that the individuals who performed the assassination were recruited for that purpose and directed to do so by highly placed individuals in the Bureau of Military Intelligence in Taiwan, I think that it is quite clear on the face of it that we have a much better chance of determining the truth of this matter if these people are tried here in the United States than just on Taiwan.

Ultimately, this is a decision that the Taiwanese authorities will make. But I think that it is important for them to know that it is not just the administration but the Congress as well which believes that it would be appropriate for these individuals to be delivered here, so that they can be tried in the courts of our own country. And let me say that I would be fully prepared to support a similar resolution if anybody is subsequently assassinated in the United States by agents of the PRC, by the agents or individuals recruited by any other government friend or foe. I just think that there is an important principle here.

And we may not ultimately be able to secure their extradition, but I think that we owe it to ourselves for the cause of justice to make the effort.

Finally, let me say for those that think that our interests would be served by having an extradition agreement with Taiwan, that this resolution I think would help to facilitate the negotiation of such an agreement.

Mr. BONKER. Is there any discussion on the resolution?

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BONKER. Mr. Leach, and then Mr. Hyde.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement that I would like to submit for the record.

Mr. BONKER. Without objection, Mr. Leach's statement will be included.

[Mr. Leach's prepared statement follows:]

PREPARED STatement of RepresentativE JIM LEACH

Mr. Chairman, as a co-sponsor of H. Con. Res. 49 and Ranking Minority Member of the Asia Subcommittee, I would like to express my strong support for this resolution. How the Taiwan authorities handle the Henry Liu case has serious implications for the future of U.S-Taiwan relations.

Not long ago, in July 1981, the Asia Subcommittee held hearings on the death of Dr. Chen Wen-cheng, and assistant professor at Carnegie Mellon University, who, during a home visit to Taiwan was interrogated by Taiwan government officials about his activities in the U.S. and later found dead. At the time, many of us hoped that the Congressional hearings, efforts by the FBI and State Department, and the subsequent enactment of legislation providing sanctions against any government which engages in a pattern of harassment and intimidation of individuals in the U.S. would effectively deter any future such conduct either on the part of Taiwan or any other government.

Sadly, the murder of Henry Liu-a Taiwanese American citizen-on U.S. soil by agents who may have been acting at the behest of high ranking Taiwan intelligence officials indicates otherwise.

Although the U.S. may have an interest in maintaining warm relations with Taiwan and certain other governments which do not protect as assiduously as we do the civil liberties of their citizens, we must make it clear that such relations are not an invitation to such governments to abridge the rights guaranteed by our Constitution to all who reside within our borders.

The apparent effort by the Taiwan government to extend its control over free expression and free speech into the United States by silencing one of its outspoken critics here is an outrage. We do not tolerate such behavior by the Libyans, the

Chileans, or any other government which has tried to murder on U.S. soil individuals who dare to speak their minds. We will not tolerate it from Taiwan.

The resolution before us today is supportive of the efforts which have been made by the State Department to obtain the return of those individuals in Taiwan who have been charged by California authorities with the murder of Henry Liu. The trial of two of the Bamboo Gang members began yesterday but to date, no indictment has been made against the intelligence officers who were relieved of their duties or arrested in January upon allegations of involvement in Liu's murder.

Thus far, the Taiwan government has not agreed to U.S. government requests to have those charged in Liu's murder returned to the U.S. for trial. In our Subcommittee hearings on this matter in February, I suggested that depending on the level of cooperation we got from Taiwan authorities in this case, we ought to consider some kind of U.S. response, such as cutting back the large number of CCNAA offices in this country. In addition, the U.S. government should consider requesting the withdrawal of all Taiwanese government personnel who may be part of the intelligence services implicated in the ordering of the murder of this U.S. citizen. The conduct alleged in the case before us—of government sanctioned murder—is not the conduct we expect of friends. Actions-not words-will be the response Congress will be looking for.

A firm U.S. response is also necessary to ensure that Taiwanese Americans do not have to be afraid to exercise their Constitutional rights. Dr. Chen's death and now Henry Liu's death represent frightening examples of the fate of Taiwan's critics and the U.S. must make clear it will not tolerate such actions in the future.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Administration told us at the hearing that they had no objection to H. Con. Res. 49 inasmuch as it is consistent with what they are doing already, and since then, we have also received written comments from the Department regarding an amendment adopted by the Subcommittee, stating that it has no objection in principle to the notion of an extradition agreement between CCNAA and AIT although it is complex to conclude such an agreement and all the factors would have to be given serious consideration.

Mr. LEACH. Briefly, I would just like to say that I am a cosponsor of this resolution and think that it is a positive step. How this case is resolved will have profound implications for United StatesTaiwan relations. Mr. Solarz is entirely correct that this is a legal issue as well as a political issue, but both are certainly intertwined because what really symbolizes our system is the way we approach the rule of law. In this case, it is somewhat in doubt in what has happened in an instance between the Government of Taiwan and our own society.

I would like to stress, as the ranking Republican on the subcommittee of jurisdiction, that the administration informed us at the hearing that it has no objection to this resolution and that it is consistent with what the administration is attempting to do. They have also, in written comments to the subcommittee, indicated that they have no objection to the principle of the amendment which was added in subcommittee relating to the negotiation of an extradition agreement, although they do note that it is a complex effort to conclude such an agreement, and all of the factors will have to be given serious consideration.

I urge adoption of the resolution.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BONKER. Mr. Hyde.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute. I wonder if copies could be distributed, so that members could be looking at it while I am talking?

I do not object to the thrust of this resolution or the purpose of it. I join anybody in their shock at the killing that occurred of an American citizen in our country. And quite probably I say because the trial is not complete by Taiwanese. It would appear that there

is implication of people who are in the Taiwanese military or in the government, two or three of them.

It is an outrage, and I do not think that extradition is an improper request. But I do not think that it is quite that simple. I think that it is important if we are interested in the rule of law, if we are interested in due process, to consider some of the implications of the phraseology of the amendment or the resolution that will be offered by Mr. Solarz.

The resolution says that it recognizes that we have no extradition treaty, it recognizes that we have no extradition agreement, which is only possible now because we could not have a treaty as we do not recognize the Republic of China. I will say Taiwan because it is only one word rather than Republic of China which are three.

So I think that the law is clear. We could negotiate with them an extradition agreement. It is important to note that Taiwan has been asking for that for a long time without any success. I think that it is important to note that Taiwan about 6 years ago requested the extradition of a citizen of Taiwan charged with fraud, and has received no answer.

Mr. SOLARZ. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HYDE. Sure.

Mr. SOLARZ. I have taken a look at the gentleman's substitute. And essentially, I think that it expresses what we intended to express.

Mr. HYDE. With a little more deference to the rule of law.

Mr. SOLARZ. I have no problem with the gentleman's substitute except for one thing, which if he would be willing to accept a slight alteration that we could accept. And that is instead of the phrase "the Republic of China" where it appears in this text to simply put in "Taiwan." We do not officially recognize the Republic of China as a formal entity. We have dealings with Taiwan. I think that that would avoid any gratuitous diplomatic complications that we might have with the PRC.

Mr. HYDE. If the gentleman would yield. I have no objection to that. My staff put Taiwan in, and I felt that we ought to say Republic of China. But I felt that attempting to be appropriate, not to be political. So if Taiwan is the appropriate term from your perspective and if you accept the amendment, then I would ask the staff at the appropriate time to substitute Taiwan for Republic of China or the Government of Taiwan.

Mr. BONKER. Is there any objection to substituting Taiwan for the Republic of China in the substitute resolution that has been offered by the gentleman from Illinois?

Mr. HYDE. Or the Government of Taiwan, or where appropriate for language purposes.

Mr. SOLARZ. Now I have one other▬▬

Mr. HYDE. I yield further to the gentleman from New York. Mr. SOLARZ. Well, I think that we are making progress here. One other suggestion I would hope would be acceptable in the interests of bipartisan harmony here. And that is we do have at the beginning of the resolution three "whereases."

Mr. HYDE. Two on mine.

Mr. SOLARZ. No; I am talking on the original. We say, for example, we specify what the development was which leads to this resolution. Whereas Henry Liu, a U.S. citizen of Chinese ancestry

Mr. HYDE. Anticipating the gentleman, I would agree that the "Whereas Henry Liu, a United States citizen of Chinese ancestry, was murdered in Daly City, California, on October 15, 1984," that it is appropriate to have that inserted in my substitute. I agree with that and so move.

Mr. BONKER. Is there any objection to adding to the substitute the clause, "Whereas Henry Liu, a United States citizen of Chinese ancestry, was murdered in Daly City, California, on October 15, 1984"?

[No response.]

Mr. BONKER. Hearing no objection, so ordered.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that that go after the second "Whereas" in my amendment in the nature of a substitute. That would be the third "whereas" paragraph.

Mr. BONKER. Hold it. The gentleman has his two "whereases." We have just added a third.

Mr. HYDE. That is right.

Mr. BONKER. The gentleman from Illinois has the time, and he has yielded to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. HYDE. I would ask Mr. Solarz, are you asking that the "Whereas Henry Liu," et cetera be added to the amendment?

Mr. SOLARZ. Yes; you anticipate the direction in which I was going.

Mr. HYDE. All right.

Mr. SOLARZ. I wanted to suggest that the second "whereas" in the original resolution be added also, because that establishes the fact that certain citizens of Taiwan have been charged for this crime here in the United States. I think that that is an important fact to include in the resolution. When I say charged, I mean by the law enforcement authorities.

Mr. HYDE. If the gentleman would yield back, I have no objection to that "whereas." So I ask unanimous consent that the original House Concurrent Resolution 49, the first two paragraphs_commencing with the word "whereas," namely "Whereas Henry Liu, a United States citizen," et cetera, and the next paragraph, "Whereas certain citizens of Taiwan have been," et cetera, that both of those "whereases" be added as the third and fourth paragraphs of the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. LEACH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BONKER. Just a minute. The unanimous consent has been made to add the first two whereases to the substitute resolution. Do I hear any objection?

[No response.]

Mr. SOLARZ. Hearing none. The gentleman still has the time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Solarz, are you through tinkering with my substitute, performing cosmetic surgery?

Mr. SOLARZ. As I look at it, it strikes me, unfortunately we did not see it before-

Mr. HYDE. I just finished it, the present business being so pressing.

Mr. SOLARZ. I think that I have one other problem. In the original resolution, we expressed the thought that the Taiwan authorities should cooperate fully in the case of Henry Liu. And let me say that while they have cooperated so far, there are some additional requests I think that law enforcement officials have made.

How would my friend feel if we put in his last paragraph where it says, "Further be it resolved," where it says that, "The United States expresses the hope and expectation that justice be done under the laws of that country," what if we add in, "And that the authorities on Taiwan will continue to cooperate with the United States"?

Mr. HYDE. Let me just say this. Justice be done I think implies cooperation. They have already permitted the FBI to interview these people, given them polygraphs. You know, at some point, we are expressing the hope and expectation that justice be done. We are asking the President if under applicable law he will facilitate extradition.

Really, Mr. Solarz, I am not resisting you, but I just think that that says what you want it to say.

Mr. BONKER. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Leach.

Mr. LEACH. Well, first of all, let me just stress that I appreciate very much the gentleman from Illinois suggesting modifications in the resolution that has been brought before us. Like the gentleman from New York, I think it fair that we take a little bit of time to read his resolution to look fully at the implications.

Let me just say that while one should never in a serious sense quibble about order, particularly of preparatory language, let us recognize, in terms of sensitivity, that what precipitated this resolution was the murder of an American citizen, not the desire of the Republic of China to have an extradition agreement with the United States.

Therefore, in terms of order, I think that we should begin with the preparatory language of Mr. Solarz that the gentleman has accepted, and then note what the Republic of China has suggested. Mr. HYDE. I have no objection, if the gentleman would yield. If you want to lead off with the language about the assassination, that is perfectly all right.

Mr. LEACH. Fair enough. Second, let me also-

Mr. BONKER. Now hold it. Let us make sure we have in order the language that is being offered.

Mr. Leach, do you want to make a unanimous-consent request? Mr. LEACH. I would request unanimous consent that the two introductory preparatory clauses of the Solarz amendment be the lead preparatory language of the resolution that Mr. Hyde had presented as a substitute.

Mr. BONKER. Is there any objection?

[No response.]

Mr. BONKER. Hearing none, so ordered.

You may proceed.

Mr. LEACH. Second, I think it should be stressed that the Government of the United States has been in continual negotiation with the Government of Taiwan. There are some questions as to whether every request of the Government of the United States has been met on a full basis. And so, in that regard, I do not think that we