chronological sheet here, a routine dragnet operation took place in Taiwan about November 12 at which time they rounded up suspected crime figures.

On November 17, hardly 5 days later, the Government of the Republic of China formally notified the Government of the United States about the arrest in Taiwan and what they had discovered, so I hardly think that is a coverup. It seems to me they were the first ones to alert the U.S. Government that something may have been behind this other than, if we must say it "garden variety" murder. So, I just think that ought to be part of the record, that the Republic of China notified us, they called our attention to it.

Now, it would seem to me if they were the type of killers that some people seem to want to portray them as being, maybe they would have taken Wu and Chen out to the backyard, and they would have disappeared like they do in Siberia and other garden spots in the Communists bloc. They didn't do that. They notified the U.S. Government. I think we ought to be aware of that.

Second, I just was reading a Library of Congress report here, Mr. Chairman, from the Chief of the Far Eastern Law Division of the Library of Congress. It says a few very important things in here. One, it says in general, unless there is a specific treaty provision permitting it, most nations will not, I repeat will not, extradite their own citizens.

In most nations around the world, friendly and unfriendly, it goes on to say furthermore, extradition shall be refused if the case is still in proceedings, as this case is. It goes on to say, that it is reasonable to presume that the suspects in this case might also be accused of committing crimes other than-and they use the pen name of Mr. Liu-his murder in connection with their activities as gangsters. And, I think, we all have to keep that in mind, for those of us worried about their getting their due process. Personally, I would like to see them get the death penalty for that kind of heinous murder. Perhaps they might better be tried in Taiwan than in the United States.

But I would also like to correct one thing, Mr. Brown, that you said, that you were emphatic about it. The United States was asking for extradition, in other words, from Taiwan. I don't find that that is true. As a matter of fact, it is the other way around. I have badgered the State Department, and all other agencies, because there are some 30 gangsters or criminals, in the United States who have committed heinous crimes in Taiwan that Taiwan wants to extradite back. These are not U.S. citizens, these are Republic of China citizens.

Certainly, Taiwan wants an extradition treaty with us, and I think we ought to have one. As a matter of fact, I have passed out an amendment to Mr. Solarz' resolution which simply states, after his resolve clauses, that it is further the sense of the Congress that the appropriate authorities, in both the United States and Taiwan, should negotiate an extradition treaty or some other formal arrangement regarding extradition procedures so that we could bring back Wu and Chen.

I would like to ask you if you would have any objections, since you don't have any objection to Mr. Solarz' resolution, nor do I, if

my amendment were added to it? Do you have any objection to this amendment?

Mr. BROWN. I would have to study that. I would like to bring that back and consider it.

Mr. SOLOMON. All right, thank you.

Mr. SOLARZ. I thank the gentleman.

I, on the second round have a few final questions. Some of the others might also.

WHY WAS LIU KILLED

Are you in a position at all to speculate as to why Mr. Liu was killed?

Mr. BROWN. No; I am not in such a position, sir.

Mr. SOLARZ. Are you at all in a position to comment on the reports that have appeared in the press that Mr. Liu was in the employ of a number of secret services?

Mr. BROWN. No; I am not.

Mr. SOLARZ. Or of other governments around the world?

Mr. BROWN. No; I cannot comment on that.

Mr. SOLARZ. I assume even if there were any truth to these allegations, that would in no way obviate your sense of outrage over the killing?

Mr. BROWN. Of an American citizen in the United States.

Mr. SOLARZ. Now, you indicated you thought the murder of Mr. Liu did constitute an example of extreme intimidation. Would you consider calls to Taiwanese-Americans in the middle of the night, threatening them if they didn't refrain from criticism of the Taiwanese Government, to be a form of intimidation, if that could be established that it took place?

Mr. BROWN. If that could be established, yes.

Mr. SOLARZ. Would you consider it a form of harassment or intimidation if Taiwanese citizens in the United States, excuse me, if Taiwanese-Americans seeking to visit Taiwan were denied visas to visit Taiwan on the grounds that they had been critical of the government in Taiwan?

Mr. BROWN. Could you repeat that? If-

Mr. SOLARZ. If it were established that U.S. citizens of Taiwanese descent, or of any other origin, were denied visas by the Taiwanese authorities to visit Taiwan on the ground that they had been critical of the authorities on Taiwan, had spoken out against the Government of Taiwan, or had participated in demonstrations protesting the policies of Taiwan, would you consider it an example of harassment or intimidation?

Mr. BROWN. That is a very difficult area, Mr. Chairman, for me to respond to.

Most countries, emphatically this one, jealously guard their sovereign right to determine the ground rules on which they issue or deny visas.

Mr. SOLARZ. I assume we would not look kindly on the use of that sovereign power for the purpose of intimidating people in the United States, however.

Mr. BROWN. I so assume.

Mr. SOLARZ. Now, finally, are you in a position to give us any assessment of what the impact of the Liu affair has been on United States-Taiwanese relations?

Mr. BROWN. Well, we are obviously outraged at the murder of an American citizen on American soil, and we have, as I have indicated, very sternly, vigorously, and speedily communicated our concerns on the AIT-CCNAA network. It is fair to say that the authorities in Taiwan are keenly aware, that it is abundantly clear, I would like to make another point, and that is the authorities in Taiwan through the CCNAA-AIT network, have from the beginning emphasized to us their desire to fully cooperate with us in our handling of this case.

Fingerprints were turned over on request, photographs were turned over, we have alluded to the fact that we not only sought for the deliverance of Chen and Wu to Daly City authorities, but that if this were not possible, we would send a team to investigate them and polygraph. That was granted.

Mr. SOLARZ. Would you say that full cooperation would entail delivering Chen and Wu to the appropriate authorities in the United States?

Mr. BROWN. We have at every single conversation on this subject requested and repeated our requests on that score.

Mr. SOLARZ. Now, presumably if the authorities on Taiwan decide that it is in their interest to deliver Chen and Wu, would they be able to do so?

Mr. BROWN. Well, you get into questions of their interpretation of their pertinent law and regulations.

Mr. SOLARZ. My impression is that article 21 of the extradition law in Taiwan reserves the final judgment on these matters to the President, so that he is the authority. Is that true?

Mr. BROWN. Well, that is a subject of various interpretation. Regardless of that, we have at every single occasion repeated our request that those two be delivered to us.

TAIWAN'S ABILITY TO RETURN CITIZENS TO UNITED STATES

Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Brown, in response to Mr. Lantos' examination, you indicated you were quite knowledgeable about the political system on Taiwan, you had served there. Based on what you know of it, if the government on Taiwan wants to change a law on Taiwan, does it generally have to secure approval of the Legislative and Executive Yuans for the change that they seek?

Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOLARZ. If the government on Taiwan decided that the present law prohibited them from delivering Mr. Chen and Mr. Wu but decided to secure a change in the law that would permit them to deliver Mr. Chen and Mr. Wu, do you think they could secure the approval of the appropriate institutions for that change?

Mr. BROWN. That is my estimate.

Mr. SOLARZ. And if such a change were made, then, of course, there would no longer be any legal barrier which would prohibit them from delivering Mr. Chen and Mr. Wu?

Mr. BROWN. That is true.

Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Leach.

Mr. LEACH. I just wanted to make one brief observation, first on a very positive note and then to undercut that positive note a bit. I know of no instance in which the Government of the United States has been as firm and stern with the Government of Taiwan in expressing U.S. concerns as in this particular one, and for that I think concerned members of Congress were appreciative of the forthrightness of the administration.

Second, I would hope you would reconsider, in terms of making a firm determination at this moment in time, a question that was put to you earlier, simply because it relates to matters of common sense and also, perhaps, dictionary definitions. Terrorism is something that has broad and very precise meanings and, with respect to the question of whether this is a terrorist act, to suggest that it isn't could well imply that one doesn't take it overwhelmingly seriously. To suggest that it is simply a gang activity also implies that it may not be taken as seriously as I think the administration has done.

So, all I would urge is that your response be tempered by a willingness to wait for the evidence to unfold and that if, for example, this proves to be a government-sanctioned murder, it would strike me as next to impossible not to label it an act of terrorism.

Would you agree with that, sir?

Mr. BROWN. Thank you for that constructive interpretation. I so accept it.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you.

Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Lantos.

BAMBOO GANG'S MOTIVATION

Mr. LANTOS. First I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Leach, for that clarification because I certainly agree with his statement.

Mr. Brown, the facts that are public in this case clearly indicate some degree of governmental complicity. It is very difficult to understand why three key people in military intelligence would have been treated the way they apparently had been thus far had there been no involvement. We don't know as yet, I take it, how high up governmental involvement is likely to have gone, but the fact there was some governmental involvement appears clear to the naked

eye.

With that assumption, would you care to speculate on what the motivation could have been on the part of whoever put the gang up to this act?

Mr. BROWN. Much as I might be personally tempted, sir, I really think under the constraints that I have laid out in my introductory remarks with case or cases sub judice, investigation by relevant law enforcement agencies, it would be better for me to refrain from so speculating.

Mr. LANTOS. Let me then ask you, if I may, would it be your judgment it is in our national interest and in the interest of the Taiwan-United States relations to get this case resolved as expeditiously as possible?

Mr. BROWN. Most emphatically, yes.

Mr. LANTOS. If the answer is most emphatically yes, can you conceive of the case being resolved except in an American court of law?

Mr. BROWN. Well, I would certainly hope that it was resolved in an American court of law, but I can conceive that my hopes notwithstanding that it would be resolved elsewhere.

Mr. LANTOS. If elsewhere, meaning where?

Mr. BROWN. Taiwan.

Mr. LANTOS. If it is resolved in Taiwan, is the assumption that I made in my opening remarks, that suspicions would linger, a reasonable assumption?

Mr. BROWN. Well, sir, I think that could depend obviously on the prosecution and the outcome of such a case. We have emphatically, to reiterate, expressed our desire that that case, the case of Chen and Wu be conducted in Daly City in this country where the crime was committed.

Failing that, if there is to be, if our desires are not met and if there is to be a trial, as is indicated, in Taiwan, one would hope that it was speedy, just and open to the public. If it were, even though I would prefer for obvious reasons that it would be conducted in the United States, one would have to look at the outcome. Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOLARZ. If there are no further questions? Mr. Solomon.

POSSIBLE FBI CONNECTION

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, since I am going to be offering an amendment to your resolution a little later, I just want to make a point on a couple of things.

Mr. Brown, there have been a number of interesting reports in the press concerning Mr. Liu's activities. I am reading an article here that was in this past week's edition of Newsweek, which, for example, identified Mr. Liu as an FBI informant in one way or another.

The United Press International has reported that he gathered intelligence data concerning mainland China for the Republic of China. As a matter of fact, the Defense Intelligence Bureau, the very agency that has been implicated in his death, and other reports, which I don't believe-have suggested that he had connections with the mainland Chinese.

Have you any comments on these suggestions? Might they have some kind of a bearing on the case?

Mr. BROWN. I am aware, sir, of that report and others in the media, but I really think I should refrain from such speculation on matters involving intelligence, or allegedly involving intelligence organizations.

Mr. SOLOMON. Fine.

Just what precisely is the attitude of our government? In other words, what attitude do they take concerning matters of extradition? Do we hand over our citizens, American citizens, to a foreign government for purposes of standing trial?

Mr. BROWN. Pursuant to an extradition treaty, sir, yes. In the absence of an extradition treaty, this government does not hand over anyone for prosecution abroad.