and Senator Mack, it is a labor of love working with 
them. We do not always agree on all issues. That might be the 
understatement of the year. But I think we are doing the right thing, 
and I certainly hope we get a huge vote as well.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me also thank Charlotte Oldhom-Moore who works for 
me and has been doing just a tremendous amount of work on this piece of 
legislation. I also thank Ellen Bork who works with Senator Helms, 
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for all of her fine 
work.
  Let me list Human Rights Watch, RFK Center for Human Rights, Lawyers 
Committee for Human Rights, Minnesota Advocates, International Campaign 
for Tibet, and Amnesty International for all of their fine work. Their 
organizing work has been terribly important, and it is an honor for me 
as a U.S. Senator from Minnesota--and we have a very strong human 
rights community--to be working with these organizations.
  Mr. President, I will be brief. There may be debate on the other 
side, and I want to reserve some time to respond and I know there are 
others who will want to speak. I know Senator Feingold is anxious to 
get to the floor. If he does not, let me just say that Senator Feingold 
has been very, very vocal about this and has been a very strong 
supporter.
  The 16-to-1 vote that Senator Mack spoke about in the Foreign 
Relations Committee represented full enclosure because several months 
ago, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hosted a coffee and Wei 
Jingsheng came. He came up to several of us. I was one of the Senators 
who he approached. He asked us to please try and adopt a resolution on 
the floor of the Senate that will call on the administration and our 
Government at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights to please move 
forward with a resolution condemning the human rights violations in 
China.
  What Wei and others said to me and Senator Mack was, ``Look, you may 
not always understand, but what you do on the floor of the Senate is 
watched, especially internationally. If the Senate doesn't speak on 
this and if the United States Government remains silent, it would be 
devastating to so many people in China who have had the courage to 
stand up for human rights, people who face persecution for their 
religious and political beliefs.''
  I felt then, and I feel even more so now, when someone like Wei is 
speaking to you, someone who spent 18 years in prison--I read his book, 
``The Courage to Stand Alone,'' someone whom I hope will get the Nobel 
Peace Prize--and makes such a request, it really feels good to be able 
to honor that request.
  We have worked hard on this. We wanted to get this on the floor. I 
thank the majority leader, Senator Lott, for absolutely living up to 
his personal commitment to us that we would get this on the floor 
before the U.N. Commission on Human Rights meets.

  I will just say to colleagues that I think Senator Biden in the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee said it best the other day. He said, 
``Look, we have disagreement about whether or not you link human rights 
concerns and issues to trade policy, but that is not what this is 
about. If there ever was a place and there ever was a time for our 
Government to speak up for human rights, and ever since Tiananmen 
Square a large part of the focus has been about China, it is at this 
United Nations Commission on Human Rights that convenes in Geneva March 
16.''
  We are now on the floor of the Senate--what is today's date?--March 
12. We may not be back in session until Monday or Tuesday. It is 
terribly important that this vote takes place.
  I say to the Chair and I say to all colleagues, Democrats and 
Republicans alike, I hope we can get a vote that mirrors the vote in 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The stronger the vote, the 
stronger the message.
  I say to my colleague from Florida, since we have worked so closely 
on this, it is interesting that today the State Department announced 
that China has agreed to an international covenant on civil and 
political rights. I say great.
  When I mentioned this to Senator Mack earlier, he said, ``That's 
tremendous, let's just make sure now we have a good strong vote to make 
it crystal clear that we intend to keep pushing forward with the 
pressure and with a voice in behalf of those women and men who have the 
courage to speak up in China for what they believe in.''
  I spoke with Sandy Berger last night. I know he is working very hard 
on this. This is not a bashing amendment, but this is an amendment that 
says to our Government that to go to Geneva and to not make the effort 
to push forward this resolution which speaks to the violations of human 
rights in China, we think it would be silence, we think it would go 
against the very best of what our country stands for.
  So, I hope there will be a very, very strong vote for this 
resolution.
  Mr. President, I ask how much time I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 12 minutes 15 seconds.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I would like to reserve some time. 
I ask the Senator from Delaware whether he wants to speak on this 
resolution and, if he does--I just quoted him--I would love to yield 
some time to him.
  Mr. BIDEN. I ask the Senator for 2 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have never heard the Senator from 
Delaware speak for only 2 minutes. But if that is all he desires, if 
this will be a miracle, I might just be able to see it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I assume the reason why the Senator thinks 
that is because what I say is such content that he thinks I have spoken 
longer.
  Let me be very brief and blunt. The fact is that we have several 
schools of thought about China on this floor and what our future 
relations will be. We constantly hear that those of us who are critical 
of China's human rights policy and proliferation policy should not tie 
our opposition to their point of view to trade. They say let's keep 
things in their proper perspective.
  Well, if this is not the place to go, if to go to an organization 
that is an international organization constituted for the express 
purpose of discussing and identifying those nations that do not engage 
in practices consistent with what civilized countries should be doing 
relative to human rights, then there is no circumstance in which we can 
criticize China.
  They say we should not criticize China and tie it to trade, and they 
say we should not criticize China here, we should do it privately. 
Privately malarkey. We should do it privately; we should also do it 
publicly.
  We are not treating China any other way than we treat any other 
civilized nation in the world. As a member of the largest country in 
the world, they have to grow up and understand that if they take 
affront at us raising their human rights record in a forum, an 
international forum, that is constituted for that express purpose, then

[[Page S1863]]

they have a great deal of political maturation they have to go through 
in order to be a world power that will gain respect from the rest of 
the world.
  I will conclude, Mr. President, by saying, I think this is one of 
those cases where our silence would be deafening. I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time under 
the previous quorum call not be charged to either side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I also inquire at this time as to how much 
time we each have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida has 6 minutes 13 
seconds; the Senator from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, has 10 minutes 
10 seconds; and the Senator from Minnesota, Senator Grams, has 20 
minutes.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and, 
again, ask unanimous consent that it not be charged to either side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, may I inquire on the time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota, Senator Grams, has 
20 minutes; the Senator form Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, has 10 
minutes 10 seconds; and the Senator from Florida has 6 minutes 13 
seconds.
  Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senate resolution 187. That is 
the resolution sponsored by Senator Mack directing the administration 
to pursue a resolution criticizing China's--only China's--human rights 
record at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.
  As you may know, I earlier objected to an attempt to UC this 
resolution on the floor, without benefit of committee consideration. I 
understand that many Senators do not believe a resolution is 
controversial, but, when it comes to China, I do believe it can be 
controversial--very controversial. You should too, because quite 
clearly China legislation, whether it be resolutions or sanctions, is, 
simply stated, I believe, to be counterproductive.
  Yesterday, this resolution was considered in a business meeting of 
the Foreign Relations Committee. At that time I offered an amendment 
which would expand the resolution to include other countries listed in 
the State Department's annual human rights report. In my judgment, it 
is incredible that we would pick just one country to criticize when 
there are even more egregious offenders out there.
  I did not object to having China on that list. We can put China at 
the head of the list, in the middle of the list, or at the bottom of 
the list. It should be on the list, but I do not think it should be on 
a list of only one country, and that is just China when, again, the 
State Department report on human rights violations has a long list of 
other countries. And if we are serious about looking at human rights 
violations around the world, we should also call those into question.
  My problem with this resolution is, again, that it is one of many, 
many legislative attempts, I believe, to just single out China. They 
are clearly counterproductive, in my judgment. China certainly does--it 
does have to make more progress on human rights, but it also has made 
significant progress as well. I also supported an amendment in our 
business committee yesterday in the Foreign Relations Committee by 
Senator Feinstein that would have balanced this resolution with 
language citing some of the improvements that were listed in the Human 
Rights Report.
  The right thing to do--and I repeat, the right thing to do--is oppose 
these kinds of public attacks and join me in efforts to pursue human 
rights violations in China through quiet diplomacy--through personal 
visits, including those I have had with President Jiang. These high-
level contacts between the United States and Chinese officials, I 
believe, can be far more productive.
  Yesterday, a comment was made that we have to make this kind of 
public statement to the whole world to better focus attention on human 
rights concerns.
  I believe we do have maybe a responsibility to hold these human 
rights violations up for world scrutiny. But, again, shouldn't they 
include all countries that are guilty of human rights violations?
  Why do we think that standing up and publicly criticising China, and 
only China, following repeated efforts in the past, does any good? Do 
our words effect changes? No--I believe our efforts to build 
relationships with the Chinese, to talk to them privately about the 
need to improve and to see that changes are in their best interest are 
what make a difference. Resolutions make strong statements but I 
believe they do not accomplish the goals that we intend.
  China has become the whipping boy.
  A continued strong relationship with China will in fact enable us to 
have a much stronger impact on their reforms than any strong-arm 
tactics. I agree such tactics can get the world's attention, but do 
they actually help those who are in prison or face other forms of 
repression inside China? There is a growing middle class in China. As 
they are more exposed to the West through our products and our people, 
the Chinese people themselves are going to be placing more demands on 
their leaders for change.
  And that is already happening. The growing middle class in China, 
with their exposure to the West, is putting more demands on the Chinese 
leaders for change than we will ever accomplish from outside of their 
borders with these types of resolutions.
  My State has also been long involved in various people to people 
programs with China, programs which have pursued better relationships 
between our countries. We value those relationships. They have helped 
us improve relations with China, and they have helped China achieve the 
progress it has made economically and politically. I believe threats 
and censure may only close the door on our relationship with China. And 
if that happens we will then lose any opportunity that we will have to 
effect change.
  If we are not there, if we are not involved, if we do not have 
relationships with China, and if they in fact close the door to us, 
then what kind of an effect or influence are we going to have on change 
inside of China? I think it is a lot easier to change their mind if we 
are there than if we are not.
  As I said previously, it is the volume of efforts--the legislation, 
the resolutions and the sanctions--and constant criticism that has been 
the focus of my opposition. Many believe they can change China through 
public humiliation.
  Each new effort to bash China makes it more difficult, I believe, for 
our Government to formally address concerns of human rights and 
religious persecution.
  My point here is just to try to educate America, the Senate, 
Christians and all people who are concerned about human rights and 
religious freedom that this is not a ``free vote''; it is something we 
should think about before we vote for it, because, in my view, again, 
just singling out China is very counterproductive.
  Mr. President, now I want to get back to the language of this 
amendment itself--since I have been criticizing China resolutions 
generally. The wording of this resolution is even more disturbing. I am 
told the purpose, again, is to force the administration to introduce 
and to pursue a resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Commission 
condemning China for human rights violations. However, what you are not 
told is that there is no support for this resolution at all. The 
European Union

[[Page S1864]]

has even passed its own resolution indicating human rights violations 
are better addressed bilaterally with China. Again, the EU has already 
passed its own resolution indicating that human rights violations are 
better addressed bilaterally with China, not in this venue. Nearly all 
of our fellow U.N. members feel the same. So how do we expect the 
administration to go to the U.N. Human Rights Commission and garner 
support for this resolution? They would have the same result whether 
they pursued one now or 6 months ago. This has been tried before with 
no success. What leverage do we have to do this? We couldn't even get 
our U.N. allies, except one, to support us on Iraq. We still haven't 
settled the arrears question. How much weight will an attempt to pass a 
U.N. resolution--with no support--have in our quest to improve human 
rights in China? I believe none. A resolution supported by one country 
does not send a strong message. What it does is send the message that 
all other countries support what China is doing on human rights in 
China and that they need make no further progress because of that.
  I also have heard the administration has not yet determined whether 
it should pursue a resolution even though they know they will fail if 
they do so. If they agree to pursue one, they do it knowing that it is 
going to fail.
  If I were one of our allies, I would be sitting back and watching 
this and I would relish U.S. efforts to publicly condemn and sanction 
China, thereby impeding U.S. efforts to improve relations with China. 
That will give them many more opportunities to gain a firm foothold in 
what will be enormous trade and investment opportunities. If the U.S. 
gains the reputation of being an unreliable supplier, well, so much the 
better for them. They have seen us attempt to impose our laws and 
values extraterritorially on other countries over and over again. This 
has all accomplished nothing for us and much for them. For example, 
Airbus recently won a lucrative contract with China when China has long 
exhibited a preference for Boeing planes.
  It was a strong message from China and its relationship with the 
United States.
  This resolution, following all of the other attempts to rein in 
China, will not allow us to improve our relationship with China, but I 
believe it will slow that process. This will harm us in the eyes of the 
world community, it will impact US jobs, it will raise concerns about 
the U.S. security and leadership role in East Asia and the Pacific, 
and, most importantly, I believe that it is going to hurt the Chinese 
people themselves that we are trying to help. It will get us nothing--
no progress on human rights, no progress on religious persecution--
nothing at all. Many have said it is American involvement inside of 
China, including American investments, that have helped to improve the 
lives of many Chinese people and helped to foster more interest in 
human rights progress. More pressure for improvement comes from the 
inside out rather than the outside in. The Chinese government will 
listen more to the Chinese people than it will to threats from outside 
its borders.
  Let us look at the issue of religious persecution, since I know there 
is still legislation percolating on that issue as well. Religious 
leaders, including one from my own State, Reverend Don Argue, president 
of the National Association of Evangelicals and former president of 
North Central College in Minneapolis, just returned from a visit with 
President Jiang himself. Now, President Jiang invited them to China--
the first time that has ever happened. The leaders noted that with 
their visit with the President of China, they gained valuable access 
that they feel will help to open the door to better contacts with the 
Chinese leadership on religious issues. They felt President Jiang heard 
their message, and they believe that President Jiang does realize that 
religious persecution is a major stumbling block to improve Chinese-
United States relations, as well as a stumbling block to the lives of 
its citizens.

  I have also addressed this issue in my visits to China, and I have 
visited churches there, as well. China does need to make more progress; 
there is no doubt about it. But Ned Graham, the son of the Reverend 
Billy Graham, and others tell me they have been working in China now 
for many, many years, and there has been progress, they tell me, and 
they are working quietly and effectively, quietly and effectively 
inside China to further that progress. These religious leaders need to 
assure China that their goals are to provide religious freedom, not to 
violate Chinese laws by pursuing separate political goals. That 
process, Mr. President, is ongoing and it is working.
  Mr. President, I realize that this resolution has broad support. 
However, I feel it was important to come to the floor to remind my 
colleagues that we should think about what we are doing because it is 
clearly, again in my view, not productive but, in fact, could be 
counterproductive. Further, if we pass a resolution at all, at the very 
least it should include many of the countries listed in the human 
rights report as well as China, not just one.
  Again I say, China needs to make improvements in the areas of human 
rights and religious persecution. It should be on the list that we 
condemn and hold up for the rest of the world to see. It could be first 
on the list, it could be last on the list, but it should be on the 
list. Again, it shouldn't be the only country on the list. I'm 
concerned about human rights in all countries, not just one. My 
substitute resolution would have just enabled us to go on record 
supporting human rights in many countries. It could have been a 
separate list, it could have included China, China could have been 
alone. But only to have one resolution on the floor today condemning 
one country, I think is going to do more harm for the people inside of 
China than it is going to do good. That was my main concern.
  I yield the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield such time as I require.
  I rise today in strong support of S. Res. 187, a resolution 
introduced by the Senator from Florida and the Senator from Minnesota. 
I am grateful for their leadership on this and feel they have done a 
real service by bringing this issue forward to the floor with regard to 
human rights in China.
  The resolution states that it is a sense of the Senate that the 
United States initiate active lobbying at the U.N. Commission on Human 
Rights for a resolution condemning human rights abuses in China. It 
calls specifically for the United States to introduce and make all 
efforts necessary to pass a resolution on China and Tibet at the 
upcoming 54th session of the Commission, which is due to begin very 
soon in Geneva.
  It is a nonbinding resolution, but it makes a simple, clear statement 
of principle: The Senate believes that there should be a China 
resolution in Geneva, period.
  As we all know, for the past few years, China's leaders have 
aggressively lobbied against such efforts earlier and more actively 
than the countries that support a resolution. Last year, they actually 
threatened the country of Denmark, which had made a difficult decision 
to sponsor a resolution. This year, Chinese officials have deftly 
played a diplomatic game with various European governments and 
basically succeeded in getting the European Union Foreign Ministers to 
drop, at least temporarily, any European cosponsorship of a resolution.
  In the past, China's vigorous efforts have resulted in a ``no 
action'' motion at the Commission. With events proceeding the way they 
are now, I fear we will have the same result again at the upcoming 
meeting.
  This would be unfortunate because it is essential to have a 
resolution on China under the auspices of the Commission on Human 
Rights. The multilateral nature of the Commission makes it a very 
appropriate forum to debate and discuss the human rights situation in 
China. By adopting international human rights treaties, China has made 
a commitment to international human rights law, and one of the basic 
purposes of the Commission is to specifically evaluate China's 
performance with respect to these commitments. The Commission's review 
has led to proven and concrete progress on human rights in other 
countries, and the expectation is that such scrutiny would lead to 
progress in human rights in China.
  Mr. President, here is where I don't understand the argument of the 
junior

[[Page S1865]]

Senator from Minnesota. He is suggesting you can only go forward if you 
list all the countries in the world that have human rights violations. 
That doesn't make any sense with regard to the way we have to do 
business in this body. Sometimes we have to identify a particular 
country--whether it be Russia or Nigeria or Indonesia--and say in this 
particular instance there is a problem. To be required to make a 
statement about all countries in the world where there is a problem at 
one time, reduces what we are doing to a meaningless exercise and a 
general statement.
  Some observers want to question the viability of the human rights 
resolution at this time. Despite China's announcement last year that it 
would sign the U.N. Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, I 
don't see real evidence of real human rights improvements in China. 
That human rights conditions in China are growing worse, not better, 
indicates that human rights continue to demand top priority.
  Nearly 4 years after the President's decision, which I regretted, to 
delink most-favored-nation status from human rights, we cannot forget 
that human rights in China and Tibet remain abysmal. Hundreds, if not 
thousands, of individuals are detained or imprisoned for their 
political and religious beliefs. Monks in Tibet are harassed for 
showing reverence to the Dalai Lama. And the press is subject to tight 
restrictions. The most recent State Department human rights report 
notes that ``the Government of China continued to commit widespread and 
well-documented human rights abuses in violation of internationally 
accepted norms, including extrajudicial killings, the use of torture, 
arbitrary arrest and detention, forced abortion and sterilization, the 
sale of organs from executed prisoners, and tight control over the 
exercise of the rights of freedom of speech, press, and religion.''
  Mr. President, the situation is just as bad in Tibet.
  I am going to make sure my remarks are brief so the Senator from 
Minnesota can speak some more.
  Let me just say last month the Assistant Secretary of State for 
Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, John Shattuck, testified, ``We did 
not see major changes. We have not characterized China as having 
demonstrated major changes.''
  Mr. President, these reports are indeed troubling. The United States 
has a moral responsibility to take the lead in sponsoring and pushing 
for a resolution at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. I 
was delighted yesterday with such an overwhelming vote under the 
leadership of Senator Wellstone from Minnesota and the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, a 16-1 bipartisan vote, that indicated there is a 
strong bipartisan consensus in the Foreign Relations Committee--and I 
predict on the floor--that we must send a message to China and that 
this is the appropriate forum in time to do it.

  I strongly commend my friends, the Senator from Minnesota and the 
Senator from Florida, for their leadership on this terribly important 
issue.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 4 minutes 45 
seconds.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I want to thank Debra Ladner, and I ask unanimous 
consent she be allowed on the floor for the remainder of the debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me say to Senator Feingold that I 
appreciate his remarks. I also love working with him on a lot of 
issues. I hope we can do a lot of human rights work together. He has 
been such a very strong voice on human rights in the Senate.
  Mr. President, one more time, this is an important statement by the 
Senate. Sometimes these kinds of votes really matter. I think this is 
one of those times. I hope the President and the administration will 
pay attention to what I hope will be a very strong vote. I believe they 
will. I certainly hope so. I hope that our Government will move on a 
resolution condemning human rights violations in China. I hope that the 
administration will do everything possible to exact concession here on 
behalf of human rights for people in China.
  I think it is also very important to a whole lot of people in China 
who are involved in this struggle and a whole lot of people in Tibet. 
Sometimes I look at things differently and sometimes what I worry the 
most about is the effect of inaction over action, noncommitment over 
commitment on such a question for people who are imprisoned. I have 
heard stories from my friends in a lot of the human rights 
organizations, men and women, who have said that the only thing that 
kept them going while they were in prison was resolutions of this kind. 
The only thing that kept them going was when our country, our 
Government, under a President like President Jimmy Carter, who was so 
focused on human rights, it meant so much to these people. I think this 
is a terribly important resolution.
  I have often thought to myself when I finish on this, whether it be 
China or whether it be other countries--and the focus can be and should 
be and must be on China--I have often wondered and I think I might have 
the courage to challenge a repressive government if I thought that at 
worst I could be imprisoned. I don't even know if I would have that 
courage. But I don't know what I would do if I thought maybe my child 
could be rounded up and my child could be hurt or my wife could be 
hurt. There are people throughout the world who stand up to these 
governments. They stand up to these governments even when they know 
that this might happen. I marvel at their courage. They inspire me as a 
U.S. Senator.
  China is a very large country and a very big country. But that does 
not mean that China should not be held accountable. This is a very 
important vote we are about to have.
  I will yield back the rest of my time. I thank my colleague from 
Florida for his leadership and tell him it has been an honor to work 
with him on this.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, does Senator Abraham wish to make a 
statement? I say to the Senator I have slightly over 6 minutes 
remaining. How much time does the Senator desire?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. That is a good question. It will take close to 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MACK. I ask unanimous consent the Senator be yielded 5 minutes, 
not off my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Senator from Florida. I will try to speak as 
quickly as possible. It is an important topic. I don't want to in any 
way have the length of my speech in any sense suggest a lack of 
interest in this or in any way suggest a diminished interest by this 
Senator.
  Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the sense of 
the Senate resolution, sending a strong message to the Chinese 
communist government regarding its human rights abuses. As American 
representatives participate in the annual meeting of the United Nations 
Commission on Human Rights I believe it is crucial that they state, in 
the strongest terms possible, the determination of the United States to 
uphold and defend fundamental human rights. This means, in my view, 
that our representatives must issue a strong statement criticizing the 
Chinese government's treatment of minorities and dissidents.
  Mr. President, U.S.-China relations are of crucial importance for 
both countries. But for that very reason I believe it is crucial that 
we make clear our determination that the rulers in Beijing show greater 
respect for their people.
  Mr. President, China's record of human rights abuses and repression 
of religious faith is long and disturbing. Peaceful advocates of 
democracy and political reforms have been sentenced to long terms in 
prisons where they have been beaten, tortured and denied needed medical 
care. Women pregnant with their second or third child have been coerced 
into abortions. Religious meeting places have been forcibly closed. 
Tibetan monks refusing to condemn their religious leader, the Dalai 
Lama, have been forced from their monasteries; some of their leaders 
have disappeared.
  And 8 million Catholics loyal to the Pope continue to be harassed, as 
their non-official churches are closed down

[[Page S1866]]

and their religious leaders are arrested and taken to prison camps 
where they suffer torture and deprivation.
  I ask unanimous consent to have a list of findings by the State 
Department with respect to human rights and the People's Republic of 
China be printed in the Record, outlining the extent to which the 
problems exist.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Title II--Human Rights, Religious Freedom, and Democracy in China


 sec. 201. findings on human rights abuses in the people's republic of 
                                 china

       (1) Congress concurs in the following conclusions of the 
     Department of State regarding human rights in the People's 
     Republic of China in 1996:
       (A) The People's Republic of China is `an authoritarian 
     state' in which `citizens lack the freedom to peacefully 
     express opposition to the party-led political system and the 
     right to change their national leaders or form of 
     government.'
       (B) The Government of the People's Republic of China has 
     `continued to commit widespread and well documented human 
     rights abuses, in violation of internationally accepted 
     norms, stemming from the authorities' intolerance of dissent, 
     fear of unrest, and the absence or inadequacy of laws 
     protecting basic freedoms'.
       (C) `Abuses include torture and mistreatment of prisoners, 
     forced confessions, and arbitrary and incommunicado 
     detention'.
       (D) `Prison conditions remained harsh [and] [t]he 
     Government continued severe restrictions on freedom of 
     speech, the press, assembly, association, religion, privacy, 
     and worker rights'.
       (E) `Although the Government denies that it holds political 
     prisoners, the number of persons detained or serving 
     sentences for `counterrevolutionary crimes' or `crimes 
     against the state' and for peaceful political or religious 
     activities are believed to number in the thousands'.
       (F) `Non-approved religious groups, including Protestant 
     and Catholic groups . . . experienced intensified 
     repression'.
       (G) `Serious human rights abuses persist in minority areas, 
     including Tibet, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia [, and 
     [c]ontrols on religion and other fundamental freedoms in 
     these areas have also intensified'.
       (H) `Overall in 1996, the authorities stepped up efforts to 
     cut off expressions of protest or criticism. All public 
     dissent against the party and government was effectively 
     silenced by intimidation, exile, the imposition of prison 
     terms, administrative detention, or house arrest. No 
     dissidents were known to be active at year's end'.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. These findings make clear, Mr. President, that the 
government of China has been and continues to intentionally oppress its 
people. I do not believe that we can stand idly by, without so much as 
a complaint, as this continues.
  I firmly believe that it is America's duty as well as our interest to 
make the extra effort required to improve overall human rights 
conditions in China and to integrate her into the community of nations. 
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and I call on the 
President to demand that the Chinese government being itself into 
compliance with international standards of human rights and decency.
  I thank the Senator from Florida. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise, with some reservations, in support 
of the resolution offered by Senator Wellstone and Senator Mack.
  I have been visiting, debating and studying China for some years. And 
it is quite clear that human rights conditions in China can and should 
be far better.
  China admits to holding about 3,000 people in prison for ``counter-
revolutionary'' offenses. We don't know the exact figure, but Amnesty 
International's estimate is similar. And political repression, over the 
past four or five years, has in some ways become more rather than less 
severe for the nation's most prominent dissidents. Treatment of 
religious leaders and labor organizers may be even worse. And 
repression seems to be at its harshest in some minority areas.
  Independent reports show that rates of imprisonment are higher in 
Tibet and Xinjiang, and violent response by the authorities is more 
common. Having visited Lhasa myself, albeit on a highly controlled 
visit, my personal impression backs up these reports of very severe 
policies.
  Those things are real. And the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva 
is the appropriate place for us, for China, and for the other nations 
of the world to discuss them.
  But we must also recognize something very important. That is, most 
long-term human rights trends in China are good. The number of people 
tried for political offenses is down from 350 a year in the mid-1980s 
to about 200 a year now. If you look further back, you see that during 
the so-called ``Anti-Rightist'' campaign in 1957, China arrested 
500,000 people. The 1960s--the years of the ``Great Leap Forward'' and 
``Cultural Revolution''--were even worse.
  Other indices also show an improving situation. The number of citizen 
lawsuits against the government is up from 4,600 in 1987 to approach 
100,000 last year, showing that more people feel free to challenge the 
state. Uncensored news is available on the radio, satellite TV or the 
Internet. Local elections are becoming more democratic, and the 
National People's Congress is taking up a more confident role in making 
law and overseeing ministries.
  Likewise, China's economic reforms have created an entirely new world 
for tens or hundreds of millions of ordinary people. With open trade, 
they can find their own jobs, choose their own careers, rent their own 
apartments and listen to foreign news. And if you ask ordinary Chinese, 
most say without any hesitation that life is better and freer than ever 
before.
  So I think it is appropriate for the Administration to raise human 
rights, particularly the question of political prisoners, in Geneva. 
The Human Rights Commission in Geneva is the place to discuss, debate 
and if necessary, condemn violations of human rights abroad. But it is 
also the place to note and approve improvements of human rights abroad. 
And while I will support this resolution, I believe it is imperfect, 
because it does not call on the Administration to do both.
  The most effective approach to human rights will be to tell the 
truth--to point out areas where the government of China, or any other 
country, needs reform; but also to draw attention to the areas where 
life is getting better. We should do that in Geneva, and we should do 
it when we have occasion to debate human rights on the Senate floor.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, many times in the past, as I have talked 
about foreign policy and national defense issues, I have gone back to 
what I believe is the fundamental principle that has served as the 
foundation of our Nation, and that is the discussion about freedom. I 
have said over and over again that I believe freedom is the core of all 
human progress, that the message of freedom is the message of hope.
  Again, thinking of individuals who would find themselves imprisoned 
in China today, I, too, have heard them say that the knowledge that 
there are people around the world--particularly people in the United 
States--who will say it's important enough to confront the leadership 
in China on the issue of human rights gives them hope that there are 
people in the world who care about them. So the message of freedom is a 
message of hope.
  I want to quote a comment that was made by Mr. Wei in November of 
last year when he came to the United States. This is what he had to 
say:

       Democracy and freedom are among the loftiest ideals of 
     humanity, and they are the most sacred rights of mankind. 
     Those who already enjoy democracy, liberty, and human rights 
     in particular, should not allow their own personal happiness 
     to numb them into forgetting the many others who are still 
     struggling against tyranny, slavery, and poverty, and all of 
     those who are suffering from unimaginable forms of 
     oppression, exploitation, and massacre.

  What would it be like to be imprisoned? I have also read some of the 
writings, such as the book of Harry Wu, for example. I have heard the 
stories of the conditions in which other human beings have found 
themselves and I wonder myself, could I survive that? Would I have the 
human drive, the human will to survive? Probably, if I felt that I was 
alone, with no concern for me whatsoever, maybe the will would 
disappear. Maybe the will for Mr. Wu would have disappeared. Maybe the 
will for Mr. Wei would have disappeared. But there was a belief that 
there were those out there who cared for them.
  Now, the point has been raised several times: Why China? Why only

[[Page S1867]]

China? I think the Senator from Minnesota will agree with me that there 
is a condition that exists now as a result of a decision made by 
President Clinton not long ago to delink the issue of trade and human 
rights. Now, there are rational points on both sides of that debate. 
But the point is, that decision was made. So then the question then 
comes, if we are not going to engage in a debate over human rights with 
the issue of trade, where are we going to do it?
  It seems to me it is a reasonable, rational position to take that the 
debate ought to take place in the United Nations about violations of 
human rights. So we are very simply saying to our colleagues in the 
U.S. Senate, and to the President of the United States, we believe now 
is the time to move forward to condemn China for its human rights 
violations and to make it a cause. I am not shy about saying that. I 
believe we should do it. I don't think that, in any way, we are going 
to make things tougher for the people of China as a result of it. In 
fact, everyone we have had the opportunity to talk with has indicated 
to us that their treatment improves when the United States raises these 
concerns. So, Mr. President, I hope we do have a strong vote for this 
resolution, and I believe we will.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I was remiss in not mentioning earlier 
that Senator Helms absolutely lived up to his commitment to make sure 
that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee took up this matter. I 
thank him for that.
  Finally, I just want to say to my colleague from Florida that I very 
much appreciate his eloquence. I think he really feels these issues. I 
think it was more than a scripted speech. I think what he said was 
powerful, and I hope, too, that we will get a very, very strong, 
resounding vote.
  I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 5, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 31 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--5

     Chafee
     Glenn
     Grams
     Stevens
     Thurmond
  The resolution was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  The resolution (S. Res. 187), with its preamble, was agreed to, as 
follows:

                              S. Res. 187

       Whereas the annual meeting of the United Nations Commission 
     on Human Rights in Geneva, Switzerland, provides a forum for 
     discussing human rights and expressing international support 
     for improved human rights performance;
       Whereas according to the United States Department of State 
     and international human rights organizations, the Government 
     of the People's Republic of China engages in widespread human 
     rights violations; and
       Whereas President Clinton pledged that the United States 
     would step up its efforts in cooperation with other states to 
     insist that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights 
     pass a resolution dealing with the serious human rights 
     abuses in the People's Republic of China: Now, therefore, be 
     it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the 
     United States should introduce and make all efforts necessary 
     to pass a resolution criticizing the People's Republic of 
     China for its human rights abuses in China and Tibet at the 
     annual meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human 
     Rights.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from 
Pennsylvania.

                          ____________________