Asa Hutchinson: “The question was raised as to the timing of these amendments being offered. The accusation was made this is strictly to…”

“The question was raised as to the timing of these amendments being offered. The accusation was made this is strictly to score political points. I have no desire to score political points. I would have greatly desired to have the amendments voted on 1 month ago, 2 months ago, or 6 months ago. Those who have followed the China policy debate will be well aware that these amendments passed the U.S. House of Representatives last year, have been pending in the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Senate for months, and have languished in that committee without having a hearing. Therefore, I think it was perfectly appropriate to file these amendments. The forced abortion amendment was filed more than a month ago on the Department of Defense authorization bill. The provision in the overall amendment dealing with religious persecution in China was filed May 18, well over a month ago. I remind my colleague there was never any intent that somehow this debate, on the eve of the President's trip to China--if we had not had a 4-week hiatus in debating tobacco in this Chamber, perhaps we would have had DOD up a month ago and would have had an opportunity to have these amendments voted on a month ago. But that wasn't the case. To question my motivation and the motivation of many of my colleagues who feel very deeply about the human rights abuses that are ongoing in China today, I think, is to do us a disservice; and to question our patriotism is wrong.”