Imágenes de páginas
[ocr errors]

Mr. HYDE. If the gentleman would yield. You are saying it the long way, but I have no objection. It does not do violence to what I said in two words. But I would like to return to changing the title. My whole objection

Mr. SOLARZ. Can I just clear that up, and ask unanimous consent to substitute at the end of the Hyde substitute for the words “in any and all appropriate cases” the following language, “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.

Mr. SOLOMON. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BONKER. Unanimous consent has been made. Mr. Solomon reserves the right to object.

Mr. SOLOMON. I would yield to the gentleman from Illinois to pose the question on the title change. We really are going far beyond what we intended in the original resolution. And I would like to have the gentleman from Illinois ask the gentleman from New York if he is going to agree to his request on the title change.

Mr. HYDE. If the gentleman would yield.
Mr. SOLOMON. I would be glad to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HYDE. Steve, so that we can get out of this dilemma, I would accept in the title, “Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Taiwan authorities should cooperate fully in the case of Henry Liu.

Mr. SOLARZ. Fine.
Mr. HYDE. Then go into further expressing the sense.
Mr. SOLARZ. Henry, you have a deal.
Mr. HYDE. All right. I so move, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. BONKER. The reservation has been withdrawn. We have before the committee two unanimous consents by Mr. Solarz—one which involves adding language at the end of the substitute, and one which involves a creative drafting of the title of the resolution.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BONKER. Mr. Leach.

Mr. LEACH. I would like to bring to the attention of the gentleman from Illinois one subtle difference between the two resolutions that makes his resolution substantially of a different nature even with all of the changes that have so far taken place. It relates to the language of one word, and a word that in the first resolution was carefully written in another way. In the second to last line of the gentleman from Illinois' resolution, he uses the word extradition to the United States.

In a technical legal context, because we do not have an extradition arrangement, one might argue that his resolution would deny extradition in the event that we do not negotiate an extradition arrangement, and that is why the gentleman from New York's resolution uses the phrase delivering to the United States for trial those citizens of Taiwan charged by authorities in the United States in connection with the murder of Henry Liu.

The point that I would like to ask the gentleman from Illinois is, would he be willing to change the last line of his resolution to read instead of to facilitate extradition to the United States to read to facilitate delivering to the United States for trial those citizens of Taiwan and any other individuals charged by authorities in the United States in connection with the murder of Henry Liu.

The reason for this is simply that under his resolution we may not facilitate absent an extradition agreement. Under the other language, you could facilitate with or without an extradition agreement.

Mr. HYDE. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEACH. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. HYDE. The gentleman has gotten to the nub of the difference between the original resolution and my substitute. To ask a country to deliver to us without any recognition of the laws of the Republic of China, and they have an extradition code, it was the vice if I may say of the original resolution.

Now you just do not take people, and handcuff them, and throw them on a plane, and deliver them, if you believe in due process and the rule of law. These people are under process now in Taiwan. They have cooperated. We can negotiate an extradition agreement with them. But to say that they have to deliver these people without any color of law seems to me to be an arrogant overriding of the sensibilities, the rule of law, really arrogant.

All I am saying in my resolution is “extradite” which is a word of art. It means get them over here, but pursuant to some rule of law.

Mr. LEACH. If I could recapture my time, what we have before us, if I could stress to the committee, is a resolution that was rather hastily presented, and has not been carefully reviewed. Based upon the explanation of the gentleman from Illinois, despite all of the amendments that have been accepted on both sides, his resolution is less persuasive than the original resolution of Mr. Solarz. And further, if I could stress, it is in opposition to the position of the Government of the United States of America, represented by the Reagan administration.

We have requested, and perhaps arrogantly in the terms of the gentleman of Illinois, the return of individuals that are requested by authorities of the United States to stand trial in the United States. What the gentleman from Illinois' resolution is stipulating in effect is that this Congress go on record undercutting the position of the Reagan administration.

I find that very difficult. And I would simply stress that even though the gentleman from Illinois has presented a very artful resolution, unless this particular line is accepted and amended, this committee should go back to the original Solarz language.

Mr. HYDE. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. BONKER. The Chair will announce that we have before us a substitute which has been amended countless times, and two unanimous-consent requests by the gentleman from New York whom I will recognize at this time.

Mr. SOLARZ. I thank the Chair for the recognition. Let me say that until the colloquy between Mr. Leach and Mr. Hyde I would not have invested the phrase extradition and delivery with that much significance. But I must say that based on Mr. Hyde's response that unless we can reach agreement on this, I would feel constrained to oppose his substitute. Because if I understand what Mr. Hyde is saying, it is that by using the word “extradition” he means to be saying to the authorities on Taiwan that we are in fact not expecting them to send these individuals over here in the absence of an extradition agreement between Taiwan and the United States.

The whole purpose of this resolution is precisely to reinforce the request of the administration that these individuals who have been charged in American courts be sent to the United States. Now I did not personally care whether the phrase was extradition or delivery. But if you believe that by using the word “extradition” that we would in effect, be saying be that the Taiwanese authorities are not obligated to send them here until we have an extradition agreement, then I have to oppose this for two reasons.

First of all, I think that they should be sent here whether or not there is an extradition agreement. And second, under the extradition law of Taiwan according to an analysis that we received from the Library of Congress, the President of Taiwan has the authority to send these people here even without an extradition agreement.

So I hope, Mr. Hyde, even though we got this at the last second, and we have gone through a process where we have accommodated all of your other concerns, and you have accommodated some of ours, and I think that we have an agreement, I would like to strongly support the suggestion of Mr. Leach that the phrase extradition be taken out for the reasons that the administration originally wanted it out of our draft resolution, and substitute instead his suggested language of delivery which picks up the original language of the resolution.

Let me just say finally that if we do that, I think that by incorporating your other language that we have expressed our views in a perhaps more diplomatic way. We have taken note of the fact that Taiwan has requested extradition agreements in the past. And I honestly believe that with this language it would be compatible with the concerns that all of us have.

Mr. HYDE. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLARZ. Yes.

Mr. HYDE. I think that we have reached an impasse, although the gentleman from Iowa has highlighted the differences that we have. Now I did not go through my presentation of what the law is in the United States, of the practice of never extraditing a citizen absent an extradition treaty.

The history, the tradition, the cases where Northern Ireland asked to extradite someone convicted of murder, a citizen of Ireland, and we would not extradite. There is a whole history here that is just being overruled. What I object to as a lawyer is delivering people. Mr. Eichman was as monstrous a human being, and it is abusing the term “human” to call him that. But to pick somebody up and pick a straitjacket on them and ship them across the sea for a trial is not the rule of law. It is not due process, and due process is at stake here, not Henry Liu. Due process, a recognition that there are laws to be followed, procedures to be followed from a country that is allied with us.

You, in the very amendment that you would offer conclude an extradition agreement. You recognize some merit to the term extradition. But to deliver people, under what law do you deliver people, unless you want to legitimate kidnapping. Now this is a very important issue.

Mr. LEACH. Would the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. HYDE. Just a moment. I have tried to phrase it with some gesture, some deference to the fact that are laws in Taiwan to be followed and to be observed without an arrogant saying deliver them to us, because we have charged them with a crime. And I think that we are making a serious mistake. I think that we are riding roughshod over due process and the rule of law.

So if we have to battle it out, we will battle it out. I would like this guy extradited here, but I would like some understanding that Taiwan is a sovereign state and has its laws too, and that they are pursuing the prosecution.

Mr. BONKER. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair would like to explain the parliamentary situation here. We have the gentleman's resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 49. Mr. Hyde has offered a substitute which has been amended a number of times in an effort to find a genuine consensus. Apparently, we have a fundamental difference.

Now we can vote on what has been offered and agreed to up until now, but I do not think that that is going to resolve the problem. It would be my preference that we adjourn, and that the principals attempt to reach a compromise if you will, and bring back to the committee next Tuesday a new bill.

I am not sure that the staff has even kept track of all of the amendments and the unanimous consent requests that have been made. So unless there is an objection, I would like to adjourn the meeting. Perhaps when we reconvene on Tuesday, we can take up this issue again.

Hearing no objection, the committee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene on Tuesday, March 26, 1985.]




Washington, DC. The committee met in open markup session which began at 1:33 p.m., in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dante B. Fascell (chairman) presiding.

Chairman FASCELL. The next order of business is House Concurrent Resolution 110.

Mr. Solarz.
Mr. SOLARZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is, I think, noncontroversial. It calls upon the authorities on Taiwan to cooperate fully with the United States in the case of Henry Liu, and for the establishment of an extradition agreement between Taiwan and the United States.

Mr. Hyde and Mr. Solomon raised some questions last time we took this up. Those questions have been addressed and resolved.

Chairman FASCELL. Does anybody on the minority side have a comment?

Mr. Hyde.

Mr. HYDE. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I may, this is the product of long negotiation with Mr. Leach, who is not here, but his staff person is, and Mr. Solarz, and we are satisfied that it accurately reflects the situation, and recognizes that Taiwan has been cooperating fully with the authorities, and the FBI has been allowed to question and polygraph the individuals, and that there are laws to be followed, and that the request for an extradition agreement has been one that Taiwan has wanted for a long time, too.

So I have no problems with this, and I would hope that it would be adopted.

I yield to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Solomon.
Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the gentleman for yielding and
Chairman FASCELL. Mr. Solomon.
Mr. SOLOMON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that there has been a compromise here. I am not completely satisfied with it, but certainly I am not going to object to it.

But, Mr. Chairman, you know, the resolution itself calls for the Government of Taiwan, the Republic of China, to send to the United States under appropriate legal processes those citizens of Taiwan, et cetera, et cetera.

I want to point out that that is something that the United States never does. We never allow one of our American citizens to be ex


« AnteriorContinuar »