Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, thank you for bringing the Senate to order. This is an amendment that would simply deny visas and travel to those in the Chinese Government who the Secretary of State finds, by credible evidence, are involved in either forced abortions or religious persecution. It is not MFN, it is not IMF, it is not sanctions, but it would deny visas. China denies these practices are taking place. If that is the case, there would be no obstruction at all in diplomatic relations. We provide in the amendment, and I hope everybody will look closely at the amendment, a Presidential waiver if it is in the national interest. This amendment passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives. I think, since the President returned, the most recent round of arrests of democratic dissidents underscores the need for this amendment. It is a rifleshot, not a shotgun. We want to go after the bad guys, and that is all. It is not against trading. It doesn't deal with trading. A vote against tabling this amendment is a vote for freedom in China. I ask my colleagues to oppose the tabling motion.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer an a second-degree amendment numbered 3419, and I send that amendment to the desk.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I think the amendment has been agreed to and would not need debate, from my standpoint.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. When we temporarily set this aside and do the negotiations on the various second-degree amendments that are to be considered, when do you anticipate returning to----

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Abraham amendment 2964 to the Defense appropriations bill. The Abraham amendment would authorize additional human rights monitors at the embassy in Beijing, China, as well as our other consulates around China. I think it is exceptionally warranted. It is very, very much needed. The Chinese Government has repeatedly flaunted its lack of respect for human rights. We have seen how the Government controls its people through registration, through coercive and repressive practices. We have seen how the Chinese Government punishes those who would dare to worship by the dictates of their conscience. We have seen how the Government punishes those who would speak in the name of democracy, those who would seek to register an opposition political party. They punish those who simply seek to fulfill normal human aspirations, aspirations that we too often take for granted. We have seen that in the last two, at least the last two annual State Department reports on human rights that China was found to be one of, if not the worst human rights abuser in the world today. I think that fact alone, the fact that our State Department, in monitoring the countries of the world, the nations of the world, issuing reports on human rights conditions in the various nations of the world, found China as the greatest abuser of human rights justifies the Abraham amendment in establishing additional human rights monitors, additional personnel in the embassy to monitor situations like this: ``Chinese Resume Arrests,'' so that we will have the kind of knowledge about what is going on in the area of human rights within China that will allow us to, I think, engage China in the correct way. Mr. President, we do not expect that China will change overnight, nor do we expect that the amendment that I have offered dealing with forced abortions and religious persecution, or the amendment that Senator Abraham has offered will magically produce the change that we all desire. But it is essential that we shed light on the kind of human rights abuses, the dark practices that have become too evident for too many years. And it is essential that we engage those abuses with a substantive response. This is part of that substantive response. The question before us is not whether we contain and isolate China. We cannot do that. We should not do that. We would not want to do that. The question before us is whether or not we will engage them on issues of human rights, as well as trade, as well as national security issues, whether we will actually engage them, and in so doing support the cause of freedom. Frankly, I am puzzled by those who would excuse themselves and pardon themselves by saying that they, too, are opposed to the human rights abuses in China but then would oppose any effort to have a substantive response to those human rights abuses. So I believe that this is not only a well-intended but a well-drafted amendment. It is, once again, part of the package that passed in the House of Representatives now almost a year ago with overwhelming bipartisan support, and it is long past time for the Senate to weigh in on that; to support the monitoring of human rights abuses in China, as we seek to do throughout the world; to give the kinds of personnel to our State Department, to our diplomatic people to assure that we have the best intelligence, the best reporting possible. It is, I think, evident that this is needed in light of this latest round of arrests of political dissidents in China. It is puzzling to me that we can talk about the great improvement in China and the reforms that are taking place, and that this administration could put so much faith in President Jiang and his regime in Beijing when all of the evidence that is forthcoming, whether it is in the media, through our intelligence agencies, or the State Department itself indicates that, in fact, those abuses are as bad as ever, and that the crackdown on religious believers is now only most recently exceeded by the crackdown on political dissidents. I do believe, as the President has expressed, that eventually China will be free. I believe that. I think someday China will be a country in which free expression is tolerated and the freedoms that are not American values, but are fundamental human values, will exist in China. But I think it will not be through the regime that rules with an iron fist in Beijing, China, today. So, let us engage, but let us engage thoroughly and on all fronts. The package of amendments that is before the Senate today will enable us to do that. So it is essential that we not table the China amendments, that we support them, that we agree to them as part of the appropriations bill. I believe, because the House passed these measures by such an overwhelming vote, they will be preserved in the conference and we will be able to give the President an opportunity to truly involve this administration in an engagement policy that will reflect the values that are precious to us and help to bring about the change that we desire to see in China and to give support to the freedom fighters, freedom lovers in China today who risk the limited freedom that they have to go about their daily activities by speaking out, by seeking to form an opposition political party, by seeking to worship according to the dictates of their conscience. I think it is so imperative that we go on record with these amendments, to stand shoulder to shoulder with those who are putting their lives and their limited liberty at stake by taking a far more dangerous stand there, in China, today. I applaud Senator Abraham for bringing the human rights monitors amendment to the floor of the Senate, and I look forward to casting my vote against tabling and for the amendment. I ask my colleagues to do likewise. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, coerced abortion and religious persecution are two practices that the Chinese Communist Government denies take place in China. How, then, would denying visas to Chinese officials in which we have credible evidence that, in fact, they are doing--how would that impede the kind of positive relationship that you want to see? I again reiterate the questions: How do we reconcile the most recent rounds of arrests of those who tried to form a democracy party in China when they were detained and incarcerated? And the test of the rocket engines while the President was in China, how do we reconcile that with this supposed breeze of freedom that we now have blowing through China?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. You were speaking very positively about the changes in China. My question is, How do we reconcile the recent round of arrests that occurred in the 2 weeks--actually, the week subsequent to the President's visit--headlined in all of the newspapers across the country? Those who had attempted to register as an opposition political party and were arrested, some of whom are still incarcerated, as well as the tests of rocket engines that occurred even while the President was in China, how do we reconcile that with this supposed great reform that is taking place in China? And then also, the question I would pose is, The amendment that you are opposing simply says that visas should not be granted to those who are involved in forcing--compelling-- abortions on women against their will and those who are involved in persecution of religious believers of various faiths. Do you oppose denying visas to those individuals who are involved in forced abortions and religious persecution?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3124 which I filed previously.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I turn, I believe, to an issue of great, great importance to this body and to the Nation. In defending his policy before he left for China, President Clinton said: We do not ignore the value of symbols, but in the end, if the choice is between making a symbolic point and making a real difference, I choose to make a difference. I say to my colleagues, today we have a chance to make a difference. The President went on and said: When it comes to advancing human rights and religious freedom, dealing directly, speaking honestly with the Chinese is clearly the best way to make a difference. While in China, President Clinton was allowed to make some tempered remarks on human rights abuses in China, though, unfortunately, he was quick to equate them with problems in America. He came back from China hailing his trip as a success and praising President Jiang and saying-- I quote again-- ``feeling the breeze of freedom.'' Only a week after President Clinton's return from China, China demonstrated the impact of this rhetoric on their attitude and their policies by arresting 10 democracy advocates. There their crime was not rape. It was not theft. It was not burglary. It was not grand larceny. It was not fraud. Their crime was that they dared to start a democratic opposition party. The Washington Post reported--it is obvious in the headline--on Sunday, July 12, on the front page, ``Chinese Resume Arrests, 10 Detained a Week after Clinton Visit.'' Fortunately, five of these activists were subsequently released. But when the supporters of democracy protested these arrests in an open letter to the Communist Government, it was no surprise the Chinese Government kindly responded by arresting yet another dissident, Xu Wenli. According to the Associated Press, on July 24, 1998, the Chinese Government detained four more dissidents, bringing the known number of detained dissidents since the President returned from China to 21. Twenty-one dissidents have been detained since July 10, and three remain in custody at this moment. On July 29, the Associated Press reported that the Chinese Government detained the democracy activist Wang Youcai for the second time this month. I will simply say, this is not the ``breeze of freedom,'' but it is rather the draft of repression. Some would like to argue that President Clinton's televised comments in China were a historic breakthrough in emboldening democracy activists throughout China. Unfortunately, the President's remarks were broadcast in the middle of the day when few Chinese were watching television. His remarks were not repeated on the evening news and were completely omitted from the next day's state-controlled newspapers. I remind my colleagues also that Chinese activists already had their momentum, and that momentum was of their own creation from the 1989 demonstrations at Tiananmen Square. We see that President Clinton spoke directly to the Chinese people, at least some of them. We see the symbolic point that he made, but what we do not see is that there was any difference made in the policy of the Chinese Government. In fact, their response was one of impudence, one of, if you will, a reinforcement of their policy of repression, and I believe the arrests that the Washington Post and all the major media in our country spoke of within a week of the President's return is testimony to the failure of our policy of appeasement. As this chart is on the floor of the Senate with that headline, ``Chinese Resume Arrests,'' it stands as, I think, irrefutable evidence that the current policies failed to bring about the desired changes, the changes that we all desire in China. They resumed arrests. A policy of appeasement has never worked, and it is not working today. Today, we, as a body, have the opportunity to move beyond rhetoric into real action with the amendment that I have offered. The amendment is composed of two parts: one dealing with forced abortions and one dealing with religious persecution in China. This will have brought most of the House-passed measures last year--the Chinese freedom policy measures sponsored by my good friend and colleague, Chris Cox--this will have brought most of those now to a vote in the Senate. I am glad to say that my friend, Spence Abraham, the Senator from Michigan, intends to offer the human rights monitors amendment later on this bill. I am also glad that an amendment that I had filed dealing with satellite technology transfers and moving the authority for that waiver process back to the State Department and away from the Commerce Department is, as I speak, being worked out in the State Department authorization conference committee, and I trust and hope that it will be in that conference report when it is presented to the Senate later. I want to provide my colleagues with some background on this amendment. As many of my colleagues will recall, in November of last year, a number of China-related bills were overwhelmingly passed by the House of Representatives. This is that package of bills sponsored by Congressman Cox, a ``policy for freedom,'' it was called. Since that time, most of these measures have languished in Senate committees without hearings, without movement and without consideration. On the defense authorization bill, we adopted several of these House provisions that I offered at that time. However, the remainder of those were not passed because my efforts to offer them were thwarted by those who did not desire to have that debate on these China provisions before or during the President's trip to China. I simply say the President has returned. This is our opportunity now. My amendment, which I am glad to say is bipartisan and that Senator Wellstone from Minnesota, who is on the floor--and I welcome his remarks in support of this--is cosponsoring this amendment, mirrors the language that passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives last November. The provision on forced abortions--by the way, the Nuremberg Tribunal on War Crimes condemned forced abortions, rightfully, as being a crime against humanity. This is not a pro-life, pro-choice issue. Pro- choicers overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives voted for this provision because this is, in fact, a crime against humanity. To compel and to force--to use coercion--take a woman in the seventh, eighth, ninth month of pregnancy and compel her, against her wishes, to have an abortion, that is a crime against humanity. That is why that provision in the House of Representatives passed by a vote of 415-1-- 415-1. The second provision, the ``free the clergy'' portion, of the amendment passed the House of Representatives last November by a vote of 366-54. Now, what does the amendment do? It condemns religious persecution and forced abortion in China. The amendment would prohibit the use of American funds, appropriated to the Department of State, the USIA or AID, to pay for the travel of Communist officials involved in repressing worship or religious persecution. So where there is credible evidence that these officials are engaged in these horrendous practices, they would be denied visa approval, they would be denied travel expenses, per diem by the American Government, by the American taxpayer. It would deny visas to officials engaged in religious persecution and forced abortion. The amendment would force the Department of State to raise, in every bilateral and multilateral forum, the issues of individuals in prison, detained, confined, or otherwise harassed by the Chinese Government on religious grounds. It simply means that we are going to require our diplomats, when engaging in bilateral and multilateral discussions, to raise these important issues of religious persecution and forced abortions so that that discussion and our concern--the concern of the American people--is reflected by our diplomatic corps. This amendment would make freedom of religion one of the major objectives of the United States foreign policy with respect to China. And lastly, concerning religious persecution, this amendment would demand that Chinese Government officials provide the United States State Department with the specific names of individuals, the individuals' whereabouts, the condition of those individuals, the charges against them, and the sentence that it imposed against them. So individuals who have been arrested and incarcerated because of their faith, because of their religious practice, we would demand that the Chinese Government provide information about the condition, the whereabouts of those individuals and how long the sentence was. The same would be applied to those engaged in forced abortions. Mr. President, since the founding of the People's Republic of China almost 50 years ago, the Government has savaged and persecuted religious believers and subjected religious groups in China to comprehensive control by the state and the Chinese Communist Party. The head of the state's Religious Affairs Bureau said in 1996--and I quote the head of the Religious Affairs Bureau in China--``Our aim is not registration for its own sake, but control.'' Let me say that again. He said, ``Our aim is not just registration, but control over places for religious activities as well as over all religious activities themselves.'' When people say there is religious freedom in China, that they only require registration, please realize, the purpose of that registration is to control religious activities in China, an effort that they have been quite successful at. So religious organizations today in China are required to promote socialism and ``patriotism'' while the massive state party propaganda apparatus vigorously attempts to promote atheism and combat what they call ``superstition.'' Mr. President, the Chinese Government, the Communist Party, have in recent years intensified efforts to expel religious believers from the Government, the military, and the party, ordering a nationwide purge of believers in January of 1995. I am very concerned about the mounting campaign of religious persecution being waged by the rulers of China. I believe this amendment is the least that we can do. Many of my colleagues have said that using trade policy is the wrong instrument in dealing with the repressive practices of the Chinese Government. I understand. In fact, I am sympathetic to that argument. I never thought that most-favored-nation status was the best tool that we had, and yet when we come with a proposal like this, one that I have visited with Senator Wellstone about, and many of my colleagues about, when we come with one that denies visas and denies travel and per diem for those involved in these terrible practices, then I hear people saying that is the wrong tool to use, we should not use visas. This is the very least that we can do. If we are not willing to deal with the $60 billion trade deficit that we give China--trade imbalance that we have with that country--then the least we can do is come back on this issue of visas, travel expenses, and raising the issue in our diplomacy and diplomatic efforts with the Chinese Government and make this something more than mere rhetoric. I believe that these amendments are modest, that they are temperate, that they are well thought out. They have been repeatedly debated, not only in the House of Representatives but on the floor of the Senate as well. I will ask my colleagues to support the amendments and to oppose any effort to table these amendments. I believe that there is clear evidence not only of religious persecution among Evangelical believers, among Roman Catholic believers, but most obviously among Buddhist believers and the followers of the Dalai Lama. The repression ranges from ransacking homes in Tibet in search of banned pictures of the Dalai Lama to the closing and destroying of over 18,000 Buddhist shrines last spring. So the repression is real. And religious faith of all persuasions is in revival in China, but it is in revival in the face of intense persecution by the Chinese Government. I will only briefly speak of the practice of forced abortions that are going on in China today. I believe that this is a practice that is indefensible by any civilized human being. In their effort and attempt to reach a 1 percent annual population growth, the Chinese authorities, in 1979, issued regulations that provided monetary bonuses and other benefits, as incentives, and economic penalties for those who would have in excess of one child. They subject families in China to rigorous pressure to end pregnancies and to undergo sterilizations. And while the Communist Chinese Government today says that coercion is not an approved policy, they admit that it goes on. They have not provided our State Department any evidence that they are punishing the perpetrators of that terrible practice of coerced abortions and forced sterilizations in China today. Even more tragic is their effort to eliminate those they regard as ``defective.'' China's eugenics policy, the so-called natal and health care law, requires couples at risk of transmitting disabling congenital defects to their children to undergo sterilization. So the practices continue in China; the abuses continue in China. This amendment is the very least that we can do in clear conscience. I have faith that my colleagues are going to support this amendment. I think it is something that is so essential that we do. This practice of coerced abortions--and, may I add, the practice of persecuting believers, religious believers --is morally reprehensible and indefensible. It is clear, as well, that the desired changes that the policy of so- called constructive engagement has sought has failed. I once again point to this headline in the Washington Post, which was, in various forms, the front page story all across this country this month: ``Chinese Resume Arrests''--that in the wake of our President's visit to China. So please look at the temperate tone of these amendments. Realize that the substance is simply denying visas, travel expenses, if you will, American-taxpayer-subsidized travel, in recognition of those who the State Department, the Secretary of State, has credible evidence indicating that they are involved in these inhumane practices. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment when we vote this afternoon. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, it is with some reluctance that I respond to the comments, because I have such utmost respect for the Senator from Hawaii and his distinguished career, and all that he represents. But I just want to clarify the perspective of the authors of this amendment. The issue is not imposing American values. Frankly, we don't and we can't impose anything on another nation. But what we can say is that the values are important. I think it is terribly wrong to try to make a moral equivalency argument and say that examples of religious persecution that may exist in the United States can in any stretch of the imagination be compared to the wholesale religious oppression that exists in China today. We simply don't have headlines in the Washington Post saying that there were ``10 detained in Arkansas'' because of their religious beliefs. We don't have that in this country, and we shouldn't. If we did there would be an outrage, and if we did we should be condemned by other nations in the world. So the issue is not imposing American values. The issue is whether or not we as a body and we as a nation want to reflect certain fundamental beliefs and fundamental rights. I add that these are not American values that we speak of. These are not American values that this amendment is addressing. These are human values. They are basic human rights. It was not the U.S. Supreme Court that I quoted in condemnation of forced abortion. It was the Nuremberg War Tribunal that said forced abortion is a crime against humanity. These are human values. We cannot excuse a nation by saying they are new at this thing of freedom. No. In fact, it is not that the communist rulers of China don't understand freedom. It is that they understand freedom all too well, and they are determined to repress it. The issue in China is control, and the Chinese Communist Government is determined to use whatever means necessary and whatever means at their disposal to insure that they maintain control, even to the point of persecuting those who might say there is a power above and beyond the power of the Chinese Government. I say to my distinguished colleague from Hawaii that the issue is not isolation. It is certainly not isolation. There is no way that we could, even if we wished to, isolate the largest, most populist nation in the world. It is, though, whether we as a country and we as a people are going to stand for something other than profits. That is what this amendment is about. That is why I believe, I have faith, that my colleagues in the Senate will support an amendment that really reflects the best not only of American values but human values. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. The officials that are listed of the various religious organizations that the Senator listed in the amendment are, in fact, Government employees, and Government agents. They are those at the head of these associations. These are the registered churches that are used as tools and the agents of the Chinese Communist Government in the repression of those various groups. It does not refer to the pastors, the ministers, the priests of local congregations, but the heads of these associations which, in fact, work for the Communist Chinese Government and are those that are perpetrating the very persecution against those groups. So while there are millions of Chinese today underground in unregistered churches, mosques, synagogues and temples, there is also the so-called Patriotic Church, the recognized church by the Government which is strictly controlled, names, addresses of worshipers to be turned into the Government. Messages that are proclaimed are closely censored by the Government. That is why those officials would be included if, in fact, the Secretary of State found credible evidence that they were practicing perpetrating religious persecution.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, shortly I will call up the Tax Code sunsetting amendment. I ask unanimous consent to add the following cosponsors: Senator Brownback, Senator McCain, Senator Abraham, Senator Inhofe, Senator Grams, Senator Smith of New Hampshire, Senator Helms, Senator Murkowski, Senator Coats, Senator Sessions, and Senator Coverdell.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I think it would be very, very foolish of us to try to have a national debate on tax reform on the floor of the Senate tonight, for us to decide we are going to take a sales tax off the table, we are going to take VAT off the table, we are going to take a flat tax off the table, and we are going to take a modified or hybrid of it, and we are going to decide this evening. That is the whole point, I say to my colleague. The whole point that we need a deadline is to move us to reach the consensus on what is the best way. I suspect we will end up keeping a home mortgage deduction and the charitable deduction. But we need that national debate. The only way we are going to force that national debate is to focus--most Americans are exactly where I am. They are not sure what would be the best replacement. But they sure know this: What we have needs to be replaced. So let us take one step at a time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. If the Senator would yield?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I, first of all, do not know to which study the Senator is referring. There are many studies on the various rates of a flat and sales tax. But what I would suggest is that the principles laid down in the bill that I introduced and in the amendment that we are debating would be violated by any type of a 30-percent aggressive sales tax. Obviously, that would be something that I think would be totally unacceptable. But to throw up these fears: ``We're going to lose a home mortgage deduction'' and ``We're going to lose a charitable deduction,'' that is the politics of fear. That is what prevents us from moving forward to real and comprehensive tax reform, in my opinion.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, with that, I call up an amendment I have at the desk, No. 3249, the Tax Code sunset amendment.