May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6459

them with a metal bar, some Khampas from

eastern Tibet joined the brawl. The fighting

spilled into the street for a while, and resumed the next day. When it was over, several Hui shops had been vandalized; a dozen

Tibetans were arrested. The provocations

continue. On Lhasa’s streets, Chinese vendors sometimes prepare dog meat in plain

view of passersby—an outrageous affront to

Tibetans, who believe that dogs are

reincarnated as people. ‘‘The potential for

overreaction,’’ says a Western diplomat in

Beijing, ‘‘is great.’’

Government officials dismiss the idea that

China is obliterating Tibetan culture.

‘‘That’s sheer fabrication,’’ snaps Raidi, deputy Communist Party secretary of Tibet,

who is Tibetan. He claims that Chinese people constitute less than 3 percent of Tibet’s

population of 2.2 million—neglecting to mention the 60,000 PLA troops and 50,000 or more

migrants in the region. The official press

blames Tibet’s troubles on a ‘‘psychology of

idleness.’’ There are now more monks and

nuns than high-school students, the Tibet

Daily, a Communist Party mouthpiece, recently pointed out. ‘‘Such a huge number of

young, strong people are not engaged in production. * * * The negative influence on

economic and ethnic cultural development is

self-evident.’’

But Beijing continues to undermine Tibet’s

self-sufficiency. Designated as an ‘‘autonomous region,’’ Tibet is anything but. Its religious life, as well as its economic and political fate, depends entirely on Beijing. Chinese

authorities recently dropped a commitment

to mandate the use of the Tibetan language

in government offices. ‘‘Tibetans can speak

Tibetan at home and at work,’’ says a Lhasa

intellectual who has a government job. ‘‘But

in order to get ahead, you must speak Chinese.’’

The influx of Chinese people has a political

purpose, too—to muffle calls for independence. Many Lhasa residents blame Hui shopkeepers for harboring police during separatist demonstrations back in 1989, and for supporting the brutal crackdown that followed.

Today, closed-circuit video cameras monitor

activities at major intersections in the Tibetan quarter, around the markets near the

fabled Jokhang temple, even in the altar

rooms of the Potala Palace. Police pounce on

protesters before they can attract crowds.

The intimidation seems to be working. ‘‘The

Chinese are more clever than we Tibetans,’’

says an educated Lhasan. ‘‘So they get all

the good jobs. They work very hard, even

moving mountains when they want to.’’

Beijing’s most potent weapon is to make Tibetan culture seem worthless—even in a

Lhasan’s eyes.

REPORT ON THE EMERGENCY

WITH SERBIA AND MONTEfNEGRO—MESSAGE FROM THE

PRESIDENT—PM 46

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message

from the President of the United

States, together with an accompanying

report; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and

Urban Affairs.

To the Congress of the United States:

Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides

for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, prior to the

anniversary date of its declaration, the

President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a

notice stating that the emergency is to

continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent the enclosed notice

to the Federal Register for publication,

stating that the emergency declared

with respect to the Federal Republic of

Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro),

as expanded to address the actions and

policies of the Bosnian Serb forces and

the authorities in the territory that

they control within the Republic of

Bosnia and Herzegovina, is to continue

in effect beyond May 30, 1995.

The circumstances that led to the

declaration on May 30, 1992, of a national emergency have not been resolved. The Government of the Federal

Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and

Montenegro) continues to support

groups seizing and attempting to seize

territory in the Republics of Croatia

and Bosnia and Herzegovina by force

and violence. In addition, on October

25, 1994, I expanded the scope of the national emergency to address the actions and policies of the Bosnian Serb

forces and the authorities in the territory that they control, including their

refusal to accept the proposed territorial settlement of the conflict in the

Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The actions and policies of the Federal

Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and

Montenegro) and the Bosnian Serb

forces and the authorities in the territory that they control pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat

to the national security, foreign policy

interests, and the economy of the United States. For these reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to maintain in force the broad authorities necessary to apply economic pressure to

the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and

Montenegro) and to the Bosnian Serb

forces and the authorities in the territory that they control to reduce their

ability to support the continuing civil

strife in the former Yugoslavia.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON.

THE WHITE H

fOUSE, May 10, 1995.

REPORT OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION ENTITLED ‘‘THE GUN-FREE

SCHOOL ZONES AMENDMENTS

ACT OF 1995’’—MESSAGE FROM

THE PRESIDENT—PM 47

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message

from the President of the United

States, together with an accompanying

report; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

To the Congress of the United States:

Today I am transmitting for your immediate consideration and passage the

‘‘Gun-Free School Zones Amendments

Act of 1995.’’ This Act will provide the

jurisdictional element for the GunFree School Zones Act of 1990 required

by the Supreme Court’s recent decision

in United States v. Lopez.

In a 5–4 decision, the Court in Lopez

held that the Congress had exceeded its

authority under the Commerce Clause

by enacting the Gun-Free School Zones

Act of 1990, codified at 18 U.S.C. 922(q).

The Court found that this Act did not

contain the jurisdictional element that

would ensure that the firearms possession in question has the requisite nexus

with interstate commerce.

In the wake of that decision, I directed Attorney General Reno to

present to me an analysis of Lopez and

to recommend a legislative solution to

the problem identified by that decision. Her legislative recommendation

is presented in this proposal.

The legislative proposal would amend

the Gun-Free School Zones Act by adding the requirement that the Government prove that the firearm has

‘‘moved in or the possession of such

firearm otherwise affects interstate or

foreign commerce.’’

The addition of this jurisdictional

element would limit the Act’s ‘‘reach

to a discrete set of firearm possessions

that additionally have an explicit connection with or effect on interstate

commerce,’’ as the Court stated in

Lopez, and thereby bring it within the

Congress’ Commerce Clause authority.

The Attorney General reported to me

that this proposal would have little, if

any, impact on the ability of prosecutors to charge this offense, for the vast

majority of firearms have ‘‘moved in

* * * commerce’’ before reaching their

eventual possessor.

Furthermore, by also including the

possibility of proving the offense by

showing that the possession of the firearm ‘‘otherwise affects interstate or

foreign commerce,’’ this proposal

would leave open the possibility of

showing, under the facts of a particular

case, that although the firearm itself

may not have ‘‘moved in * * * interstate or foreign commerce,’’ its possession nonetheless has a sufficient nexus

to commerce.

The Attorney General has advised

that this proposal does not require the

Government to prove that a defendant

had knowledge that the firearm ‘‘has

moved in or the possession of such firearm otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.’’ The defendant must

know only that he or she possesses the

firearm.

I am committed to doing everything

in my power to make schools places

where young people can be secure,

where they can learn, and where parents can be confident that discipline is

enforced.

I pledge that the Administration will

do our part to help make our schools

safe and the neighborhoods around

them safe. We are prepared to work immediately with the Congress to enact

this legislation. I urge the prompt and

favorable consideration of this legislative proposal by the Congress.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON.

THE WHITE HOUSE, May 10, 1995.