[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.
____________________