Speech #1050154655

I am second to none in terms of what I believe is the reprehensible character of a forced abortion or a sterilization policy. We dont have to take second seats to each other in terms of our abhorrence of those kinds of activities. But I would hope that. as a body that tries to deliberate on a policy and apply it Wherever it should be applied. we would take enough time to ask ourselves if forced abortion is reprehensible. and do we want anybody who perpetrates it to have a visa. If so. apply it uniformly. if not. apply it uniformly. We have an amendment which says the top leaders of the countrythe policymakersare exempt from the denial of a visa. The Cabinet officers in China. presumably. who make policy. can get visas. but any 200.000 nationals of China are supposed to be investigated to see whether or not they implemented a reprehensible policy. You let the Cabinet officers off the hook. but the 200.000 nationals beneath the Cabinet officers are the ones whose visa applications presumably are supposed to be investigated. Why are we letting the policymakers off the hook? Why do they get visas to come in here. but people who may or may not have been implementing the policy are the ones whose visa applications will be investigated? We have a 1.500page book. "State Department Analysis of Human Rights Violations Around the World." It is a very useful book. Just open to a page just about anyplaceon page 1.561 it relates to Saudi Arabia: "The Government does not permit public nonMoslem religious activities. NonMoslem worshipers risk arrest. lashing and deportation for engaging in religious activities that attract official attention." Now. the policy of denying visas may or may not be workable. but we surely ought to apply it uniformly where the activity is as reprehensible in one country as it is in another. But the amendment before us doesnt do that. It singles out a single country. it singles out 10 pages of those 1.500 pages and says that this is where we are going to apply the visa denial policy. Is that what we want to do as a Senate? Should we take the time to decide whether or not we want to do it that way?