A resolution condemning the violence in Tibet and calling for restraint by the Government of the People's Republic of China and the people of Tibet.

Mr. President, at this time, I send a resolution to the desk. Perhaps, rather than do that, I should just speak about it and then introduce it separately.

This resolution is sent on behalf of Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon and myself. It is also cosponsored by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, as well as Senators Klobuchar, Brown, Cantwell, Dole, Obama, Snowe, Menendez, Voinovich, Schumer, Collins, and Byrd. It deals with Tibet.

It deals with what is happening in Tibet. This is a very difficult week because the day after tomorrow the Olympic torch is coming for the first time to my city, San Francisco, the only city in the United States that the torch will come to. It has created quite a stir.

This resolution condemns the violence in Tibet, and it calls for restraint by the Government of the People's Republic of China and the people of Tibet. It does other things as well; that is, to urge the Government of China to sit down with His Holiness the Dalai Lama and try to work toward meaningful autonomy with respect to the culture and religion of the people of Tibet.

There is an area called the Tibetan Autonomous Region. It has 3 million Tibetans. There are also 3 million Tibetans in the three surrounding provinces of China.

Starting on March 10, Tibetan monks and others began protesting in the autonomous area of western China. The protests were begun peacefully by monks who marched in their robes and were an expression of these religious people's desire to practice their religion freely and without Government interference.

The protesters took this action at great personal risk. Many monks and marchers carried pictures of the Dalai Lama, the most revered figure in Tibetan Buddhism. Possession of such a picture is punished in China, sometimes severely.

Unfortunately and tragically, on March 14, the protests in Lhasa, the capital of the Tibetan Autonomous Region, turned violent. Long- suppressed animosity boiled over. Innocent people were killed in the violence. Homes and businesses were burned in what appears to have been a riot.

Over the days and weeks that followed, the protests spread. They occurred in 42 separate Chinese counties. Most were peaceful. In some cases, they were met, though, with brute force by Chinese police. This resolution condemns force on both sides. The Chinese Government responded to these protests with force and secrecy. The crackdown included thousands of paramilitary police and possibly the People's Liberation Army, who were sent to Tibet.

International journalists and official representatives were kept out, making accurate information difficult to obtain. But we know dozens of people or more have died. We know more than 1,000 people have been incarcerated.

Now, how did all this happen? Over the past decade, China has flooded the Tibetan Autonomous Region with Han Chinese. They have built a major railroad. Han Chinese have participated in a major building boom in the capital city of Lhasa. In fact, there are many more hotels and restaurants and businesses there today.

The majority of Tibetans who live in rural areas benefit very little from central government investment in this Tibetan economy. Instead, the money has flowed to government-run enterprises, in which Han control is dominant.

The Tibetans lack the skills to compete. According to the Chinese Government's 2000 census, the illiteracy rate of ethnic Tibetans in China is 48 percent; that is five times higher than the Chinese national illiteracy rate.

Instead of providing educational opportunity to Tibetans, China is currently advancing patriotic education in Tibet's monasteries. What this means is Chinese reeducation teams go into the monasteries and try to reeducate the Tibetan monks. If they do not agree to reeducation, they are often punished and often beaten. The bottom line is, few Tibetans are prepared to compete for employment and business opportunities in the Han-dominated economic environment.

I first went to China and was the first American mayor to do so in June of 1979. I went with a delegation of San Francisco businesspeople and civic activists to develop the first friendship city agreement between an American city and a Chinese city.

From that flowed an agreement which at one time was the most active sister city relationship in the world. That was between the great cities of Shanghai and San Francisco. The Chinese have always had a love of San Francisco; it goes back many decades into former centuries of Chinese coming to this country and landing in San Francisco first.

We developed that relationship and good things happened. The first Chinese Consulate came to San Francisco and an American Consulate was opened in Shanghai. The first COSCO ship came into San Francisco Bay. The first chartered air service landed at San Francisco International Airport. A special relationship was developed between Guangdong Province and San Francisco. The first Bank of China opened in this country and on and on and on with many interesting projects.

It turned out the mayor of Shanghai was, first, Wang Daohan and then Jiang Zemin. Jiang Zemin and I met over an ensuing 8-year period every year. He then went on to become Secretary General of the party and President of the country. In 1992, 1997, and 1998, I, personally, carried letters from the Dalai Lama to the President of China. In 1997 and 1998, I had long discussions with the President of China, President Jiang Zemin.

I would like, if I might, to read parts of these letters. The second letter is dated June 12, 1997. It is signed by His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Let me read this to you:

When I met Chairman Mao over forty years ago, I felt very

assured by him and the other leaders of the new China. The

promises made to me gave the people and government of Tibet

considerable optimism and confidence. In the mid-1950s, when

we were confronted with new crises, it was Premier Zhou En

Lai who was able to play a crucial role in restoring my

confidence; we met several times during my pilgrimage in

India. Unfortunately, the situation in Tibet did not improve

despite his best assurances and I ultimately had to go into

exile.

Despite lost time and opportunities and the turmoil of the

recent past, my hopes were renewed in 1979 when Mr. Deng

Xiaoping took the initiative to contact me through my brother

in Hong Kong, assuring me that short of our demand for

separation from the People's Republic of China, all

problems could be discussed and resolved. It was a long

overdue rapprochement, and within a few years were able to

make considerable progress on several fronts.

Unfortunately, this initiative, started by Mr. Deng and

vigorously carried out by Mr. Hu Yaobang, then Party General

Secretary, came to a stuttering halt owing to events in Tibet

and elsewhere in China that prevented its natural fruition.

Many of the issues are yet to be resolved, and Tibet now

draws the concern of more than just the Tibetan people. The

primary responsibility for resolving this matter lies with

us, and I believe that now is an opportune moment to tackle

these problems without prejudice. I have, for my part, openly

and in confidence conveyed to you that I am not demanding

independence for Tibet, which I believe is fundamental to the

Chinese government.

I think the issue of Tibet has remained unresolved for too

long and any further delay will only complicate the matter. I

am also deeply concerned by the growing restlessness among

the Tibetan people in recent times. I can fully understand

their frustrations. But if a mutually agreeable solution is

found, I am confident that I will be able to dispel the

Tibetan people's concerns and win their support for my

efforts.

It is signed, ``With my prayers, the Dalai Lama.''

I delivered this to Jiang Zemin, in China, on June 12, 1997. On May 16, 1998, the next year, I returned to China and I delivered another letter from His Holiness to Jiang Zemin. I would like to quote from that.

It is my fervent and sincere hope that you will provide

similar leadership in resolving the Tibetan problem. If we

look at the issue positively I really do not see major

contradictions between our respective positions. If I

understand correctly, the main concern of the Central

leadership in China is the unity and stability of the nation.

My middle-way approach for resolving the Tibetan issue will

in fact contribute towards achieving the same objectives.

I would like to reiterate here that I am not seeking

independence for Tibet. My main concern is for the six

million Tibetan people (or whatever the actual figure is of

people who consider themselves Tibetans) to be able to enjoy

the opportunity to fully preserve their civilisation and the

distinct Tibetan culture, religion, and language. I am

convinced that this could be achieved through genuine

autonomy or self-rule within the framework of the People's

Republic of China. Such a situation will also make it

possible for the Tibetan people to take full advantage of,

and be an integral part of, the socio-economic development,

which is taking place in China. It is needless to mention

that a solution to the Tibetan problem will gain tremendous

international respect for the People's Republic of China as

well as for your leadership.

Mr. President, it has been four decades since I have had

the opportunity to sit down personally with the leader of the

Chinese people to have a frank and direct dialogue. With your

leadership and initiative, I am confident that we can begin

the process of resolving the many issues concerning Tibet. I

believe that you are privileged to be leading the People's

Republic of China at a unique time in history when it's

economy is growing vigorously and when you are gaining a new

respectability in the world.

It goes on.

May I suggest that at our meeting, you and I discuss

relations between the Tibetans and the Chinese government. I

am also concerned about the maintenance and enhancement of

those cultural, civic, and religious institutions that are so

important to the Tibetan people and others throughout the

world. In addition, we should discuss the fact that economic

growth in Tibet has not matched that of the rest of China,

and we would be interested in talking about how we can work

together towards poverty alleviation and educational and

economic growth.

There are other parts to these letters. But I would ask that the full text be incorporated at this point in my remarks in the Record.

This was 1998. It is now 10 years later. And no discussion. I

have tried my level best but no discussion, no ability for the leader of 6 million people, part of China, to be able to sit down and discuss them.

So the events over the last month have been tragic. But if I think of the frustration that has built up over 40 years, of a leader who has renounced violence, who has proposed a middle way, it is shocking to me.

Since 2002, six sets of talks have occurred between the Dalai Lama's representative, namely his special envoy, Lodi Gyari, and the United Front Work Department of the Communist Party of China, but no progress has resulted.

Now, to bring this issue to a settlement, the leaders must be involved. I deeply believe it is in the interests of both the Chinese Government and the Tibetan people for the leaders to sit down and negotiate how to bring about meaningful cultural and religious autonomy for the Tibetan people and faith.

This is essentially what this resolution attempts to do in a constructive way. I know we called Senator Smith. I hoped he would be here. But the floor opened up and I decided to take the opportunity to speak briefly about our resolution. We have worked with the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, with other Senators as well. I believe this resolution sets forward in positive terms our concern about what is happening with Tibet and with China. I certainly remain open to trying to help in any way I possibly can to bring the two sides together. I know the frustration I feel, having tried 10 years ago, 11 years ago, 12 years ago, carrying letters from the Dalai Lama and then, in virtually every conversation I have had with Chinese leadership since; it has all come to naught.

What is happening is there is a newer, younger group of Tibetans who see the large Tibetan community in exile in Dharamsala who say the Dalai Lama, in pursuing this middle way, hasn't achieved anything, and therefore we have to take to the streets and we have to show that the Communists in China must sit down with us and must talk with us. I believe that is the scenario playing out in many provinces and all over the world today.

It can all be stopped by a different kind of scenario. That is one that recognizes that the Dalai Lama, a historic and well-respected religious leader, should be able to sit down with the leadership of China and discuss the problem and come up with a mechanism that can provide for the cultural and religious autonomy of the people both in the Tibetan autonomous area, as well as in the three surrounding provinces.

I hope this resolution will be heard, and I hope we will pass it shortly. If there is no objection, I send the resolution to the desk at this time.

Mr. President, the reason I asked to speak as in morning business is because I wish to talk on another subject that is not the subject of the Mortgage Foreclosure Protection Act but is the continuing saga we have about seating the Democratic delegates to the national convention from the States of Florida and Michigan.

Over the weekend, in the State of Florida, the State party met. Having already elected the delegates under their rules from the various congressional districts, the only thing to complete the election of the Florida delegation was the remaining delegates who are selected at large of the whole State, proportionate to the amount of votes both Senators Obama and Clinton got in the January 29 primary--a primary, by the way, that had a record turnout of 1.75 million, almost 2 million Florida Democrats who turned out and voted. As a result of that, in that proportion to which Senator Clinton got 50 percent of the vote and Senator Obama got 33 percent of the vote, the rest of the delegation of the total of 211 delegates were selected.

So Florida's delegate selection process has gone through under the normal procedures set out by the rules and bylaws of the Florida Democratic Party. So the question now is, now that we have our delegates duly elected, are they going to be seated? Well, of course, you know the position of this Senator from Florida, who has been trying for 9 months now to work a compromise by which we can get the delegates seated. But the Democratic National Committee has completely rejected all the attempts.

Just think, if we had done this last August and September, when we were trying this and had this issue behind us in Florida, how much easier it would be

going forward not to face the nail-biting scenario and drama we see playing out in front of our eyes, since both the candidates, Barack and Hillary, are so close, not only in delegates but in national vote and so forth.

At the end of the day, I believe, as the Good Book says, come and let us reason together, that will prevail and the delegation from my State of Florida, as well as Michigan, will be seated. Because at some point, the party chieftains are going to understand that if you want to win the election in November, you can't ``dis'' the delegations from Florida and Michigan. Why? Conventional wisdom says that there are four big States. In order for a Democratic nominee to win, they must get three of those four. What are they? They are Michigan, Ohio to the east, and further to the east, Pennsylvania. What is the fourth? Florida. Well, lo and behold, of those critical States in winning a Presidential election in the electoral college, as a result of the November election, lo and behold, two of the four are Florida and Michigan. So the party chieftains need to start focusing on November and the treatment of Florida and Michigan.

Now, I can only speak for Florida--and I know Senators Levin and Stabenow can certainly speak for their State, and they have been trying as well--but it is time to get a formula by which we can seat the delegations.

We have tried everything since the Democratic National Committee last September said: No, the rules say we can take away half your delegates. But, no, we are going to take the full pound of flesh, and we are going to take away all your delegates, Florida. Then they left me no choice but I had to sue the chairman; my party, the Democratic National Committee, I had to sue them in Federal court. The Federal district judge in Florida did not agree with my constitutional arguments and dismissed the lawsuit. I disagreed with his reasoning because I think the constitutional protections of due process and equal protection of the laws do apply, but nevertheless I didn't have time to file an appeal because January 29 was fast upon us, so it is what it is.

Since then, I have been trying several different things, along with members of the Democratic congressional delegation of Florida. This is one of the most recent I have suggested, and other members of the delegation have as well. Since the Democratic National Committee's rules say that if a State moves earlier than February 5, that the DNC will take away half of that State's delegates to the national convention, let's try that as a means, in the spirit of compromise, of getting the Florida delegation seated. Of course, since all 211 are now elected, duly, in the processes of Florida, you can seat the whole delegation if such a compromise were struck by giving each of them half a vote. In the spirit of compromise, let's get that done.

Four weeks ago, on this floor, when we had that all-night session, the Presidential candidates were all here. Of course I took the opportunity to speak to Senator Obama and Senator Clinton about such a compromise. In terms of raw politics, if the whole delegation were seated, Senator Clinton would have an advantage of 38 votes, but if you seat the delegation with half of its vote, in the spirit of compromise, you cut that in half, and her advantage from Florida would be only 19 delegate votes.

I make my appeal again to the DNC. Nobody is happy with where we are. Every time anybody gets on the news programs talking about the Presidential contest, which is vigorous and close, everybody asks the question about what to do about Michigan and Florida. Everybody is starting to understand that it is time to get this decision done, a compromise to get the delegation seated, and to move on. The problem is, when you come to these kinds of decisions, one candidate sees that it advantages them and the other candidate sees that it disadvantages them, and it is very difficult to get an agreement. However, the question has to be injected: At the end of the day, what is most important? I submit that at the end of the day, it is clearly in the interests of the Democratic nominee to be able to win the votes, on November 4, from the State of Florida and from the State of Michigan. You say: Does that mean those States wouldn't vote for the Democratic nominee? I can only tell you what the data say. The data--surveys in Florida--say 22 percent of independents in Florida would be less likely to vote for the Democratic nominee because of all this fracas.

In truth, once we get a nominee, the electorate is going to be focused on the November election and choosing the leader of the free world and a leader who can straighten out the mess we find ourselves in and the huge challenges facing this country.

Let me give an example. I was stunned over the weekend to find this result to this question in a major national survey: Is this country going in the right direction or is it going in the wrong direction? I was stunned to see the results, that 81 percent of the American people were saying the country was going in the wrong direction. That is a phenomenal response that begs for leadership in whom we select as the next President of the United States. I do believe we will see down the road, once we have our nominee, that people get focused on that instead of the fracas we now have enveloping Florida and Michigan.

My final comment, since we have been joined by the esteemed senior Senator from California, the chairman of the Rules Committee: If ever there is an opportunity for reform, it is now. If ever there is a reminder to us that this chaos begs for order to emerge out of the chaos, if ever there is an example of Americans being dissatisfied with a nominating process, it is now. If you leave it alone and let it take its natural course, what is going to happen is States, in the next election, 4 years down the road, are going to be jumping each other. Suddenly, your first caucus or primary is going to be on Halloween, and as a result you will have an even more chaotic situation. So this begs for a rational plan.

Senator Levin and I have offered such a rational plan. It is one idea. There are many. Ours would have six primaries, interregional. They would start in March and go through June, and the order of the States collected together interregionally around the country, big States and small States together, would be done by lot, by drawing a number out of a hat, 1 to 6, whether they go first in March or are last, No. 6, in June. Then 4 years later they would rotate, and the 2's would go to 1's and the 1's would go to the end for the June primary.

That bill has been referred to the Rules Committee. It is an idea. Obviously, in the tumult and the hurly-burly of a Presidential campaign, we are not going to move on legislation such as this. But down the road, in the next Congress, after this election, the chaos begs for order, a rational plan of selecting our Presidential nominees.

I have offered a number of other suggestions as well. Make elections easier. Why do we have to vote just on 1 day--a Tuesday--when people often find it very difficult to get off of work or to go to work late or to get home early in order to vote? Why don't we make elections easier for people? Why don't we give them a 2-week period prior to the election that they could go to designated places in their county to vote early? Why don't we make it a lot easier for people to vote, if they want to vote by mail, which is--we traditionally call it an absentee ballot. Let's enable them to call up the supervisor of the elections office and get an absentee ballot without them having to swear they are not going to be in their community on the day of the election or without them having to swear they are sick and cannot get to the poll. Why don't we make it easy? Why don't we give grants for people back in their communities and counties and States to do pilot projects, to study whether we could, in fact, do what Oregon does, which is to vote by mail, where they get 90 percent participation? Why don't we give grants to do a pilot study as to whether the integrity of the voting process could be retained by voting by the Internet in certain circumstances, such as military overseas ballots? Why don't we do all of this in election reform?

Indeed, this Senator would propose the ultimate reach: Why don't we amend the U.S. Constitution and abolish the Electoral College where, in fact, the popular vote for President will determine who is going to be President instead of this arcane, archaic institution called the Electoral College which

has caused, several times in our history, a Presidential candidate to get the most votes but the other candidate is the one who wins because of the Electoral College votes?

What I am saying is we ought to put all these ideas on the table. We ought to make voting easier. We certainly ought to reform the Presidential nominating process. And we ought to consider letting the majority rule in this country.

We have had a reminder in the chaos of this year. Americans are dissatisfied with this process. We need to make it better.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of a resolution condemning the violence in Tibet and calling for restraint by the Government of the People's Republic of China and the people of Tibet.

Cosponsoring this resolution with me is Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon.

The measure is also cosponsored by Senator Joe Biden, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senators Klobuchar, Brown, Cantwell, Dole, Obama, Snowe, Menendez, Voinovich, Schumer, Collins, Byrd, Murray, Durbin, Lieberman, Stabenow, Sanders, Reed, Clinton and Feingold.

The resolution also calls for dialogue between the leadership of China and His Holiness the Dalai Lama on meaningful religious and cultural autonomy for Tibet within China; the release of individuals who protested in a peaceful manner; a cessation of China's efforts to ``reeducate'' Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns; China to open Tibet to international journalists, as it promised the international community it would do during the lead up to the Olympic games; and asks for a full accounting of the protests in Tibet which began in March.

Starting on March 10, Tibetan Monks and other Tibetans began protesting in Tibetan autonomous areas of Western China.

The protests, begun peacefully by monks who marched in their robes, were an expression of these religious people's desire to practice their religion freely and without government interference.

The protesters took this action at great personal risk. Many monks and marchers carried pictures of the Dalai Lama, the most revered figure in Tibetan Buddhism. Possession of such a picture is considered a crime in China.

Unfortunately and tragically, on March 14 protests in Lhasa, the capital of the Tibet Autonomous Region, turned violent. Long suppressed animosity boiled over. Innocent people were killed in the violence. Homes and businesses were burned in what appears to have been a riot.

Over the days and weeks that followed, the protests spread. Protests reportedly occurred in 42 separate Chinese counties. Most were peaceful, and in some case they were met with brute force by the Chinese police.

This resolution condemns the violence on both sides.

The Chinese government has now begun the punishment process.

Thousands of paramilitary police and possibly the People's Liberation Army are in Tibet rounding up protest participants.

International journalists and official representatives are still being kept out, making accurate information difficult to obtain.

But we know that dozens of people or more have died. And we know that more than 1,000 people have been incarcerated. We know that the monasteries have been surrounded by armed force.

On Monday I spoke about the underlying issues including a lack of religious freedom and economic opportunity that have caused Tibetans to take to the streets.

I also spoke about my long standing work to open the door between China and San Francisco and about my sincere friendship with China and its leaders.

Most importantly, I discussed my efforts since 1991 to establish dialogue between the Chinese Leadership and the Dalai Lama.

I read from letters that I carried from the Dalai Lama to the President of China in 1992, 1997, and 1998.

In those letters, the Dalai Lama expressed that he does not seek Independence as China's leaders assert.

In the Dalai Lama's 1998 letter, he wrote:

I would like to reiterate here that I am not seeking

independence for Tibet. My main concern is for the six

million Tibetan people . . . to be able to enjoy the

opportunity to fully preserve their civilisation and the

distinct Tibetan culture, religion, and language. I am

convinced that this could be achieved through genuine

autonomy or self-rule within the framework of the People's

Republic of China.

The Dalai Lama neither calls for independence nor supports the use of violence. He has encouraged the Tibetan people to use restraint both in Tibet and also in the cities, such as San Francisco, where the Olympic torch visits.

On Sunday, The Dalai Lama reiterated his call. In a message to the Tibetan people, he said:

I want to urge my fellow Tibetans who live in freedom

outside Tibet to be extra vigilant as they voice their

feelings on the developments in Tibet. We should not engage

in any action that could be even remotely interpreted as

violent. Even under the most provocative of situations we

must not allow our most precious and deeply held values to be

compromised. I firmly believe that we will achieve success

through our nonviolent path. We must be wise to understand

where the unprecedented affection and support for our cause

stems from.

I sincerely hope the people of San Francisco will heed the Dalai Lama's call.

I would like to commend the people of my city for holding a peaceful rally and candlelight vigil at San Francisco's United Nations Plaza.

And I call on the people of San Francisco that plan to take to the streets today to embrace the nonviolence advocated by the Dalai Lama.

As a friend of China and the Dalai Lama, I am saddened to see the situation in Tibet deteriorate to this point.

Violence cannot solve this matter.

The United States must use its influence to bring the Government of China and the people of Tibet together to

begin the process of reconciliation and dialogue.

To bring this issue to a settlement, the leaders must be involved.

It is in the interest of both the Chinese government and the Tibetan people for the leaders to sit down and negotiate how to bring about meaningful cultural and religious autonomy for the Tibetan people and faith.

For nearly three decades, I have worked to bring this about.

The events in Tibet over the past month have been tragic.

But they renew my commitment and belief.

China has an opportunity to negotiate with a moderate leader capable of quelling the anger within the new generation of Tibetans.

I hope that China's leaders will see this as an opportunity to open the long overdue dialogue with the Dalai Lama.

Mr. President, I would like to commend the distinguished Senator from Florida. I have watched him over these months, and no one has tried harder than he to move toward a solution with respect to the Florida situation. He has told me on several occasions that never before have as many people voted in an election as did in Florida. I think the Senator mentioned some 2 million people voting in some primary election. It is inconceivable to you, and therefore to us, I believe, to have a convention where Florida is not represented. Of course, the same comments would go for the great State of Michigan.

I just want the Senator to know that I am very appreciative of the efforts he has made to try to settle the situation. I only wish they could have been successful. I do not believe the door is closed. I think the more the people of this country understand how important Florida and Michigan are to the democratic process, there will be strong support to reach some accommodation.

I thank the Senator for all he has done.

(The remarks of Mrs. Feinstein pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 504 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 504, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.