« AnteriorContinuar »
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”?
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?
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 press
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 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 expressir
sing 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
tion 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 want to indicate in the resolution or imply that all requests have been met fully to the satisfaction of the Government of the United States. Therefore the language in the second resolved clause of the Solarz amendment, requesting Taiwan authorities to fully cooperate, I think is of real importance to this resolution.
Mr. HYDE. Well, would the gentleman yield? Mr. LEACH. I would be delighted to yield. Mr. HYDE. I do not think that we really disagree. I just would like to extend the recognition to a sovereign state and ally that has some laws of its own that is proceeding with dispatch, and that has really cooperated. That we are expressing the hope and the expectation that justice be done.
Mr. LEACH. Let me explain to the gentleman my concerns. There is a difference between justice being done in one or two instances and a full unfolding taking place of the circumstances that occurred. Let me explain what I mean.
We could have on Taiwan a rapid trial of two individuals, in fact with a more onerous sentence than might occur in the United States. Mr. HYDE. They might get sent to a halfway house over here.
Mr. LEACH. That is right. Perhaps because of a desire not to allow a full unfolding of what has occurred. That is why I have more confidence in the American system in terms of seeking a full unfolding of events, although very likely the sentences might be more meager than might occur in Taiwan.
My own sense is that justice implies justice in this country as well as on Taiwan, and that we should be very careful about implying that we necessarily assume that the trial of two people on Taiwan is a sufficient end in and of itself.
Mr. BONKER. If the gentleman would yield, maybe I could offer a suggestion.
Mr. Hyde, in the operative clause of your substitute in the third to last sentence you have, “and other individuals who have been charged in accordance with the law” comma. If we could add, “that Taiwan authorities should cooperate fully and facilitate extradition to the United States."
Mr. HYDE. I am not rejecting that language. Let me try this out on you, if I may. Right after the semicolon in the middle of the last paragraph on my substitute where it says, “laws of that country” semicolon, let us add this or see how this flies. “And that the authorities on Taiwan cooperate fully with United States authorities in the investigation and prosecution of this matter.” And then after that follows, “And following the current proceedings, the President," et cetera. I think that that incorporates what you want, and I would rather do my language. Mr. BONKER. Mr. Solarz.
Mr. SOLARZ. Let me say that I hate to take the time up of all of the members of the committee trying to hammer language. We had a long hearing on this, and a lot of time and effort has gone into it. I think that you know that I have demonstrated over and over again a very genuine willingness to accommodate the concerns of people on both sides. And I only say this now in the hope that in the future when you feel our work can be improved, as I am sure that it always can be, that you give us an opportunity before we get in here to resolve this stuff.
Nevertheless, because I do want this moving forward rather than tying it up, I am going to make one or two other suggestions, because I just saw this thing a few minutes ago. . The main purpose of this resolution is to respond to the murder of Henry Liu, and to request cooperation from the authorities on Taiwan in bringing to justice those responsible. And secondarily, to express our view that we should have an extradition agreement. I mean we do not want to suggest to other countries that if you want an extradition agreement with us, the way to get it is to send somebody over here to murder some Americans, and then we will respond with a sense-of-Congress resolution.
So, Henry, what I would like to do is to take your title expressing the sense of Congress, and add it to the title that we already have.
Mr. HYDE. Just a moment, if I may, and I know that we are probably way out of order.
Do you agree to adding the phrase that I suggested after the semicolon in the final paragraph of the substitute, namely, “In that the authorities on Taiwan cooperate fully with United States authorities in the investigation and prosecution of this matter”; can we put that to rest?
Mr. SOLARZ. What does that replace?
Mr. HYDE. I ask unanimous consent that the language that I just recited-
Mr. LEACH. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. HYDE (continuing]. Be added following the word "country" in the final paragraph.
Mr. LEACH. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. HYDE. Surely. Just let me finish. Of the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Mr. BONKER. Mr. Leach.
Mr. LEACH. I do not believe that I have any objections to the words that the gentleman has indicated, but I would like to probe briefly the intent behind them so that we can make a clear record. It is not the intent, as I understand it, of the gentleman from Illinois to imply, by his words, that the desire of the U.S. Government to have extradition of those implicated in this murder should be, in any sense, undercut, and there is no implication in his words that the U.S. Government's current position that we want extradition to the United States of America of individuals that we have requested should be lessened.
Mr. HYDE. Absolutely. I agree with the gentleman. Extradition may well be appropriate. I hope that we can get them extradited. But I want to recognize that there are laws of Taiwan as well as
merica, and there are legal precedents. I abbreviated my presentation, but I have done a lot of research on this.
But I agree with the gentleman. This in no way substitutes or diminishes our hope and request for extradition at the appropriate time and pursuant to law.
Mr. LEACH. On that basis, I withdraw my reservations.
Mr. BONKER. We have a unanimous-consent request before us. You have heard it from the gentleman from Illinois.
Is there any objection to his unanimous-consent request?
I would suggest to the members, to the principal sponsor, and to the sponsor of the substitute, that we should not be involved in prolonged exercise in drafting here. The committee is going to meet again formally on Tuesday. If we are going to go back and forth on perfecting this resolution, I would suggest that we take it up at the staff level or at least among the principals, and bring back a clean bill next Tuesday.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman recognize me?
Mr. HYDE. I think that Mr. Solarz wants to change the title, and that will be the last. Am I right?
Mr. BONKER. I would not bank on it, but we will see.
Mr. SOLARZ. I just have two final suggestions. One is change the title by merging your title and our title. Our title comes first, and your title comes second. Because I think that that is basically expressive of what this is about. It is a request for-
Mr. HYDE. If I agree, can we end this, and move this out?
Mr. BONKER. The Chair will impose himself for a moment. Mr. Solarz has made a unanimous-consent request, but Mr. Hyde would like to know if there is a further issue raised by the gentleman; let's see if we can expedite this. Otherwise, we will adjourn, because we do not even have a quorum. Mr. Solarz.
Mr. SOLARZ. Henry, the final suggestion is the very last words of your resolution, “in any or all appropriate cases.” I would simply substitute for that the last three lines of our resolution, No. 2 from 8 to 10, and substitute for, “in any or all appropriate cases” the words "those citizens of Taiwan or other persons in Taiwan charged by authorities in the United States in connection with the murder of Henry Liu.” I think that we mean the same thing. The only appropriate cases are those cases where individuals have been charged in American courts.
So we would be asking then to facilitate extradition to the United States of those citizens of Taiwan or other persons in Taiwan charged by authorities in the United States in connection with the murder of Henry Liu, which is what I think you mean by appropriate cases.