Congressional Record, Volume 145 Issue 30 (Thursday, February 25, 1999)

[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 30 (Thursday, February 25, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1972-S1982]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page S1972]]
EXPRESSING SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN PEOPLE'S
REPUBLIC OF CHINA

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Under the previous order, the
clerk will report the resolution.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A resolution (S. Res. 45) 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.
Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators
Specter, Hagel, Collins, and Thurmond be added as cosponsors of the
resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to Senator Wellstone for a unanimous consent
request.

Privilege of the Floor

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John
Bradshaw and Sarah Nelson, a fellow and an intern, be granted the
privilege of the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am grateful to our leadership for
affording us this time this morning to debate and to vote on Senate
Resolution 45. Some would say this is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution
so this isn't important and that this is filling time, or whatever. I
suggest that there are a couple of things that have happened just
recently which underscore the value and the importance of the time we
are spending on the Senate floor this morning and the vote on this
resolution.
Mr. President, just this morning the Associated Press reported that
two more members of the Chinese Democracy Party were detained. They
were taken from their homes for trying to set up a human rights meeting
in Wuhan. That was reported just this morning. It has become all too
frequent, and almost daily, that there are news reports of the
continued crackdown on human rights in China.
These today were detained only for being members of the Chinese
Democracy Party, the fledgling opposition party advocating democracy
and human rights in China. I think this incident, just reported this
morning, underscores the value and the importance of what we are doing
and what we are about today.

Then it is reported this morning as well that Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright, in her testimony before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee yesterday, said the administration is still
deciding the most effective way for the United States to persuade China
to improve its human rights record.
The fact that the Secretary of State admitted before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee yesterday that the administration has not
yet decided what they are going to do, that they have not yet
determined what course of action they will take to try to persuade the
Chinese to improve their human rights record, I believe, underscores
the importance and the value of the resolution that is before us, one
that is incredibly important.
One of my colleagues yesterday, in seeing the agenda for today, said,
``Well, Tim, there you are slamming the Chinese again.'' Let me say
that I have the utmost respect and admiration for the Chinese people.
In fact, I cannot think of any group that I have higher admiration for
than those Chinese citizens today who are fighting courageously and
standing up for human rights within their own country and fighting for
the democracy movement in China.
This resolution today has nothing to do with the Chinese people, but
it has everything to do with the intolerable practices of the Chinese
Government in which they continue to abuse the basic fundamental human
rights of the Chinese people. This resolution is important because the
administration has all but said they are looking for a signal from
Capitol Hill. They are looking for direction from the Congress as to
whether or not they should sponsor a resolution in Geneva this summer
calling the world's attention to those abuses that are ongoing in China
today. We need to send them that signal. This resolution affords us
that opportunity.
If there is one thing the Chinese Government does take seriously, it
is international opinion. To the extent that by this resolution and by
our Government offering a resolution in Geneva this summer we can
marshal the international community in protest to the ongoing human
rights crackdown in China, we will have done something very significant
and very worthwhile.
Mr. President, the resolution before us today urges the
administration to sponsor a resolution at the United Nations Human
Rights Commission critical of China's human rights abuses. The
Commission will meet in March and April in Geneva, Switzerland.
By passing this resolution, which enjoys very strong bipartisan
support, we give Secretary Albright a clear message to bring with her
to China when she travels there in the beginning of March. That message
is that the United States will not accept China's wholesale violation
of internationally accepted human rights standards. It is an important
signal. I have had discussions with the administration and with the
Department of State, and I know they are looking for the sentiment of
the Senate and the Congress on this issue.
The Communist Government of China has long committed a litany of
human rights abuses. Thousands of political prisoners remain in prison,
many of them sentenced after unfair trials, others today languishing in
prison without any trial at all. At least 200 of these prisoners are
still suffering because of their participation in or their support of
the 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstrations.
Religious persecution runs rampant in China. People who dare to
worship outside the aegis of officially sponsored religious
organizations face fines, they face detention, arrest, imprisonment
and, too often, torture as well.
And the human rights movement in China, the democracy movement in
China, and the house church movement are very much intertwined. And
many of these home churches have become, in fact, bases of the
democracy movement and human rights efforts within China today.
Thousands of peaceful monks and nuns have been detained and tortured in
Tibet where the Chinese Government is imposing a harsh patriotic so-
called education campaign.
Mr. President, under China's one-family-one-child policy, couples
face punitive fines and loss of employment for having unapproved
children. But it does not stop with monetary penalties. Local
authorities, with or without the approval of the Communist Party cadre,
forcibly perform abortions or sterilizations on women who are pregnant
with their second child. Relatives are held hostage until couples
submit to this coercion.
Furthermore, incredibly, prisoners are executed in China after
grossly unfair trials, and then their organs are sold on the black
market. The pattern of abuse is clear. And in the eyes of the Chinese
Communist Government human life seems to bear no value at all.
What has been this administration's response to these abuses? Under
President Clinton's policy of so-called constructive engagement, the
administration effectively disengaged human rights practices from trade
practices in 1994, while promising that efforts to pass a resolution at
the U.N. Human Rights Commission would be increased.
However, Mr. President, last year, President Clinton further unhinged
his policy by deciding not to pursue a resolution at the Commission in
Geneva, Switzerland, which was critical of China. We historically had
done that. Year after year, we offered that resolution, but last year
supposedly the administration said in a good-faith gesture we withheld
offering that resolution.
That commitment was given to China in exchange for their promise to
sign the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the
ICCPR, a covenant which affirms free speech and free assembly. It is
highly ironic that the ICCPR itself is a product of U.N. Human Rights
Commission meetings. China did sign the ICCPR in October, only to turn
around and violate its every principle since they put their signature
to that document.

[[Page S1973]]

Since the President's trip to Beijing in July 1998, the Communist
Government of China has renewed its crackdown on all who would dare to
oppose the Communist Party. Some 100 members of the fledgling Chinese
Democracy Party, the CDP, have been detained, excluding the two that
were announced this morning. Some have been released, others await
trial, and the most unfortunate have been sentenced to very long prison
sentences.
Three visible leaders of the CDP, Xu Wenli, Qin Yongmin, and Wang
Youcai were sentenced to 13, 12 and 11 years in prison, respectively,
on charges of subversion and endangering state security, after highly
dubious trials. In reality, these democracy activists exercised their
legal rights under Chinese law to create and to form a political party.
Their true crime, in the eyes of the Communist Party, was simply their
love for democracy.
But the crackdown does not end there. In fact, incidents of
harassment and imprisonment are almost too numerous to list. I will
highlight just a few examples.
The Communist Government sentenced businessman Lin Hai to prison for
2 years for--listen to this crime--providing e-mail addresses to a
prodemocracy Internet magazine.

Zhang Shanguang is in prison now for 10 years for this crime:
Providing Radio Free Asia with information about farmer protests in
Hunan Province.
The Government sentenced poet and writer Ma Zhe to 7 years in prison
on charges of subversion for publishing an independent literary
journal.
In addition, the Communist Government is cracking down on film
directors, artists, computer software developers and the press, and
continues to harass and detain religious activists. The list goes on.
In 1998, police imprisoned 70 worshipers from house churches in Hunan
Province. And the pattern of human rights violations is undeniable.
Rather than improving since the good-faith gestures of the American
Government and our rewarding of the Chinese Government with favorable
trade status, we have seen not a favorable response on the part of the
Chinese Government but an exacerbated attack upon those who would
simply advocate freedom and democracy.
I see that my friend and colleague from Florida, Senator Mack, has
come to the floor to speak on this resolution. I appreciate his
outstanding leadership on this issue. He was the lead sponsor of a
similar resolution last year. And if Senator Mack is prepared to speak
at this time, I will yield to Senator Mack. Is the Senator ready to
speak now?
Mr. MACK. I am prepared.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask Senator Mack, how much time would you desire?
Mr. MACK. No more than 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, if there is ever a time and place to raise
human rights concerns, it is at the annual meeting of the United
Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva, Switzerland. That Commission
is meeting right now. And I rise today to urge my fellow Senators to
join with me and the 17 other cosponsors of this resolution to make a
simple statement. We disapprove of the human rights abuses occurring in
China and in Tibet.
Since last year, when we passed this resolution with 95 votes, the
President has engaged in two summits with Chinese President Jiang.
During that time, many promises were made and agreements were
concluded, and the United States did not introduce a human rights
resolution in Geneva.
We were told the United States would make progress by not introducing
a resolution. And Wei Jingsheng, a prominent dissident, was released.
Tomorrow, Mr. Wei will be here in Washington, DC, and he will urge the
United States not to make the same mistake as last year. Mr. President,
we must now make this statement of condemnation of China's human rights
practices.
We received many promises from the Chinese Government last year as
well. But we know that the human rights conditions have only
deteriorated. The State Department's human rights report clearly
delineates the atrocities occurring in China and Tibet. And we know
from press accounts that the crackdown on human rights and political
activists has hardened.
It is unconscionable that the United States would not take a stand
against these blatant atrocities, especially when they are documented
by our own State Department. By remaining silent, we do a great
injustice to those fighting for freedom, democracy, and the rule of law
inside China and Tibet.

Mr. President, I want to quote from a statement made by Mr. Wei not
long after he was released and exiled from his country. And this is
what he said:

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 massacres.

Mr. President, this is an easy one. It does not matter whether the
world votes with us or against us or abstains in Geneva. It does not
even matter if this resolution will change the minds of anyone in
Beijing. We do know, however, from the firsthand testimony of released
dissidents, that the actions of the United States are important to
those engaged in the struggle for freedom. We know from those released
that by simply making this statement we demonstrate our solidarity with
those who are engaged within the daily struggle for freedom, justice,
and the respect for human dignity.
I hope my colleagues will join me in calling for this expression of
solidarity--this stand for freedom.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Senator from Florida. He has truly been a
champion for human rights around the world, not just in China but
around the world. I thank him for his leadership on this issue and his
willingness to urge the administration to take this very appropriate
action in Geneva this summer. And I thank him for his very eloquent
statement.
Mr. President, at this time I reserve the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague,
Senator Mack, and I am certainly pleased to be here on the floor with
Senator Hutchinson.
Mr. President, I want to build on the remarks of Senator Mack for a
moment. He was talking about Wei Jingsheng. Wei Jingsheng wrote an op-
ed piece in the New York Times in December. I ask unanimous consent to
have this printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the New York Times, Dec. 24, 1998]

China's Diversionary Tactics

(By Wei Jingsheng)

Last Saturday, when Liu Niachun, a prominent dissident,
left his Chinese prison cell and arrived in the United
States, many Western reports said he had been ``freed'' or
``released.'' One year ago, after 18 years in a Chinese
prison, I, too, was ``released'' and sent here. A Chinese
official said that if I ever set foot in China again, I would
immediately be returned to prison. I cannot identify any
legal principle that explains how my expulsion or Mr. Liu's
could be construed as a release.
Yet the State Department, in a report last January, used my
forced exile as evidence that China was taking ``positive
steps in human rights'' and that ``Chinese society continued
to become more open.'' These ``positive steps'' led the
United States and its allies to oppose condemnation of China
at a meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights
in April. In the months that followed, President Clinton and
other Western leaders traveled to China, trumpeting increased
economic ties and muting criticism on human rights.
Thus, without fear of sanction, the Chinese Government
intensified its repression in 1998. Once the leaders achieved
their diplomatic victories, they turned to their main
objective: the preservation of tyrannical power. This year,
about 70 people are known to have been arrested, and in
recent weeks the Government has greatly stepped up that pace.
On Monday, Xu Wenli, another dissident, was sentenced to 13
years in prison for ``subversion of state power.'' He was
given only four days to prepare for his trial and was denied
a lawyer of his choice. Two others, Wang Youcai and Qin
Yongmin, were sentenced to 11 and 14 years, also for
subversion. Both were denied legal representation.
It was widely believed that Mr. Liu's ``release'' was an
attempt to deflect world attention from these harsh
punishments. This

[[Page S1974]]

time, at least, the State Department didn't buy the
deception. Deploring China's actions, a spokesman called the
sentences ``a step backward.''
Whether this statement constitutes a change of American
policy or merely a cosmetic change remains to be seen. If the
American Government really wanted to punish China, it could,
say, restrict Chinese imports to the United States. Or it
could halt all questionable technology transfers to China.
Despite the Chinese Government's occasional lip service to
``openness,'' the authorities have consistently and swiftly
moved to quash not only political organizations but also
trade unions, peasants' associations and unapproved religious
gatherings.
As Li Peng, the speaker of the National People's Party
Congress, declared recently, ``If an organization's purpose
is to promote a multiparty system in China and to negate the
leadership prerogatives of the Chinese Communist Party, then
it will not be permitted to exist.''
This statement clearly shows that the Communist Party's
primary objective is to sustain its tyranny, and to do so it
must deny the people basic rights and freedoms. We must
measure the leaders' progress on human rights not by the
``release'' of individuals but by the people's ability to
speak, worship and assemble without official interference and
persecution. Only that can be called progress.

Mr. WELLSTONE. The article talks about the release of Mr. Liu, a
prominent dissident, who left his cell. He will be with us at a press
conference tomorrow. What Wei Jingsheng had to say is that after Mr.
Liu was released,

. . . many Western reports [the administration talked about
this as a triumph] said he had been ``freed'' or ``released"
[to Wei Jingsheng].

He goes on to say,

One year ago, after 18 years in a Chinese prison, I, too,
was ``released.''

Of course, the problem is he was told by the Chinese Government that
if he ever set foot in the country again, he would be immediately
returned to freedom. It is hard to argue that this is what in the
United States we would call freedom at all.

Yet the State Department, in a report last January, [Wei
Jingsheng goes on to say] used my forced exile [and that is
what it is] as evidence that China was taking ``positive
steps in human rights'' and that ``Chinese society continued
to become more open.''

These ``positive steps'' led the United States and its allies to
oppose condemnation of China at a meeting of the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights last April. Senator Hutchinson, I, and
Senator Mack came to the floor. We got 95 votes calling on our
Government to take the lead with the resolution condemning these
widespread violations of human rights in China.
Here is the key part of Wei Jingsheng's piece:

Thus without fear of sanction, the Chinese government
intensified its repression in 1998. Once the leaders achieved
their diplomatic victories, they turned to their main
objective: The preservation of tyrannical power. This year,
about 70 people are known to have been arrested, and in
recent weeks the government has greatly stepped up the pace.

My colleague, Senator Hutchinson, talked about Zhong Ji and Shao She
Chang today. I want to quote from the Washington Post: ``Chinese police
detained two dissidents.'' What did they want to do? Why are they now
detained? Why do they face imprisonment? They want to meet with our
Secretary of State when she visits China to talk about human rights.
For that, they have been detained and face possible, probable
imprisonment.
We have offered a resolution today that condemns China's human rights
record. We call upon our Government to introduce a resolution
condemning China's human rights record at the next session of the U.N.
Commission on Human Rights which meets in March. We also call on our
Government to begin immediately contacting other governments to ask
them to cosponsor such a resolution.
When President Clinton formally delinked trade and human rights in
1994, he pledged on the record that the United States would ``step up
its 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.'' That is what the President
of the United States of America has said.
Now, he also said that we would speak out on human rights, but the
fact of the matter is, we have increased our trade, our military
contacts, we have gone forward with high-level summits. In the
meantime, Chinese Government leaders continue to crack down on every
last dissident in a country of over 1 billion people. We have seen what
has happened this past year.

It is time for our country, the United States of America, which
stands for democracy and freedom, to go to this United Nations
Commission on Human Rights and to introduce this resolution supporting
the brave people in China who stand up for human rights. That is what
this resolution is all about.
The Chinese Government--and my colleague has talked about this--
continues to commit widespread abuses and, since the President's visit
in June, has flagrantly violated international human rights agreements.
Examples: Recently it sentenced three of China's most prominent
prodemocracy advocates, Xu Wenli, Wang Youcai, and Chin Yougmin, to a
combined prison term of 35 years. These disgraceful arrests were part
of a crackdown by the Government on efforts--to do what? These Chinese
citizens wanted to form a political party. For that, they face a
combined 35-year prison sentence.
Further, a businessman in Shanghai, Lin Hai, is now being tried for
providing e-mail addresses to a prodemocracy Internet magazine in the
United States. Bill Gates, America Online, it is time for you to get
engaged in this. You ought to be supporting human rights in China.
Another democracy activist, Zhang Shanguang, was convicted and
sentenced to 10 years in prison for giving Radio Free Asia information
about protests by farmers in the Hunan province. This is all about
organizing. I say to labor, this is all about the right of people to
organize and to speak out. And for this, this man is now been sentenced
to 10 years in prison.
These events are all part of a pattern of growing repression, with
legislation passed, when artists and press are told: If you do anything
to ``endanger social order'' or attempt to ``overthrow state power,''
we will round you up and we will throw you in prison.
Mr. President, these dissidents and these courageous men and women in
China deserve our full backing.
At the June meeting in Beijing, President Clinton engaged in a
spirited debate on human rights with President Jiang Zemin. In light of
this brutal recent crackdown, all of which has taken place since the
President visited China, all of which has taken place since the United
States refused to bring a resolution before the Human Rights Commission
in the United Nations, I and my colleague, Senator Hutchinson, urge,
and I think we will have 90-some votes that will urge, the
administration to bring a resolution at Geneva in March and to continue
to register our deep concern about the absence of freedom of expression
and association and the use of arbitrary detention in China. Past
experience has shown that if we apply the pressure, it can make a
difference. By sponsoring a resolution at the United Nations Human
Rights Commission, the United States will be showing our commitment to
international human rights standards.
Mr. President, my colleague from Arkansas spoke about this. On
October 5, 1998, China finally signed the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights. When I talked to Sandy Berger, a friend,
last year, he said to me: Look, we don't think we need to go forward
with this resolution condemning China on human rights abuses at the
U.N. Commission on Human Rights, because they are going to make a
commitment, and they will sign this International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights.
What have they done? They have not taken the steps to make it
binding, and, more importantly, they violated what the whole agreement
is.

We have seen in this last year a very clear pattern of more and more
and more repression, Chinese citizens imprisoned for trying to form a
political party, Chinese citizens imprisoned for writing articles,
Chinese citizens in prison for trying to organize so they can get a
better price as farmers, so they can get better wages as workers. It is
time for the United States Government to provide the leadership which
the courageous people in China depend upon.
Mr. President, I have had the great honor--and I don't know about
Senator Hutchinson, but I think he would say the same thing--of
becoming friends, and I feel almost small saying that, because Wei
Jingsheng is such a great

[[Page S1975]]

man, I have to pinch myself to remind me there is somebody who spent
over 20 years in prison because he had the courage to stand up against
a government, he had the courage to write and to speak out for what he
thought was good and right for people in China. I don't think I could
ever have the courage to do so. Thank God, I live in the United States
of America. He is a Chinese dissident who spent so much time in prison
because of his courage.
In an article published shortly after his release, Mr. Wei Jingsheng
stated,

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
[this is what he said, Mr. President] to numb them into
forgetting that many others who are still struggling against
tyranny, slavery and poverty, and all those who are suffering
from unimaginable forms of repression, exploitation and
massacres.

We shouldn't forget such people. We shouldn't take our freedom for
granted. And we, the United States of America, ought to take the lead
in bringing this resolution before the United Nations Commission on
Human Rights.
When you talk to people around the world--and we are talking about
China today--Senator Hutchinson, they will tell you that maybe Senators
don't realize this, maybe we have this debate on the floor of the
Senate, and then we have a vote, but what a difference this makes to
the people in these countries who have the courage.
We are going to get a strong vote at 12 o'clock today and we are
sending a signal to the White House it is time for our Government to
take the lead. I hope we will get the leadership from the White House.
I hope we get the leadership from the Secretary of State. I certainly
hope that the U.S. Senate will go on record today with a strong
bipartisan vote.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Wellstone for
his commitment to the issue of human rights. When Paul Wellstone comes
to the floor and I come to the floor and we work own human rights
issues together, we both want to make it clear that we can agree very
rarely. There are few political issues that we are going to be united
on, and our votes will more often than not cancel each other out on the
issues coming before the U.S. Senate. But I admire and respect Paul
Wellstone for his deep commitment to democracy and to human rights
around the world, and for his involvement in this issue. I am glad to
be able to work with him on this. I think it is a very important
resolution.
I reiterate that this resolution is important, and it is important
for several reasons. It is important because it will be a message to
the administration. It is very timely, and I appreciate our majority
leader for ensuring that this vote occur this week because our
Secretary of State will be traveling to China next week. It is
important for this vote to occur. It is important for it to be a strong
bipartisan vote and for our Secretary of State to have that message as
she goes to China. So I think it is important from that standpoint.
It is also a very, very important message to our European allies.
Many of our allies in Europe are looking for our leadership. Germany
has had a change in government. They are much more sympathetic to the
cause of human rights, in my estimation. The French press reported that
this vote in the U.S. Senate was going to occur today. They are looking
for a message and a signal from political leaders in the United States.
So it is important from that standpoint as well. It is a message to the
Chinese Government, not just through our Secretary of State, but that
we as the elected Representatives of the people--the U.S. Senate, the
House of Representatives--as we speak out on this issue, it conveys a
strong message to the Chinese Government, and they are concerned about
what this country thinks.
I think one of the great failings of this administration has been
that it has rewarded human rights abuses and crackdowns in China,
whether it is religious freedom crackdowns, press crackdowns, Internet
crackdowns, or any host of human rights abuses; they have, in effect,
rewarded that by increasing economic opportunities through trade with
the United States--most recently, their plan to bring China into the
World Trade Organization, almost as a reward for the very terrible
abuses that have occurred during the last several months.
And then, may I say that this resolution is critically important
because of the message it sends--as my colleague from Minnesota said,
the message that it sends to the Chinese activists for democracy and
human rights within China today, which is that when we take the floor
of the U.S. Senate and speak on this issue, they are listening--Radio
Free Asia--through the Internet and through other means by which our
activities and the news of our activities gets into China. They are
listening and they are interested and it is an encouragement to them to
know that there are those who stand with them in the cause of freedom
in our country and our Government.
Mr. President, in my opinion, it is wholly appropriate for the United
States to advance a resolution at the Commission in Geneva critical of
China's ongoing human rights abuses. The Commission is a multilateral
forum authorized to deal with the very abuses perpetrated by the
Chinese Government today--a resolution that the Commission will pierce
any notions that China's violations of human rights will be quietly
accepted by the world community.

There are some in the administration--and I think it is reflected in
Secretary Albright's statement yesterday--that are undecided on how
they are going to proceed, and whether or not they are going to offer
this resolution. There are some within the administration who argue
that a resolution critical of China at the Human Rights Commission
should not be pursued and is in effect pointless because, as they put
it, it is certain to fail.
I think Senator Mack said, ``Well, I don't believe it is certain to
fail''; but whether it was certain to fail or not, it should be offered
on the basis of principle, on the basis of the encouragement and the
emboldenment it will provide for those within China. But the very
sentiment that the administration expresses when they say it is certain
to fail becomes a self-fulfilling sentiment, a self-fulfilling
prophecy. The more halfhearted the administration is in its attempts to
advance such a resolution, the less chance that such a resolution will
have to pass.
The longer the administration refrains from exercising leadership in
the international community on this matter of human rights, the less
likely it is that the resolution will be successful. Bringing forth a
resolution at the Commission is, as Senator Mack so accurately put it,
a matter of principle. Success will be measured by the statements of
truth that flow from the debate at the Commission. A resolution at the
Commission this summer will proclaim boldly that the human rights
abuses in China are an affront to the international community and its
values.
Mr. President, these values are not uniquely American values. There
are those who have argued in the past that it is wrong for us to speak
of these values and to try to, as they put it, force these values upon
the Chinese Government. But I would assert--and I believe that this
country is built on this belief --that these values are not uniquely
American values, that they transcend any national boundary, that they
are fundamental human values and human rights. Thus, it is highly
appropriate that we pursue such a resolution. The U.S. must take steps
to protect internationally recognized human rights, or we will take a
back seat to those who openly and blatantly abuse them.
As Senator Wellstone said, last year, this body passed a resolution
very similar to the one before us today by an overwhelming bipartisan
vote of 95-5. I hope we can send an equally strong signal to the
administration again this year. In light of the affront to the
administration's policy that the Chinese Government has committed in
the recent crackdown of the last 2 to 3 months, I think it is a very
timely resolution and an appropriate time for the administration to
reverse field, to reverse its decision last summer in not pursuing such
a resolution and, in fact, to say the abuses, the crackdowns, have been
so flagrant that now the administration will pursue with a new
aggressiveness a human rights resolution in Geneva, Switzerland.

[[Page S1976]]

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, promoting human rights is now, and must
remain, an important component of our overall relationship with China.
That is why I support Senate Resolution 45, calling on the
administration to voice our concerns about China's human rights abuses
before the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva.
Even as we try to expand cooperation in areas of mutual interest--
stability on the Korean peninsula, nonproliferation, trade, and the
environment--we must take note of China's violation of international
norms in the area of human rights.
Last year, the administration decided to remain silent in Geneva,
arguing that more progress could be achieved through quiet diplomacy
than through public pressure. China did, in fact, release some high
profile political prisoners. China also signed the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
In recent months, however, we have witnessed a crackdown on dissent,
including the arrest of prominent democracy party organizers. China
continues to jam the broadcasts of Radio Free Asia and to closely
monitor China's domestic media.
With respect to Tibet, China's leaders have yet to establish a
dialogue with the Dalai Lama, and they refuse even to meet with U.S.
officials responsible for coordinating U.S. policy on Tibet.
Mr. President, we should not stand mute in the face of China's
continuing violation of basic human rights. Our silence would be
deafening.
If we are not going to call on China to respect human rights before
the UN Human Rights Commission, where will we make our concerns known?
And if we must act alone, without support from our European and Asian
allies, so be it. There is no shame in being alone on the right side of
history.
Ten years ago this June the world watched in horror as Chinese
authorities used lethal force to suppress the Tian-an-men democracy
movement. I am convinced that the gradual improvement in human rights
in China over the past decade would not have occurred without concerted
diplomatic pressure--public and private.
Now is not the time to let up.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the resolution.
In the past, the U.S. has rightfully been the strongest critic of human
rights abuses in China. So I was disappointed, as I think most in the
Senate were, that the President chose not to sponsor a resolution
condemning China's human rights practices at last year's annual meeting
of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The United States has
sponsored such a resolution at each of these annual meetings since
1990.
Although I didn't agree with that decision, I understood the
reasoning behind it. China seemed to be making some progress. It had
signed the UN Covenant on Social, Economic, and Cultural Rights, and
committed itself to signing the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR). Perhaps reform was at hand. And I certainly
favor building a constructive and mutually beneficial relationship with
China.
But recent history indicates that China often makes such concessions
until the world's attention is focused elsewhere, and then quickly
reverts back to it's policy of severe intolerance and repression. In
1993, for instance, when human rights became an issue in Beijing's bid
to host the Olympics, China released its most prominent dissident, Wei
Jingsheng. The Olympics were awarded to Australia, and Wei was detained
again the following year.
Similarly, just last December, 6 months after signing the ICCPR,
China sentenced three democratic activists to prison terms of 10 years
or more for trying to organize a political party. A fourth dissenter
was given a 10-year sentence for allegedly ``providing intelligence to
hostile foreign organizations.'' His crime? He gave an interview to
Radio Free Asia about farmer protests. And the Chinese premier, Jiang
Zemin, recently stated that China needed to ``nip those factors that
undermine social stability in the bud, no matter where they come
from,'' and that ``the Western mode of political systems must never be
copied.''
However, this is not about ``western political systems,'' it is about
internationally recognized human rights. Respect for these rights must
be real, and it must be systemic. Empty commitments and token gestures
are meaningless, and we should not allow them to sway us from
advocating on behalf of those who are imprisoned in China, or will be,
for exercising freedoms acknowledged by the world community. An
international resolution condemning China's human rights practices is
strongly supported by human rights groups like Amnesty International
and Human Rights Watch. By passing such a resolution, the international
community can demonstrate that we will no longer be duped by false
promises.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on
East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I rise in begrudging support for S.
Res. 45. I say begrudging only because while I agree that the UN Human
Rights Commission should address China's human rights record, I neither
believe that the UNHRC will place the issue on its agenda nor do I feel
that this resolution has been brought to the floor in the most
constructive manner.
I agree with the other Senators who have spoken this morning that
there has been a disturbing increase in China in the last six months in
crackdowns on the freedom of expression, crackdowns evidenced by an
increase in the number of arrests and convictions of prodemocracy
activists. Moreover, despite attempts to establish a dialog with
Beijing, China still refuses to meet with His Holiness the Dalai Lama
to discuss the future of Tibet and instead continues to facilitate the
increasing immigration of Han Chinese into Tibet and the jailing of
Buddhist nuns and lamas. Christian churches not registered with the
central government continue to be subject to harassment and closure and
their congregants subject to arrest.
I believe I understand, although I certainly in no way condone, the
impetus behind the crackdown. China has recently embarked on a program
to restructure its economy to a market-oriented system and to open more
to the world around it. These changes are obviously potentially
destabilizing for a communist regime governing 1.3 billion people. And
as with other campaigns in China's past designed to restructure
society, such as the ``Let 100 Flowers Bloom'' campaign, once the
program took hold and began to accelerate, the central authorities got
anxious about continuing to be able to control the pace of reform and
about it getting out from underneath them. They have consequently begun
slamming on the brakes and stifling any perceived dissent. And it is
that movement to stifle peaceful dissent and universal human freedoms
that should prompt the US to press this issue before the UNHRC.
In a perfect world one would think that these are exactly the type of
actions the UNHRC would want to address, but sadly we all know the
reality of the eventual outcome. This year, as in years past, the
United States will fail by a significantly wide vote margin to place
China on the Commission's agenda. We will be deserted by most of our
purported allies who, while nominally paying lip service to the
sanctity of human rights, appear more interested in securing their
commercial interests in the PRC. Well Mr. President, so be it. As
Senator Biden has noted, there is no shame in standing alone on the
right side of history, and I fully support that stand under the
conditions prevailing in China this year.
But Mr. President, while I support the consideration of this
resolution today, I am less enthused about the terms of the unanimous
consent agreement which brought it here. As the Chairman of the
subcommittee of jurisdiction, in past Congresses I have strongly
disfavored the practice of discharging the Foreign Relations Committee
from the consideration of legislation which the Committee has not had
the opportunity to address first. My disapproval of discharges is
especially acute when the legislation in question is sponsored by a
Senator not a member of the Committee. I intend this to be my practice
in this Congress as well.
I have, however, made exceptions in the case of legislation which is
completely non-controversial or is somehow time-sensitive. Since the
UNHRC meetings this year in Geneva are imminent, and since there was
not enough time to consider the legislation

[[Page S1977]]

in Committee, it made sense in this narrow case and for those reasons I
agreed to the discharge.
I am also uneasy with the terms of the unanimous consent agreement
because they preclude any amendment to the resolution, thereby
preventing members from offering what I feel would be constructive
changes to the text. In addition, Mr. President, I am unsure why--when
the Senate should be focused on more pressing domestic issues such as
the Y2K problem or Social Security--we are taking the Senate's time to
debate and then vote on a resolution about which there is no difference
of opinion and which will most likely pass 100 to 0. This could have
just as easily been disposed of by unanimous consent yesterday. For
those that argue that a unanimous roll call vote somehow sends a
stronger signal than passing legislation by unanimous consent, I would
note that it is my longstanding experience that very few people if any
outside the Beltway--especially in foreign countries--understand the
nuanced differences between the two.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, how much time is remaining that I
control?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A little over 7 minutes.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A little over 19 minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Wisconsin,
Senator Feingold. I think his model is one of consistency. He is
consistent on human rights questions, and he is absolutely one of the
most forceful and effective leaders in the U.S. Congress for human
rights.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I especially thank my
friends from Arkansas and Minnesota. I am extremely proud of their
leadership on this issue. Having this matter become one of the first
matters we take up in this Congress is exactly the right way to go. We
need to be as aggressive as we can on this issue. That is why I am
cosponsoring the resolution. I strongly commend them for their
leadership on this.
The resolution expresses the sense of the Senate that the United
States should initiate active lobbying at the United Nations Commission
on Human Rights for a resolution condemning human rights abuses in
China. And 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 session of the Commission, which is due to begin next
month in Geneva.
This resolution makes a simple, clear statement of principle: The
Senate believes that there should be a China resolution in Geneva,
period.
The Commission is a focal point for the protection of human rights,
and as such, is an ideal multilateral forum in which the United States
should voice its concerns. Under the pressure of previous Geneva
resolutions, China has finally reacted. China signed the U.N. Covenant
on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights in 1997 and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in October 1998. Unfortunately,
neither of these important documents has been ratified or implemented.
But at least the kind of pressure the United States put on this
situation led them to sign these documents.
The effort to move a resolution in the Commission is particularly
important this year, in light of the Administration's decision,
contrary to the nearly unanimous sentiment of the Senate, not to
sponsor such a resolution last year. That was a real disappointment for
all of us.
Their misguided belief that progress could be achieved by other means
was clearly not borne out by events in 1998, when, particularly in the
last quarter, China stepped up its repression.
As we all know, for the past few years, China's leaders have
aggressively lobbied against efforts at the Commission earlier and more
actively than the countries that support a resolution. Last year,
Chinese officials basically succeeded in getting the European Union
Foreign Ministers to drop any European cosponsorship of a resolution.
In the past, China's vigorous efforts have resulted in a ``no action''
motion at the Commission.
I will say, on a bright note, that in 1995 a ``no action'' motion was
defeated and a resolution was almost adopted. But, unfortunately, on a
downbeat note, it lost by only one vote. A little more effort could
have made the difference. I sincerely hope that we do not end up with
that kind of a loss at this year's meeting.
Nearly five years after the President's decision, which I deeply
regretted, to delink most-favored-nation status from human rights, we
cannot forget that the human rights situation in China and Tibet
remains abysmal. While the State Department has not yet provided its
most recent human rights report, I have no doubt it will be as critical
of China as the 1997 report was when it noted 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.'' I encourage Secretary
Albright to actively raise these concerns with her counterparts during
her visit to Beijing next week. Unfortunately, in the past bilateral
discussions have produced only empty promises from China's leaders on
the subject of human rights. Regardless of what assurances China may
provide to the Secretary, we should not let Beijing's easily abandoned
promises deter us from seeking international condemnation of its
practices. Only through strong US leadership can we gain the broad
international consensus necessary to maintain the pressure on China to
demonstrate sustained progress in providing the basic human rights its
people deserve.
Mr. President, again my thanks to these two Senators. The time is
now, and the place is Geneva. We are going to keep pushing this until
it gets done.
I thank the President, and I thank my colleagues.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to say to my colleague from
Wisconsin that we are really going to put the pressure on. We are going
to have this vote today. It is going to be an overwhelmingly strong
vote.
Tomorrow, the State Department will be releasing its report on human
rights conditions in other countries. It surely has to be critical
about China, because of the action we are going to take.
The Chinese Embassy is going to have a press conference here in
Washington as well. We are going to have a press conference tomorrow
bringing together any number of different people--those Senators and
Representatives who are still here. We are going to be joined by Mr.
Wu, a very courageous man, Harry Wu, Wei Jingsheng, and human rights
organizations.
We are going to keep the pressure up. We are going to keep the
pressure on.
The end of our resolution says:

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that at the
55th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission in
Geneva, Switzerland, the United States should introduce and
make all efforts necessary to pass a resolution calling upon
the People's Republic of China to end its human rights abuses
in China and Tibet.

As I said to my colleague, Senator Hutchinson, we haven't talked much
about Tibet. Let me just say in deference to some of the work of
Senator Helms, who really wanted us to have an ambassador to Tibet, the
compromise agreement was to have Julia Taft become our Special
Coordinator on Tibet out of the U.S. State Department. The Chinese
Embassy has refused to meet with Julia Taft. They won't even meet. The
Chinese Embassy, whatever they say in their press conference tomorrow,
will not even meet with Julia Taft, State Department Special
Coordinator on Tibet. What we were told last year was, no, we shouldn't
go forward as a government and introduce this resolution on human
rights at the Human Rights Commission in Geneva.
Senator Hutchinson is right. This is the forum. This is the place.
This is the international body. When we do, as an international
community, focus on

[[Page S1978]]

human rights issues--and we were silent last year. Silence is betrayal.
And we are insisting today on the floor of U.S. Senate that our
Government no longer be silent on these questions.
We were told last year, first of all, there will be a lessening of
repression. The Chinese Government is going to sign this covenant. They
did. We see more repression. We were told that in Tibet that visitors
would be allowed to Tibet. You know what happened. Mary Robinson, who
was our ambassador on human rights to the United Nations, went to
China. Her visit took place in September 1998. But Chinese officials
produced none of the information she requested on prisoners, denied her
access to Panchen Lama. Panchen Lama is the youngest political prisoner
that we know of in the world. She had no access to him. And they made
no specific commitments on ratification of two U.N. human rights
treaties. They signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, but they produced no timetable for ratifying it. And they
clearly violated it.
I ask you. I ask the administration. I ask the President. The
President made a commitment that when we deal in trade in human
rights--that is what this debate is about. This is not a debate about
MFN. It is not about whether or not trade should be linked to human
rights. I think that it should and others don't. I don't know if
Senator Hutchinson and I agree or not agree. This is about a different
issue. The President of the United States of America said he would put
the pressure on at Geneva at the Human Rights Commission. That is the
place. And we haven't done it.
Last year we had this vote. We have a stronger vote this year. And in
spite of our vote, our Government ignored the wishes of the U.S.
Senate. This time we are saying don't do that. We are saying you can't
argue, our Government can't argue, the State Department can't argue,
the President can't argue, the Secretary of State can't argue--that
what has happened is, after the President's visit, we have seen now
more respect for human rights. They can't argue that there is less
repression. They can't argue that there is progress in China or Tibet.
We are saying today that if our Government does not introduce this
resolution condemning the widespread violations of human rights by the
Chinese Government at this important U.N. Human Rights Commission
gathering in Geneva in March, then our silence will be betrayal.
We should introduce this resolution. As Senator Hutchinson said, we
should garner support for it. We should urge the European Community
also to come out with a strong resolution.
I want to tell Senator Hutchinson that I understand the German
Government is looking at the wording of this resolution, and they may
very well lead the way with other European countries. It is time to do
so.
I feel strongly about this. I don't want to be self-righteous at all,
but my father fled persecution in Russia in 1914 when he was 17 years
of age with czarist Russia. Then there was the revolution. And he
thought all the country would be better. And then his parents wrote and
said, ``Don't come back.'' The Communists had taken over. And he never
went back.
My dad passed away in 1983. Sheila and I finally visited where my dad
grew up in 1991. It was pretty clear to us that his family was probably
all murdered by Stalin. All communication was broken off during the
Stalin era. The letters stopped.
I was raised in a home where I was told by my dad really almost every
day--every night, at 10 at night, starting in high school--he was kind
of an embarrassment when I was younger, because he was very ``old
country.'' He was almost 50 when I was born, and he wasn't ``cool.''
But when I got to be high school age, I realized what a treasure he
was. He could speak 10 languages fluently, and was the wisest, best
person I ever knew in my life.
We would have hot tea and sponge cake at 10 at night--not on the
weekend, but Monday through Thursday, and I would listen to him talk
about the world. My father Leon would talk about the importance of the
first amendment rights, about the importance of human rights, and about
the importance of freedom.
I am telling you that I feel as if that is what our Government is all
about. That is what the United States of America is all about. That is
what we are all about. And we ought to be speaking out on this and we
ought to be taking the lead in Geneva. That is what our resolution
says, I say to the Senator.
Mr. President, I think what I will do, we will have a vote coming up
soon, and although I love to speak on this and I am very committed to
this, I would like for Senator Hutchinson to make our concluding
remarks, because I want to say to Senator Hutchinson, he is right, we
don't agree on everything. In fact, this could be the end of my
reputation, being out on the floor of the Senate with him.
Actually, being a little more serious, it has been a labor of love,
working with Senator Hutchinson on this. We are just starting. We are
not going to let up. I would like the Senator to conclude on this. I
thank the Senator very much for his leadership.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator yielding back his time?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield back the rest of my time.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am also glad to join in this effort,
one that we will continue to fight and one on which we will ultimately
prevail, I believe.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bunning be added
as a cosponsor to this resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I think we have covered many of the reasons why this
is important. We have reiterated them. I do believe we will have a
strong vote today.
One of the individuals whose name has been mentioned several times by
Senator Mack, by myself, Senator Wellstone, is Wei Jingsheng, truly one
of the courageous heroes of our generation. And I, too, am glad to be
able to call Wei Jingsheng a friend. Wei Jingsheng has been in my
office on numerous occasions, and he will be at our press conference
tomorrow.
As I am able to conclude our presentation of this resolution today, I
want to just mention a little bit about Wei Jingsheng.
I see Senator Feinstein has come to the floor.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I have a little problem in that Senator Wellstone has
yielded his time.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If possible, I would like to speak in favor of this
resolution for 5 minutes, if I may.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I wonder if I could ask unanimous consent to gain my
time back. I would like Senator Hutchinson to finish. How much time do
I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, we can yield back 6
minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. May I give 5 minutes to the Senator from California?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Absolutely. Certainly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank you. I would like to thank the
Senators for their courtesy.
I rise to add my support to the resolution offered by the Senator
from Minnesota and the Senator from Arkansas.
I do so with a considerable sense of disappointment because for much
of 1998, politics in the People's Republic of China appeared headed
toward an authentic transformation. The government began to tolerate--
and even encourage--discussion among intellectuals, academics, and
reformers of the gradual development of democracy in China, to the
point that many began to speak of a ``Beijing Spring.''
After many years of stalling, China signed the U.N. International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which, when ratified, would
require China to allow much closer international scrutiny of its human
rights practices. Cross-strait discussions resumed with Taiwan.
And during President Clinton's visit to China last summer, President
Jiang Zemin, an old friend of mine, did two extraordinary things; he
allowed the Chinese people to hear President Clinton directly by
televising both his speech at Beijing University and the two leaders'
joint press conference; and, in the press conference, President Jiang
implied that the Chinese leadership would be prepared to meet with

[[Page S1979]]

the Dalai Lama to discuss the question of Tibet if the Dalai Lama would
make certain statements about the principle of One China and Tibet and
Taiwan's status as a part of China.
That was a major step forward for many of us who have advocated this
for years.
Each of these developments seemed to represent a hopeful shift toward
a new, more open attitude by the Chinese government. It seemed to
reflect the confidence of a new generation of Chinese leaders, firmly
in control, unafraid to allow their people to stretch their minds, and
willing to deal forthrightly with difficult political questions like
Tibet and Taiwan through negotiations. But now these hopes appear to be
in abeyance.
I now believe that the hardliners appear to be strengthening their
hand, and in so doing are causing their President, Jiang Zemin, to lose
face as they prevent him from allowing a further opening-up of Chinese
society and from carrying out a negotiation to solve real issues of
deep concern to six million Tibetans.
The recent spate of arrests of dissidents of China, followed by
summary trials and convictions of several of the most prominent among
them--Xu Wenli, Wang Youcai, and Qin Yongmin--raise the ugly specter of
a renewed tightening on political freedom in the months leading up to
the tenth anniversary of the Tiananment Square tragedy.
On Tibet, the Dalai Lama abandoned plans to use his recent visit to
the United States to make far-reaching statements intended to open the
door to negotiations with China, amid unmistakable signals from Beijing
that it was not prepared to begin a dialog regardless of what he said.
Meanwhile, China's persecution in Tibet has only intensified. The
brutal tactics of brainwashing, intimidation, and torture--tools of the
Cultural Revolution--are now in use in Tibet.
The United States can continue to make contributions toward systemic
changes that will instill the rule of law in China, which would, for
example, make summary trials a thing of the past. Congress failed to
fund the President's rule of law initiative last year; we should not
repeat that mistake this year. Congress and the Administration should
continue to resist sanctions and economic penalties that will only make
the situation worse, but we must develop a stronger policy to put
pressure on China to begin a dialog with the Dalai Lama on providing
autonomy for the people of Tibet. An important step was taken last
month when Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and
Migration Julia Taft was named the State Departments Special
Coordinator for Tibet.
This resolution argues for an additional step the United States can
take. It urges the Administration to support and work for the passage
of a resolution condemning China's human rights abuses at the U.N.
Human Rights Commission in Geneva.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that precise individual
documentation and statements of this be printed in the Record following
my remarks. These statements were recently given by refugees coming out
of China directly to some of our friends in Nepal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
Whatever the reason for China's entrenchment, it now presents a
serious challenge to strengthening of relationships between our two
countries.
I happen to remain convinced that sustained, active dialog and
engagement with the Chinese leadership is the wisest course, but in
these discussions we must be frank and open and the interests of both
our Nations must be served. The United States can continue to make
contributions towards systemic changes that will instill the rule of
law in China which would, for example, make summary trials a thing of
the past.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Is it possible----
Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, the problem is we are going to
have a vote soon.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I ask unanimous consent just for 2 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Congress failed to fund the President's rule of law
initiative last year. We should not make that mistake this year.
Congress and the administration should continue to resist sanctions and
economic penalties that will only make the situation worse, but we must
develop a stronger policy to put pressure on China to begin a dialog
with the Dalai Lama and providing autonomy for the people of Tibet.
An important step was taken last month when Assistant Secretary of
State for Population, Refugees, and Migration Julia Taft was named as
the State Department's Special Coordinator for Tibet.
This resolution argues for an additional step the United States can
take. It urges the administration to support and work for the passage
of a resolution condemning China's human rights abuses at the United
Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva. While we should acknowledge
China's progress in many areas and continue to encourage China in
search of greater progress, we should also use the forum of the United
Nations Human Rights Commission to let China and the world know that
China's human rights abuses are unacceptable.
Ultimately, China's leaders must come to understand that the economic
freedom that have until recently championed--and which they still know
is necessary for China to fully modernize its economy--must advance
together with social and political freedom. As in Hong Kong and Taiwan,
China's ability to withstand economic turmoil will depend in part on
the ability of Chinese citizens to make judgments for themselves.
Political leaders cannot expect to draw a line between economic and
political judgments. Both must be allowed to flourish hand-in-hand. And
that means viewing the efforts of Xu Wenli, Wang Youcai, and Qin
Yongmin to organize a more pluralist Chinese polity, and viewing the
efforts of the Dalai Lama to promote dialogue and religious and
cultural freedom, as encouraging signs of China's modernization, not as
dangerous signs of China's instability.

Exhibit 1

Testimony of Tibetan Refugees in Nepal--November 1998

(Names have been removed for their protection)

I rode on trucks and other vehicles many days' travel from
Kham to Lhasa, where I purchased a business permit for Yuan
250 to travel onward. There, a younger cousin and I paid Yuan
1,200 each to a Nepali guide to smuggle us across the border
at night. We completed our walk mostly at night.
I was a monk at Rinchen Lingpa monastery in Dzong, and had
to leave because of a new policy reducing the number of monks
from 45 to a maximum of 30. But already, severe economic
conditions were forcing me to look for other opportunities;
my father, who was imprisoned for 15 years after 1959, is 73
years old now and unable to support me and himself. Because
of Dzong's proximity to the recent summer's flooding along
the Yangtse, officials were coming and ``shaking down'' the
monasteries for contributions to the relief efforts. Also,
livestock, farm product and head taxes and other fees have
increased steeply and consistently over the past few years,
and especially so recently. So many people want to escape
from Tibet, but most are afraid of getting caught, shot at or
encountering great hardship along the way.
I would like to go to Drepung Monastery, in southern India,
and resume my Buddhist practice there.
____

In Tibet, I lived for many years in Ko-lung, a Nyingma sect
nunnery, except for one trip to India in 1994. Earlier, there
were 60 nuns, and recently that number was officially reduced
and limited to 45, along with enactment of other strictures
such as a ban on all morning prayers [an important foundation
of Tibetan Buddhist practice].
In April of 1998, I was drawn into an argument with the
head nun, who accused me of being aligned with the Tibetan
community in exile. (When I returned to Nagchu from my trip
to India in '94, I was kept in solitary confinement for 20
days before being released). As a result, I was turned over
to the authority in charge of the political re-education
program, which I was inducted into. I, and others, were
forced to renounce our allegiance to and relinquish all
photos of the Dalai Lama (which we tried to hide), and to
state in writing that Tibet is and always has been an
inalienable part of China. However, knowing that I faced
imprisonment in doing so, I refused to write that I agreed
with their ``re-education'' points. I was not imprisoned, but
fined Yuan 1,400. My parents and I realized that we were
unable to pay my fine, and that without the nunnery there was
nothing left for me there, so I decided to leave.

[[Page S1980]]

____
From the age of 15, I had been a monk at Ganden monastery,
and a teacher and part time translator for tourists. I was
expelled in September, 1996, along with 200 other monks as a
result of suspicions that authorities had developed following
the Ganden uprising on May 6 of that year: 50 officials had
arrived at Ganden, and the monks began throwing stones. That
night, the monastery was surrounded and about 100 monks were
arrested the next morning; most of those are now serving 9-15
years sentences. During the night, I had helped a
photographer escape with film, resulting in a news story that
was broadcast on VOA wherein the photographer thanked the
Ganden teachers for advising him to escape that night. I
became very cautious, careful to clean my quarters and hide
all my Dalai Lama photographs, but officials tracked me down
on the basis of that VOA news report.
The situation in Tibet is getting worse, month by month.
Monks are being expelled from monasteries, and now and
entrance exam in which you have to write well in Chinese is
required for every job, even low level jobs. The culture of
Lhasa has also deteriorated, with Chinese prostitution and
other vices found everywhere, now.
____

In Lhasa, I bought a fake internal travel pass to the
border, and came with my pregnant wife. We paid Rs. 30,000/--
and were smuggled across.
When I was 15, I left Amdo to train as a monk at Ganden,
but I was there for less than 2 years. In 1987 and '89, I
witnessed the uprisings and demonstrations in Lhasa, and was
emotionally very moved by them. That's when I realized that I
had to stand up to the Chinese, and I have been helping the
Tibet cause since that time.
After 1992, I was constantly on a PSB (Public Security
Bureau) watch list, and several times was harassed,
interrogated and detained. I was first arrested in 1992, and
was held in solitary confinement and interrogated and beaten
for 8 days. Continuously, three policemen had me kneel on a
cement floor and kicked me on the body and face. One of them
did all the kicking and beating, one watched, and the other
sat at a desk and took notes. They were Chinese and Tibetan,
but I don't harbor ill feelings toward the Tibetans because I
feel their circumstances in being there were not their fault.
They couldn't get any information out of me, so they fined
me Yuan 6,700 and made me swear that I would never reveal the
place of confinement--which looks like a normal government
office, but with confinement rooms attached at the back. I
believe that there are many other such places of confinement;
I know others who have been similarly interrogated and
beaten.
In 1993, I went on pilgrimage to India to attend His
Holiness's Kalachakra initiation in Sikkim, and when I
returned to Lhasa I had to hide and move my residence
frequently, in order to avoid being arrested. Even my parents
were being watched, in Amdo. I had opened a shop in Amdo with
a friend, and he was arrested and sentenced to five years
imprisonment, so I realized that I was in imminent danger of
arrest.
In 1994, I returned to Amdo and changed my name, stopped
wearing monks' robes, and stayed mostly in remote areas. But
in August of 1995 I came back to Lhasa, and in October opened
a restaurant there. In December of 1995, right at the time
when the Chinese appointed their selection for the Panchen
Lama, one of my teachers was arrested and kept in
confinement, and I was arrested shortly thereafter. The PSB
questioned me about my time in India, and tried to force me
to agree that the Chinese-selected Panchen Lama was the
genuine one. They closed and ransacked my restaurant, which
they suspected of being a meeting place for people to talk
about freedom for Tibet.
I was sentenced to 2 years in prison on 3 counts: for going
to India to see the Dalai Lama, for running a restaurant
suspected of being connected to the Tibet freedom movement,
and for being suspected of engaging in political activity. I
was first held at Gutsa prison, about 5 kilometers from
Lhasa, for 10 months. I was kept chained and was beaten for
the first 15 days (one of my testicles was crushed), and was
given no food or water for the first 5 days. They offered
food and water, trying to tempt me to tell them what I had
been doing. I was beaten so much that I really thought I had
died and gone to Hell. I had a cell that was only big enough
to lie down in, with a pan to use as a toilet. Our child died
during delivery, in June, 1996, when I was in prison.
On January 10, 1997, I was transferred to Tolong Dzong
prison, where I stayed for the remaining 14 months of my
sentence. I was released on April 2 of 1998, and then on May
30 was re-arrested by a plain clothes PSB officer, on
political grounds, and held for 45 more days. After that, I
had to report every month to the police, and was not allowed
to travel. That's when my wife and I decided to leave for
Nepal.
My wife gave birth to a boy on November 3. Now, my first
priority is to find work, in order to repay a large loan that
I own in Lhasa. I'd also like to learn at least some
rudimentary English, to work for the Tibet cause, and to help
my friends who are still in Tibet, many of them in prison.
____

My brother was killed by the Chinese in 1958, and since
then the situation in Tibet has only been getting worse. In
1975 and '76, the state took possession of all the private
farm lands in our area, and has been leasing them back to the
farmers. Beginning this year, we have not been allowed to
sell our crops (primarily barley and wheat) to the open
market, but are forced to sell 70-80% of it to the government
at a fixed rate that is about half the open market rate. And
now, we're not allowed to keep pictures of the Dalai Lama
even in our homes.
____

I came over a high pass, though we started as a group of
only 18 and merged with other groups from Amdo and Lhasa.
This year at the Gawa monastery, where I was a monk,
officials recently forced us to publicly denounce the Dalai
Lama, and they now prohibit monks younger than 18 from
joining the monastery. This is a very shrewd tactic on the
part of the Chinese, because they understand that by the time
young people are 18 they have already been exposed to modern
distractions and bad habits, such as drinking and gambling
and prostitution, which spoils their desire for religious
practice. Historically (before 1959), our monastery had 800
people, but in recent years it has remained at around 300.
About 3 months ago, though, 225 monks were expelled,
including me and most of the senior monks. It is now nearly
impossible to get admitted to a monastery--and entrance to
Sera, Drepung or Ganden is impossible--because the officials
are reducing the numbers of monks allowed at monasteries
everywhere. Some of the Gawa monks have nowhere to go, and so
they wait until the officials are gone and then discreetly
join the activities in the monastery, hiding when necessary.
The Chinese have appointed their own Panchen Lama, and we
don't even know where the genuine Panchen Lama is. I have
been told that the public is prohibited from meeting the
genuine Panchen Lama's parents.
Also, taxes have increased beyond what Tibetans can afford.
We used to pay pasture taxes of 7 per yak and Yuan 200 per
horse each year, but these have been raised recently, plus
farmers and herders have to pay in-kind taxes of meat and
butter each year to the authorities--taxes totaling about 30%
of our total production. I don't have parents, nor any
livestock, and all else that I owned I gave to the monastery.
But now my brother and I have had to repay many debts that my
parents accumulated, and we have no livestock as a source of
income for this.
During the severe snowstorms of 1996, we heard on American
radio that we would be receiving relief in the form of
blankets and money. Some foreign donors did come, and in
front of them the officials handed us blankets and Yuan 200
each, but after they left the officials returned and
collected all the blankets and money. I think the Chinese are
very skilled at tricking outsiders.
My brother (age 36) joined me on this trip, and we are
relieved to finally be outside of Tibet. After an audience
with His Holiness the Dalai Lama, I want to become a monk at
the Sera Monastery in southern India.
____

Eighteen years ago, my parents owned a house near the
Mosque. A few years ago, the authorities said they would tear
down the house and provide us with improved housing there, in
the same place. The new complex was built, but then promptly
sold to developers. We did get compensation of Yuan 30,000,
but this is half what the old house was worth.
My mother and I had a very small table on the Bargkor
(market area and circumambulation route) where we sold cloth
and shirts. We had to pay a Yuan 300 monthly fee to 3
different government departments--for a business permit, for
the space itself and also income tax.
When I was around 10 years old, I remember getting tear
gassed during the rioting, and then staying inside for
several days. Nowadays, you might occasionally see a small
group of monks or nuns demonstrating, but they never make it
more than half a circuit around the Bargkor before being
arrested. In August of this year, the authorities entered all
the homes in our area, banging on doors loudly and
threatening severe penalties, in a search for Dalai Lama
photos. We had hidden all of ours ahead of time.
My parents and I decided that if our family was to get
ahead financially, one of us would have to leave, and we
agreed that I should go, hopefully to get an education. I
wasn't able to study in Tibet because I didn't have a
residency permit for Lhasa, and studying there is very
expensive, anyway--as is living there, Right now we are
paying Yuan 450-500 for tuition for my younger brother, which
doesn't include his uniform or books. Each year it is getting
worse. We don't have a family member in government service,
but many Tibetans now are being fired, and you now have to
take a written exam in Chinese for even a low level job.
Tibetan language is hardly used in Lhasa, there are no high
lamas left there, there are far fewer monks than there used
to be, and anyone showing a sign to resistance to the Chinese
is sentenced to 6-7 years' imprisonment. The Chinese
immigrants are bringing infectious diseases to Tibet with
them [likely in reference to STDs], while prostitution,
gambling and night clubs are thriving.
____

In October 1997, four women from our village were called
for sterilisation.
Two had children already and two did not. One evening the
Chinese took the four of them to another place and sterilised
them. Two got sick and the others remained healthy. About one
month before this, officials from the birth control office
came and summoned a meeting. During the meeting

[[Page S1981]]

the Chinese said that they would operate on women from the
age of 18 to 40. They said that those women who didn't
undergo the operation would be expelled from their jobs. All
of them were farmers.
I heard from the people of the village that one evening a
truck belonging to the birth control office arrived in our
village and the 4 of them were taken away to get operated on,
totally by force. The officials told the 4 of them that the
government would pay everything and no problems would result
from the operations. They said that one needed rest for 7
days after the operation, and should take proper medicine,
and the food and expenses would be provided by the
government. But the women were in bed for more than 2 weeks
and hardly recovered, and the expenditures were paid by their
families and not by the government.
____

I used to distribute booklets and other literature that
dealt with our cause and also I put up posters. As a result,
I was caught three times by the Chinese authorities and
suffered from imprisonment and torture.
When I was first arrested, apart from handcuffing me, they
gave me a few kicks and slaps but I wasn't beaten very badly.
On the third day I was specifically charged with possession
of a book. It was Friday and I was given the ultimatum to
hand over any books or literature dealing with Tibetan
affairs by Monday. When I reported on Monday, I was asked
where the book was, I told them that I didn't have it and was
once again imprisoned.
For the next two months I was interrogated by using all
sorts of tactics but I refused to hand over the book. In the
end, my friends paid 2000 yuan and I was released on the
conditions that I report daily to the police, confine myself
within the monastery and not engage in any subversive
activity. I was also told to be an informer. If I did well as
an informer, I would be paid secretly and if not I would be
re arrested. For the next year I was constantly harassed by
the police. Sometimes, they visited me in the middle of the
night in my monastic room and asked me questions like whether
I had been working sincerely for them and whether I was doing
any subversive work.
In July 1994 I was arrested for the 3rd time by the Chinese
authorities. I was bound in chains both on my hands and feet
and taken to the local detention centre. This prison is an
interrogation centre for those prisoners who had not
confessed their crimes of mistakes. There were no permanent
prisoners there. The main reason I was taken to this prison
was to keep me away from contacting any Tibetans. While I was
being interrogated at this prison, no one knew anything about
my whereabouts. I learned later that on the day of my arrest
my grandmother died, out of shock and worry.
The torturing began every day at 8 in the morning and went
on till 9 in the evening. They adopted all sorts of methods
to torture me. My hands were tied at the back in a most
painful manner and they put electric rods in my mouth. They
used the electric stick on me so many times, I can't say how
many times. They made me kneel on the floor with a stick
under my knees and another stick on the calves of my legs so
that the skin was rubbed off my knees. At the same time my
hands were handcuffed together on my back, with one arm over
my shoulder and the other arm over my lower back. In addition
to this, I received countless numbers of slaps and kicks
throughout the day.
In the coldest month in Amdo, every morning before the sun
rose, I was subjected to 2 hour cold baths and I was told to
strip myself completely naked and then they kept on pouring
buckets of icy cold water on me until I completely blacked
out. Sometimes I was subjected to a treatment in which they
hit with me with thin, sharp bamboo all over my body. After
some time, my whole body became like a plucked chicken, very
blue with patches of white. Sometimes after throwing
countless buckets of ice cold water on me, they would bring
me before a red glowing fireplace, if they felt I was about
to faint. They gave me this type of torture for 15 days.
I was also fed very poorly with 2 glasses of black tea and
some meagre food. I was almost starving because sometimes if
I could chew a single pea, I used to feel very happy.
However, no matter what type of torture they it was, I didn't
admit or confess anything except the possession of the book,
which I had already done earlier. I suffered rigorous torture
for about 4 months in this prison and since I didn't confess
anything they eventually transferred me. In the new prison I
was chained and made to sit on a chair, and the security
personnel kept me from sleeping for 14 days. The food given
to me was the same as they gave to their pigs. I was charged
for being a spy of the Tibetan government. The final verdict
was that I was a counter-revolutionary who had been engaged
in propagating their cause. Thus, I was sentenced for two
years and 7 months imprisonment. They took away my political
rights for a period of 2 years. After serving my imprisonment
I was finally released at the beginning of 1997. After my
release I was constantly harassed by the local police.
____

I was arrested and imprisoned because I called for Tibet's
independence. At Gutsa detention center, we were placed in a
room with a cement floor where there were no beds and
blankets. It was mid winter, and they kept us for over 3
months without blankets, which they allowed only when our
relatives brought them from home. We were given small amounts
of food, just 2 dumplings per day. It didn't fill our
stomachs.
When we were interrogated they questioned us about who was
behind the demonstration, but we told them that we had done
it independently. Then they beat us with the use of an
electric baton. They put it everywhere, on my head, hands,
mostly on the veins, and here where it is very painful. We
would lose memory because of that. They also kicked us and
slapped us in the face. They interrogated me three times a
day, every day for one or two hours at a time. They asked the
same questions and we wouldn't answer them properly. There
were 3 or 4 police questioning us.
They kept us in Gutsa for one year and 9 months and
interrogated us. After that they brought us to court to pass
our sentences. I got 4 years imprisonment. They then took us
to a hospital where we were supposed to get a medical check
up. But they didn't give us any treatment and instead took
one bottle of blood from each of us forcibly. Because of that
we became thinner and thinner. Then finally they took us to
Drapchi prison where we had to do work with wool for making
carpets. There wasn't any education and the food was very
poor. They treated the political prisoners very harshly while
they treated normal prisoners better.
We were kept in the prison for a very long time and were
not allowed to meet our family. We were able to receive small
things such as things to eat. They didn't allow us to meet
our family members except after we were sentenced. After our
sentencing, they allowed us to meet our family, but only one
person could visit at a time.
I suffered from a stomach disorder while at Drapchi, from
food which was not properly cooked. We used to eat packaged
noodles which led to stomach ailments, and whatever I ate, I
had to vomit with blood. I suffered from this for about 8
months after I was released from prison. I start vomiting
when the weather turns cold. In prison I asked to visit the
hospital, but they only used to take (prisoners) to the
hospital when they were almost dead. Otherwise they don't
care for political prisoners.
When I was in prison there were some foreign visits but we
were watched all the time so we couldn't talk to them. Before
they came we were made to clean the rooms and then we had to
do whatever work we had to do. They brought big pieces of
meat to the kitchen and stuck up list of food telling the
visitors that they give us such food. But in reality we
didn't get to eat this meat. After the heads had left they
took it away.
They put at least one female common law prisoner in each
cell to watch the nuns so that we wouldn't talk about things
like independence. She would tell the authorities information
about us and because of that her sentence was decreased. They
were put in a separate room because they feared that we would
harm them. They were very happy in their rooms which were
better than ours.
In Drapchi prison we were made to do exercises which were
not for the purpose of our health. It was like military
training. When we were doing the exercises we had to shout
something in Chinese which meant that we were confessing to
our mistakes and that we would come out to society as a new
person. Once we understood the meaning of the words we
protested and didn't say them. Then many soldiers came and
beat us. It was during winter and at that time it is very
cold in Tibet. We were made to stand on the cold cement floor
in the shade barefooted for a whole day, our shoes and socks
removed. This made our feet cold as ice. Then we had to run
while they didn't give us any water. Some of us fell
unconscious. If someone fell down they said we were not
allowed to help. They also stopped the monthly opportunity
for our families to visit us. We had to stand in the sun and
put our faces in the direction of the sun as a result of
which some of us had blisters on our face.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California
for her very significant statement. I know we have not always agreed on
China, but I think that was a very candid and very honest statement. I
appreciate her making it.
I want to publicly thank, on behalf of Senator Wellstone and myself,
our staffs: On Senator Wellstone's staff, Charlotte Oldham Moore and
John Bradshaw, for their very persistent and hard work on this issue;
on my staff, Samuel Chang, for his hard work and continued interest in
the human rights issues in China.
As I said, one of my heroes, and I think one that has been mentioned
repeatedly, one that will be with us at the press conference tomorrow,
is Wei Jingsheng, who spent about 20 years in solitary confinement in
China back in the 1970s, arrested for his involvement at the Democracy
Wall effort.
At that time he was sentenced to spend 14\1/2\ years in solitary
confinement, went out and was involved in Tiananmen Square. He was
truly a friend and truly a hero. I thought, when I visited with him in
my office, while I was going on annual vacations, while I was rearing
three boys and seeing them grow up and going out and

[[Page S1982]]

playing basketball with them and coaching their soccer games, this man,
who is about my age, was languishing in a Chinese prison.
I recently read the book ``China Live'' by Mike Chinoy. Mike was the
CNN correspondent and before that, the NBC correspondent--in Beijing,
then Hong Kong. He went to China as a young man in the seventies, very
idealistic, believing the Chinese regime was going to bring human
rights and democracy and freedom to the people of China. He left
disillusioned to a great extent, but he tells about the trial of Wei
Jingsheng. I want to read this as I conclude. He talked about Wei
Jingsheng, on October 9, 1979, going on trial.

Pictures from the proceedings were broadcast on Chinese TV.
They showed a youthful-looking Wei, dressed in prison garb,
his head shaved and bowed, listening to the verdict before a
panel of stony-faced judges and a carefully selected audience
of five hundred people. I had read his essays and seen for
myself the hope generated by Democracy Wall. Now, working
late at the NBC bureau in Hong Kong on the day Wei was
sentenced to fifteen years in jail for ``counterrevolutionary
incitement'', I was angry and upset.
Although intellectually I recognized that profound changes
were still under way in China--holding out, over the long
term, the possibility of a more humane society--it was hard
to be neutral and dispassionate watching such a travesty of
justice. My feelings became even stronger when I acquired a
copy of the transcript of Wei's trial, which had been
surreptitiously tape-recorded and distributed by other
activists not yet under detention. Standing before his
accusers, Wei refused to admit to any crime. Instead he
forcefully defended his ideas of democracy. His courage in
the face of a certain guilty verdict and long prison term was
astonishing. I wished I could do something to help.

He said, ``I wished I could do something to help.'' Twenty years
after that trial, things are not better in China, and we see a new
round of the same kind of show trials, phony trials and repression.
Mike Chinoy said, ``I wished I could do something to help.'' Ladies and
gentlemen of the Senate, we have a chance today to do a little
something to help. This year marks the 10th anniversary of the
Tiananmen massacre. This is an incredibly important year in China and
for the democracy movement in China. We can take an important step and
cast an important vote with overwhelming bipartisan support for this
resolution today.
I ask my colleagues to call upon the administration to sponsor this
resolution in Geneva this summer, condemning the human rights abuses
ongoing in China today.
Mr. President, at this time I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The distinguished majority
leader is recognized.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I do have a unanimous consent request to
propound, and I know we would, then, be prepared to go to a recorded
vote. But before we do that, I want to take a moment to commend the
distinguished Senator from Arkansas for the work he has done and the
fact that he has been joined by the Senator from Minnesota in
addressing this very important issue. I know they have been joined by a
number of Senators on both sides of the aisle.
This is not something new with the Senator from Arkansas. Senator
Hutchinson has been trying to emphasize his concerns about the terrible
human rights policies in the People's Republic of China ever since he
has been in the Senate. I know he worked on it last year. He has been
trying to make the point this is a serious problem, and I think the
justification for this serious expression is the fact that it is still
not what it should be. He has been talking about it for quite some
time, as have others, and there continue to be terrible human rights
violations.
So I think it is appropriate that the Senate, in its second
legislative action of this year, would express its very strong concern
regarding this human rights situation in the People's Republic of
China. I have read the resolution. I think it is well stated. And the
timeliness is also very important. As we now are about to have the
annual meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in
Geneva, Switzerland, for the Senate to go on record taking a stand for
this human rights position, I think, is very commendable. I am glad I
have been able to work with Senator Daschle and both sides of the aisle
to make it possible for us to consider this separately, to highlight
the fact that we are not just sticking this on as a sense-of-the-Senate
resolution in a bill, this is a Senate resolution that states clearly
our concern and our position. I am very pleased to be supportive of my
colleague's efforts.
I yield to the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I know Senator Hutchinson thanked the majority leader.
I also want to thank the majority leader for his support in doing this.
He is right. It is timely. We do want to ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

____________________