Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I am quite aware of that hearing.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Responding to the Senator, this amendment condemns the practice, which I am sure everybody in this Chamber would. It goes further and says that visas will be denied to those individuals for whom there is credible evidence that they have been involved in perpetrating the practice of coerced abortions. That credible evidence would be determined by the Department of State, by the Secretary of State herself, if need be. When we talk about enforcement, when we talk about the number of people involved, we are talking here, speaking in this amendment, about credible evidence, and there are human rights groups as well who monitor the conditions in China, who monitor human rights abuses in China, who come forward with reports. And there will be and has been from time to time evidence of individuals who are involved in this horrendous practice. We would say those individuals for whom there is credible evidence that they have been involved in forced abortions should not be allowed to receive a visa and travel to the United States.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will be glad to yield for a question.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. In response to the Senator's question, it is the perpetrator that we are concerned about, it is the person who is enforcing this terrible inhumane policy, brutal policy, grizzly practice of the Government. This certainly isn't the victim. This is a very pro-victim amendment. We want to defend the rights. I might add again, as I said before, that this is not a pro-life, pro-choice issue. We are dealing here with a practice that is condemned by all civilized societies and that is coerced; forced abortions using physical force to compel a woman to have an abortion against her will. To vote on this, whether it was a month ago, or whether it be 6 months ago, or on this, the eve of the President's trip, in no way would undercut the ability of the Chief Executive of this country to speak about our foreign policy and our values as a people. In fact, I believe sincerely this will strengthen the ability of our Chief Executive, our President, to go to China, to go to Beijing, to speak with Chinese officials and to defend our values with the full support of the Senate and the House of Representatives and the American people.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will yield for an additional question.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I certainly agree with that statement. I agree. In answering the question, I think that is a correct assertion; that if as much intensity were placed on opening China, on encouraging free expression, on encouraging dissent, as there is on the enforcement of repressive family planning policies and coercive family planning policies, then I think it would be a far different China, and there would be a far different attitude by the American people and by our Government. The President is correct. I do not believe we can reach our full potential in our relationship with China until we see a revolution in the structure of China, until we see a revolution in freedom in China. I believe that will come. The question is does it come through the current policy, which I think fails to fully engage. You know, those of us who are critics of the current administration's China policy have been called isolationists. I believe the real isolationists in this debate are those who want to turn a blind eye to things like coerced abortions, those who want to pretend that religious persecution is not going on in China and don't want to address it. So when we find those today who say this is the wrong timing and we don't want to vote on this, this isn't the appropriate time to vote on coerced abortion, this isn't the appropriate time to vote on religious persecution, that appears to me to be something other than an engagement policy. That would seem to me to be an isolationist policy. We don't want to engage them. We should. We should engage them on a full range of issues, including human rights. And my concern about this administration's policy is that human rights, which at one time was placed on the first tier, when President Clinton, then candidate Clinton said he would not coddle dictators from Baghdad to Beijing, that now is dropped from the first tier to at least the third tier, with trade being No. 1; security, to the extent it is being engaged, No 2; and human rights dropping down to No. 3. I believe, if we are going to have a policy of engagement--and truly have a policy of engagement--we must fully engage them equally on all of these fronts.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield for another question.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. In response to the Senator's question, I would say to the Senator from Missouri that, indeed, there is a relationship. I believe that when life is cheapened in one area, whether that is demonstrated through forced labor, slave labor camps, laogai camps, as they are called in China; whether it is demonstrated through religious persecution and the exile and execution of religious dissidents, religious minorities, or whether it is demonstrated through coerced abortion practices, the cheapening of human life carries over into all aspects of a nation's policy. So the willingness of the Chinese Government, according to the CIA report, to have 13 of their ICBMs targeting the American cities--and as the Senator calls them, city- busters, because the purpose is to have a wide devastation--I think it is related, directly related to that cheapening of human life and the lack of respect for the dignity of human life. So I would respond to the Senator that way. I certainly think there is a relationship. I appreciate the Senator's question. I would just say in concluding on this amendment that our own State Department in issuing its China Country Report for 1997 on Human Rights Practices in China addressed this issue of forced abortions. I will only read a small portion of the State Department's report. I think it underscores how serious the situation is. This isn't something that human rights activists on the left and the right in the United States are dreaming up. It is not some fiction that we have created. Our own State Department, in examining the human rights conditions in China, has assessed it this way. Penalties for excess births can also be levied against local officials and the mothers' work units, thus creating multiple sources of pressure. Fines for giving birth without authorization vary, but they can be a formidable disincentive. According to the State Family Planning Commission 1996 family planning manual, over 24 million fines were assessed between 1985 and 1993 for children born outside family planning rules. In Fujian, the standard fine has been calculated to be twice a family's gross annual income. That is to violate the family planning rulings in China makes you suspect, makes you vulnerable to a fine that would be twice your gross annual income. That is an incredibly difficult burden to place on this kind of a so-called violation. Additional unauthorized births incur fines assessed in increments of 50 percent per child. In Guangzhou the standard fine is calculated to be 30 to 50 percent of 7 years' income for the average resident. In some cases a ``social compensation fee'' is also imposed. Unpaid fines have sometimes resulted in confiscation or destruction of homes and personal property by local officials. Central government officials acknowledge that such incidents occur, but insist that cases like these are not the norm nor in line with official policy. The government prohibits the use of force to compel persons to submit to abortion or sterilization, but poor supervision of local officials who are under intense pressure to meet family planning targets can result in instances of abuse including forced abortion and sterilization. And the report goes on into great detail, and I think provides clear documentation for the need for this amendment. I think also if you consider, once again, the testimony that was presented before the House Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, the testimony concerning the implementation of the abortion policy of China and the one-child policy of China is truly frightening. I will simply read some of these points to establish the routine the family planning bureau is following: I. To establish a computer bank of all women of child- bearing age in the town [whatever town size it might be], including their dates of birth, marriages, children, contraceptive ring insertions, pregnancies, abortions, child- bearing capabilities, etc. II. To issue ``birth-allowed certificates'' to women who meet the policy and regulations of the central and provincial planned-birth committees, and are therefore allowed to give birth to children. . . . Without a certificate, women are not allowed to give birth to children. You have to apply. You have to get a certificate. You have to get permission to birth a child. Should a woman be found pregnant without a certificate, abortion surgery is performed immediately, regardless of how many months she is pregnant. I spoke earlier that estimates range as high as a half-million third trimester abortions in China each year. And then, to issue ``birth not allowed'' notices. Such notices are sent to couples when the data concludes that they do not meet the requirements of the policy and are, therefore, not allowed to give birth. A couple whose first born is a boy, or whose first born is a girl but who give birth to a second child, boy or girl, receives such a notice after a period of 3 years and 2 months. Such notices are made public. The purpose of this is to make it known to everyone that the couple is in violation of the policy, therefore facilitating supervision of the couple. They issue birth control measure implementation notices. They impose monetary penalties on those who violate the provincial regulations. Should they refuse to pay these penalties, supervision team members will apprehend and detain them as long as they do not pay. The PBO regularly supervises and examines how staff members of Planned Parenthood offices in 22 villages perform their duties. They write monthly synopses of the planned birth reports, which are signed by the town head and the town Communist Party. They analyze informant materials. They have established, in China, a system of informants in accordance with the informing system, and have put these cases on file for investigation. They have planned birth cadres. There was testimony before Congressman Smith's subcommittee indicating that these cadres, and the number of people involved in this program, has increased dramatically in recent years, indicating that rather than retreating from this coercive practice, they, instead, are pursuing it with new vigor. We go on in this testimony. I think it should be a concern to all Americans that this practice is being tolerated and that we have not taken, as the foreign policy of our country, a strong, strong position which this amendment would allow us to do. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I object.

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I inquire of the Senator from California as to how long she would foresee speaking? There were a number of comments made as to my motivation on this amendment and questioning the timeliness. I would like to have an opportunity to respond. In addition, we have a division on the amendment and I would like to speak to that division of my amendment. Rather than yielding for a lengthy speech, I think we need to proceed with the division.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, am I correct in my understanding, the Warner-Hutchinson amendment is the pending business?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a few minutes about that amendment which I authored and which I anticipate Senator Warner will move, at 10:15, to table. It has become evident to me that tabling motions in this institution at one time were far more meaningful; that in this case there will be an effort to vote against tabling, simply for the purpose of making that vote meaningless. There are those who simply do not want a straight up or down, clean vote on the substance of these amendments. What they want to do is cease embarrassing themselves by being seen voting against amendments that are supported broadly by the American people and are substantively what we ought to do: condemn forced abortion, deny visas to those who are performing them, condemn religious persecution, deny visas to those who are involved in it. Those are the kinds of things the American people support. But those who simply want to avoid having to cast that vote at this time are going to vote against tabling it and, by so doing, prevent any kind of clean up or down vote on the substance of these amendments. There is no time agreement. We will have a cloture vote later today. So they seem to have found a means by which, on a parliamentary basis, they can avoid having to take a stand on what we need to be taking a stand about. They will argue this is the wrong time; we should not do this on the eve of the President's departure for China. I would simply say, this amendment, really four amendments that have been now wedded together, this amendment strengthens the hand of our President as he goes to China. It gives him greater voice and it gives him a greater tool as both the House and the Senate will then have been on record on the substance of these amendments. The President will be able to express to the Chinese people, with the full backing of Congress, his deep concern about these issues. How important this is, and how much progress still needs to be made in China, was very evident today by the headline in the Washington Times. The headline in the Washington Times this morning is: ``Beijing Pulls Visas of Three U.S. Reporters: Move Targets Radio Free Asia.'' In a move that is absolutely astounding, it shows that China simply doesn't get it. In a move that reflects the fact that they simply don't understand what freedom and liberty and a free press is all about, they have denied visas to three reporters previously approved by this administration to travel to China and to cover the events of the President's visit. I have learned to appreciate more and more Radio Free Asia and the outstanding work they do and the outstanding job they perform and the outstanding coverage that they provide. Now we find that these three reporters are going to be denied the opportunity to go. The Chinese Government has refused to give them permission to come because--why? Because, apparently, they are afraid that some of that coverage might put the Beijing government in a poor light. As I mentioned yesterday, in my remarks on the floor, Newsweek magazine chose this edition, on the eve of the President's trip, to highlight the new China. In fact, the cover article is headlined, ``The New China.'' I would only quote one portion of the article: In large measure, the central question surrounding Clinton's trip is whether China has really changed since 1989. Walking around the glittering shopping malls of Beijing, talking to the members of the newly affluent Chinese middle class, it is plain that China is not the country it was 9 years ago. Official language has changed; China's leaders no longer deny what happened in Tiananmen Square, but focus on what has happened since--an embrace of market economics and new political and legal rights. More important, on the streets and in the media, ``unofficial'' China is giving real shape to such rights. I will repeat that last sentence, ``Unofficial China is giving real shape to such rights,'' political and legal rights, that is. The question before this Senate is what is official China doing? And it is obvious from the headline in the Washington Times today, the story that they broke, that Beijing pulled the visas of three U.S. reporters, indicates what official China is doing today is yet, still, very deplorable. In the State Department report on China for 1997, the human rights report on China, they have section 2, dealing with respect for civil liberties. In particular, they address this issue of a free press and our State Department's report says: There are 10,000 openly distributed publications in China, including 2,200 newspapers. During the year, the Central Propaganda Department instructed all provinces and municipalities to set up a special team to review publications. Now listen: All media employees are under explicit, public orders to follow [Chinese Communist Party] directives and ``guide public opinion'' as directed by political authorities. Both formal and informal guidelines continue to require reporters to avoid coverage of sensitive subjects and negative news. Journalists also must protect State secrets in accordance with State Security Law. These public orders, guidelines, and laws greatly restrict the freedom of broadcast journalists and newspapers to report the news and leads to a high degree of self-censorship. In October leading dailies in China carried a translation of a major policy speech by a foreign official; however, a lengthy section on human rights was dropped from the translation. I believe our State Department report on human rights conditions in China once again reflects very clearly how far China has to go and how deplorable civil rights and human rights conditions in China really are. And in the particular area of freedom of speech and press, we find there is a very, very rigid censorship that controls the media in China. Nowhere was that censorship more evident than in Beijing's decision to pull the visas of these U.S. reporters seeking to provide coverage on the President's trip. I urge all of my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to read in its entirety the China Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1997. It is in fact, I believe, a great eye-opener and deals not only with the area of the press, but deals with the issues of forced abortions and religious persecution which the amendment that is pending before this body deals with explicitly. Mr. President, as we will be voting on this motion to table at 10:15 today, and we think about the issue of forced abortions, I have heard in recent days China apologists explain that really what is going on in China isn't all that bad. And the defense goes something like this: China's official family policy, family planning policy, forbids coercion; it forbids forced abortions or forced sterilizations. They will say that is the official position of the Chinese Government. The problem is, that has never been codified. It has never been written down. So while the Beijing authorities will say, ``Yes, we do not tolerate forced abortions or coercion in family planning practices,'' that has never been codified and put into the law of the land in China. The Chinese Government will acknowledge that local officials, under great pressure to meet population targets, sometimes utilize these coercive practices. So while they will argue this is not the public policy of China to permit coerced abortions, they will acknowledge, because such targets are placed and such financial incentives are placed over local officials, that local officials sometimes go over the edge and will use these coercive practices in enforcing the one-child policy in China. In defense of the fact that these practices are tolerated, China will explain that it is a very large country, and it is simply impossible for the central Government to maintain and punish those who break the official ban on coercive family planning practices. That is the rationale that is given. China apologists, of which there are many in this country, will say, ``We have to be understanding. They don't officially permit this. It's local officials who get out of hand. And, after all, China is a big country. We can't expect they're going to be able to enforce this consistently.'' When I hear that rationale, what I immediately think of is the fact that, according to our State Department report, every known dissident in China has been rounded up and incarcerated. Somehow the central Chinese Government manages to monitor and find those who might speak out for human rights or for democracy or for freedom in China today. The central Government has no problem in enforcing their very rigid control of the population. And yet they want to excuse themselves from any kind of enforcement in preventing coerced family planning practices in China. If the one-child policy results in pressure for local officials to engage in force, then the central Government ought to change that central Government policy and simply remove the kinds of incentives that have resulted from local officials coercing women to have abortions when they do not want to. If, according to our State Department, all dissidents have been silenced, then surely the central Government that can monitor democracy dissidents all over the vast country can surely monitor and control rogue officials who practice these very horrendous procedures on unwilling women in China. The Chinese authorities, in 1979, instituted the policy of allowing one child per couple, providing monetary bonuses and other benefits as incentives for that one-child policy. In subsequent years, it has been widely reported that women with one living child, who become pregnant a second time, are subjected to rigorous pressure to end the pregnancies and undergo sterilization. Forced abortions and sterilization, Mr. President, have not only been used in Communist China to regulate the number of children, but to eliminate those regarded as ``defective'' under China's very inhumane eugenics policy. They call their law the natal and health care law. What a misnomer. This law requires couples at risk of transmitting disabling congenital defects to their children to use birth control or undergo forced sterilization. China currently has legislation that requires women to be sterilized after conceiving two children, and they even go so far as to demand sterilization of either the man or the woman if traces of a serious hereditary disease is found in an effort to eliminate the presence of children with handicaps, to eliminate the presence of children with illnesses or other characteristics they might consider to be ``abnormal.'' That eugenics policy is abhorrent and it is morally reprehensible. It is the practice, it is the law of the land in China today. The amendment that is before us would address this issue. It would put us on record in condemning this practice and be at least a symbolic step in denying visas to those for whom there is credible evidence are involved in the practice. Chinese population control officials, working with employers and work unit officials, routinely monitor women's menstrual cycles, incredibly enough. They subject women who conceive without Government authorization--they do not have a certificate to conceive--to extreme psychological pressure, to harsh economic sanctions, including unpayable fines and loss of employment, and in some instances physical force. It has been estimated that China commits about a half a million third-trimester abortions every year. Most of these babies are fully viable when they are killed. Virtually all of these abortions are performed against the mother's will. Steven Mosher, the director of Asian studies at California's Claremont Institute, can personally account to seeing doctors carrying chokers. These chokers are similar to the little garbage ties that we use to tie up garbage bags. They are placed around the little baby's neck during delivery. The baby then dies of a painful strangulation over a period of about 5 minutes. To my colleagues, I say a government that would force women to undergo these kinds of grisly procedures has no conception of and no respect for human rights. On June 10, my colleague in the House, Chris Smith, the chairman of the Human Rights Subcommittee on International Relations, held a hearing on this ongoing practice in China. Gao Xiao Duan, the former head of China's Planned Birth Control Office from 1984 to 1988, provided powerful testimony about what she went through, what she was called upon to enforce, and her own nightmarish experience until she was unable and unwilling to live with a guilty conscience because of what she was doing. She resigned. She left. She got out of that grisly business. Well, it is that kind of practice, along with what I have in the past elaborated on related to religious persecution that is ongoing in China today, on which this body needs to take a stand. The House of Representatives voted for these measures, and voted for them overwhelmingly. The forced abortion provision in the House of Representatives passed by a vote of 415-1. And it is time that the Senate quit stalling and quit dragging its feet, quit avoiding these issues. It is time that we faced the abuses in China forthrightly and honestly. And I believe, far from embarrassing the President as he makes this trip to China, it is incumbent upon us to strengthen his ability to address human rights issues at Tiananmen Square and in dealing and meeting with Government officials throughout China, throughout his 8-day visit in China. So I ask my colleagues to rethink the desire of many to avoid a clean up-and-down vote on the substance of these amendments, which, frankly, I have heard no one get up and argue that this is the wrong position to take or this should not be the public policy of our country. Instead, I have heard vague talk that we should not vote at this time with efforts to try to avoid taking a clear stand on this issue. I commend the Washington Post on their editorial today of June 23. I ask unanimous consent that editorial, ``The Case of Li Hai'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will quote a portion of that editorial today from the Washington Post: Li Hai, 44, a former teacher at the Chinese Medical College, is serving a nine-year sentence in Beijing's Liangxiang Prison. His crime: assembling a list of people jailed for taking part in pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square in 1989. From the Beijing area alone, he documented more than 700. Of those, 158--mostly workers, rather than students--received sentences of more than nine years and are presumed still held. Many were sentenced to life in prison, from a 22-year-old named Sun Chuanheng to a 76-year-old named Wang Jiaxiang. Li Hai himself was convicted of ``prying into and gathering . . . state secrets.'' We thought of Mr. Li as we read President Clinton's explanation in Newsweek yesterday of ``Why I'm Going to Beijing.'' Mr. Clinton wrote of the ``real progress--though far from enough'' that China has made in human rights during the past year. . . . Tomorrow Mr. Clinton will leave for China, the first president to visit since the Tiananmen massacre. His aides promise that he will speak out on human rights while there, and there is a chance he will meet with the mother of a student killed in Tiananmen. The first could be valuable if his remarks are broadcast on Chinese television; the second, an important symbol, especially because many relatives of Tiananmen victims continue to be persecuted and harassed. But Mr. Clinton's remarks, above all, should be honest. For the sake of Li Hai, the 158 he documented and the many he did not find, Mr. Clinton should not trumpet ``real progress'' in a human rights record where no such progress exists. Mr. President, exactly so. We should not create progress where it does not exist. We should not pretend that there is progress where it has not been demonstrated. The exile of high-profile dissidents, their exile to the United States, people who are then told, you are free so long as you never return to your homeland, your fatherland--this is what is hailed as human rights progress? I, for one, will say no, that is not true. The abuses are great. It is time that the U.S. Senate took its stand. It is time that the U.S. Senate quit avoiding our responsibility, as the elected representatives, to the people of this country and that we be willing to simply cast our own convictions on these amendments, that we not, through parliamentary tactics, through what is now called ``throwing a vote,'' try to make a vote meaningless by everyone voting contrary to their own beliefs so as to avoid a clear up-or-down vote on which the American people can make a judgment. Let there be no mistake. Let's all understand what we are doing when we vote at 10:15 today. For those who are opposed to these amendments, to vote against tabling is a vote of deception to the American people. It may, in the minds of many, make this vote meaningless. Let us be sure in this country in which freedom reigns, in which the American people, I think, are quite discerning--they will be able to see through the charade of simply circumventing a vote on substance. They will be able to see the pretense of voting one way when you believe another, so that you can avoid voting on the substance and say this is a bad thing, for us to condemn forced abortions, we shouldn't do that; it is a bad thing for us to deny visas for those involved in it; it is a bad thing for the U.S. Government to condemn religious persecution, the persecution of minorities in China, Tibet. No one says that, and yet the efforts were made to avoid a substantive vote on these amendments today. I mentioned just a moment ago the high-profile dissidents who have been exiled from their homeland, none of those more prominent than Wei Jingsheng. It has been my privilege and honor to get to know some of those dissidents, who have been exiled, who now in this country advocate for democracy in their homeland. The story of Wei Jingsheng is one of the most intriguing and most inspiring. I am quoting now from Orvile Schell's ``Mandate of Heaven'': Wei Jingsheng, a young electrician working at the Beijing zoo, and editor of a publication called ``Explorations,'' became one of the most trenchant critics of the Chinese Government. On December 5, 1978, he posted a critique of Deng's Modernization Program that insisted that modernizing agriculture, industry, science and technology and national defense without also embracing a fifth modernization, namely, democracy, was futile. That was his crime. He dared to critique his leaders' philosophy by saying, ``We may modernize agriculture, industry, science, technology, and defense, but unless we have structural change in the area of democracy, it will be futile.'' That was his crime. Then Wei Jinsheng asked this: ``What is true democracy?'' his wall poster asked. It means the right of people to choose their own representatives, who will work according to their will and in their interests. Only this can be called democracy. Furthermore, the people must have power to replace their representatives any time so that these representatives cannot go on deceiving others in the name of the people. We hold that people should not give any political leader unconditional trust. Does Deng want democracy? No, he does not, asserted Wei. Then as if he were engaged in an actual face-to-face with Deng, Wei Jingsheng added, we cannot help asking, what do you think democracy means if the people do not have a right to express their ideas freely? How can one speak of democracy? If refusing to allow other people to criticize those in power is your idea of democracy, then what is the difference between this and what is euphemistically called the dictatorship of the proletarian? Wei was soon arrested. Wei was sentenced to 15 years in prison on charges of having sold state secrets to a foreigner. In jail, he became a troublesome reminder of the party's arbitrary power to suppress political opposition, until he was finally released in the fall of 1993 in an effort by the Chinese government to enhance its chances of bringing the 2000 Olympic games to Beijing.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I say to the Senator from Missouri, in answering the question, that I am quite aware of the testimony. I have examined closely the testimony that was presented, especially by Ms. Gao Xiao Duan.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I was on the verge of concluding my remarks.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will yield for a question without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I appreciate the question. I think the Senator is exactly right, that visas and the denial of visas can be used to make a political point. The irony of the vote we just cast has not been lost upon you. I hope it hasn't been lost upon the people of the United States. We basically denied a vote and we rejected the possibility of voting up or down on denying visas for those where there is credible evidence that they are involved in forced abortions or religious persecution. We do that on the day that, as the news reported, the Chinese denied visas to those seeking to report on news events, to report to the people of China what is going on at the summit. So it is highly ironic. I know Senator Kyl has been greatly involved in the broader reform of our sanctions laws. I think that is a worthwhile endeavor. But that effort does not preclude us from taking these kinds of narrowly targeted actions. That is why the amendment dealing with forced abortions and the denial of visas to those involved in forced abortions and forced sterilization is an appropriate step for us to take, short of MFN, short of trade sanctions, but still with the ability to send a very powerful message.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I was quoting from Orvile Schell's ``Mandate of Heaven,'' the background and inspiring story of Wei Jingsheng, who went to prison, spent many years in prison, because he dared to say democracy isn't democracy until there is freedom to criticize your elected officials. The headline today in the Washington Time says it all: ``Beijing Government Denies Visas to Three Reporters.'' They do not understand freedom. We need to take a stand in this body to say that the practices and the human rights abuses that continue in China are wrong. If they will say that, we will do what is within our power to truly engage the Chinese, the Chinese government, by confronting them where they are wrong, encouraging them where they are making progress. This administration has done too little. This amendment today can be a step in the right direction. It can be a step in which we take a forthright stand for human rights and convey a message as our President goes, convey a message to the Chinese Government, that human rights are taken seriously in this country, that human rights will not take a back seat to trade. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. That is my understanding. And she was quite accurate in her testimony.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for the opportunity to work with him on this issue. I believe the China amendments I have offered have great value. The debate has been healthy, and the debate has been necessary. I, frankly, am willing to stand here and talk about human rights in China in general this week and next week, or as long as it takes. My great objective is to see these provisions become the public policy of this land. In my opinion, the opponents of these amendments do not have a substantive leg to stand on. The only reason they have brought up to oppose these amendments involves the timing of the offering of these amendments. I remind my colleagues, once again, that I offered these and filed these amendments over a month ago. They have sought to obfuscate the issues, obscure the motivations, and place obstacles in the path of clean and substantive votes. The hollowness of the administration's policy is evident in their unwillingness to embrace these very modest human rights amendments. Mr. President, if I might say again, the hollowness of the administration's China policy is evident in their unwillingness to embrace even those modest human rights amendments, and the length to which they have gone to block them from a vote on their merits, I think, speaks to the weakness of the policy. The policy has failed. The lack of outrage by this administration over the news today that China denied visa approval for Radio Free Asia reporters, I think, gives powerful testimony to the kind of acquiescence and concessionary spirit that characterizes this administration's policies. It is all too typical. These issues will not go away, I assure you. Slave labor conditions, forced abortions, forced sterilizations, religious persecution, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are real issues. They are not fiction or partisan weapons; they are not used for some kind of political brownie points or ``got-you'' points. These are real issues that need to be debated, and we need to change our foreign policy in relation to these abuses that are ongoing in China. If history teaches us anything, history teaches us that appeasement never works. The fact that this administration has refused even to offer the annual resolution at the U.N. convention in Geneva on human rights, I think, is indicative that even the smallest stands for human rights have gone by the wayside. I think it was Edmund Burke who said, ``All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.'' What the Senate has done today on China policy is nothing. The fact that these bills passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives, the fact that this body voted not to table them by 80-plus votes, indicates there is strength in their appeal. I want to express my appreciation to the majority leader for the commitment he has made today to bring up H.R. 2358 in July for a vote and that the China issue will be addressed, and that whether it is Senator Abraham or Senator Wellstone, or others, who have issues regarding bills regarding China, they will have an opportunity to debate them and to offer them. I compliment and commend the majority leader for that public commitment today. I will continue to press for votes on these provisions. I will look for legislative vehicles, if necessary. These concerns that I have expressed are not, as they have been portrayed, partisan politics. This afternoon, I attended a press conference in which there were more Democrats than Republicans expressing their concern about the human rights policy of this administration toward China. This is not partisan politics. This has nothing to do with Republicans trying to make points. I probably have as much difference on some of them on my side of the aisle as I do on some of them on the other side of the aisle. So people can stand and say that we should not use foreign policy as an instrument of partisan politics. Well, this is not. This is a bipartisan concern about human rights abuses in China that have not improved under the policy of this administration. There is much more that we need to do, on a bipartisan basis, to press the cause of basic human rights and democracy in China. It is my sincere hope that President Clinton will take every opportunity to elevate these issues during his trip, which he embarks on tomorrow. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, in the few minutes we have, I would like to respond to my good friend and colleague from Connecticut, to some of the comments he made about the pending business and the amendments I have offered regarding China. He spoke of engagement and the necessity of the engagement policy, and as has so often been the case with administration defenders and the defenders of the engagement policy, they would present a false dichotomy in that if you are not for the current administration's policy, then you are an isolationist. I would suggest it is not engagement or isolation; it is how we are going to engage China. I would further suggest that the policy this administration has pursued has failed in engaging China adequately. That is evident in a whole host of areas, not the least of which are the abuses addressed by these amendments. So when my good friend from Connecticut said that he is opposed to these amendments, I was tempted to ask specifically what amendment is it--denying visas to those who perform forced abortions, or is it denying visas to government individuals involved in religious persecution? What is it precisely that is objectionable about these? I would think, rather than undermining the President's hand as he goes to China, this in fact strengthens his hand, strengthens his ability to deal in a more forthright way with those issues of concern to all Americans. My good friend from Connecticut also spoke in glowing terms of the ``changed China.'' It is becoming more common to hear of the ``changed China.'' In the edition of Newsweek magazine which just came out is a cover article, a beautiful cover article, entitled ``The New China.'' ``The New China.'' Well, I wish that as we looked at the experience of the Chinese people today and what has happened since 9 years ago and the Tiananmen massacre, we could be reassured that there were students to gather on the Tiananmen plaza during the President's visit next week, in fact they would receive a different greeting than they did 9 years ago when they were mowed down with gunfire. Well, is China different? Is it a new China? These are just reports in the last 3 weeks. New York Times, June 6: A bishop in the underground Catholic Church has been arrested, was detained on May 31 while traveling to his village. This is the changed China. June 14, the Portland Oregonian reports that Chinese police interrogated and threatened three dissidents who urged President Clinton to press Chinese leaders on human rights during the summit. Police ransacked the homes, confiscated their computers, took two to local precincts. June 14. June 15, South China Morning Post: Dissidents in several areas including Shanghai and Weifang in Shangdong Province, the first stop for Mr. Clinton, have complained of harassment. Incidents have included home raids, detention, telephone tapping and confiscation of computers. June 16, Japan Economic News Wire. In the runup to President Bill Clinton's visit to China, a veteran Chinese dissident has been indicted for helping another activist escape to Hong Kong. June 18, Far Eastern Economic Review reports that Beijing warned the Vatican, ``Don't use the Internet or other media channels to interfere with Chinese religious affairs policies.'' And we could go on and on. That is the last 3 weeks, Mr. President, of news accounts of what is going on in China. That is the ``new China.'' We want to present China today in some kind of rose-colored glasses, that everything is fine, when in fact it is not.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I would love to yield to my good friend from Oklahoma, but I have 5 minutes left. Unfortunately, the Presiding Officer has assured me he is going to gavel me quiet at 3 o'clock, so I am going to have to talk very quickly. The issue of religious freedom was raised, and my friend from Connecticut spoke once again in glowing terms of improved conditions in China on the issue of religious freedom. While my friend quoted from the New York Times--my good friend and distinguished colleague, whom I admire greatly--I would like to quote from the State Department's Report on Religious Freedom in China just issued in the last--it is a 1997 report just issued recently on China, and I will quote just a portion of this. Some religious groups have registered while others were refused registration and others have not applied. Many groups have been reluctant to comply due to principled opposition to state control of religion, unwillingness to limit their activities or refusal to compromise their position on matters such as abortion. They fear adverse consequences if they reveal as required the names and addresses of members and details about leadership activities, finances and contacts in China or abroad. Guided by a central policy directive of October 1996 that launched a national campaign to suppress unauthorized religious groups and social organizations, Chinese authorities in some areas made strong efforts to crack down on the activities of unregistered Catholic and Protestant movements. They raided and closed several hundred house church groups, many with significant memberships, properties and financial resources. And it goes on and gives many examples of that. So, in fact, our State Department--whatever else the New York Times may say, our State Department says that conditions in China are deplorable and that in fact there has been a crackdown on those who would defy the Government by not registering because of principled opposition to the Government's policy. Now, we say--and I have heard it argued even today--that the church and religious organizations in China are flourishing. Well, they are growing, but I would just suggest that they are growing in spite of Government policy, in spite of the persecution, not because there has somehow been a blossoming of religious freedom in China. As I think back to the early days of Christianity and how the Roman empire cracked down with great intensity upon the infant Christian faith, the Christian faith mushroomed and spread all across the known world at that time. But they did so in spite of intense persecution, and actually Christianity began to demise when suddenly it was made the ``official religion.'' So to say somehow growth equates with freedom in China today, I simply reject that. I have much, much more that I would like to say. I do want to say a word about the President's plans to be received in Tiananmen Square. Mrs. Ding Zilin, mother of a 17-year-old student who was killed in 1989 in the Tiananmen protest, said that she hoped President Clinton would make a strong gesture. Her husband is associate professor of philosophy at the People's University in Beijing. They said this. They objected to the pomp and ceremony in Tiananmen Square as the red carpet ``is dyed with the blood of our relatives who have fallen.'' I wonder, with the emphasis upon property control, if the President would feel the same about following protocol if those hundreds of students who were slain had included some American students, perhaps there as foreign exchange students. One thing is certain. When the President goes to Tiananmen, it will be peaceful. It will be quiet. All dissidents will have been rounded up, and there will be no embarrassing protesters. When President Jiang Zemin came to the United States, there were protesters. When Jiang was asked about it, he mocked the protesters, saying with a smile that periodically he heard little voices and noises in his ear. There will be no such embarrassing little noises in his ear when President Clinton goes to Tiananmen Square. How do we turn what I think is an unfortunate decision to go to Tiananmen Square into something positive? Perhaps the President could give a Reagan-like speech, when President Reagan went to the Berlin Wall in 1987 and he said, ``Tear down this wall.'' It was Jiang who said that all of the protest in 1989 was ``much ado about nothing.'' That was the President's attitude--much ado about nothing. Perhaps President Clinton could ask for an official apology. Perhaps he could ask for the release of the dissidents. They have never investigated; they have never apologized; they have never released the dissidents. Perhaps he could take a lead from the Italian President, who last week, after the official reception, returned to Tiananmen Square, where he prayed and where he meditated and where he remembered those who fell. Perhaps the President, in going to Tiananmen, could bring a wreath in memory of those. And then I would suggest this as well, that when the President raises the issue of human rights, he does so not before a press briefing but that he does so on his broadcast to the Chinese people. And if he will do so, it will be at least a small step in turning what I think is an unfortunate image for the world to see, into something that can be positive in this trip to China. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I offer an amendment to the underlying National Defense Authorization Act, amendment 2387, which I filed on May 20.