S6458 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 10, 1995

human suffering, prolong life, and

produce enormous savings in medical

costs in the United States. Nonprofit

hospitals are essential to the application of these breakthroughs for the

prevention and treatment of disease.

The community outreach programs

typical of nonprofit hospitals demonstrate their dedication to the needs

of their particular communities. They

are uniquely attuned to the most fiscally and personally debilitating diseases of a community and therefore

provide the services for treatment and

prevention most demanded in the community. Prevention is the most successful method of containing the costs

associated with disease as it is the first

step toward controlling disease. But

the health care system today appears

to be making it more difficult for the

nonprofit community hospital to be

dedicated to prevention and accessible

treatment for the survival of patients.

While the demand to be competitive

is increasing, hospitals’ resources are

dwindling. Changes in the health care

system have reduced hospital occupancy, and have therefore reduced revenue. The Washington Post reported on

March 14, 1995, that hospitals have

quadrupled the number of out-patient

surgical procedures and same-day procedures now exceed the number requiring overnight stays. Health care experts cite technological advances as

well as cost-cutting efforts by insurance companies as two key factors

which have encouraged the growth in

outpatient services. For-profit hospitals tend to exclude those from coverage and service who cannot afford to

pay and minimize nonrevenue generating outreach programs.

On the other hand, nonprofits are

committed to their missions to provide

high-quality service, thus increasing

expense, but not necessarily increasing

revenue. The limited revenues which

once could be used for outreach and

prevention are being reallocated to

meet today’s specialized care needs,

and at the same time hospitals are

being forced to compete with one another to maintain their existence.

As we continue to discuss the reform

of our health care system, we must reconcile the two forces which drive provision of hospital care today, that is

profitability and quality. Hospitals

should be able to continue to operate

as a community resource, to provide

preventive medicine, not only curative

medicine. As I have said, prevention is

the most economical cure for what ails

our health care system, that is escalating costs for short- and long-term

treatment. Prevention and early detection are the most successful methods of

controlling costs associated with disease as they are the first steps toward

preventing the inevitable need for costly treatment incurred by disease.

In S. 18 I have taken such steps

through streamlining the statutory

provisions related to the right to decline treatment, increasing Federal

support for clinical trials at the National Institutes of Health, and increasing public health programs at the

State and local levels. I look forward

to working and reconciling the competing forces in our health care system

today to ensure the continuation of

community-based and -focused prevention and treatment services, such as

those historically provided by nonprofit hospitals.

CHINA’S OBLITERATION OF TIBET

fMr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 7 years

ago I visited Tibet, a land of striking

beauty whose people are among the

most inspiring and interesting I have

ever had the privilege to meet. Most of

the photographs of Tibet, I had seen before my visit, were of the jagged Himalayan Mountains, Buddhist monks, and

a sleepy, poor country of subsistence

farmers and their herds of yaks. There

is another Tibet, which many people

may not be aware of.

It was with great sadness that I and

my wife Marcelle saw first hand the effects of China’s ruthless, systematic

campaign to obliterate Tibetan culture

and Tibetan life. We met some of the

Tibetans who had suffered under Chinese occupation, and saw the empty

palace of the His Holiness the Dalai

Lama, who lives in exile in India and

who I have had the honor of meeting

several times. Since our visit, and despite international condemnation, China’s campaign of cultural annihilation

has steadily progressed.

A recent article in Newsweek magazine describes the genocide. Tibet is

being overrun by the Chinese. According to the article, Lhasa, Tibet’s capital, is now at least 50-percent non-Tibetan. Buddhist monasteries have been

destroyed, the Tibetan language is suppressed, and Tibet’s natural resources

have been plundered.

There are 60,000 Chinese troops in

Tibet, whose job is to instill fear and

quell any dissent. Public gatherings

are monitored with video cameras, and

protesters are quickly arrested before

they attract attention.

Mr. President, Tibet is perhaps the

most vivid example of why the Chinese

Government is widely regarded as

among the world’s most flagrant violators of human rights. A decade from

now, if current trends continue, the

only thing left of Tibetan culture may

be a memory. Even today it may be too

late to prevent that result, since it

would take a major, international campaign to turn back the Chinese tide. I,

for one, would welcome such a campaign, because I believe we have a responsibility to try to protect endangered peoples whose existence is

threatened with cultural genocide.

I ask unanimous consent that the

Newsweek article be printed in the

RECORD.

There being no objection, the article

was ordered to be printed in the

RECORD, as follows:

[From Newsweek, Apr. 3, 1995]

CHINA INVADES TIBET—AGAIN

(By Melinda Liu)

Chip * * * chip. That’s the sound of Tibetan civilization being hacked away. Below

Lhasa’s imposing Potala Palace, home of the

exiled Dalai Lama, Chinese stonemasons

chisel granite that will pave a vast new plaza

with government monuments. The ancient

downtown, some of it dating from the seventh century, has already suffered a terminal face-lift. The 1,000-room Potala is now

surrounded by hair-dressing salons, chainsmoking prostitutes and karaoke bars

blaring Madonna music. Streets that once

housed traditional Tibetan tea shops have

given way to rows of greasy Chinese eateries

run by recent arrivals from China’s interior.

Just outside the capital, young Tibetan boys

scavenge at a new open dump piled high with

trash. ‘‘The Chinese keep coming,’’ complains one Lhasa resident, ‘‘especially those

who can’t find jobs anywhere else.’’

The Chinese are invading Tibet—again.

Four decades after the People’s Liberation

Army seized the kingdom and crushed an uprising by the followers of the Dalai Lama,

Beijing has found a more effective method of

conquest: money. In 1992 the government

lifted controls on Chinese migration to

Tibet, then made it worthwhile by offering

jobs that paid two or three times the rate of

the same work in China’s interior. Last year

alone Beijing invested some $270 million in

62 projects—including the plaza near the

Potala and a solar-powered radio and TV station that will broadcast Communist Party

propaganda in Tibetan. As a result of these

inducements, Lhasa’s population is now at

least 50 percent non-Tibetan, according to

Western analysts.

Locals might not mind so much if they

thought they were getting more of the economic benefits. Tibet—which means ‘‘Western treasure house’’ in Mandarin—has long

been plundered for its gold, timber and other

resources and remains unremittingly poor.

Many Tibetans still live a nomadic hand-tomouth existence. Working herds of shaggy

yaks in the summer and retreating to the

capital in the winter to seek alms until the

winter snows subside, they earn less than

$100 per year. But now maroon-robed monks

compete with Chinese beggars for spare

change. Lhasans also grumble that most new

entrepreneurial opportunities go to outsiders. Government funds are ‘‘inextricably

linking Tibet’s economy with the rest of

China,’’ argues Prof. Melvyn Goldstein, a

Tibet scholar at Case Western Reserve University. ‘‘This has also resulted in non-Tibetans controlling a large segment of the local

economy at all levels, from street-corner bicycle repairmen to electronic-goods-store

owners and firms trading with the rest of

China.’’

Gawking nomads: Newcomers have a significant advantage over locals—connections

in the Chinese interior. In landlocked Tibet,

the best consumer goods were smuggled in

from Nepal only a decade ago. Now Chinese

Muslim (Hui) peddlers in the vegetable market hawk chicken eggs trucked in from

Gansu province, bananas from coastal

Guangdong and Lux soap made in Shanghai.

Chinese shopkeepers prefer to sell to other

Chinese and seem openly disdainful of Tibetans, sometimes grabbing a broom to shoo out

gawking nomads who spend too much time

fiddling with the merchandise.

The tension inevitably erupts. Recently a

local sat down in a Hui restaurant to a

meal—and pulled from his plate of dumplings

what Xinhua news agency called ‘‘a long fingernail.’’ The disgusted diner shouted to his

friends, ‘‘They’re serving human flesh!’’

After the enraged restaurateur attacked
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.