Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I believe that needs to be clarified, and my amendment will do that.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee. I express not only my appreciation but the appreciation of all Senators for the expertise that Senator Frist brings to this important issue, as well as the care and compassion he has demonstrated throughout his career, even during his time in the Senate, in caring for other people in emergencies. He certainly brings a great deal of personal experience and expertise to this issue. I rise to speak on this issue of access to emergency services and to explain why I believe my colleagues should oppose the Graham amendment. The amendment tree to which the Graham amendment was filed is now full. I alert my colleagues to an amendment I will be offering further along in the debate--I have been assured of the opportunity to do that--which will address the concerns raised by Senator Graham but, I think, addresses them in a far more responsible way.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will be glad to do that this morning.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I am not certain at this point.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1234

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of the second-degree amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma, the sense of the Senate regarding the State being the primary regulator of health insurance plans, as well as the provision supporting 100 percent deductibility for the self-employed. We talk about scope. We talk about increasing the number of people in this country who have health insurance. This is one of the most important steps we could possibly take. Over the next 3 days, the Senate will debate legislation that will impact the lives of every American in terms of health care benefits they receive. The Kennedy bill that we will talk a lot about in the next few days, while called the Patients' Bill of Rights, is certainly not as simple as it sounds. It involves decreased access; it involves higher costs; and it involves the quality of our Nation's health care. In 1997, the percentage of uninsured individuals under the age of 65 in my home State of Arkansas was 28.2 percent. Arkansas ranks the lowest in the country in terms of the percentage of individuals covered by private insurance and is second to dead last in terms of the percentage of workers covered by employment-based health insurance. An even more alarming figure is that Arkansas has the highest rate of uninsured children in the Nation. I applaud the efforts of our Governor in Arkansas and the State legislature in trying to change that, but still it is a very alarming figure. Any legislation this body passes will have a direct impact on Arkansas workers and families. The bill introduced by Senator Kennedy and his colleagues would increase premiums by as much as 6.1 percent according to the Congressional Budget Office. If we pass the Kennedy bill and were it signed into law, over 1.8 million people would lose their health insurance coverage. We see heartrending portrayals of those who have been denied care under managed care plans, and we ought to be concerned about that. That is why we have a bill that is going to provide protections for 48 million Americans under self-insured ERISA plans. But as Senator Frist from Tennessee well pointed out, let's not forget the millions, over 40 million Americans, who are without any health insurance at all and whose numbers are going up by the day. The Kennedy bill, by increasing premiums over 6 percent, will result in over 1 million, nearly 2 million more Americans being added to the ranks of the uninsured. Let's not forget those. Those are the ones who are most vulnerable. If we could only put up their portraits, portrayals of those millions of Americans who, day in and day out, are living without the protection that most Americans take for granted in their health insurance plans, I think we would see the Kennedy bill, the so-called Bill of Rights, in a different light altogether. If we pass the Kennedy bill, 1.8 million people will lose health insurance coverage they now have. That is demonstrated by a Lewin study commissioned by the AFL-CIO which shows that for every 1 percent increase in premiums an additional 300,000 people will become uninsured. My colleague, Senator Kennedy, during the markup of the Republicans' Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act, stated that this premium increase would be spread out over several years; therefore somehow that made it acceptable. I suspect that the 6-plus percent increase in premiums being spread out over several years and the additional 1.8 million people added to the ranks of the uninsured which occurs over several years is of little comfort to those who will lose their insurance as a result of this bill. No matter how you slice it, the total number of people impacted, the 1.8 million people impacted, remains the same. That is simply unacceptable. Last year, 98 Members of the Senate voted for an amendment expressing their belief that Congress should not increase the number of uninsured. Clearly, the Kennedy health care bill violates this statement of belief. The uninsured population in the United States grew from 32 million to, most recently, 43 million in 1997. It is certain the Kennedy legislation will only make this growing problem even worse. The result of passing the Kennedy health care bill is more hard- working Arkansas families, more American families will go without health care insurance. The Kennedy bill gives quality health care only to those who can afford it. On average, the Kennedy bill would cost employees an additional $183 per year according to the Congressional Budget Office, and the cost for families under the Kennedy bill is estimated to be an additional $275 per year. Whether it is $183 or $275 per year, the Kennedy bill places a huge additional expense on American families which many simply cannot afford. What the Democrats give with one hand, they take away with the other. How can you say you are protecting people when you are taking their insurance away from them? By contrast, the Republican Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act, I believe, is both rational and responsible. It protects those who are not covered by State regulations. It ensures that health insurance premiums will not rise more than a fraction of a percent according to CBO. It also provides important tax incentives to increase access to health insurance for the current uninsured population, including the 100 percent deductibility of health insurance premiums for the self- employed and the expansion of medical savings accounts. There are few more effective things we could do in the area of patients' rights to expand access than to include the self-employed and give them that 100-percent deductibility that they so deserve. According to one recent poll by Public Opinion Strategies, 82 percent of the public want Congress to make health care more affordable. The Republican Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act responds to that need and that overwhelming desire of the American people. Does the Kennedy bill do anything for the 43 million uninsured Americans in this country? The answer to that is very simple, it is very plain, and I think it is absolutely undisputed. The Kennedy bill does nothing to assist 43 million Americans who do not currently have health insurance get that insurance they so desperately need. It does nothing. So while we hear from bleeding hearts, while we hear emotional stories, I ask my colleagues to remember, I ask the American people to remember, the 43 million who currently do not have insurance need to have it more accessible. The Republican bill does that while providing greatly enhanced protections for the 43 million Americans who are in self-insured plans under ERISA. Not only does the Kennedy bill increase cost and decrease access, it creates a whole new system of Government- run health care. The Kennedy bill would create 359 new Federal mandates, 59 new sets of Federal regulations, and would require 3,828 new Federal bureaucrats to enforce the legislation at a cost to taxpayers of $155 million per year. The question begs to be asked: Who will benefit from this new bureaucracy and maze of Government regulation? Patients? Or the bureaucrats? I think we know the answer. It is illustrated by a chart we have already seen today. The bottom of this chart, a summary of the effects of the Kennedy bill, are all of the new mandates that would be imposed as a result of the Kennedy legislation. Flowing from these mandates are the arrows and all of the various bureaucratic agencies required to enforce the Kennedy health care bill. It is simply a one-size-fits-all approach to regulating health care in this country. It disregards the good work that has already been done by the States in this area, as opposed to what the Republican bill does, building upon the good works the States have already done in patient protections. Mr. President, 42 States have already enacted a Patients' Bill of Rights; 47 States already enforce consumer protections regarding gag clauses on doctor-patient communications; 40 States already enforce consumer protections for access to emergency care services; 50 States, every State already has requirements for grievance procedures; and 36 States already require direct access to an OB/GYN. The Kennedy bill imposes a blanket of heavy-handed Federal mandates on States and throws away the States' hard work to tailor patient protections for their populations' specific needs. One size does not fit all. What may be appropriate for California may not be appropriate for a rural State such as Arkansas. When the Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945, it agreed that States should have primary responsibility for the regulation of insurance. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners has also spoken on this issue. We have heard about this on the floor of the Senate today. In a March 16, 1999, letter to members of the Health and Education Committee, the commissioners stated their concern. They said: It is our belief that states should and will continue the efforts to develop creative, flexible, market-sensitive protections for health consumers in fully insured plans, and Congress should focus attention on those consumers who have no protections in self-funded ERISA plans. That is precisely what the Republican bill does. Congress needs to act to protect the 48 million Americans covered by self-insured ERISA plans. It should not override the States in the area that they have primary responsibility. My colleague, Mr. Kennedy, says the Republican bill leaves millions of Americans without any protection. That is false. If you are not covered by an ERISA self-insured plan, you fall under the protections enacted by your State legislature, a group in which most Americans have greater confidence, I daresay, than in their Federal officials hundreds of miles away. This is why the Republican bill applies patient protections to the 48 million Americans who currently do not have any protections. It is sound policy and it makes good sense. The Republican bill also creates new rights for millions more Americans. For instance, all 124 million Americans in employer- sponsored health plans will have an improved internal appeals process available to them as well as a new, independent, external review process. These 124 million Americans will also be entitled to clear and complete information about their health plan, about what their health plan does and what it does not cover, about copayments, and about other plan procedures and policies. Our bill also improves existing Federal law on insurance underwriting with regard to preexisting conditions by ensuring that all 140 million Americans' group and individual plans will not be discriminated against by health insurers on the basis of predicted genetic information. Ironically, Senator Kennedy's bill includes several provisions that were specifically rejected by the President's Advisory Commission on health care quality. For example, State-run ombudsman programs were rejected by the Commission. Yet they are included in the Kennedy bill. This is the President's Advisory Commission on health care quality. The Kennedy bill also includes 12 other Federal mandates that were not specifically recommended by the President's Advisory Commission. In its report, the Commission states that it sought to ``balance the need for stronger consumer rights with the need to keep coverage affordable.'' That is the balance we have sought to maintain in our Republican bill. It is rejected by the Democrats in the Kennedy bill; it is embodied in the Republican Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act. The bottom line is that cost does matter because cost is directly related to access and the number of uninsured in our country. If cost was not such a factor, why have the Democrats tried to reduce CBO's scoring of their own bill? It is a factor. It is a big factor. It is an important factor because it affects who can buy insurance and how many millions of Americans are going to go without insurance protection. Guess how the Democrats thought about trying to reduce that CBO scoring. They sought to reduce the CBO scoring by taking away legal remedies currently available to those in ERISA health plans. A Patients' Bill of Rights should not be about taking away existing rights. The fact of the matter is, the Kennedy bill would put health care out of reach for close to 2 million Americans. It is not in this country's best interest to pass the kind of legislation that will make insurance less affordable and less accessible to those who need it most. I thank the Chair, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the State Department authorization bill. Specifically, I would like to commend Chairman Helms for the inclusion of a number of provisions dealing with China. These provisions closely mirror legislation that I introduced last year and earlier this year as Senate bill 89. Section 701 of this act contains a number of findings on the human rights situation in China from the State Department's Annual Report on human rights practices. The government of the People's Republic of China continues to commit widespread and egregious abuses of internationally recognized human rights. Its prisons are overflowing with tortured and mistreated citizens who would dare to practice their faiths or exercise a political voice. Religious persecution, crackdowns on political dissent, restrictions on the press, forced labor, forced abortions, repression of people in Tibet and Xinjiang province are, unfortunately, still a part of daily life in China. In order to shed light on the dark practices of the Chinese government, section 702 of this bill earmarks $2.2 million of money authorized for the Department of State for additional personnel in U.S. embassies and consulates for each of FY2000 and FY2001 to monitor political and economic conditions, particularly human rights. These new personnel, along with the creation of a prison information registry for the People's Republic of China in section 703, will make it all the more difficult for the Chinese government to deny that these abuses persist. With more centralized and accessible information, we will be able to better advocate for the release of these prisoners of conscience or faith. It is also important that the people of China have access to the truth. The U.S. may have accidentally bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, but it was no accident that the people did not hear President Clinton's repeated apologies. Section 502 of this bill reauthorizes Radio Free Asia, bringing objective reporting to the people of China. Section 705 strongly condemns the practice of organ harvesting, where organs from executed prisoners are sold on the black market or where prisoners are executed for their organs. According to our own State Department, ``In recent years, credible reports have alleged that organs from some executed prisoners were removed, sold, and transplanted. Officials have confirmed that executed prisoners are among the sources of organs for transplant but maintain that consent is required from prisoners or their relatives before organs are removed * * * there were credible reports that patients from Taiwan had undergone organ transplant operations on the mainland, using organs removed from executed criminals.'' Where and when organ harvesting is taking place in China, it must be stopped. Equally horrific is the practice of forcing women to undergo forced abortions or forced sterilization under the Chinese government's population control policies. Women who are pregnant with a second child find themselves and their relatives harassed, fined, and sometimes even have their homes destroyed until they are ultimately forced to undergo an abortion, even in the latest stages of pregnancy. Last June, the House International Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights heard testimony of these practices from Gao Xiao Duan, a former administrator of forced abortion, as well as Zhou Shiu Yon, a victim of these policies. I believe that it is only appropriate that Congress act in response to this horrid devaluation of human life. Section 721 restricts visas for any foreign national whom the Secretary of State finds to have been directly involved in the establishment or enforcement of population control policies involving forced abortion or forced sterilization. There is no reason why we should welcome into our country those individuals who have no respect for human life. United States-China relations are strained at this time. Amidst the whirlwind of controversy, including espionage, campaign donations, the accidental embassy bombing, and a near $60 billion trade deficit, there are some who would argue that we should be quiet about human rights in order to preserve the relationship. But I would argue that human rights must not be swept off our agenda. The Chinese government would like nothing more than for us to censor ourselves. I believe that this legislation will help to ensure that human rights and the defense of internationally recognized standards are kept intact. Mr. President, there are two additional provisions it this legislation. Section 704 requires the Secretary of State to report within 180 days on the feasibility and utility of establishing an Organization for Security and Cooperation in Asia, modeled after the OSCE. Section 722 requires semiannual reports to Congress on the status of U.S. efforts to support the membership of Taiwan in international organizations that do not require statehood, and the appropriate level of participation in international organizations that do require statehood for full membership. Taiwan's entry into international organizations has been held hostage to China's wishes for too long. In many instances, such as World Trade Organization membership, Taiwan is more qualified to join than China, yet simply because of China's sensitivities, it has been prevented from joining. In the long run, we must recognize that the Chinese government is a totalitarian regime. This dictatorship does not represent the people of China, rather it abuses them in any way necessary to maintain its power. Similarly, this regime will use any necessary means to expand its power in Asia. If we are to effectively manage these aims, we will need the help of our neglected allies in the region, namely Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. We cannot recover stolen information, but we must prevent future theft through increased security at our national labs and other facilities, more stringent background checks, controls on technology transfers, and a Justice Department that does not hinder its own FBI's investigations. We cannot afford to give the Chinese government the means to fulfill its military aims. We should, however, give the people of China the means to build their own democracy. Increased funding for Radio Free Asia, the Voice of America, democracy building programs, and rule of law initiatives are vital because they represent an engagement with the people of China rather than the regime at the top. We must recognize the limits to engaging an insecure, transient government that is on the wrong side of history. Finally, Mr. President, industry must do its part and aggressively advocate human rights. Americans doing business in China must be active advocates for human rights, to the Beijing government and to the people. They must not be complicit in slave labor or other human rights violations. The simple fact is that China desperately wants American trade and American business. U.S. companies must use this leverage to advance more than profits. China is not yet our enemy, but neither is it our friend. Our China- centered foreign policy must be replaced with a regional policy. We must break off this Administration's obsession with trying to acede to Beijing's every demand. Such a policy can only strengthen a regime that will seek to extinguish the flames of democracy abroad as it has done so effectively at home.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the speedy passage of S. 1205, the fiscal year 2000 military construction appropriations bill. I compliment both Chairman Burns and the ranking member, Senator Murray, for their excellent work in producing a bill that won the unanimous endorsement of the subcommittee. I am sure the bill will receive a similar degree of support from the entire Senate. I must also commend Senators Burns and Murray for rejecting the President's premature and irresponsible attempt to incrementally fund these essential projects. The Congress must continue to send this President the clear and consistent message that his fiscal negligence toward our Armed Forces will not be tolerated. I would like to take a moment to highlight two of the four important military construction projects for Arkansas included in this bill. The first is an $8.7 million project for Little Rock Air Force Base. This project is comprised of three new facilities, and the renovation of a fourth, that will greatly enhance the mission capabilities of the 189th Airlift Wing, Arkansas National Guard. The new Communications, Vehicle Maintenance and Civil Engineering/Medical Services facilities along with the renovated Aircraft Support building will stand as visible reminders of the Federal Government's commitment of Little Rock Air Force Base's bright future as an essential component of our nation's security. The other military construction project I would like to highlight is one that the Subcommittee wisely added to the President's insufficient proposal. I am speaking about the inclusion of an $18 million Chemical Defense Quality Evaluation Facility to be constructed at the Pine Bluff Arsenal. Pine Bluff Arsenal presently serves as the Department of Defense's primary maintenance and certification facility for chemical and biological defense equipment such as gas masks for our soldiers and air filters for M-1 tanks. The Department of Defense describes the present facility as: operating at maximum capacity, beyond levels consistent with good laboratory practice, with no space for [expansion]. According to the Department of Defense: if this project is not provided, inadequate . . . stockpile surveillance testing will continue, with an undefined chance that defective, deteriorated or damaged protective equipment or components could be accepted or retained in stock for issue. This risk directly endangers the worker in a toxic chemical environment or the soldier facing toxic chemicals in a combat situation. [DOD] cannot ensure reliability of [chemical and biological] equipment without . . . a suitable test facility. The construction of this new Chemical Defense Quality Evaluation Facility will reaffirm that defense against Weapons of Mass Destruction remains a national priority, and that the Pine Bluff Arsenal remains at the forefront of America's efforts in that endeavor. I will finish by again complimenting the subcommittee for its efforts in producing this legislation, and urge my colleagues to vote for its quick adoption.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in a period of morning business from 12 noon until 2 p.m. on Monday. Following morning business, the Senate will begin consideration of the Department of Defense appropriations bill, with the expectation of completing the bill early in the week. Therefore, Senators should be prepared to offer amendments to the bill as early as possible next week.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask the Senate stand in adjournment under the provisions of S. Con. Res. 35, following the remarks of Senator Landrieu.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of S. 438, ``To provide for the settlement of water rights claims of the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, and for other purposes,'' that the measure be referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs and that at such time as the Committee on Indian Affairs reports the measure, it be referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for a period not to exceed 60 calendar days and that if the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has not reported the measure prior to the expiration of the 60-calendar-day period, the Energy Committee be discharged from further consideration of the measure and that the measure then be placed on the calendar.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m. on Monday, the Senate begin consideration of S. 1122, the Department of Defense appropriations bill.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until 12 noon on Monday, June 7. I further ask that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business for 2 hours equally divided between the majority leader, or his designee, and the Democratic leader, or his designee.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto appear in the Record at the appropriate place as if read, without intervening action.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 112, introduced earlier today by Senator Feingold.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 111, introduced earlier today by Senator Graham and others.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1379 and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 110, submitted earlier by Senator Hutchison, for herself and others.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the resolution, as amended, be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and finally, that any additional statements appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly in support of S. Res. 103, a resolution concerning the tenth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre which occurred on June 4, 1989. This bipartisan resolution expresses sympathy for the families of those killed in the peaceful protests, calls on the Government of China to live up to international standards by releasing prisoners of conscience, ending the harassment of Chinese citizens, and calls upon the Chinese Government to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We must never forget the heroic young man who stood in the path of a column of PLA tanks 10 years ago. We must never forget the brave men like Wang Dan, who spent years in prison for daring to exercise his inalienable rights to self-expression. We must never forget those students who were so inspired by our own experiment in self-government and freedom and democracy that they erected a 37-foot model of our Statue of Liberty. We must never forget those who still languish in prison in China today, simply because they have democratic aspirations, because they have religious convictions, because they have a desire to be free. We must never forget men like Wang Wenjiang and Wang Zechen, members of the Chinese Democracy Party, who were detained for circulating a petition calling for a reassessment of the Tiananmen verdict. We must never forget pro democracy activist Yang Tao arrested for planning a commemoration tomorrow of the tenth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. We must not forget Jiang Qisheng, who was taken from his home in Beijing on May 18 for urging the Chinese to light candles in commemoration of those killed in the massacre ten years ago. For asking for a peaceful memorial, the lighting of candles, he has been arrested. According to the Wall Street Journal today, over 50 dissidents have been detained in recent days leading up to the tenth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, and at least 14 are currently being held. The Chinese government knows what it has done. It is afraid of its own people. Otherwise, these series of arrests would not have occurred. This resolution asks the Chinese government to face reality, listen to its people, and to release prisoners of conscience. Mr. President, I am just afraid that in the midst of all of our talk of the espionage of the Chinese government--which well we should pay attention to--with all of the talk of the unfortunate, tragic bombing of the Chinese embassy, with all of the talk about accession of China to the WTO and a permanent normal trading status for China, we will forget that there are tens of thousands today who are oppressed, and hundreds remain in prison, and there are multitudes who desire freedom and want a better political system for their country, who want democracy, and I am afraid they will be forgotten in all of the milieu concerning our relationship with China. So this resolution calls upon us to remember. And I will--if no one else does--offer this resolution year after year. It is a special anniversary. It is the tenth anniversary of the tragedy that occurred.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. Res. 103, a resolution concerning the 10th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre on June 4, 1999. This bipartisan resolution expresses sympathy for the families of those killed in the Tiananmen protests, and calls on the government of China to live up to international standards by releasing prisoners of conscience, ending harassment of Chinese citizens, and ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Mr. President, we must never forget. For the past ten years, the Tiananmen Square massacre has been a dark cloud hanging over China. Hundreds of democracy activists still languish in prison for their involvement in the demonstrations of 1989. We must not forget because to this very day, the U.S. is dealing with a regime that will not release these prisoners of conscience. The Beijing protests began in April 1989 as a call for the government to explain itself--to explain its 1987 dismissal of Hu Yaobang, an official who had been sympathetic to students demanding political reform in 1986. The demonstrators, students and workers, asked that the government take action against corruption. Their demands eventually came to include freedom of the press, more money for education, and democratic reforms. Students of Beijing University and 40 other universities, as well as Beijing residents, protested in and around Tiananmen Square. They held hunger strikes and defied martial law. They were met with brutal repression. Mr. President, we must never forget that heroic young man who stood in the path of a column of PLA tanks. We must never forget the brave men like Wang Dan who spent years in prison for daring to exercise his inalienable right to self-expression. We must never forget those students who were so inspired by our own experiment in self-government that they erected a 37 foot model of our statue of liberty. We must never forget those who still languish in prison in China today for their democratic aspirations, for their religious convictions, for their desire to be free. We must never forget men like Wang Wenjiang and Wang Zechen, members of the Chinese Democracy Party, detained for circulating a petition calling for a reassessment of the Tiananmen verdict. We must not forget prodemocracy activist, Yang Tao, who was arrested for planning a commemoration to mark the 10th anniversary of Tiananmen Square. We must not forget Jiang Qisheng, taken from his home in Beijing on May 18th for urging Chinese to light candles in commemoration of those killed in Tiananmen Square. According to the Wall Street Journal, over 50 dissidents have been detained in the days leading up to the 10th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, and at least fourteen are still being held. The Chinese government knows what is has done and it is afraid-- afraid of its own people. Otherwise, these series of arrests would not occur. This resolution asks the Chinese government to face reality, to listen to its people, to release prisoners of conscience. On June 3, 1989, police officers attacked students with tear gas, rubber bullets, and electric truncheons. People's Liberation Army (PLA) officers armed with AK-47s opened fire on the innocent people who would dare stand in their way. They sent convoys of tanks to Tiananmen Square to absolutely crush the demonstrators. Their armored vehicles rammed the Goddess of Democracy, a 37 foot plaster likeness of the Statue of Liberty, knocking it down, flattening it beneath their steel treads. They killed a symbol of democracy and massacred their own people. On June 4, the PLA and security forces killed 1,500 and wounded 10,000. By June 7, the Chinese Red Cross reported 2,600 people aspiring to democracy dead. In the end, the Chinese government killed and wounded thousands of demonstrators. They imprisoned thousands more for their participation. The simple fact is that the Chinese government is a totalitarian regime. President Clinton would do well to recognize this simple fact and recognize the failures of his engagement policy, rather than simply decrying any criticism as isolationism. If the hundreds of prisoners of conscience still languishing in prison today is not telling enough of the character of this regime, then perhaps the Chinese reaction to the embassy bombing is. NATO's bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was a tragic accident. And the Chinese people had a reason to be upset. But there was no accident in the Chinese government's control of the media and manipulation of Chinese citizens to stir up anti-American sentiment. The Chinese government blocked reports of President Clinton's repeated apologies for the bombing. They bused students out from universities to orchestrated protests, pelting rocks at the U.S. embassy in Beijing, holding Ambassador Sasser and his staff hostage in the embassy, burning the American consulate in Chengdu. It was no accident that after several days, the Chinese government made sure that the protests came to an end when they were no longer useful for the government's purposes. Ethan Gutmann, a television producer living in Beijing, witnessed the protests. ``After a while, when the chanting lost its steam, the megaphone leader would strike up a short sing-along of the national anthem. This was the signal to leave, to shuffle along and give the next university its chance to demonstrate. The cycle continued, fresh waves of students, monotony. Several British journalists discussed the numbers.'' They felt it was low, about 3,000; in a kind of Chinese scarf trick, the same student groups kept reappearing after an hour or so. The students, when isolated and interviewed, were naively forthcoming; the university authorities had told them to come, told them to make banners, arranged the buses. The whole demonstration was canned . . .'' It was no accident that the Chinese government played the victim, trying to squeeze the Administration for concessions, trying to get the U.S. to exclude Taiwan from any defense umbrella in Asia. It was no accident that the Chinese government called off its human rights dialogue and nonproliferation talks. Mr. President, the moral high ground that the Chinese regime attempted to seize from the accidental bombing has no equivalency to its own treatment of its citizens, to the massacre of the students in Beijing ten years ago. We must never forget the nature of the regime in China. The leaders may be different, but the treatment of Chinese citizens is the same. Even this week, pro-democracy activist, Yang Tao, was arrested for planning a commemoration to mark the 10th anniversary of Tiananmen Square. This week it was reported that police took Jiang Qisheng (chee sheng) from his home in Beijing on May 18 for urging Chinese to light candles in commemoration of those killed in Tiananmen Square. I urge all of my colleagues to join with me in supporting this bipartisan resolution--to recognize this regime for what it truly is and to never forget the tragedy that occurred ten years ago on June 3 and June 4, 1989.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 103 and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the committee substitute be agreed to, the bill read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear in the Record.