tion, the one that is in print now, has changed, been moderated tremendously.

Now, that has to be voluntary on the part of Mr. Liu and so I say, well, why in the world would anyone want to do anything to him if he has moderated this way? So that is why I think we have to keep an open mind and not be making statements like the "hired guns of the Taiwan Government" heard here a few minutes ago. I don't think we know that yet and I think we ought to keep an open mind on it.

Mr. MINETA. Let me say that I really would like to hear from the President on this issue. We haven't heard anything from the administration and that is one of the things I would like. But I think what I would like to speak to as maybe an ancillary issue is the rising trend of violence against Asian Americans. It may not be apparent to a lot of people but it is happening. Whether it is the Vietnamese in the gulf coast port whose fishing or shrimp boats are being blown up, or a student in Davis, CA. being murdered, or fights and other kinds of vandalism and fires-arson in San Jose, CA. or in Detroit-there are innumerable examples in the last several years occurring right now and to me, this has to be stopped. Whether it is a Swastika that is painted on a garage, or an act of violence against Asian-Americans in any form, to me it has got to be stopped.

That is why I want to speak out, whether it is on this case, or any others that occur, if justice is being done. I felt that there was an injustice in 1942 when as a 102-year-old boy I was put into a camp, not charged with any crime, but moved summarily from the west coast. Out of that experience came my very strong feelings. No rancor or bitterness about what happened, but a very, very strong feeling about what the Constitution means to a citizen of the United States. To a lot of people it is a piece of paper, but to me, it is a living document that we have to every day defend and put life into and so that is why I feel very strongly about these issues.

Mr. SOLOMON. A good statement.

Mr. SOLARZ. I am pleased now to call upon another new member of the subcommittee, who I am delighted will be joining the committee in its work during the 99th session, Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your welcome. I am pleased to be here.

I had a chance to catch up, to read your testimony, Congressman Mineta, and I thank you for it.

I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOLARZ. If there are no further questions from the members of the committee, I want to thank our very distinguished colleague, Mr. Mineta, for his testimony today.

Norm, I know all of us will take very seriously what you have to say and I can only reiterate that you have made us all proud to be Americans.

Mr. MINETA. Thank you very much.

Mr. SOLARZ. Our next witness will be William Brown, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs.

As Mr. Brown takes his place at the witness table, let me say to my colleagues on the subcommittee that I am going to ask the staff

to distribute for you to look at a proposed hearing agenda for the subcommittee throughout the rest of the year. After we finish our hearing today, if anyone is still around, I thought we might have a discussion as to the agenda for the subcommittee for the duration of the year.

I want to emphasize this is only a tentative schedule. It represents the thinking of myself and the staff about some of the issues we could productively address. But we are very open to any additional suggestions people may have, any modifications, proposals for witnesses, subjects of hearings and the like. So you might, as the hearing proceeds, want to take a look at this and hopefully after the witnesses have given their testimony we can have a brief discussion of the schedule for the rest of the year.

Mr. Brown, your testimony will be included in the record. If you can possibly summarize your statement in about 10 minutes, that would be helpful.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BROWN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ACCOMPANIED BY ANDRE SURENA, LEGAL BUREAU AND MARK PRATT

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have with me, Mr. Andre Surena of our Legal Bureau in the Department of State and Mr. Mark Pratt.

I have no prepared statement. At the committee's request I am here today to respond to your questions, within the limits of certain constraints, about the investigation into the murder of Henry Liu.

I hope that you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the committee, will appreciate that there are a number of things to which I may not respond, even if they relate to matters that have been reported or intimated in the press. My concern and the cause for the constraints upon me is that I wish to say nothing that may prejudice the ongoing investigation nor any possible future prosecutions that may occur in the United States. Consequently, with the committee's indulgence, in my remarks today in response to your questions, I propose not to allude to or to confirm or deny the existence of any evidence that may have been uncovered or the names of any of the suspects in the American investigation of this case.

Any questions that you may wish to put with respect to those areas are, Mr. Chairman, I believe best directed to the U.S. law enforcement officials investigating the case.

It might help the committee to better understand my reluctance to enter into those areas if I sketch briefly the Department of State's role in this investigation. The investigation is being conducted on the local level by Daly City and relevant California county law enforcement officials.

On the Federal level, it is being conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. On behalf of the local law enforcement authorities, the FBI has requested the Department of State to facilitate obtaining certain legal assistance from Taiwan authorities to help in the U.S. criminal investigations. Upon receipt of these questions, the Department of State has ensured that they were expeditiously

and firmly, vigorously communicated to the Taiwan authorities through the American Institute in Taiwan which, as you know, Mr. Chairman, is the instrumentality set up under the Taiwan Relations Act for conducting unofficial relations between the people of the United States and the people of Taiwan.

As we noted in the answers submitted for the record—which I believe are being distributed-in response to questions received to date, the assistance that we have received from Taiwan authorities has been in the form of photographs and fingerprint records of some of the suspects and Taiwan consent to interviews and polygraph examinations of two of the suspects who are now in Taiwan custody. All of the Department of State's communications on this subject have been through the American Institute in Taiwan [AIT] to the Taiwan counterpart organization, the Coordination Council for North American Affairs [CCNAA] and, when the interviewpolygraph team traveled to Taiwan on January 22, 23, they were in Taiwan under the auspices of the AIT.

As you can see, while the Department of State has played an important role in this investigation, it is nonetheless an ancillary role. We have been seeking to help and will continue to help the U.S. law enforcement authorities that have primary responsibility in this matter. The Department of State is intent to do all that it can within its spheres of responsibility to assist in bringing the killers of Henry Liu to justice.

This is an unusual occasion for a State Department official to be asked to testify before this committee. I hope I will be able to address your questions to your satisfaction, in addition to those to which I have submitted written responses.

Mr. SOLARZ. Thank you, Mr. Brown.

Have we asked the authorities in Taiwan to deliver any of the people charged in the California judicial system with the murder of Henry Liu to the United States?

Mr. BROWN. Yes, we have, Mr. Chairman. We have asked for the delivery unto the Daly City authorities for investigation and trial for murder of the suspects, Chen and Wu.

Mr. SOLARZ. Now, the Taiwanese authorities themselves have, I gather, apparently indicated that there was some involvement in this affair on the part of three officials in the Bureau of Military Intelligence, is that correct?

Mr. BROWN. Well, Mr. Chairman, the newspapers, the media reported that the head of the Intelligence Bureau of the Ministry of National Defense [IBMND], Admiral Wang Hsi-ling and two others have been remanded to a military prosecutor.

Mr. SOLARZ. And for what reasons have they been remanded to a military prosecutor?

Mr. BROWN. I do not believe that that has been publicly enunciated beyond the question of investigation for possible implication.

RETURNING ACCUSED TO THE UNITED STATES

Mr. SOLARZ. Have we asked the Taiwan authorities to deliver these three individuals to the United States?

Mr. BROWN. No; we have not, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOLARZ. Are we considering asking the Taiwanese authorities to deliver these three individuals to the United States?

Mr. BROWN. To this date we have made no such request. The Department's role in this case has been to help, through the use of the AIT-CCNAA channel, American law officials to proceed with a full investigation of the murder of Henry Liu. Through that channel we have asked the authorities to return Chen and Wu as requested by U.S. law enforcement officials.

Now, as far as the question of requesting the presence of IBMND officials in the United States, I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that question is best directed to the law enforcement authorities investigating the case.

Mr. SOLARZ. Let me ask you this, Mr. Brown. If the law enforcement officials investigating this case-I gather you indicated that they were the Daly City officials?

Mr. BROWN. And the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Mr. SOLARZ. And the FBI. If either of them prefer criminal charges against the three individuals in the Bureau of Military Intelligence, would you, under those circumstances, request the deliverance of those three individuals?

Mr. BROWN. If those relevant local and Federal law enforcement agencies came to me, Mr. Chairman, with such a request involving a prosecutable case before the relevant authorities in the United States, I would act accordingly.

Mr. SOLARZ. And presumably you would also request the deliverance of any other individuals that Federal or local authorities believe should be prosecuted for their involvement in the Henry Liu affair.

Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir; under the circumstances I have outlined.

EXTRADITION TREATY WITH TAIWAN

Mr. SOLARZ. Now, we do not have, I gather, an extradition treaty with Taiwan?

Mr. BROWN. No, sir; we do not.

Mr. SOLARZ. In view of the fact that we don't have an extradition treaty with Taiwan, why have we requested the Taiwanese to deliver Mr. Chen and Mr. Wu to the United States?

Mr. BROWN. We have here, sir; as has been eloquently noted previously, an outrageous, heinous murder of an American citzen on American soil by people for whom there are now murder warrants issued by the relevant court in California.

Mr. SOLARZ. How many countries around the world do we have extradition treaties with? Do we know off-hand?

Mr. BROWN. Many, but I do not have the number. Ț

you.

[The following was subsequently submitted:]

COUNTRIES WITH WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS EXTRADITIO

ALBANIA

Treaty of extradition. Signed at Tirana M ber 14, 1935. 49 Stat. 3313; 5 Bevans 22; 166

red int

ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA

Extradition treaty, with protocol of signature and exchange of notes. Signed at London June 8, 1972; entered into force January 21, 1977. 28 UST 227; TIAS 8468.

ARGENTINA

Treaty on extradition.1 Signed at Washington January 21, 1972. Entered into force September 15, 1972. 23 UST 3501; TIAS 7510.

AUSTRALIA

Treaty on extradition.1 Signed at Washington May 14, 1974; entered into force May 8, 1976. 27 UST 957; TIAS 8234.

AUSTRIA

Treaty for the extradition of fugitives from justice, and exchange of notes concerning the death penalty. Signed at Vienna January 31, 1930; entered into force September 11, 1930. 46 Stat. 2779; 5 Bevans 358; 106 LNTS 379; TS 822.

Supplementary extradition convention. Signed at Vienna May 19, 1934; entered into force September 5, 1934. 49 Stat. 2710; 5 Bevans 378; 153 LNTS 247; TS 873.

BAHAMAS

Extradition treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom. Signed at London December 22, 1931; entered into force June 24, 1935. 47 Stat. 2122; 12 Bevans 482; 163 LNTS 59; TS 849.

Agreement continuing in force between the United States and The Bahamas the extradition treaty of December 22, 1931 (47 Stat. 2122) between the United States and the United Kingdom. Exchange of notes at Nassau and Washington March 7, June 19 and August 17, 1978; entered into force August 17, 1978. 30 UST 187; TIAS 9185.

BARBADOS

Extradition treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom. Signed at London December 22, 1931; entered into force June 24, 1935. 47 Stat. 2122; 12 Bevans 482; 163 LNTS 59; TS 849.

BELGIUM

Treaty for the mutual extradition of fugitives from justice. Signed at Washington October 26, 1901; entered into force July 14, 1902. 32 Stat. 1894; 5 Bevans 508; TS 409.

Supplementary extradition convention. Signed at Washington June 20, 1935; entered into force November 7, 1935. 49 Stat. 3276; 5 Bevans 566; 164 LNTS 205; TS 900.

Supplementary extradition convention. Signed at Brussels November 14, 1963; entered into force December 25, 1964. 15 UST 2252; 522 UNTS 237; TIAS 5715.

BELIZE

Extradition treaty, with protocol of signature and exchange of notes. Signed at London June 8, 1972; entered into force January 21, 1977. 28 UST 227; TIAS 8468.

BOLIVIA

Treaty of extradition. Signed at La Paz April 21, 1900; entered into force January 22, 1902. 32 Stat. 1857; 5 Bevans 735; TS 399.

BRAZIL

Treaty of extradition. Signed at Rio de Janeiro January 13, 1961; entered into force December 17, 1964. 15 UST 2093; 532 UNTS 177; TIAS 5691.

Additional protocol to the treaty of extradition. Signed at Rio de Janeiro June 18, 1962. Entered into force December 17, 1964. 15 UST 2112; 532 UNTS 198; TIAS 5691.