[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 129 (Friday, October 4, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1766-E1767]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DISSENTING VIEWS ON CONGRESSIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA ANNUAL 
                                 REPORT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. FRANK R. WOLF

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 3, 2002

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Executive Commission on 
China released its inaugural report today. I am one of nine 
commissioners from the House. Because of my concerns that this report 
inadequately addresses the Government of China's continuing human 
rights abuses, I could not vote to support it. I want to share with our 
colleagues my dissenting views on the report.

                            Dissenting View

       While this first report by the Congressional Executive 
     Commission on China (CECC) contains some worthwhile 
     recommendations and observations on the continued human 
     rights abuses in the People's Republic of China, I do not 
     believe it sufficiently describes and addresses the degree to 
     which these human rights abuses can be laid at the feet of 
     the Government of China.
       In a recent letter to all CECC commissioners, human rights 
     advocate Harry Wu outlined several human rights issues in 
     China that should have been included or discussed with more 
     vigor and analysis in this report. I share in Mr. Wu's 
     analysis.
       For example, the section of the report on village elections 
     gives the impression that

[[Page E1767]]

     the practice of village elections may be a positive 
     development in a transition to democracy in China, without 
     seriously analyzing whether or not the Communist Party may 
     use village elections as a method of establishing control in 
     the rural regions. The report says that ``critics of the 
     process say that the Communist Party manipulates the 
     outcome[s[rsqb]'', but it does not adequately assert that 
     China's rulers may use village elections as part of a 
     strategy to maintain control.
       On another matter which Mr. Wu raises, it is perplexing 
     that the report fails to reflect the debate this year in 
     Congress and in the Bush Administration about China's planned 
     birth policy, particularly regarding whether or not the 
     Administration would withhold funding from the United Nations 
     Population Control Fund. This important issue is not 
     addressed in this, the first, report of the commission and is 
     conspicuous by its absence. The commission recently held a 
     hearing on this subject, and I believe the report should 
     address in detail China's planned birth policy.
       Similarly, I agree with Mr. Wu that the report fails to 
     discuss China's state-sponsored harvesting and trafficking of 
     prisoners' organs, where a common thief can be executed in 
     order for his organs to be sold for transplanting. Can you 
     imagine being imprisoned for a minor offense and ending up 
     being shot in the head and having your kidneys or corneas 
     removed to be sold? Congress has held numerous hearings on 
     this issue and the news media has written about this issue, 
     but the report fails to discuss this horrible practice.
       I also believe the recommendations on religious freedom 
     should be stronger. While these recommendations may be well-
     intentioned, they lack the necessary depth of discussion in 
     addressing the Chinese Government's continued persecution of 
     believers of all faiths--Roman Catholics, Protestants, Falun 
     Gong practitioners, Muslim Uighurs, and Tibetan Buddhists.
       Furthermore, I am concerned that this commission may not be 
     willing to be a direct advocate on behalf of human rights and 
     religious freedom, through letters or conversations with 
     Chinese officials.
       As I stated at a commission hearing this year, this panel 
     should follow the model of the Helsinki Commission and be 
     vocal in its advocacy for individual cases and human rights 
     in general. I agree with John Kamm, president of the Dui Hua 
     religious freedom organization, who has done more than almost 
     anyone I know for human rights in China, who said at a 
     commission hearing, ``The model should be the Helsinki 
     Commission . . . I foresee a day when this commission . . . 
     is an arsenal of human rights.''
       The Helsinki Commission does not hesitate to write directly 
     to leaders of member countries advocating human rights and 
     religious freedom. The Helsinki Commission has done more than 
     almost any other entity to bring freedom, hope and democracy 
     to the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries. 
     The CECC ought to follow this successful model. But, clearly, 
     this has not yet occurred, and it is almost as if the CECC is 
     afraid that it will offend the China Government.
       If I were a prisoner in China today, I wonder if I would 
     have the same amount of trust and hope in the CECC to take up 
     my case with Chinese officials as Soviet dissidents had in 
     the Helsinki Commission, which was a tireless advocate with 
     officials in the former Soviet Union.
       While there are those of us on the commission on differing 
     sides of the China PNTR issue, I am concerned with the 
     perception that many of the commission's staff are more 
     skilled in the areas of business and trade than in the area 
     of human rights. As the law that created the CECC states, 
     monitoring China's compliance on respecting human rights is a 
     primary task of the commission. I believe the commission's 
     efforts would be enhanced if staff expertise were more 
     balanced, especially to include more staff who have the 
     passion for promoting human rights in China. While I know 
     that the commission staff is composed of competent and 
     skilled professionals, and they are people of integrity, I 
     have been very disappointed with their shortcomings in human 
     rights and religious freedom advocacy.
       For the reasons outlined above, I believe this report has 
     some serious gaps in its coverage of human rights in China 
     and I cannot sign the report.
       This commission was created with a mandate to promote human 
     rights in China. Unfortunately, I do not see this happening. 
     Human rights organizations have expressed similar concerns to 
     me and some have even questioned whether the commission 
     should continue to exist. I have similar questions regarding 
     the continued viability of the commission.
       Lastly, an observation: the fundamental problem in China in 
     regard to the government's human rights abuses and 
     restriction on human liberty is not the ``law'' in China, but 
     the ``regime'' in China. The root problem in China is not 
     just a faulty legal system, but a corrupt, totalitarian, 
     oppressive, communist ruling regime that consistently 
     violates human rights and religious freedom of its own 
     citizens--Roman Catholics, Protestants, Falun Gong 
     practitioners, Muslim Uighurs, Tibetan Buddhists or almost 
     anyone who strives to worship and live with liberty.

     

                          ____________________