[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 68 (Monday, June 1, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5517-S5521]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  SENATE RESOLUTION 238--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING 
               HUMAN RIGHTS CONDITIONS IN CHINA AND TIBET

  Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself, Mr. Durbin and Mr. Leahy) submitted the 
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations:

                              S. Res. 238

       Whereas President Clinton will be the first United States 
     head of state to visit China

[[Page S5518]]

     since the 1989 crackdown on the pro-democracy movement at 
     Tiananmen Square;
       Whereas according to the State Department's China Country 
     Report on Human Rights Practices for 1996, ``The Government 
     continues 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.'';
       Whereas the symbolism of the official arrival ceremony 
     which will take place in Tiananmen Square could be 
     interpreted as a message to the Chinese people that will 
     override anything the President might say about human rights 
     and the rule of law;
       Whereas specific human rights preconditions should have 
     been set forth before setting the date for the President's 
     visit; and
       Whereas the President can still make important human rights 
     points during his visit to Beijing: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) at the upcoming United States-China summit the 
     President should--
       (A) secure from China's leaders a pledge to remove by a 
     certain date the names on an official reentry blacklist, 
     which now contains the names of more than fifty Chinese 
     citizens living in the United States who cannot return to 
     China because of their peaceful advocacy of greater rights 
     and freedom; and
       (B) visit family members of victims of the 1989 massacre, 
     many of whom still suffer from political harassment, 
     discrimination or persecution; and
       (2) in the context of the upcoming United States-China 
     summit, the President should urge the Chinese leaders to--
       (A) engage in a meaningful dialogue with the Dalai Lama 
     with the aim of establishing genuine cultural and religious 
     autonomy in Tibet;
       (B) revise China's vague, draconian security laws, 
     including the provisions on ``endangering state security'' 
     added to the criminal code in March 1997;
       (C) release unconditionally all imprisoned political, 
     religious, and labor activists detained for their peaceful, 
     nonviolent involvement in public protests;
       (D) review the sentences of more than 2,000 convicted so-
     called ``counterrevolutionaries'' with a view towards 
     granting full amnesty and releasing those convicted solely 
     for exercising their internationally recognized rights of 
     free speech and association, especially since the crime of 
     ``counterrevolution'' has itself been abolished;
       (E) encourage greater cooperation by the Chinese government 
     with the United Nation's human rights mechanisms and greater 
     transparency in China's legal and detention system;
       (F) ease religious repression by abolishing the requirement 
     that all religious sites register with the official Religious 
     Affairs Bureau and implementing the 1994 recommendations of 
     the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Religious 
     Intolerance;
       (G) lift government mandated quotas on the number of monks 
     and nuns in monasteries and nunneries, end the government's 
     current ``reeducation'' campaign, and immediately reinstate 
     all monks and nuns expelled from their monasteries and 
     nunneries for failing to denounce the Dalai Lama;
       (H) allow access by credible, independent human rights or 
     humanitarian organizations to the nine-year-old boy 
     recognized by the Dalai Lama in 1995 as the reincarnation of 
     the Panchen Lama; and
       (I) allow regular, unmonitored access to Tibet and 
     Xinjiiang province of China by independent human rights 
     monitors.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am going to introduce a resolution 
today that I will send to the desk. This will be on behalf of--I will 
do it after my remarks--myself and Senators Durbin and Leahy.
  This is a resolution calling upon the President to make human rights 
a major priority in his June visit to China. Probably later on we will 
introduce this resolution in the form of a sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment to the Department of Defense bill.
  Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution calling upon the 
President to make human rights a major priority in his June visit to 
China. Thus far, the Administration has not articulated any concrete 
goals or objectives for the upcoming summit, other than to demonstrate 
a friendly relationship between the U.S. and China. Preliminary 
negotiations with the Chinese leadership on the summit agenda indicate 
that Beijing is unlikely to make any major policy concessions when it 
comes to human rights.
  I am not opposed--I think I need to say that again--to high-level 
discussions with the Chinese leadership. In fact, I think they can be 
very useful. But I am worried about the symbolism of a Presidential 
visit, and I think it may backfire if the President does not continue 
to speak out about our strong concerns when it comes to China's human 
rights record. The summit could be interpreted by many as legitimizing 
policies of the Chinese regime which, despite some legal reforms, 
continue to repress religious freedom and political freedom as well as 
political dissent.
  The Chinese have avidly sought a Presidential visit because it 
signals to all at home and abroad that the U.S. has muffled its 
opposition to, and endorses cooperation with the Beijing government, 
the same government that continues to deny its citizens basic human 
rights and freedoms. By agreeing to a Presidential visit, without 
significant human rights preconditions--not merely token gestures--I 
fear that the Administration may be squandering a tremendous source of 
leverage with the Chinese government.
  Since the May 1994 decision to delink trade and human rights, the 
Administration has not yet developed an effective bilateral or 
multilateral strategy for promoting meaningful improvements in human 
rights conditions in China and Tibet. I was deeply disappointed this 
year that despite a 95 to 5 vote in support here in the Senate, the 
Administration did not sponsor a resolution on China's human rights 
record at the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva, which is exactly 
the place you would bring such a resolution forward. We didn't do so. 
Mr. Wei, China's best known political dissident, has pointed out that 
the Chinese people view the commission's work as ``barometer'' to the 
human rights commission which met in Geneva by which to judge whether 
there is any international backing for their democracy movement in 
their country of China.
  Our current policy may send a message to those brave men and women 
who risk their lives to campaign for democracy and freedom that the 
United States is not behind them.
  By the way, I apply the standard to human rights or violations of 
human rights in all kinds of countries, be they left or be they right; 
it makes no difference.
  In a speech that Mr. Wei presented at the Commission in Geneva, he 
recalled, ``Last year, when the Commission failed to adopt a resolution 
on China, my prison guards laughed at me and said: `Look at your so-
called friends. They betrayed you,''' He went on to say, ``This is 
precisely the time when support from our friends is most needed. And 
this is precisely the time that Western democracies have chosen to 
withdraw their support.''
  The Administration claims that China has made progress in the area of 
human rights. In my view, this is simply not true. The recent steps 
taken by the Chinese government are merely token, cosmetic gestures--
diplomatic bargaining tactics that do not amount to a more open, free 
society. The overall pattern of human rights violations remains 
fundamentally unchanged.
  While I wholeheartedly welcome China's announcement to sign the 
International Covenant on civil and Political Rights, until it is 
actually signed and ratified, it is not fully binding. Two months after 
their pledge to sign, the Chinese have still not specified when they 
will sign or ratify this treaty. Even more importantly, once ratified, 
the Chinese must implement this treaty, which will require major 
changes in domestic laws and policies. So, it will be a long process 
before this covenant translates into concrete change or greater freedom 
for the Chinese people. A mere non-binding verbal agreement to sign 
should not be trumpeted as a huge victory and certainly did not warrant 
dropping the Geneva resolution.
  That is what happened. Our Government, the administration, said to me 
that we are not going to go forward because the Chinese have agreed to 
sign this international convenant on civil and political rights. 
Several months have gone by. They haven't signed it. Even if they sign 
it, there is no evidence that they are necessarily going to implement a 
nonbinding international agreement, and it should not be a reason for 
having brought a resolution protesting their violation of human rights 
before the Geneva commission on civil rights. As my colleague Senator 
Biden said, ``I don't agree with Senator Wellstone and others.'' The 
presiding Chair might not as well, when it comes to linking human 
rights with trade policy. That is too blunt an instrument. But if there 
was ever a place to bring this up, it should have been at the human 
rights gathering; it should have been in Geneva.

[[Page S5519]]

  I am very happy that both my dear friend Wei Jingsheing and Wang Dan 
are in good health, safe and out of prison. However, we must be clear. 
These men were not released. They were forced into exile. Should either 
of them return to their homeland, they would be thrown into prison upon 
arrival. The Chinese government maintains a re-entry blacklist which 
contains the names of more than fifty Chinese citizens living in the 
U.S. Just last month two Chinese American democracy advocates were 
detained and deported upon their arrival in China. The forced exile of 
Wei and Wang does not represent systematic change. In early 1995 Wang 
wrote, ``A society still needs idealists--people who are willing to 
sacrifice themselves to uphold the basic ideals of freedom and 
democracy.''
  I have to tell you that I don't know how they do it in these 
countries. I don't know how they do it. Maybe if it were I, myself, and 
I lived in a repressive country, I would speak out. Maybe I would have 
the courage to do it--maybe. But if I thought that my children, or my 
spouse, my loved ones, could also be rounded up, that they could be 
imprisoned, that they could be tortured, that they could be murdered--
which is too often the case in too many countries; there are at least 
70 countries that systematically practice torture in our world today--I 
don't know whether I could ever speak up. I think I would be afraid to, 
given what could happen to my loved ones.
  It is cruel irony that these brave men's exiles are being used as 
evidence of China's progress.
  Human rights advocates in China and around the world fear that the 
release of high profile dissidents could be used to justify a reduction 
in international pressure for systematic change in China, where 
according to the government's own count, some 2,000 people remain 
imprisoned for the crime of ``counterrevolution,'' now called 
``endangering state security.'' Thousands more--political, labor, and 
religious dissidents--are serving terms of up to three years of ``re-
education through labor'' without trial. The releases of Wei and Wang 
are clearly political calculations by the Chinese leadership, who have 
become adept at trading well-known prisoners in pre-summit diplomatic 
bargaining. Engaging the Chinese in this game of saving face and 
trading diplomatic favors sends out a message that we are not serious 
about human rights.
  For years before the world ever saw the televised massacre at 
Tiananmen Square, peaceful demonstrations in Lhasa have been crushed by 
the PLA. Once imprisoned Tibetans, particularly monks and nuns, face 
unimaginable torture at the hands of prison officials. Furthermore, the 
Chinese government's policy of forced migration of Han Chinese into 
Tibet has rendered Tibetans a minority in cities such as Lhasa, where 
they are marginalized and alienated. As the Chinese presence grows 
stronger, Tibet's unique culture faces the threat of extinction.
  The Tibetan people have remained steadfast in their commitment to the 
path of non-violence. However, some Tibetan exiles are growing 
impatient, as indicated by one man's recent death through self-
immolation. In a desperate attempt to draw the attention of the 
international community to the worsening situation in Tibet, Thubten 
Ngodup, a 50-year-old Tibetan exile in Delhi, India, set himself on 
fire.
  In a recent meeting with President Jiang Zemin, Secretary Albright 
brought up the subject of Tibet and the American desire for a dialogue 
between Dalai Lama and the Chinese leadership. The Chinese sharply 
dismissed the Dali Lama and flat out refused to enter into negotiations 
in order to bring about a peaceful settlement to the Tibetan issue.
  The resolution I am submitting outlines concrete steps that would 
indicate a serious commitment to human rights concerns. In the context 
of the upcoming summit, we call upon the administration, at the highest 
level, to urge the Chinese leadership to revise their vague, draconian 
security laws, including provisions on ``endangering state security'' 
added to the criminal code in March 1997; to release unconditionally 
large numbers of imprisoned political, religious, and labor activists; 
and to review the sentences of more than 2,000 prisoners sentenced for 
``counterrevolutionary'' activities, a crime that itself has been 
abolished.
  With regards to religious freedom, the Administration should 
encourage the Chinese leadership to abolish the requirement that all 
religious sites register with the official Religious Affairs Bureau; to 
lift government mandated quotas on the number of monks and nuns in 
monasteries and nunneries; and to immediately reinstate all monks and 
nuns expelled from their monasteries and nunneries for failing to 
denounce the Dalai Lama.
  This resolution also calls upon the administration to encourage the 
Chinese leadership to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the Dalai 
Lama with the aim of establishing genuine cultural and religious 
autonomy in Tibet.
  Another concern is the symbolic significance of the President's 
official arrival ceremony which will take place in Tiananmen Square. We 
ask the President to make time in his schedule to meet with family 
members of at least one of the victims of the 1989 massacre, many of 
whom still suffer from political harassment, discrimination or 
persecution. We also ask the President to secure from the Chinese a 
pledge to get rid of the re-entry blacklist, which contains the names 
of more than fifty Chinese citizens living in the U.S. who cannot 
return to China. Allowing pro-democracy activists, journalists or labor 
organizers to return to China would be a significant gesture by the 
Chinese authority. Finally, until the Chinese leadership takes serious, 
concrete action on the concerns outlined above, we would strongly 
oppose lifting the trade sanctions imposed after the 1989 crackdown on 
demonstrators at Tiananmen Square.
  Some say that we cannot influence what happens in China, that the 
country is too proud, too large, and that changes take too long. I 
disagree. For years we have pressured the Chinese on human rights, and 
to let up now is tantamount to defeat for the cause of human justice. 
Dissidents who have been freed and come to the United States have 
thanked advocates for keeping them alive, by keeping the pressure on, 
and focusing attention on their plight. It is our duty and in the 
interest to make the extra effort required to promote freedom and 
democracy in China, and to bring it into compliance with international 
standards on human rights.
  Let me just make one other point. For years, before the world ever 
saw the televised massacre of Tiananmen Square, Peaceful demonstrations 
in Tibet have been crushed. Once imprisoned, Tibetans, particularly 
monks and nuns, face unimaginable torture at the hands of prison 
officials. Furthermore, the Chinese Government's forced migration of 
Han Chinese into Tibet has rendered the Tibetans a minority in their 
own country, and as the Chinese presence grows stronger an stronger, 
Tibet's unique culture basically faces extinction. So let me just be 
crystal clear. Whether it is in China or Tibet as well, we ought to be 
speaking up for human rights.
  Jiang Zemin, in a recent meeting with Secretary Albright, made it 
crystal clear when the subject of Tibet was brought up that the Chinese 
are not interested in sitting down in any negotiations with the Dalai 
Lama and are unwilling to bring about any kind of peaceful settlement 
to the Tibetan issue.
  So in this resolution, this is what we call upon the administration 
to do at the highest level: to urge the Chinese leadership to revise 
their vague, draconian security laws, including provisions on 
``endangering state security,'' added to the Criminal Code in March of 
1997; to urge the Chinese to release unconditionally a large number of 
imprisoned political, religious, and labor activists, and to review the 
sentences of more than 2,000 prisoners sentenced for 
``counterrevolutionary activities,'' a crime that has been abolished.
  With regard to religious freedom, the administration should encourage 
the Chinese leadership to abolish the requirement that all religious 
sites be registered with the official Religious Affairs Bureau, to lift 
Government mandated quotas on the number of monks and nuns in 
monasteries and nunneries, and to immediately reinstate monks and nuns 
failing to denounce the Dalai Lama.

[[Page S5520]]

  This resolution also calls upon the administration to encourage the 
Chinese leadership to engage in meaningful dialog with the Dalai Lama 
with the aim of establishing genuine cultural and religious and 
political freedom and autonomy in Tibet.
  Another concern is the symbolic significance of the President's 
official arrival ceremony, which will take place in Tiananmen Square. 
We ask the President to make time in this schedule to meet with family 
members of at least one of the victims of the 1989 massacre, many of 
whom still suffer from political harassment, discrimination, and 
persecution.
  We also ask the President to secure from the Chinese a pledge to get 
rid of the reentry blacklist which contains the names of more than 50 
Chinese citizens living in the United States who cannot return to 
China. Allowing prodemocracy journalists or labor organizers to return 
to China would be a significant gesture by the Chinese authority. 
Finally, until the Chinese leadership takes serious, concrete action on 
the concerns outlined above, we would strongly oppose lifting the trade 
sanctions imposed after the 1989 crackdown on demonstrators at 
Tiananmen Square.
  As a U.S. Senator, I cannot forget the courage of those students, 
cannot forget the murder of those students, and cannot forget their 
struggle then and their struggle now for democracy in their country. It 
took us a little time, but that is why I am really pleased that I 
believe our Government has really come out on the side of the students 
in Indonesia, and I think we are making a difference.
  Mr. President, some say that we cannot influence what happens in 
China; the country is too proud, too large, and the changes take too 
long. I disagree. For years, we pressured the Chinese on human rights, 
and to let up now is tantamount to defeat for the cause of human 
justice. Dissidents who have been freed and have come to the United 
States have thanked advocates for keeping them alive by keeping the 
pressure on, by focusing on their plight. It is our duty and it is in 
our interests to make the extra effort required to promote freedom and 
democracy in China and to bring it into compliance with international 
standards on human rights.
  Mr. President, there will be a great deal of activity this week that 
will be focusing on the President's upcoming visit, and I really hope 
that when Senator Durbin and Senator Leahy and I bring this resolution 
to the floor as a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, we will get a very 
strong vote.
  I really do believe, whether it is in China or whether it is in 
Indonesia or whether it is in North Korea or whether it is in a whole 
lot of countries, the former Burma, you name them, there simply has to 
be a way that we, as a nation, lead the way. There has to be a way that 
the United States of America can be there to support people. We cannot 
do everything. We don't directly intervene in all of these countries. 
But it saddens me that all too often we just simply turn our gaze away 
from people who are willing to almost stand alone to challenge 
repressive governments. We ought to be more on their side. We ought to 
be speaking out more about human rights. We ought to be speaking out 
more about the importance of democracy in other countries.
  I really believe that the President's visit to China will be a test 
case. If the President of the United States of America is going to go 
to Tiananmen Square--I wish he wouldn't. I wish he would not do so, but 
if he is going to visit, then he needs to visit with the families of 
those who gave their lives for freedom in that country. He needs to 
speak out about human rights. He needs to use the leverage of our 
country and the leadership of the United States of America to make a 
difference. We just can't say, well, markets, markets, markets; there 
will be all sorts of markets; we will make all kinds of money; it will 
be great for the business community.
  Great. I come from a State that is an export State. The Presiding 
Officer comes from a State where agriculture is very important. 
Agriculture is very important in Minnesota. I am really proud of 
agriculture. I am proud of the business sector in our State. But these 
are not mutually exclusive goals. I am not arguing that we are not 
interested in trade. I am not arguing that we don't look to future 
markets. But what I am saying is that it just makes me uneasy as an 
American citizen and it makes me uneasy as a Senator that we focus 
exclusively on commercial ties, exclusively on markets, exclusively on 
money to be made, all of which is fine up to the point where we just 
turn our gaze away from human rights violations, countries that 
systematically round up and imprison people because they speak out. 
That is wrong. That is wrong. That is not what our country is about.
  Since I have time to speak about human rights today, I will finish 
this way. All of us, I think, develop our viewpoints based upon our own 
life experience. I was a teacher for 20 years before having the 
opportunity to become a Senator, before the people of Minnesota gave me 
this chance, and I used to ask students to write on the same essay 
question at the end of every take-home paper, and the question was: Why 
do you think about what you think about politics? I never graded it. I 
just wanted them to think about what shaped their viewpoint--why do 
they care about some things and not others? Why do they consider 
themselves a liberal or conservative, whatever label you use? Was it 
their religion? Was it their family, mother or father? Was it some kind 
of powerful, crystallized experience where maybe--I remember one 
student wrote an essay and he talked about how his brother was born 
with disabilities, developmental disabilities, and that just completely 
changed his life and his family's life. Their whole view about whether 
or not maybe some people needed help, their whole view about health 
care policy changed on the basis of what he saw with his brother and 
his struggle and the struggles of his family.
  Well, for me, I don't come to the floor to try to make life difficult 
for our President. I don't come to the floor to criticize for the sake 
of criticizing. But my father, who is no longer alive, fled persecution 
in Russia, and the one thing that he talked about more than anything 
else was the importance of freedom and how much he loved our country.
  Well, I come from a background of an immigrant who fled persecution. 
I come from a background of an immigrant who fled persecution from 
Russia whose family was probably murdered by Stalin, who at age 17 left 
Russia and never saw his family again.
  I don't even know why I am talking about this on the floor of the 
Senate, but I think it applies somehow. At the very end of my dad's 
life he had Parkinson's disease, and we would spend the night with him. 
Sheila and I would rotate spending the night with him. Here he lived in 
the United States of America for 60 years and spoke perfect English, 
but all of his dreaming was in Russian. But it was not good dreams. It 
was shouting, it was torment, it was agony. As a son, I just cried. I 
didn't know what he was saying. I don't know the language. But I knew 
that this was anguish.
  What I always believed, and what I believe as I speak on the floor of 
the U.S. Senate today, is that this is what happens when you can never 
go back to your country, when you never can see your family again. 
Americans, thank God, don't have that experience too often. What does 
it mean when you can never go back and see your family again? What does 
it mean when you probably know, because you work for the U.S. 
Government, and my dad worked for the Voice of America, that your 
mother and father and sister were probably murdered?
  We should support human rights in other countries. We should be 
supporting human rights in China.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a ``Dear Colleague'' from 
myself and Senator Durbin, and a letter, dated May 29, 1998, that I 
sent to President Clinton, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, May 29, 1998.
       Dear Colleague: As you know, President Clinton will be the 
     first U.S. head of state to visit China since the 1989 
     crackdown on the pro-democracy movement at Tiananmen Square. 
     We intend to introduce a resolution next week urging the 
     President to use the opportunity of the upcoming U.S.-China 
     summit to press for significant, concrete

[[Page S5521]]

     human rights progress in China and Tibet. We are also sending 
     a letter to President Clinton, expressing our concerns. 
     Copies of both are enclosed.
       Some specific steps which would indicate a true commitment 
     to greater openness and freedom on the part of the Chinese 
     leadership include the unconditional release of imprisoned 
     political, labor, and religious activists; an end to the 
     formal process of requiring all religious groups to register 
     with the authorities and submit to state control; the 
     initiation of a meaningful dialogue with the Dalai Lama and 
     steps to ease repression in Tibet; and a revision of China's 
     vague, draconian security laws, including the provisions on 
     ``endangering state security'' added to the criminal code in 
     March 1997.
       Given the importance of a Presidential visit to the Chinese 
     leadership, this summit provides an excellent opportunity for 
     President Clinton to act and speak out strongly on behalf of 
     internationally-recognized human rights. Please join us in 
     signing the enclosed letter and cosponsoring the resolution. 
     If you have questions or would like to cosponsor the 
     resolution and sign the letter, please let us know or have 
     your staff contact Debra Ladner at 224-5641.
           Sincerely,
     Paul Wellstone,
       U.S. Senator.
     Richard Durbin,
       U.S. Senator.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, May 29, 1998.
     President William Jefferson Clinton,
     The White House, Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: During the summit meeting in Washington 
     last October with Chinese President Jiang Zemin, you spoke 
     out clearly to condemn the brutal 1989 crackdown on the pro-
     democracy movement, declaring that China's leaders were ``on 
     the wrong side of history.'' As you prepare to visit China--
     the first U.S. chief executive to go to China since 1989--we 
     are writing to urge you to act and speak out just as strongly 
     on behalf of internationally-recognized human rights.
       For China to become a fully reliable member of the global 
     trading community, its leadership must demonstrate greater 
     respect for fundamental rights and the rule of law. In the 
     crucial weeks leading to your visit, we hope the 
     Administration will press for significant, concrete human 
     rights progress in China and Tibet. This is a time of 
     enormous opportunity, given the importance of your visit both 
     to the Chinese leadership and to U.S.-Sino relations.
       Specifically, we urge you to:
       Reconsider your decision to visit Tiananmen Square, as we 
     feel it is inappropriate. However, if you do choose to visit, 
     as reports indicate, visit family members of the victims of 
     the 1989 massacre, many of whom still suffer from political 
     harassment, discrimination or persecution;
       Call for the unconditional release and amnesty of 
     political, religious and labor activists, imprisoned solely 
     for non-violent, peaceful protests, including some 150 
     Beijing residents still imprisoned since the 1989 crackdown;
       Press for revisions in China's state security laws to bring 
     them into conformity with international standards, and steps 
     to abolish arbitrary administrative punishments, particularly 
     the use of ``re-education through labor;''
       Urge steps to protect freedom of association for Chinese 
     workers, including the right to form free trade unions as 
     guaranteed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social 
     and Cultural Rights, which China signed in October 1997;
       Promote religious freedom in China by calling for an end to 
     the current process of formally requiring all religious 
     groups to register with the authorities and submit to state 
     control;
       Encourage a meaningful dialogue with the Dalai Lama and 
     steps by Chinese officials to ease repression in Tibet, such 
     as the release of imprisoned Buddhist monks, nuns and other 
     Tibetans; an end to the ``re-education'' campaign by Chinese 
     authorities resulting in the expulsion of thousands of monks 
     and nuns who refuse to denounce the Dalai Lama; and regular 
     access to Tibet by international human rights monitors.
       We hope your visit will lead to meaningful progress on 
     these critical human rights issues of such urgent concern to 
     members of Congress and the American people.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Paul Wellstone,
     U.S. Senator.

                          ____________________