Calling on the Government of the People's Republic of China immediately and unconditionally to release Dr. Yang Jianli, calling on the President of the United States to continue working on behalf of Dr. Yang Jianli for his release, and for other purposes.
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
June 25, 2003 • 6:13 PM
View full timeline
Introduced in House
April 11, 2003
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
April 11, 2003
Referred to the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.
June 10, 2003
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
June 10, 2003
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended).
June 10, 2003
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
June 12, 2003
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
June 12, 2003
Mr. Smith (NJ) moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended.
June 25, 2003 • 1:59 PM
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5850-5853)
June 25, 2003 • 2:00 PM
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 199.
June 25, 2003 • 2:00 PM
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
June 25, 2003 • 2:28 PM
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5881-5882)
June 25, 2003 • 6:05 PM
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 412 - 0 (Roll no. 316).(text: CR H5850)
June 25, 2003 • 6:13 PM
On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 412 - 0 (Roll no. 316). (text: CR H5850)
June 25, 2003 • 6:13 PM
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
June 25, 2003 • 6:13 PM
Voting History
1 vote recorded • Roll call available
Floor Debate
17 membersWhat members said about H.Res. 199 on the floor
CC
AS
CHSBF
TL+12
Floor Debate
17 membersWhat members said about H.Res. 199 on the floor
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the time. I thank the gentleman from California and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who is the cosponsor of this resolution commemorating the 15th…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the time.
I thank the gentleman from California and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who is the cosponsor of this resolution commemorating the 15th anniversary of Tiananmen Square.
That day in June of 1989 is, of course, remembered for the tragedy, but it should also be remembered as one of the high points in the progress towards democracy in human rights in the People's Republic of China. Because prior to the troops crushing the demonstrators and their message, the message had already spread all over China, and looked at in a grander scale of time, there is no question what ultimately can and must happen here. The troops may have won the battle that day against the Chinese people, but they will not win the war so long as we remember, and we will never forget. So we are today commemorating this anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.
At the same time, we are supporting the people of China in their struggle for human rights. These democracy demonstrations that began in Beijing in April of 1989 spread quickly to other major cities and provinces throughout China. They were an inspiration to the world.
As Communist regimes were falling in Russia and East Germany and Poland, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, across Eurasia, the people of China were also seizing the moment to move to the next step in the development of their astounding civilization.
The statue of the Goddess of Democracy showed the world that China's glorious civilization and their extraordinary and wonderful culture for which we all owe a great debt of gratitude would advance still further in the 21st century so that the Chinese people would have a form of government worthy of that culture and that civilization. Finally, after centuries of feudalism, colonialism and foreign interference, the people of China would have genuine human rights, the freedom of association, the freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the freedom to choose their own leaders.
When the Chinese Army injured or killed hundreds of unarmed civilians, some people insisted that this showed the true face of China, but, of course, it did not. The true face of China was shown in the statue of the Goddess of Democracy. The true face of China was shown in those demonstrations throughout the provinces and all the major cities in the country.
We want China to become a trustworthy member of the international community; and in some respects, certainly compared to cultural revolution and the reign of terror under Mao, things in China are much improved.
Yet contrary to the drumbeat sounded by some advocates of engagement, this resolution warns that China's willingness to engage in the world economy has not yet translated into evolution toward democracy nor even an improvement in the Chinese people's religious, human or worker rights.
I will never forget the audience I had with Jiang Zemin in the Great Hall of the People when I asked him, because they were then advertising the village elections that they were having as a step on the road to democracy, when might we have elections in China for a mayor or a city council. He said to me, not for at least 20 years. I still do not know to this day whether that is exactly what he said, because he might just as well have said not in my lifetime. It would have been literally a correct translation.
Here we are many years later, and there have been no steps towards that kind of authentic democracy. In fact, in Hong Kong, where that kind of democracy under the one-country, two-systems model is eminently possible and achievable and where the people of Hong Kong wish devoutly to achieve that result, Beijing has just insisted, in violation of their guarantee in 1997 of the high degree of autonomy to the people of Hong Kong, that there will not be universal suffrage and free elections for the chief executive or for a legislative council in 2007 and 2008.
With this resolution, Congress shows we remember and we will not forget. We insist that our country's China policy promote freedom, human rights and the rule of law, religious and political freedom, free expression, free trade and free markets.
Our long-standing friendship with China can only reach its full potential when the Chinese people enjoy these freedoms. These freedoms increasingly flourish along China's borders. Peace and security for the Chinese people and all their neighbors are essential preconditions for true political, social and economic progress.
Mr. Speaker, the PRC cannot seek a spirit of cooperation between our governments, as they claim to want during a recent visit by Vice President Cheney, and at the same time so horribly mistreat their own people. Americans, as friends of the people of China, are happy to hear words about the PRC's government's commitment to human rights. We are happy to see their proposal of new amendments to their constitution further guaranteeing these human rights, but unless these words are reflected in deeds, they are meaningless.
The reflections published in the Wall Street Journal today by Wang Dan, one of the leaders of the 1989 Chinese democracy movement, were poignant. He said, ``It is clear to me as never before that the Tiananmen massacre was an unavoidable step in the long path to a free China and that true political reform can never come from within the Communist Party.''
He lamented that ``Communist leaders, be they conservatives or reformists, are all wedded to retaining the current political system, complete with its problems such as corruption and lack of accountability. And far from easing its iron grip on all forms of political dissent, the new leadership now seems intent on extending it to Hong Kong.''
It is striking, with all of the progress that we have seen in other areas, that the current Communist Party leaders in China have repudiated nothing that happened 15 years ago. As Wang Dan points out, that is because they understand ``that reevaluating the official description of the 1989 movement as counterrevolutionary would shake the foundations of the Communists' grip on power.''
Is it not a terrible irony that the current leaders of the People's Republic of China have their power because of the system that was enforced through these brutal means in 1989.
One of the demonstrators, one of the organizers of what happened in Tiananmen Square, a student at the time, is now Dr. Yang Jianli. He and his wife and his two children have lived here in America for many years because he suffered under the punishment, as so many Chinese freedom fighters, democracy activists do of exile. It is a horrible form of punishment. You can never go back to your own country again. So he was banished and lived here in America.
He decided that he wanted to go back to China; and when he set foot in the country, he was arrested. He has been in jail, held incommunicado, held without access to legal counsel or any of the legal rights guaranteed him even under PRC law, for the last 2 years. His children have not seen their father. His wife, Christina Fu, is well known to many of us here because she has helped us enact resolutions that this Congress has passed in a show of support for the basic human rights that any human being, and certainly this American resident, is entitled to. His crime, of course, was supporting freedom and democracy. It has been nearly a year since the House of Representatives enacted House Resolution 199 by a unanimous vote of 412 to nothing.
This legislation condemned and deplored the detention of Dr. Yang Jianli
and the lack of due process afforded him. It called on the Government of the People's Republic of China to release him immediately and unconditionally. The Bush administration has made the release of Dr. Yang one of its most important priorities, and the Vice President raised this at his recent summit. Yet the PRC has continued to violate its own law and to act without regard to international condemnation.
In 2003, the United Nations, through its Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which I should point out is a group that includes Algeria, France, Paraguay, Hungary, and even Iran, a very diverse group, concluded that in this case continuing to hold Dr. Yang is a violation of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The U.N. working group clearly and specifically declared that Yang Jianli's detention was illegal.
It is not just that he is being detained; it is that he is being abused. He is being virtually deprived of his human rights even as a prisoner. Not only was he arbitrarily placed for lengthy periods in solitary confinement; he was handcuffed for so long that his wrists bled. He was denied access even to books, newspapers, not to mention a lawyer.
Releasing Dr. Yang would be a small, but important, gesture that the Communist Government had learned something since Tiananmen Square. No such gesture, Mr. Speaker, has come.
As we remember Tiananmen Square, we must remember that there are many, many cases like Dr. Yang's. In fact, there are many, many cases of those who were murdered, tortured, and who are still in prison today. We must remind the dictators of the world yet again that individual freedom of expression is no mere internal affair of a government. It is a human right shared by all peoples and recognized by all civilized nations.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the passage by this House of this important resolution marking this sad anniversary, but this joyful anniversary that eventually will see freedom in China.
Article 19 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly guarantees the freedom to ``receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.''
According to Amnesty International, a growing number of Chinese people are being detained or sentenced for peacefully expressing their views or downloading information on the Internet. The detained include students, political dissidents, Falun Gong practitioners, workers, writers, lawyers, teachers, civil servants, former police officers, engineers, and businessmen.
Signing online petitions, calling for reform and an end to corruption, planning to set up a pro-democracy party, publishing ``rumours about SARS,'' communicating with groups abroad, opposing the persecution of the Falun Gong and calling for a review of the 1989 crackdown on the democracy protests are all examples of activities considered by the PRC's dictatorial regime to be ``subversive'' or a danger to ``state security.'' Such charges almost always result in prison sentences.
China is also renowned for aggressive censorship of the Internet. Web sites of human rights organizations, and numerous international news sites are regularly blocked by government-controlled routers.
There is a role for the United States to play in this fight for free expression. We can promote the exchange of ideas and disseminate accurate information. Our efforts to do so behind the Iron Curtain were instrumental in empowering citizens living under Soviet Communist rule. It is now time to focus our efforts on a different Communist regime and a new technology.
The ability of people around the world to freely access news and information via the Internet may be the greatest threat to tyranny and the most powerful weapon possessed by free people that we have seen in our lifetimes. Indeed, Internet access is rapidly expanding in China. According to official statistics, the number of Internet users had risen to 79.5 million by December 2003 from 59.1 million users in December 2002--an increase of 34.5 percent.
But, just as Communist governments during the Cold War sought to keep uncensored news from their people by jamming Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, the government of China today retains strict control over the information Chinese citizens can access on the Internet. During the past few years, Beijing has passed sweeping regulations that prohibit unauthorized news and commentary on Internet sites, and officials arrest and imprison those who violate these laws. Authorities in China routinely block websites they believe a danger to their hold on power, including those of dissident groups and foreign news organizations, like the Washington Post, the New York Times, the BBC, and the Voice of America.
Dictatorial regimes like China have been aggressively blocking access to the Internet with technologies such as firewalls, filters, and so- called black boxes. In addition, these oppressive governments monitor Internet, email, and message boards for key words. They also develop lists of users who visit particular sites, and when they believe that a web user or publisher is a threat to their power, they don't hesitate to act on this information.
According to Human Rights Watch, Chinese web publisher Huang Qi, after enduring a 3-year detention, was finally sentenced last summer to 5 years in prison for the crime of subversion. What was he publishing? The online equivalent of our milk carton notices about missing persons. He had dared to create a website at which people could share information about missing friends and family members and he actually helped rescue several young girls who had been abducted and sold into marriage. Because his site also featured criticism of several state-run agencies, he now spends his days in prison.
The U.S. private sector is developing a number of technologies to combat Internet blocking. Unfortunately, the U.S. government has contributed few resources to assist these efforts and to put the new technologies to use.
That is why I joined Congressman Tom Lantos, Senator Jon Kyl, and Senator Ron Wyden in authoring H.R. 48, the Global Internet Freedom Act, which would create a new Office of Global Internet Freedom within the International Broadcasting Bureau. The Office would develop and implement a global strategy to combat state-sponsored and state- directed Internet jamming and persecution of those who use the Internet. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which passed the House on July 16, 2003 but has been stymied by the other body, authorizes $8 million per year for the Office of Global Internet Freedom.
With the Global Internet Freedom Act, within the larger State Department bill, Congress can authorize $8 million annually to the proposed Office of Global Internet Freedom so that the U.S. can devote more resources to ensuring worldwide access to information and give those who strive for true freedom the tools they need to outwit the thought police.
The Chinese people certainly still need these tools, because the thought police in Beijing have obviously not learned from the SARS tragedy. While some might have hoped that this deadly lesson would lead to greater openness on the part of the regime--and perhaps some restraint in its ongoing campaign to block the free exchange of information via the Internet and other media--recent events suggest that the tyrants of Beijing are moving in the other direction.
Despite the early release of several high-profile Tibetan dissidents, suppression of political dissent and restrictions on religious freedom continue throughout Tibet and neighboring areas of the PRC. According to the Tibet Information Network, those early releases were quickly off-set by further arrests of Tibetan dissidents in other Chinese provinces. For instance, a popular singer was detained in March 204 because of the political content of his songs, and in February, a young monk was arrested at his monastery for possessing a photograph of the Dalai Lama.
Meanwhile, in northwest China, the international war against terrorism is used to justify harsh repression in Xinjiang, home to China's mainly Muslim Uighur community. Several mosques have been closed, use of the Uighur language has been restricted and certain Uighur books and journals have been banned. The crackdown against suspected ``separatists, terrorists and religious extremists'' intensified following the start of a renewed security crack-down in October 2003. Arrests continue and hundreds of dissidents remain in prison.
Members of unofficial spiritual or religious groups, including some Qi Gong groups and unregistered Christian groups, continue to be arbitrarily detained, tortured and ill-treated. Detained Falun Gong practitioners, including large numbers of women, are at risk of torture, including sexual abuse, particularly if they refuse to renounce their beliefs.
It is fitting that, as we debate this resolution, the Victims of Communism Memorial is nearing construction on Capitol Hill. The Memorial, which will commemorate this struggle by paying tribute to more than 100 million victims of Communist atrocities around the world, will prominently feature a replica of the Goddess of Democracy statue created by pro-freedom activists in Tiananmen Square, in addition to an eternal flame to the victims of Communism and bronze panels with quotes from heroes of the Cold War.
Wang Dan said, ``The 1989 student movement played an invaluable role in pointing out the path to democracy in China. Without it, we would still be clinging to the myth that a small
group of enlightened Communist officials could rescue China from totalitarian rule. Instead we have learned from our mistakes that year, and realized that China's democratization must be a bottom-up process, driven by forces outside the Communist system.''
Today, on a bipartisan basis, Congress stands united in support of freedom for the people of China. Fifteen years ago, Tiananmen Square marked not only a tragedy, but a decisive turning point in the fight for freedom. People's Liberation Army troops won the battle against the Chinese people that day, but they will surely lose the war to imprison the human spirit--because we will never forget. The day will soon come when all of the Chinese people will have the right to speak and debate freely. The hope symbolized by the Goddess of Democracy will ultimately triumph.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 227: H. Res. 159. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable vote on…
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 227: H. Res. 159. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable vote on rollcall No. 228: H. Res. 195. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 229: H.R. 1465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 230: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 231: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 232: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 233: H. Amdt. to H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 234: Final passage of H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 235: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 231. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 236: on agreeing to H. Res. 257. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 237: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 238: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 201. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 239: H.R. 1954. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 240: H. Amdt. 154 to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 241: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 242: final passage of H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 243: On Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 256. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 244: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 245: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 246: on passage of H.R. 1474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 247: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 248: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 249: H.R. 1610. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 250: H. Con Res. 162. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 251: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 252: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 253: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 254: H. Amdt. 159 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 255: Passage of H.R 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 256: H. Res. 252: Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 257: On ordering the previous question for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 258: On agreeing to the rule for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 259: On passage of H. Con. Res. 110. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 260: On passage of H.R. 1320. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 261: H.R. 2350. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 262: H. Amdt. 5 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 263: H. Amdt. 4 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 264: On passage of H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 265: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 266: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 268: H. Amdt.
168 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 269: H. Amdt. 169 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 270: H. Amdt. 170 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 271: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 272: Passage of H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 273: H. Res. 270 to H.R 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 274: Rule for H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 275: Motion to Instruct Conferees H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 276: H.R. 2254. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 277: H. Con. Res. 220. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 278: S. 703. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 279: H. Res. 276. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 280: H. Res. 171. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 281: Passage of H.R. 658. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 282: S. 342. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 283: Passage of S. Con. Res. 43. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 284: Previous Question to H. Res. 281. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 285: H. Res. 281 to H.R 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 286: Approving the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 287: H. Amdt. 171 to H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 288: Passage of H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 289: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 290: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 291: H. Amdt. 172 to H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 292: Motion to Recommit H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 293: Passage of H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 294: Kind amendment to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 295: On motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 296: On final passage to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 297: H. Res. 264. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 298: H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 299: H. Con. Res. 209. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 300: Passage of H.R. 2465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 301: Previous Question to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 302: Agreeing to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 303: Passage of H.R. 923. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 304: H.R. 1460. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 305: On sustaining the ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 306: Sustain ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 307: H. Amdt. 176 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 308: H. Amdt. 183 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 309: H. Amdt. 188 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 310: Passage of H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 311: Passage to H.R. 1416. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 312: S. 858. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 313: H.R. 2474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 314: H. J. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 315: H. Con. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 316: H. Res. 199. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 317: H. Res. 294. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 318: On the Hastings amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 319: On the Kucinich amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 320: On the Lee amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 321: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 322: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 323: H. Res. 297 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 324: Ordering the previous question on H. Res. 298. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 325: Passage of H.R. 2559. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 326: Passage of H. Res. 277. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 327: On approval of the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 328: H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 330: H. Amdt.
197 to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 331: Motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 332: Final passage of H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 333: On passage of H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 655) condemning the crackdown on democracy protestors in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, in the People's Republic of China on…
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 655) condemning the crackdown on democracy protestors in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, in the People's Republic of China on the 15th anniversary of that tragic massacre.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and for her leadership on this, and the prime sponsor of this resolution, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox). The Cox-Pelosi resolution before us is extremely important and very timely.
Mr. Speaker, in December of 1996 here in Washington, at the invitation of President Bill Clinton, General Chi Haotian, the Defense Minister of the People's Republic of China, the general who was the operational commander of the soldiers who slaughtered pro-democracy demonstrators in and around Tiananmen Square in June of 1989, said, ``Not a single person lost his life in Tiananmen Square.'' According to General Chi, the Chinese Army did nothing more violent than, and I quote him, ``pushing of people.''
General Chi not only met with Mr. Clinton in the White House but was accorded full military honors, including a 19-gun salute and visits to military bases. Rather than getting the red carpet, Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully submit that General Chi should have been held to account for his crimes against humanity.
Mr. Speaker, to counter the big lie that he proffered right here in Washington, D.C., I quickly put together and chaired a hearing of eyewitnesses to Tiananmen Square, to the massacre, including several Chinese, a former editor of the People's Daily, and Time Magazine's Beijing bureau chief. We also invited General Chi or anyone else to testify before our committee from the government of China. They were no shows, although we left a chair for them.
One of our witnesses, a man by the name of Xuecan Wu, the former editor of the People's Daily, was singled out by Li Peng for punishment and got 4 years in prison for trying to tell the truth to his readers in Beijing. Mr. Wu called General Chi's lie about no one being killed ``shameless'' and told my subcommittee that he personally saw at least, and I quote him here, ``at least 30 carts carrying dead and wounded people.''
Eyewitness Jian-Ki Yang, Vice President of the Alliance for a Democratic China, testified, and I quote, ``I saw trucks of soldiers who got out and started firing automatic weapons at the people. Each time they fired the weapons, three or four people were hit, and each time the crowd went down to the ground. We were there for about an hour and a half. I saw 13 people killed. We saw four tanks coming from the square, and they were going very fast at a very high speed. The two tanks in front were chasing students.''
Imagine that, Mr. Speaker, tanks chasing students.
He went on to say, ``They ran over the students. Everyone was screaming. We counted 11 bodies.''
Mr. Speaker, Time Magazine's David Aikman, another eyewitness said, and I quote, ``Children were killed holding hands with their mothers. A 9-year-old boy was shot seven or eight times in the back, and his parents placed the corpse on a truck and drove through the streets of northwest Beijing on Sunday morning. `This is what the government has done,' the distraught mother kept telling crowds of passersby through a makeshift speaker system.''
Mr. Aikman went on to say in his testimony that ``officials at the Chinese Red Cross reported 2,600 people dead, but then they too were ordered to keep silent and to deny that they had ever given out such figures.''
Today, Mr. Speaker, 15 years after Tiananmen Square, after a brutal massacre, the Chinese government perpetuates General Chi's Orwellian fabrication that no one died. It is now clear that thousands died and approximately 7,000 were wounded. Fifteen years after Tiananmen Square, some 2,000 people remain incarcerated for peacefully advocating human rights. To be jailed by the Chinese, as we all know, means torture, humiliation, and severe deprivations.
Mr. Speaker, in the early 1990s, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I visited Beijing Prison Number 1, a bleak gulag where 40 Tiananmen Square prisoners were being unjustly detained. We saw firsthand the price paid by brave and tenacious individuals for peacefully petitioning their government for freedom. And it was not pretty. They looked like the walking skeletons of Auschwitz.
Mr. Speaker, we do not know how many of those are still languishing in prison. Some, perhaps all of them, are still there; but of the 20,000 originally arrested and detained, like I said, approximately 2,000 continue in the gulags and in the Laogai of China.
Mr. Speaker, let me say that, despite the hopes and expectation of some that robust trade with China would usher in at least a modicum of respect for human rights and fundamental liberties, the simple fact of the matter is that the dictatorship in China oppresses, tortures and mistreats millions of its own citizens. Moreover, China is the land of the one-child-per-couple policy, a barbaric policy that makes brothers and sisters illegal. Forced abortion, force sterilization and ruinous fines are routinely deployed to ensure compliance with this Draconian and utterly cruel family planning policy.
Mr. Speaker, according to the U.S. Department of State, the government's human rights record remains poor. They start off with that in this year's report. And the government continues, the State Department goes on to say, to commit numerous and serious abuses. The Country Reports of Human Rights Practices also went on to say that there was backsliding. It was already bad and now it is even getting worse, and the word backsliding was used. And abuses including killing, torture, mistreatment of prisoners and forced confessions are among those that have gotten worse.
Finally, let me say in April the Chinese government openly gloated over the defeat once again of a U.S.-sponsored resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Commission. I would say parenthetically, given the makeup of the Commission, the outcome came as no surprise. Rogue nations proliferate and are all over that Commission. They make a beeline for that Commission to mitigate human rights adherence and enforcement and bringing rogue nations to confront these abuses.
In one stunningly absurd statement, Chinese Ambassador Sha Zukang said the U.S. proposal and the resolution was done out of, and this is his words, ``disappointment and jealousy.''
I would just like to say to the Chinese government and to Ambassador Sha Zukang, we proposed it because we care and we are in solidarity with the oppressed and we want to hold the oppressor to account. Disappointment and jealousy? I do not think so. This is all about trying to help those who are under the cruel boot of the Chinese dictatorship.
Mr. Speaker, I participated in the meetings in Geneva, and I confronted the Chinese leadership in an open forum. I have to say they were amazingly inept, and they were unprofessional. All they could do during the course of the debate was to deny, to deny, and to deny and to question our motives. And then, when things were not going well for them, they abruptly ended the meeting.
Mr. Speaker, someday the good and honorable people of China will live in freedom; and I believe the martyrs of Tiananmen who have suffered unspeakable horrors at the hands of a government and were jailed and were wounded and murdered will be even more revered and honored for their sacrifice than they are today. This resolution honors those courageous champions of freedom and democracy. I urge its passage.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security. He is the prime sponsor of this resolution, and we appreciate his leadership on this issue and on human rights in China.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me this time.
I want to thank, first of all, the sponsor of the resolution, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), for a very eloquent statement, and my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for his very eloquent statement and for a long-standing commitment to human rights in China, as well as everywhere else in the world where those rights are abridged.
I just want to make a couple of points very briefly. I would hope that every Member, and I am sure they will by the time this is voted upon with a recorded vote, probably tomorrow, to read, those who have not read the full text. And I commend the maker of this resolution, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), for being so comprehensive not just in the whereases but in the operative clauses.
He mentioned, I think a moment ago, about the Tiananmen mothers. They sent videos to Geneva to the U.N. Human Rights Commission. And because they presented a video to those who were there supposedly gathering information about human rights abuses anywhere and everywhere in the world where there is abuse, for that these Tiananmen mothers were not only arrested, and were subsequently, we understand, let go, but they now are being watched.
These are the mothers who have lost loved ones, sons or daughters, in Tiananmen Square and the days that followed. And the burden they carry having lost their loved ones is only exacerbated by the cruelty of the mothers now being harassed by the dictatorship in Beijing.
The resolution also calls for the release of Dr. Yang Jianli, another veteran of the Tiananmen Square protest of 1989, who has been illegally detained in China for over 2 years, so that he may be reunited with his wife and two children in the United States. It is time to let Dr. Yang go, and I hope that the Chinese get that message very, very quickly from what I hope will be a very bipartisan support for this resolution.
It also calls upon nations participating in the 2008 Olympics to use the opportunities created by the games to urge China to fully comply with the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. I would remind my colleagues that when the Chinese wanted the Olympics 2000, they let out some very prominent dissidents, including Wei Jingsheng. I happened to be in Beijing on a human rights trip when he was let out. I met with him. When they did not get the Olympics, they went back and rearrested him and put him back into the Laogai and into the gulag in China. A very cynical approach.
This time they got the Olympics, and they did nothing whatsoever to deserve them. So, hopefully, the venue of the 2008 Olympics will be used by those who care about human dignity and human rights to raise these issues very substantively.
There is also the issue of asking for the establishment of a June 4 investigation committee. There has been an absolutely absurd whitewash of what happened the day of June 4 and the days that subsequently followed as a result of the Tiananmen Square massacre and all of the killings that occurred afterwards. The Chinese Government has made part of their three noes, or nonmentionables, the idea you cannot even mention Tiananmen Square; and if you do, you will suffer their brutality.
This is a very, very important resolution. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his graciousness in yielding this additional time to me. We have no further speakers, and I yield back to the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for yielding me the time. I too rise in strong support of H. Res. 199 calling on the government of the People's Republic of China to immediately and…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for yielding me the time.
I too rise in strong support of H. Res. 199 calling on the government of the People's Republic of China to immediately and unconditionally release Dr. Yang Jianli.
Dr. Yang is being imprisoned for his love of democracy and his love of country. As a tireless fighter for human rights and democracy in China, Dr. Yang has remained faithful to his conscience and to his cause, even at the risk of imperiling his career and his life.
Nearly 15 years ago, after studying in the United States for 4 years, Dr. Yang suspended his graduate studies and returned to the land of his birth, to China, to support the students who were working for democracy in Beijing. On June 4, 1989, he watched as the tanks rolled in Tiananmen Square and narrowly escaped himself while his fellow students and activists were imprisoned and executed.
Throughout this ordeal his wife Christina Fu did not know if he was even alive. Today, Christina is being tortured in a living hell once more because once again she does not know whether the Chinese Communist Party will return her husband alive.
Her husband's imprisonment violates all of the procedures and rules that the PRC has set out in law, and it confirms our worst fears, that when it comes to the denial of human rights, nothing in the People's Republic of China has really changed since 1989.
Today's totalitarian regime continues to view freedom and liberty as dangerous threats to the existing order and acts accordingly, punishing democracy activists like Dr. Yang with ruthless impunity.
He is a permanent resident of the United States. His family lives here. His wife Christina is with us in the Chamber as are his children Aaron and Anita. I have met with Christina and with his family many times over the last several month, and we have tried in every way to send our concerns to the rulers in Beijing. This American family deserves to have their father back, and this man, whose human rights are being abridged by the PRC's violation of its own laws and every international covenant that it had signed, deserves basic fairness.
Dr. Yang has been held incommunicado in the People's Republic of China for over 13 months, incommunicado, meaning that nobody can talk to him. We cannot get the State Department to talk to him. We cannot see this American resident. We cannot report to his family in what condition he is. He has not been properly charged in violation of Beijing's own laws.
Earlier this month on June 4, which incidentally was the 14th anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found that China violated Dr. Yang Jianli's rights as a citizen, as a citizen of China, and violated his rights as a resident of the United States by detaining him in a Chinese prison with no access to family or to a lawyer. As a consequence of these actions, the working group concluded that China is violating the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
It is fitting that a U.N.-sponsored organization, with its diverse membership and international credentials, would single out the PRC for its dreadful behavior. The Working Group consisted of representatives from Algeria, France, Hungary, Paraguay, and Iran. That is right, even Iran has condemned this abuse of human rights by China. The PRC ought to be very ashamed.
The day after the U.N. report, the Communist regime responded that it had complied with Chinese law by advising Dr. Yang's family of his detention via telephone. The PRC's statements conveniently avoid the discussion of any of the specific laws that govern the detention process. While claiming it provided a notice of detention, the regime in Beijing forgot to add its own procedural law requires that the family or employer of a detained person be notified within 24 hours of a detention. That formal notice of detention has been sorely absent for months.
Moreover, while PRC law also permits detention of 37 days without a warrant in emergency situations, Dr. Yang has been illegally detained in China for more than a year. This blatant disregard for the due process of law is further evidence of the PRC's collective disdain towards the established rule of law. Despite the unambiguous text of its own laws and the
weight of international condemnation, the communist regime continues to use deceit and manipulation to strengthen its totalitarian rule.
Just as it persecutes men and women like Dr. Yang, the PRC is attempting to extend its coercion beyond. The House is also considering today House Resolution 277, legislation that I authored to condemn the PRC's crackdown on freedom of speech in Hong Kong. As the city with the strongest tradition of freedom in China, Hong Kong is an island of liberty in a sea of oppression. Preserving free speech in Hong Kong will help ensure that liberty flourishes not just for the people of Hong Kong but throughout the PRC, so that in the future we will not be on the floor with resolutions for individual heroes and heroines such as Dr. Yang Jianli.
Mr. Speaker, securing liberty in the People's Republic of China and freedom for Dr. Yang are all part of the same struggle. The Chinese Communist Party must not be allowed to forget the sacrifices made at Tiananmen Square. They must not be allowed to extinguish the message of hope that Tiananmen survivors, like Dr. Yang, convey to the people of the People's Republic of China.
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), for authoring this legislation; and I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for supporting freedom for Dr. Yang and freedom in China and around the world.
Mr. Speaker, we often congratulate and thank each other when we take these microphones, but I have to say that I do so here with the greatest sincerity of which I am capable. The gentleman from…
Mr. Speaker, we often congratulate and thank each other when we take these microphones, but I have to say that I do so here with the greatest sincerity of which I am capable. The gentleman from California, who has drawn on his own life experience to become an unabashed, unceasing opponent of oppression everywhere, is an inspiration to us.
I appreciate very much the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Illinois, for agreeing to bring this forward with great speed and allowing us to deal with it on a timetable that we hope will give it the maximum impact in freeing this brave man from a wholly unjustified imprisonment.
To the gentleman from New Jersey, who chairs the subcommittee, he has been staunch in his advocacy; and I express my great appreciation as well to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), whose own expertise in dealing with the People's Republic of China has been built up over the years. He and my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), have been indispensable allies and partners in this fight.
And, Mr. Speaker, it is a very simple fight. We are saying to the government of the People's Republic of China, we understand your aspiration to be treated with all the respect due a great power. We ask you to act like one. We ask you to understand that even though there are many among us who differ with your form of government, are critical of some aspects of your society, we are prepared to recognize the fact of not just your existence but of your strength, of your power, and of your economy as it grows.
We and the Chinese Government occupy the same Earth, and that requires us to cooperate even where there are areas of disagreement. But there are limits to the extent to which this Nation, with our commitment to our basic principles, can look the other way. There are limits to the extent to which we can say economic self-interest and geopolitical self-interest preempt concern for principle. And here we have an example.
Mr. Speaker, Dr. Yang's crime is that he loved too much both liberty and China. Born in China, he worked as a Chinese citizen to bring to his fellow citizens the freedom that he understands is so important. He was expelled not because he hurt anyone, not because he stole anything, not because he mistreated anyone, but because he would not bridle his love of liberty; and so he was sent away. But he could not stay away.
He has, of course, a great love for his wife and his children, and they for him. And their commitment to his cause and the dignity with which they bear the pain of their separation inspires all of us who have worked with him. Dr. Yang risked a great deal to go back to China, not to steal, not to undermine, not to cause problems, not to engage in terrorism; but to try to help people live their lives in some freedom. And he, unfortunately, had to enter illegally. We acknowledge that. Because he would not have been allowed in that society to do what he wanted to do legally.
Having apprehended him, though I wish the Chinese had a different set of rules and did not feel threatened by a man who loved liberty and wanted to preach it, they had a right to apprehend him and send him back. And maybe they would not send him back right away; they would hold him for a week, two, three, to try to discourage him. But there is no justification for having held this wholly decent man so long without allowing him to be in touch with his family, without even any formal charges, and in a way that violated the most basic human norms. As my friend from California said, even the government of Iran, not to be confused with anybody's civil liberties union, joined in the condemnation of this mistreatment.
Mr. Speaker, we say to the government of China that many of us are prepared to go forward in a cooperative set of arrangements dictated by the interests of the peoples of the world, despite profound differences. We can talk about them. But when you impose with all the might of this great government of China, when you impose this incredibly harsh punishment on this solitary man, take him and keep him from his family, punish him so harshly for nothing that is a crime by any civilized standard, you drive a wedge between us. And I urge the government of China in its own interest to remove this wedge; to show that in fact the pessimists are wrong and that as you grow economically you can evolve socially, you can outgrow the total lack of self- confidence that makes you appear to quake before one lone individual committed to freedom.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the People's Republic of China to listen to this House of Representatives, to the President of the United States and the State Department, to the people of America and discontinue insisting on mistreating this brave man, not simply because it is the wrong thing to do on principle but because it is a very wrong thing to do practically. I urge the government of China to reconsider whether the enormous damage you are doing to relationships that you believe are important is worth the continued persecution of Dr. Yang. And I believe that rational people will come to the conclusion that the answer is ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I again thank my colleagues for giving us a chance as a Nation to make this important statement of principle.
Show 8 more
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me first pay…
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me first pay tribute to my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who has been such an indefatigable fighter for human rights across the globe and particularly with respect to China and Tibet.
Let me also recognize the enormous contributions to this fight of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader, my friend and neighbor and colleague, representing San Francisco, and our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
Listening to my friend from New Jersey, I am reminded of a picture I have in my office as one enters, and that picture, one of the most precious photos of all times, shows a lone young Chinese man standing up to a line of tanks, defying totalitarian tyranny with courage and devotion to the principles that our Constitution was built on.
Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago today, China's senior leaders huddled behind the walls of their compound near the Forbidden City. They had a critically important decision to make, whether to reach out to the students and workers gathered in Tiananmen Square and address their concerns about party corruption and lack of democracy or seek to squash the movement with force, if necessary.
Sadly for the cause of freedom and justice and for the lives of thousands of young Chinese citizens, the leadership of China made the wrong decision. Instead of entering into a meaningful dialogue with those gathered in the Square, they launched a brutal crackdown on the democracy movement, killing thousands and imprisoning many more.
China's leaders hoped that the world would forget the tragedy of Tiananmen Square, but fortunately for the cause of truth the victims of Tiananmen had mothers, mothers who have kept alive the memory of their slain children and demanded an apology from their government.
For the past 10 years, Mr. Speaker, the Tiananmen Mothers Campaign has worked to document the brutal 1989 crackdown by collecting the names of real victims and recording their individual stories. In the face of enormous pressure from the Chinese Government, the Tiananmen Mothers have respectfully requested a government investigation into the massacre and a formal apology for this gross violation of human rights. For their bravery alone, these women deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, which I earnestly urge the Nobel Committee to award them.
The Chinese Government has responded by putting the Tiananmen Mothers under house arrest and prohibited them from marking the June 4 anniversary in an appropriate manner. Once again, the government has made a shortsighted decision, repression, not dialogue.
I am proud, Mr. Speaker, that the Congress of the United States stands today united with the victims of the Tiananmen massacre and with the families of the victims who will one day be feted as heroes in a free and democratic China. I wish that Europe would stand with the Tiananmen victims as well.
Instead, the European Union is running headlong towards lifting the arms embargo it imposed on China, along with the United States, after the Tiananmen killings. In their desperate quest to earn some euros from the arms trade, France and Germany are pressuring the rest of the European Union to open the floodgates of weapons sales to China.
Mr. Speaker, the weapons that the Europeans will sell to the Chinese will be used to intimidate those who wish to speak out for freedom and to kill those who refuse to be intimidated. These weapons may also be used against American forces some day if we are ever called on to defend Taiwan against an unprovoked attack by the mainland.
Mr. Speaker, the member states of the European Union appear to have lost their moral compass; and they have forgotten that developed, democratic nations must make policy decisions which benefit human rights and international security but may harm mercantile interests back at home. It is my hope that this June 4th the European Union remembers those who were sacrificed in and around Tiananmen
Square 15 years ago and will refuse to yield to Chinese pressure.
With passage of our resolution, we will tell those who continue to battle for truth, justice and freedom in China that we have not forgotten their cause. I strongly support the passage of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This Congress always does its best work when it stands united. On this issue, my colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and I stand shoulder to shoulder in striking a blow for freedom for the Chinese people.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me time and for his exceptional service and leadership as chair of the Human Rights Caucus of the House. I also want to…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me time and for his exceptional service and leadership as chair of the Human Rights Caucus of the House. I also want to acknowledge the great work and leadership of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). He has been a champion for human rights, and it has been my privilege to work with him over the years to promote international human rights. I thank him for his accommodation this evening.
Mr. Speaker, the forward march of freedom has often been advanced by brave souls who defied the powers of their day to demand the liberties and human rights to which all people everywhere are entitled.
This week the world pays tribute to the brave souls of Tiananmen Square who 15 years ago stood up for freedom, only to be met with a hail of bullet and a new era of repression.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), as well as the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) in sponsoring this resolution that remembers and reaffirms.
We remember the courage of the heroes of Tiananmen, and we reaffirm our Nation's commitment to the principles of freedom and democracy of which they dreamed. In doing so, this resolution keeps alive the spirit of Tiananmen Square. The spirit of Tiananmen lives in the hearts of all freedom-loving people.
We remember how millions of ordinary students, workers and citizens marched in peace. How they raised the Goddess of Democracy and the image of our own Statue of Liberty. How they quoted our own Founding Fathers. We remember with sadness and outrage how the so-called People's Liberation Army was unleashed on its own defenseless people, slaughtering thousands and searing into our consciences forever one of the most enduring images of the 25th century, the picture of a lone man before a tank, bringing a line of tanks to a grinding halt.
Fifteen springs later, the spirit of Tiananmen lives on in the prison cells across China. Today, we once again call on Beijing to release the thousands of Tiananmen activists held to this day and all the prisoners of conscience whose only crime was to demand their basic human rights. The spirit of Tiananmen lives on in the exiles who fled their beloved homeland and who today carry on the struggle. In San Francisco, which I have the privilege of sharing representation with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), we are proud that many of these talented young people have enriched our community. But even as we observe their celebrations to our Nation, we work for a day when they may return if they so choose to their own nation, a free and democratic China.
For too long the United States has pursued a policy of trickle-down liberty. First, economic freedom and then they said political freedom will follow. The 15 years since Tiananmen have exposed this policy as the illusion that it is. For a billion Chinese, freedom remains a dream deferred. After all these years, journalists, activists, academics, workers and religious believers are still persecuted and, Mr. Speaker, tortured. As this 15th anniversary nears, Beijing is still harassing and arresting dissidents and families of the Tiananmen victims. Meanwhile, Chinese elites are enriched by global trade. And despite more than a decade of concessions from Washington, our trade deficit with China has grown from $2 billion a year to over $2 billion a week, to a dangerous $124 billion a year.
The highest tribute we could pay on this anniversary would be to use our political and economic influence to advance the reforms advocated 15 years ago.
Finally, the spirit of Tiananmen lives on in the hearts of the Chinese people, especially those in Hong Kong who have tasted freedom. In taking to the streets to demand democracy, the brave people of Hong Kong have been a stirring example to the world. On this anniversary, U.S. resolve in facing Beijing would send a clear message to democratic reformers throughout Asia. Democracy in Asia is as crucial there as it is in the rest of the world.
So it is that the spirit of Tiananmen endures and inspires. Tanks and troops may crush a protest, but they can never extinguish the flame of freedom that burns in every human heart.
Mr. Speaker, on this day with this resolution we say to the people of China, including the people of Hong Kong and freedom-loving people everywhere, your cause is our cause. We will never forget. We will never forget. And in doing so we reaffirm our commitment to a common dream: the day when the world's most populous nation can at last be called the world's largest democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 199) calling on the Government of the People's Republic of China immediately and unconditionally to release Dr. Yang…
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 199) calling on the Government of the People's Republic of China immediately and unconditionally to release Dr. Yang Jianli, calling on the President of the United States to continue working on behalf of Dr. Yang Jianli for his release, and for other purposes, as amended.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think as every Member of this body knows, the PRC and its leadership in Beijing would love to be regarded as a respected member of the international community. In pursuit of that goal, however, the PRC has sought and obtained membership in the World Trade Organization; and it has lobbied and received the Beijing Olympics of 2008. However, trade volume alone, and there has been a great deal of trade volume particularly between the U.S. and China, is not really a measure of success, I would say to my colleagues. What really determines the quality of a country is how it treats its own citizens, and how it respects fundamental human rights.
History shows that some very unsavory regimes held the Olympic games. We all remember the Nazi Olympic Games prior to the Second World War, but holding a game, having trade, having the air of respectability does not necessarily mean that it is a respectable regime.
The government of Beijing has an enormous way to go, I would respectfully submit, to earn the international respect that it craves. The Chinese government, and I consider it to be a dictatorship, but if they really hope to earn respectability in the eyes of the world, they need to make some very needed fundamental changes, and there is a case in point that we raise today, and I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for bringing this resolution before us today.
Dr. Yang Jianli is a compelling case. H. Res. 199, introduced by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) highlights the case of this U.S. lawful permanent resident who has been unjustly detained incommunicado inside China since April 26, not of this year, but of last year, 14 months. Mr. Yang was arrested for reportedly entering China with false or incompletely identifying documents, has been denied access to counsel, contact with his wife Christina Fu and their two children, Anita and Aaron, and his right to a trial within a reasonable time.
Frankly, Beijing remains more concerned about the research, at least that is our belief, that the internationally respected scholar Dr. Yang, who was conducting studies regarding labor unrest in China, rather than how he got into the country. It is all about what he was studying.
Dr. Yang's research points to the dark side of the Chinese economic miracle, the so-called workers' paradise, where the working class remains the main victim of unemployment and forced early retirement due to the restructuring of State-owned enterprises. That then is Dr. Yang's major sin in Beijing's eyes. He was documenting the anger of workers directed at party bosses mired in personnel greed and corruption despite their official pledge to serve the people.
Beijing's loss of face in this case has only been compounded by the recent determination by the United States Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which found that Mr. Yang's detention is arbitrary and in direct contravention of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. As the U.N. working group has so clearly pointed out, the continued arbitrary detention of this man is not the action of a great nation which seeks the full respect of the international community.
The U.S. House of Representatives today is sending a clear, not ambiguous, message to the government of Beijing: Let Dr. Yang go, let him come home to his wife, his children. His wife is here with us and his children are on the floor of this House right now.
We care about this man. We care about it in a bipartisan way, Democrats and Republicans. A lot divides us in this Chamber. The case of Dr. Yang unites us.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time
Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution calling on the government of the People's Republic of China to release Dr. Yang Jianli, an internationally renowned scholar and pro-democracy…
Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution calling on the government of the People's Republic of China to release Dr. Yang Jianli, an internationally renowned scholar and pro-democracy activist, who has been detained in China since April 2002 without access to legal counsel, contact with his family, or a trial. Dr. Yang, a U.S. permanent resident, is a mathematician and economist who lives in Massachusetts. He heads the Foundation for China in the 21st Century, a group that advocates democratization in China.
On June 3, the U.N.'s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention condemned China's detention of Dr. Yang, finding that the Chinese government has violated his rights as a citizen of China and as a resident of the U.S. The panel declared that, ``The nonobservance of Dr. Yang's right to a fair trial is of such gravity as to give his deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character. Therefore, his arrest and detention is arbitrary being in contravention of Article 9 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.''
In recognition of the U.N. working group's conclusions, as well as the Chinese government's blatant rejection of them, the State Department officially called for Dr. Yang's release, stating, ``We are particularly disturbed now by China's public rejection of an accepted international process and the findings of the independent and impartial panel of jurists, so we are urging China to comply fully with international obligations that it has assumed, and we urge that Dr. Yang be released and allowed to return to his wife and children in Boston.''
The resolution that I am submitting with my colleagues goes hand-in- hand with the State Department's support for Dr. Yang. It expresses the sense of the Senate that the U.S. should: 1. make the immediate release of Dr. Yang Jianli a top foreign policy priority; 2. make clear to the Chinese government that the detention of U.S. citizens and permanent residents is not in its best interests; and 3. express the deep concern of the U.S. regarding the imprisonment of Dr. Yang and other U.S. citizens and permanent residents, as well as discuss their legal status and humanitarian needs.
I would like to note that a similar resolution--submitted by Representatives Cox and Frank--is expected to be considered today by the House of Representatives.
As I have stated repeatedly, if China wants to become a productive and respected member of the international community, it must begin to adhere to accepted norms of behavior. China's leaders seem to be oblivious to the understanding that all people deserve certain basic freedoms and that violation of such fundamental rights is an appropriate concern of the United States and the world at large. We should make clear that the Chinese government's continued detention of Yang Jianli and others--in violation of these international norms--will adversely impact our bilateral relations. Without such pressure, the behavior of China's leaders is unlikely to change, and the voices of those who have devoted their lives to the cause of freedom--like Yang Jianli--will continue to be silenced.
I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will join me in strongly supporting this resolution and in calling for Dr. Yang Jianli's release.
Mr. Speaker, over the past couple of months, I have been working with the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation as they and the National Park Service have searched for a suitable location for the…
Mr. Speaker, over the past couple of months, I have been working with the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation as they and the National Park Service have searched for a suitable location for the Victims of Communism Memorial here in our Nation's Capital. The memorial, authorized by P.L. 103-199, will honor over 100 million victims of communist atrocities around the world.
With a death toll greater than that of all of the wars of the 20th century combined, communism has cast a shadow of terror from Berlin to Beijing, from Hanoi to Havana. The struggle of men and women against communism in these and other places must not be forgotten. As the world's leader in challenging Communist oppression, the United States cannot afford to forget the cost of communism and the reason for our struggle against it.
The Victims of Communism Memorial will commemorate this struggle by paying tribute to those who have lost their lives to Communist tyranny. An enduring reminder of their sacrifice, the memorial will stand as a testimony to future generations of Americans, a solemn remembrance of the lives lost to Communist oppression and of the purpose of our Nation's fight against communism and for the cause of freedom.
This story is not only an international story but also an American story. An estimated 26 million Americans trace their origins to former Communist countries.
The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation has designed a memorial featuring a replica of the Goddess of Democracy statue created by pro- freedom activists in Tiananmen Square, including an eternal flame to the memory of the victims of communism and bronze panels with quotes from heroes of the cold war. This design is still pending approval of federal commissions.
The Chinese Embassy recently contacted the National Park Service to express objection to the design's use of the Goddess of Democracy statue, stating that it is an ``anti-China sign.'' This week, as we remember the fifteenth anniversary of the tragic events in Tiananmen Square and the democracy protestors who stood their ground there, we remember the importance of that statue--not as a symbol that is ``anti- China'' but as one that is pro-democracy and pro-freedom. That statue represented the hopes of a people for democracy and freedom in their land. Their courage and sacrifice in standing firm in these hopes have inspired people around the world. A replica of their Goddess of Democracy statue will be a fitting element of the memorial commemorating the millions who have struggled against communism and for freedom.
H. Res. 655 condemns the crackdown of those who stood for these freedoms in Tiananmen Square. With the Victims of Communism Memorial, we look to honor all who have suffered as they stood for freedom in the face of Communist tyranny. I urge my colleagues to support these efforts.
We here have the great blessing of living in a country built on the ideals of democracy. We do well to remember that there are others in the world who have not enjoyed the same freedoms. May we never forget their suffering nor take for granted the ``land of the free'' in which we live.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume, and I rise in strong support of this resolution. First, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith),…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume, and I rise in strong support of this resolution.
First, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for moving this resolution forward so expeditiously, but I particularly want to commend my dear friend and distinguished colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for his outstanding leadership on this resolution and indeed on all human rights issues.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the House addresses one human rights case that is unfortunately part of a much larger trend in modern day China. Over the past several years, the Chinese government has deliberately targeted naturalized Americans born in China and Chinese citizens permanently residing in the United States for harassment and imprisonment in the People's Republic of China.
Instead of, as one would expect, welcoming Chinese-American talent, the People's Republic of China is sending the message to the Chinese diaspora that it returns to China at its own considerable risk.
Mr. Speaker, in the case addressed in this resolution, Dr. Yang Jianli is a scholar and a leader of a prominent human rights organization. He is a permanent legal resident of the United States. He returned to the People's Republic of China in April of last year, and he has been detained incommunicado ever since that time. He has a wife and two children in the United States, all of whom are American citizens, and he has been unable to communicate with his family since the moment of his detention. He has been denied access to legal counsel.
Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that Dr. Yang be released and allowed to return to his family in the United States as soon as possible. I would also urge the executive branch of our government to make his release a priority. Until Dr. Yang is released, an ominous shadow will lie over U.S.-Chinese relations. It is absolutely incomprehensible and insane that this great nation of 1.2 billion people should keep an American citizen, the father of two small American children, incommunicado in a Communist prison in China.
I commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for introducing this resolution, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the author of this resolution and one of the most indefatigable fighters for human rights in this body.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), who has worked so hard on this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to echo all the comments that have been made, but I want to make it clear. I want everyone to know what this gentleman has done. To me, this gentleman is clearly a hero. We have…
Mr. Speaker, I rise to echo all the comments that have been made, but I want to make it clear. I want everyone to know what this gentleman has done.
To me, this gentleman is clearly a hero. We have used the word, but understand what he did. Here is a gentleman who came from China, established a very successful, very comfortable life here in America: a wife and two children living in one of our best and most beautiful suburbs of Boston; well-respected in the community, well thought of, well loved. Very easy for him to live out the rest of his life in that comfort without any real concerns. He could speak any way he wanted to speak, feel any way he wanted to feel, do any work he wanted to do. But what did he do? He took himself voluntarily from that comfort on his own to go back to China to fight for democracy.
If anyone here thinks they have the courage to do that, you are a better person than I am. I do not know that I would have the courage to do that. I wish I would, and maybe if faced with that someday, I hope I might be able to live up to those incredible standards. But I am not so sure. I am not so sure.
This is a true modern hero, fighting for what we all talk about all day long. We are here, with all of our differences, with all of our agreements and disagreements, fighting for a better democracy. That is what we are all here for. He is fighting for a simple democracy. We cannot abandon him. The fact that this resolution is on the floor obviously shows the U.S. Congress stands with Dr. Yang, stands with the principles that I think he epitomizes.
China, as a great country, has chosen to hold him without charges. There have been no charges. There is no lawyer assigned to him. No judge has heard this case. No jury has heard this case. No administrator has heard this case. His family has not been allowed to visit him. I went on an official delegation to China in January, and I was not allowed to visit him. No American official has been allowed to visit him. No doctor of the family, no representative of the family has been allowed to visit him. How can a great country ask us to treat them as a great country when they act in such a manner?
Any crime he might have committed has already been paid back to China in the 14 months he has been held in the manner he has been held. This man should be released immediately and returned to the bosom of his family and to a welcoming and, hopefully, grateful Nation of the American people because of what he has done for us.
Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Kyl in submitting a resolution calling for the immediate release of Dr. Yang Jianli. Dr. Yang Jianli. Dr. Yang is a democracy activist who has since been held…
Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Kyl in submitting a resolution calling for the immediate release of Dr. Yang Jianli. Dr. Yang Jianli. Dr. Yang is a democracy activist who has since been held incommunicado in China for more than a year. Dr. Yang is being held in violation of his human rights and international law. He should be freed now.
Dr. Yang Jianli is a scholar and important democracy activist in his home State of Massachusetts where he is founder and president of the Foundation for China in the 21st Century. Jianli is a permanent United States resident who continues to work for democracy in his native China.
Dr. Yang was taken into custody when he returned to China on April 26, 2002. He has been held incommunicado since then. His family in Massachusetts and Maryland are understandably concerned about his welfare.
The U.S. Department of State has called for China to release Dr. Yang. So has the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. The Chinese government refuses to admit to detaining this man illegally. However, the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention says, ``The non-observance of Dr. Yang's right to a fair trial is of such gravity as to give his deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character. Therefore, his arrest and detention is arbitrary being in contravention of Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights and Article 9 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.'' In other words, the Chinese government never bothered to charge Yang Jianli with a crime--they just locked him up and threw away the key.
We can assist by increasing the pressure of the Chinese government and support the U.N. petition on Dr. Yang's behalf. Being deprived of his basic human rights of access to legal counsel and contact with his wife and children is wrong. When China wanted most-favored-nation trade status, we heard a lot of lip service to human rights and democracy. Dr. Yang Jianli's case shows the true face of China's government. They locked him up because he wanted to speak out about democracy and human rights.
I strongly urge the Chinese government to respond to the continual requests for Yang's freedom by the United States government and human rights groups around the world. The House is taking up a similar resolution today. I hope that the Senate will act quickly to add our voices in calling for freedom for Yang Jianli.
Show 7 more
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 199, calling on the government of the People's Republic of China to immediately and unconditionally release Dr. Yang Jianli, and calling on the…
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 199, calling on the government of the People's Republic of China to immediately and unconditionally release Dr. Yang Jianli, and calling on the president of the United States to continue working on behalf of Dr. Yang Jianli's release.
Dr. Yang Jianli is an internationally renowned scholar, Harvard graduate, and the president of the Foundation for China in the 21st Century. Dr. Yang was actively involved in the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989 and was subsequently blacklisted by the Chinese government for his participation. Following Tiananmen Square, Dr. Yang fled to the United States and earned two doctorates. Dr. Yang is a permanent resident of the United States.
On April 26, 2002, Dr. Yang entered China using a friend's passport to investigate reports of labor unrest in northern China. Dr. Yang Jianli was detained eight days later and has not been heard from since. The Chinese government will not confirm where he is being held and he has been refused access to an attorney. He has been held for more than 13 months and no charges have been brought against him. The maximum fine for entering China illegally is a one-year prison sentence. Dr. Yang has already spent more than a year in detention. I call on the Chinese government for his immediate release.
The State Department's recent report on human rights states that the government of the People's Republic of China ``has continued to commit numerous and serious human rights abuses, including arbitrary arrest and detention.'' On June 4, a United Nations working group ruled that Yang Jianli has been illegally detained by the Chinese government and called for Dr. Yang's immediate release.
China lacks due process. Citizens continue to suffer at the hands of Chinese officials. It is time for the state-sponsored, state-led persecution in China to stop. I join the members of the House of Representatives and the international community in calling for Dr. Yang's immediate release. It is my hope that he will be released quickly and free to reunite with his wife and two children back in the United States.
Mr. President, after more than a year of suffering abuse and incommunicado detention, I urge this body to call for the immediate and unconditional release of Chinese democracy activist, Dr. Yang…
Mr. President, after more than a year of suffering abuse and incommunicado detention, I urge this body to call for the immediate and unconditional release of Chinese democracy activist, Dr. Yang Jianli.
Dr. Yang, a permanent resident of the United States, a respected scholar, a pro-democracy advocate, president of the Foundation for China in the 21st Century, as well as a loving husband and father, is now a prisoner and victim of shameless abuse by the Chinese government.
Following his participation in the 1989 Tiananmen Square pro- democracy student protests, Dr. Yang was added to an unofficial blacklist of expatriate Chinese dissidents. Upon his return to the country in 2002, Dr. Yang was detained and has been denied access to his family, legal counsel and due process.
The resolution submitted today in the Senate coupled with H. Res. 199, strongly calls for the release of Dr. Yang Jianli and condemns the People's Republic of China for ongoing deplorable human rights abuses. Clearly, it is not in their interest to deny human rights to any United States citizen or U.S. permanent resident alien.
Let this also be an additional chance to voice our regret and deep concern for the continual abuse of the people in China. Dr. Yang Jianli understands this better than most. He has devoted his life to the cause of democracy and freedom for the people for China and has been, once again, silenced.
China must know and the world must know that denial of basic human rights will no longer be tolerated. Dr. Yang is just one of the many, who suffer daily under the harsh rule of those who refuse to embrace democracy. We must let his story and his voice be heard for the millions of others who can not speak out. Let us continue to pressure the People's Republic of China and let us continue to stand for what is right and just around the world.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I attended the funeral of the Honorable Bob Stump in Phoenix, Arizona and missed votes on the following measures: 1. S. 858--To extend the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial…
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I attended the funeral of the Honorable Bob Stump in Phoenix, Arizona and missed votes on the following measures:
1. S. 858--To extend the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, and for other purposes (#312). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
2. H.R. 2474--To require that funds made available for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 for the Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships be administered through the Congressional Hunger Center (#313). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
3. H.J. Res. 49--recognizing the important service to the Nation provided by the Foreign Agricultural Service of the Department of Agriculture on the occasion of its 50th anniversary (#314). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
4. H. Con. Res. 49--expressing the sense of the Congress that the sharp escalation of anti-Semitic violence within many participating States of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is of profound concern and efforts should be undertaken to prevent future occurrences (#315). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
5. H. Res. 199--calling on the Government of the People's Republic of China immediately and unconditionally to release Dr. Yang Jianli, calling on the President of the United States to continue working on behalf of Dr. Yang Jianli for his release, and for other purposes (#316). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
6. H. Res. 294--condemning the terrorism inflicted on Israel since the Aqaba Summit and expressing solidarity with the Israeli people in their fight against terrorism (#317). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Mr. Speaker, June 25, I attended the funeral of the Honorable Bob Stump in Phoenix, Arizona and missed votes on the following measures: S. 858--To extend the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission,…
Mr. Speaker, June 25, I attended the funeral of the Honorable Bob Stump in Phoenix, Arizona and missed votes on the following measures:
S. 858--To extend the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, and for other purposes (#312). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
H.R. 2474--To require that funds made available for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 for the Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships be administered through the Congressional Hunger Center (#313). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
H.J. Res. 40--To recognize the important service to the Nation provided by the Foreign Agricultural Service of the Department of Agriculture on the occasion of its 50th anniversary (#314). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
H. Con. Res. 49--To express the sense of the Congress that the sharp escalation of anti-
Semitic violence within many participating States of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is of profound concern and efforts should be undertaken to prevent future occurrences (#315). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
H. Res. 199--To call on the Government of the People's Republic of China immediately and unconditionally to release Dr. Yang Jianli, calling on the President of the United States to continue working on behalf of Dr. Yang Jianli for his release, and for other purposes (#316). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
H. Res. 294--To condemn the terrorism inflicted on Israel since the Aqaba Summit and expressing solidarity with the Israeli people in their fight against terrorism (#317). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Mr. Speaker, I was attending Congressman Bob Stump's funeral service today and missed votes on the following measures: On motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Con. Res. 49--Expressing the sense of…
Mr. Speaker, I was attending Congressman Bob Stump's funeral service today and missed votes on the following measures:
On motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Con. Res. 49--Expressing the sense of the Congress that the sharp escalation of anti-Semitic violence within many participating States of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is of profound concern and efforts should be undertaken to prevent future occurrences (Roll No. 315). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
On motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 199--Calling on the Government of the People's Republic of China immediately and unconditionally to release Dr. Yang Jianli, calling on the President of the United States to continue working on behalf of Dr. Yank Jianli for his release (Roll No. 316). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
On motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 294--Condemning the terrorism inflicted on Israel since the Aqaba summit, expressing solidarity with the Israeli people, and calling on the Palestinian Authority to take immediate and effective steps to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure on the West Bank and Gaza (Roll No. 317). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 25, 2003, had I been present for Rollcall Vote No.'s 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, and 317, I would have voted the following way: Rollcall Vote No. 312, S. 858-- ``Yea;''…
Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 25, 2003, had I been present for Rollcall Vote No.'s 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, and 317, I would have voted the following way: Rollcall Vote No. 312, S. 858-- ``Yea;'' Rollcall Vote No. 313, H.R. 2474--``Yea;'' Rollcall Vote No. 314, H.J. Res. 49--``Yea;'' Rollcall Vote No. 315, H. Con. Res. 49-- ``Yea;'' Rollcall Vote No. 316, H. Res. 199--``Yea;'' Rollcall Vote No. 317, H. Res. 294--``Yea.''
Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of the House Policy Conference. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance…
Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of the House Policy Conference.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Bill Text
2 versions available
[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 199 Engrossed in House (EH)]
In the House of Representatives, U.S.,
June 25, 2003.
Whereas according to the United States Department of State's 2002 Country
Reports on Human Rights Practices in China, the Government of the
People's Republic of China has ``continued to commit numerous and
serious [human rights] abuses'', including ``instances of . . .
arbitrary arrest and detention, lengthy incommunicado detention, and
denial of due process'';
Whereas according to the 2002 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices in
China, ``the country's criminal procedures were not in compliance with
international standards'', ``the lack of due process in the judicial
system remained a serious problem'', and ``authorities routinely
violated legal protections in the cases of political dissidents'';
Whereas Dr. Yang Jianli, an internationally renowned scholar, prodemocracy
activist, and President of the Foundation for China in the 21st Century,
is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence into the United
States;
Whereas Dr. Yang Jianli has been detained incommunicado by the Government of the
People's Republic of China since April 26, 2002, when he was arrested
for reportedly entering China with false or incomplete identity
documents;
Whereas according to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights Resolution
1997/38, ``prolonged incommunicado detention may . . . itself constitute
a form of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment'', which is prohibited
by international law;
Whereas Dr. Yang Jianli has been deprived of his basic human rights by being
denied access to legal counsel and contact with his wife and two
children (who are United States citizens), and has also been denied his
right to trial within a reasonable time or to release;
Whereas on May 7, 2003, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
expressed the opinion that ``[t]he non-observance of Mr. Yang Jianli's
right to a fair trial is of such gravity as to give his deprivation of
liberty an arbitrary character. Therefore, his arrest and detention is
arbitrary being in contravention of Article 9 of the Universal
Declaration on Human Rights and of Article 9 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights''; and
Whereas the arbitrary imprisonment and the violation of the human rights of
United States citizens and permanent resident aliens by the Government
of the People's Republic of China are sources of continuing, grave
concern to the House of Representatives: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That--
(1) the House of Representatives--
(A) condemns and deplores the incommunicado detention of Dr.
Yang Jianli, and calls for his immediate and unconditional
release;
(B) condemns and deplores the lack of due process afforded
to Dr. Yang;
(C) strongly urges the Government of the People's Republic
of China to respond to the repeated requests by Members of the
House of Representatives for information about Dr. Yang's
whereabouts and condition; and
(D) strongly urges the Government of the People's Republic
of China to consider the implications for the broader
relationship between the United States and the People's Republic
of China of detaining permanent resident aliens of the United
States without providing them access to legal counsel or family
members; and
(2) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the United
States--
(A) should make the immediate release of Dr. Yang Jianli by
the Government of the People's Republic of China a top concern
of United States foreign policy;
(B) should continue to make every effort to assist Dr. Yang
Jianli and his family while discussions of his release are
ongoing;
(C) should make it clear to the Government of the People's
Republic of China that the detention of United States citizens
and permanent resident aliens and the infliction of human rights
violations on these groups are not in the interest of the
Government of the People's Republic of China because they create
obstacles to improved bilateral relations and cooperation with
the United States; and
(D) should reiterate the deep concern of the United States
regarding the continued imprisonment of Dr. Yang Jianli and
other United States citizens and permanent resident aliens whose
human rights are being violated, and discuss their legal status
and immediate humanitarian needs with the Government of the
People's Republic of China.
Attest:
Clerk.