[Pages S8933-S8944]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

REPORT ON FOREIGN TRAVEL

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, at the conclusion of these brief
remarks, I ask unanimous consent that a full text of my report on
foreign travel be printed in the record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit I.)
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, as is my custom, when I return from
foreign travel, I file a report with the Senate.
From August 5 to August 24, I traveled abroad. I started with a
delegation led by Senator Ted Stevens and Senator Dan Inouye to China
where eight U.S. Senators participated in a forum with Parliamentarians
from China. We discussed a broad range of issues, with the Chinese
delegation being very forceful on their concern about the one-nation
policy, that Taiwan not be

[[Page S8934]]

regarded as an independent nation. We had extensive discussions about
the economic imbalance which exists in trade, on the manipulation by
the Government of China of its currency, and on the issue of human
rights.
I raised with the Chinese officials the issue of human rights
starting with the incident in 1999 where the Dickinson law librarian in
Pennsylvania was kept in custody for some 7 months without being able
to see a lawyer, and without being able to see his wife.
Following that, an appropriation was made for approximately $2
million in each of the past several years for Temple University to
establish in Beijing a law school to teach human rights, with a focus
on Chinese judges, Chinese professors, and Chinese lawyers.
During the trip to Beijing, I met with almost 50 of the students at
the school--some judges, some lawyers, and some academics--where there
was a concern to understand due process of law. I was pleased to hear
some reports that there has been an improvement in some situations on
filing charges, on the access of counsel. I believe the school of law
established by Temple University in Beijing is very useful. But I
think, realistically, they have a very long way to go.
From China, I then set out to Nepal, visited Katmandu, and spoke to
the Prime Minister, who has had a very difficult time. There was a
great deal of unrest in the country following the King's taking power
from the elected government. Following strong public resistance and
marches, the King stepped down. Seven political parties are trying to
go through the formation of a new government.
They are being challenged by malice, with an overriding concern about
the possibility of violence there.
I discussed a major situation where there are more than 100,000
refugees in Nepal originating from neighboring Bhutan. I traveled next
to Bhutan, which is a remarkable country situated between Nepal and
Tibet. James Hilton's famous book, ``Lost Horizon,'' locates the
idyllic spot, Shangri-La, with fantasy, in Bhutan or in Tibet.
Bhutan is a country of about 700,000 people. It was totally isolated
until 1950 when the King invited in foreigners. It was said that up
until that time they lived in a medieval state. Now there is a King,
51--very progressive, who has not waited for popular unrest to oust
him. But they are moving ahead with the formation of a constitution--
and a very unique constitution where they are concerned about the gross
national happiness product as opposed to the gross domestic product.
I had a lengthy discussion with the King about setting up a
constitution where the monarch must step aside at the age of 68. Bhutan
is being modernized.
The road from the airport city to the main city, Thimpu, is 60
kilometers of treacherous highway road. But it is a remarkable country.
There I talked to the Chief Justice of Bhutan. I talked to him about
the formation of their constitution as I had done in Nepal. The issue
of a constitution is one which is spreading around the world, with
considerable modeling after the Constitution of the United States which
was, as we know, the first complete written constitution.
From Bhutan, I then traveled to Kuwait. I met with the Emir of Kuwait
and with the Prime Minister and had extensive discussions about the
concerns of the nuclear activities in neighboring Iran. We spent just
an overnight there and then on to Israel. Regrettably, we had to make a
stop in Cyprus. The rules are, if you come from an Arab country you
can't fly directly to Israel, just as we cannot fly directly from
Israel to Libya. But we had to make a stop in Cyprus, and coming from
Kuwait, we had to make a stop in Amman, Jordan, before going on to
Israel.
In Israel, we met with Prime Minister Olmert and with Defense
Minister Perez. We reviewed the situation and our findings there are
set out more extensively in the written report.
From Israel, we traveled on to Libya and saw a remarkable
transformation of Libya and Libya's leader, Colonel Qadhafi. I think
there has been a historic rehabilitation of the nation of Libya and the
leader, Colonel Qadhafi, where they have moved from being the world's
leading terrorist state in very heavy competition, at least at the time
they blew up Pan Am flight 103 back in 1988 and blew up the German
discotheque killing U.S. soldiers and wounding many more.
We had an opportunity to meet Colonel Qadhafi. We took a plane flight
from Tripoli for a couple of hours, moved on to the middle of the
desert, met with him in his tent, and had a discussion with him looking
for some guidance as to how a major world terrorist could rehabilitate,
pay compensation, as to whether there could be any insight as to what
we might do with North Korea and Iran today.
Regrettably, those problems are beyond anyone's solution, but the
rehabilitation of Libya and Qadhafi showed that there is some hope to
turn major terrorists into a rehabilitated situation.
We then flew overnight to China and returned to the United States. As
I said, the details are set forth in the extensive written report which
follows the conclusion of these extemporaneous comments.

Exhibit 1

Statement of Arlen Specter

REPORT ON FOREIGN TRAVEL

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to report on
foreign travel, as is my custom, from August 5 to August 24,
2006. On August 5, I joined a delegation led by Senator Ted
Stevens which departed from Andrews Air Force Base at 11:00
a.m. en route to Guilin, China, via Beijing to participate in
the Untied States-China interparliamentary conference.
Senator Stevens is the Chairman of that conference and
Senator Daniel Inouye is the co-chairman. Senator Patty
Murray and Senator Norm Coleman serve as vice-chairmen. In
addition, the delegation consisted of Senator Thad Cochran,
Senator Mark Dayton, Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator
Richard Burr.
Our first stop was Anchorage, Alaska where we landed at
Elmendorf Air Force Base after a flight of 7 hours. After
dinner and overnighting at the Captain Cook Hotel, we
departed for Beijing the next morning, August 6, at 9:00 a.m.
We passed the international date line and arrived in Beijing
at about 9:00 a.m. Beijing time on Tuesday, August 7. We then
flew an additional 3 hours to Guilin where the conference was
held. Most of us decided to stay up for the balance of the
day although we had already been up some 24 hours to try to
get on our regular body clock schedule. Joan and I took a
long walk, visited the town, had an early dinner, and
retired. It is always difficult to get much sleep on the
first night, but we awoke somewhat refreshed.
On the morning of Tuesday, August 8, we took a trip on the
Li River hosted by the interparliamentary group's Chairman,
Sheng Hauren. It was a magnificent boat trip. The area is
heralded as one of the China's most extraordinary scenic
spots. With lunch being served onboard, it provided an
opportunity for extensive informal discussion with our
Chinese hosts.
Chairman Sheng Hauren was a charming host in his mid-60s
with a full head of gray hair, portly, with a perpetual smile
and an easygoing disposition. I told him of my special
interest in human rights in China arising out of an incident
where a librarian from Dickinson College, Mr. Yongyi Song,
was detained by Chinese officials in 1999. Mr. Song was born
in China and immigrated to the United States where he was
about to fulfill his requirements for citizenship when he
returned to China for research. He was arrested, held for 7
months without an opportunity to see counsel or even his
wife. No charges were brought against him and no hearing had
been set when it was called to my attention.
I filed a Senate resolution reciting the facts, condemning
the process which lacked even the fundamentals of due process
of law and urged his release. Shortly after filing the
petition, I was summoned by the Chinese Ambassador to the
United States to meet with him. It was a testy meeting with
the Ambassador beginning by challenging me for meddling in
internal Chinese affairs. I responded politely but forcefully
that it was hardly meddling in Chinese internal affairs when
they detained a Pennsylvanian under the circumstances noted
without any basic rights. I emphasized that I had great
respect for China, a powerful country of 1 billion, 250
million people at which point I was interrupted by the
Ambassador who said: ``please Senator, 1 billion, 300 million
people.'' From the time I had last checked the Chinese
statistics they had gained about 50 million people, about the
population of France. We continued to discuss the matter when
the Ambassador notified me that Mr. Song was about to be
released and would be arriving by air in Philadelphia in a
few days.
I told Chairman Sheng Hauren about this incident as a
primer to discussing with him the action taken as a result of
the detention of Mr. Song. I introduced legislation to
appropriate approximately 2 million dollars to establish a
branch of the Temple Law School in Beijing to teach judges,
prosecutors, academics and students the fundamentals of due
process of law. Chairman Sheng Hauren listened politely and
said, of course, that he knew nothing about the specifics of
the case I cited. He said that with the developing

[[Page S8935]]

country in China and the need for civil order there were
occasions where arrests were made which might seem extreme to
foreigners. I did not press the matter further, but I already
made my point about being concerned about human rights and
the rights of detainees in China.
I asked Chairman Sheng Huaren about the relative authority
of the Chinese courts compared to the Executive Branch or the
National People's Congress. Chairman Sheng Huaren replied
that after the Supreme Court of China had ruled, their
decisions could be overturned by National People's Congress.
I replied that it was exactly the opposite in the United
States where the Supreme Court had the final word in deciding
the constitutionality of congressional enactments and the
Supreme Court had the authority to overrule the President's
exercise of executive power as the court has recently done in
the celebrated case of Hamdan v Rumsfeld when the Supreme
Court ruled the President did not have the authority to set
the rules of the trials of war criminals.
I asked Chairman Sheng Huaren why there had been so much
more economic development in China contrasted with India
which had a population almost as large, one billion compared
to 1.3 billion, and the government of India had the benefit
of democratic institutions which would have been expected to
produce more individual initiatives. Chairman Sheng Huaren
replied that China had enjoyed greater success because of
China's planning and the diversification of ownership. He
pointed out that early on in China, employees had an interest
in ownership. He noted that there had been planning between
urban and rural areas with special attention being devoted to
agriculture as the primary industry with secondary attention
to manufacturing and beyond that the service industry. The
Chairman emphasized that there had been a special effort made
in China to achieve a harmonious social society which
promoted productivity and economic advancement.
The boat ride ended mid-afternoon and we docked at a nearby
town where shopping was available and then drove back to
Guilin. The Chairman hosted a dinner that evening in a
magnificent dinning hall which was part of the large
conference center. The full delegation and spouses and staff
were present with almost 100 people in attendance for the
customary Chinese eight course dinner.
The next morning, the delegates arrived for the traditional
photo session with the two hour morning program beginning at
9:30 AM. The topics which had been agreed upon were bilateral
relations and trade and investment. After a break for lunch,
again sumptuous, the afternoon session began at 2:00 PM and
ran until approximately 4:00 PM with international security
and energy as the topics.
The tone of the meeting was very cordial. Senator Inouye
drew a laugh when he said it was better to talk than to
shoot. Chairman Sheng Huaren got down to business promptly
raising the issue of Taiwan which is very much on the minds
of the Chinese. Chairman Sheng Huaren stated that he
appreciated the reiteration of our one China policy and China
was totally opposed to unilateral action meaning any effort
by Taiwan to break away from China.
At one point in the conference, Senator Stevens reiterated
that the United States stood behind the one China policy and
added, prefacing his remarks that it was intended to be in
the friendly constructive spirit, that the Chinese were
preoccupied with the one China issue. Senator Stevens noted
China was soon to play host to the 2008 Olympics which has
the promise to be the greatest Olympics ever and that event
should not be marred or spoiled by any military action
between China and Taiwan. The Chinese delegation appeared to
take the comments in good spirit and gave no specific reply.
Senator Stevens said that the 21st century should be the
century of the Pacific and noted that the United States was
proposing an interparliamentary meeting with Japan and that
if that took root as the U.S.-Chinese group had, that they
might look forward to having the three major powers, the
U.S., China and Japan, join together to discuss the issues of
the Pacific. Senator Stevens pointed to the damage to plant
life and the threat to extinguishing species of fishes and
the air control over the pacific and the problems generally
with the water supply. The Chinese delegates emphasized the
enormous need for economic development in China with its
expanding population and the need to create millions of jobs
each year.
On the morning of August 11th, I broke from the delegation
to speak to a group of students, lawyers and judges at
Tsinghua University outside Beijing. The Yongyi Song case in
1999 illustrated the lack of a transparent and fair legal
system in China. Since 2000, I worked to advance the rule of
law in China through Temple University's Rule of Law program
at Tsinghua Law School and approximately $2 million has been
secured annually for the program. During a prior visit to
China in 2001, I suggested to Premier Zhu Rong-ji that the
Chinese government work with Temple's program to develop an
agreement with the U.S. dealing with due process rights for
detained American citizens. That is still a work in progress.
Upon arrival at Tsinghua, I was met by Temple professor
John Snagoola who provided an update on the program. Temple
has educated 612 legal professionals of whom 494 were from
the public sector including 184 judges, 107 prosecutors, 59
government officials, 97 law professors and 47 NGO legal
staff.
I was received in the law school's lecture hall by 48
students and a panel of eight professors. I spoke to the
students about a wide variety of judicial and constitutional
issues being debated in the United States including the
detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and the NSA wiretapping
program. I explained to the students the importance of the
rule of law in American society and that no man is above the
law. I highlighted the benefits of a system where the accused
have the right to counsel, to a trial and to know why they
are being detained.
I elaborated on the role of the courts as the final arbiter
and that neither the Congress nor the President could
overrule the courts. In contrast, the National People's
Congress of China supersedes any decision made by the courts.
The hour-long session provided ample time for dialogue with
the students. They asked a variety of questions with
special attention to civil liberties, national security,
medical care for women, same sex marriage and the war in
Iraq.
I ask unanimous consent that the Special Report on Temple
Students compiled by the Beasley School of Law and letters
supporting the program be included in the record.
I rejoined the delegation later that afternoon for a
meeting with Wu Banggou, Chairman of the National People's
Congress, at the Great Hall of the People. Our conversations
included a wide range of issues including national security,
weapons proliferation and trade. Following the meeting,
Chairman Wu hosted a banquet for all members of the
delegation at the Great Hall of the People.
On August 12th, the delegation returned to the Great Hall
of the People for a meeting with President Hu Jintao. Many of
the issues raised during the visit were discussed during the
meeting. I specifically pressed President Hu about arms
transfers to Iran and China's efforts to ensure they are not
being transferred to third parties. I did not receive a
sufficient response.
While my colleagues returned to the United States on August
12th, I traveled on to Kathmandu, Nepal. Prior to departing
from Beijing, I was joined by my aide Christopher Bradish,
Lieutenant Colonel Donald Walker, United States Army, and Dr.
Ron Smith, United States Navy.

NEPAL

From Beijing, I traveled to Kathmandu, Nepal where I was
met by Ambassador Bill Moriarty who provided me with insight
into Nepal's political situation and its struggle for
democracy. In June 2001 ten members of the royal family,
including King Birendra, were killed in an assassination-
suicide, reportedly carried out by Crown Prince Dipendra. The
murdered king's younger brother, Gyanendra, now occupies the
throne. Nepal's recent history has been characterized by a
power struggle between the monarchy, political parties, and a
Maoist insurgency.
In 1990, following a democratization movement, Nepal became
a parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarch. In
a reversal of the longer-term trend towards a democratic
constitutional monarchy, on February 1, 2005, King Gyanendra
declared a state of emergency, assumed full powers, suspended
civil liberties, and placed opposition leaders under arrest.
The King explained his move as necessary, because of the
elected government's inability to put down the Maoist
insurgency. However, most analysts saw the move as an attempt
to also assert control over the country's democratic
elements.
In response to the King's actions, Nepal's seven main
political parties announced they would work together to
reform the constitution, reinstate parliament, and limit the
powers of the king. Mutual rejection of the King's power grab
also led the parties to seek rapprochement with the Maoist
insurgents. In April 2006, popular anger at the King's abuse
of power resulted in three weeks of massive demonstrations
across the country and broad public support for a nationwide
general strike called by the coalition of political parties,
and backed by the Maoists.
After unsuccessfully attempting to forcefully suppress the
demonstrations, the King announced the reinstatement of
Parliament on April 26, 2006. The Parliament has since taken
action to strip the King of his political and military
powers, reciprocated a Maoist cease-fire, and released
hundreds of guerrillas, including some of their top leaders,
from jail. In talks with the Maoists, the Parliament has also
agreed to the writing of an interim constitution, to the
formation of an interim government, and to hold new
elections.
In February 1996, the leaders of the underground Communist
Party of Nepal (Maoist) and the United People's Front (UPF)
launched a ``People's War'' in the Midwestern region of
Nepal, with the aim of replacing the constitutional monarchy
with a one-party Communist regime. The insurgency has claimed
the lives of approximately 13,000 people. With an estimated
5,000-10,000 armed fighters utilizing guerrilla warfare
tactics including murder, torture, arson, sabotage,
extortion, child conscription, kidnapping, bombings, and
assassinations, the Maoists were able to establish a parallel
government to rule over substantial proportions of Nepal. A
string of bank robberies, combined with ``revolutionary tax''
revenues, made the Nepalese Maoists among the wealthiest
rebel groups in Asia.

[[Page S8936]]

Following the King's 2005 seizure of power, the Maoists
joined with Nepal's seven major political parties in
resisting the King's control of government. After the
restoration of Parliament, the Maoists offered the government
a cease fire and entered talks to join the government. In
June, the Maoists leader, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, also known as
``Prachanda,'' agreed to dismantle the parallel government,
but refused to disarm until after elections are held for
constituent assembly to draft a new constitution. The Maoists
have offered to sequester their arms and men under
international supervision, provided the Nepalese military
does the same.
The Maoists' message has included bellicose and anti-
American rhetoric. In 2002, the Maoists claimed
responsibility for killing two off-duty Nepalese security
guards at the American Embassy in Kathmandu. On October 22,
2003, the Maoists stated that American-backed organizations
would be targeted for attack. The State Department does not
list the Maoists/UPF as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
However, the Department's 2005 Country Reports on Terrorism
does list the groups amongst its list of ``Other Groups of
Concern.''
In a statement before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee's Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian
Affairs on May 18, 2006, Assistant Secretary of State for
South and Central Asian Affairs Richard Boucher highlighted
that the Maoists have not renounced violence, nor agreed to
disarm. He further noted that the Maoists originally took up
arms in 1996 against an elected government and that Maoists
human rights abuses continue to be reported. He stated that
until the group renounces violence and shows respect for
human rights, the Administration ``will not be convinced that
they have abandoned their stated goal of establishing a one-
party, authoritarian state.''
Nepal is one of the poorest countries in the world. Up to
90 percent of its inhabitants earn a living through
agriculture. Continued reliance on subsistence farming could
keep Nepal poor for many years to come. Government efforts to
increase foreign trade and investment have been impeded by
political instability, the small size of the economy, its
remoteness, a lack of infrastructure and technological
development, and frequent natural disasters. Future economic
prospects will likely be influenced by the outcome of the
negotiations underway between the Parliament and Maoists.
On August 13th, I met with Prime Minister Koriala for 45
minutes. Prime Minister Koriala expressed his gratitude for
U.S. financial assistance and that it aided in stabilizing
the government. He stressed his strong support for democracy
and emphasized that unless the Maoists give up their weapons
they could not joint the government. Koriala hoped that the
United Nations would be brought in to resolve Nepal's
internal conflict.
Prime Minister Koriala had been jailed on several occasions
throughout his life for his political activities. These
sentences accounted for fourteen years of his life. Koriala
informed me that his life's goal was to bring all non-
democratic elements, including the Maoists, into a
constitutional democracy, stating that he would never
surrender a democratic government to anyone. Koriala informed
me that he would succeed in order for terrorists all over the
world to learn from Nepal's example that dialogue was the
best way to solve disputes.
Prime Minster Koriala said he favors a ceremonial monarchy
because it had been a unifying factor in Nepal since 1769. He
noted that, unless the Maoists gave up their weapons, the
interim constitutional drafting committee could not consider
the Maoist's suggestions, adding that their proposals for a
republic based on ethnic regions could fragment and
destabilize Nepal.
PM Koriala expressed his concern about the Maoist's
intentions, especially as they have not given up their
weapons. Koriala informed me that they are still extorting
and collecting taxes from citizens despite their signing of
the 25-point code of conduct in which they agreed to stop
these activities. Many representatives I met with expressed
skepticism about the Maoists ability to implement what they
agree to do.
Following my meeting with the Prime Minister, I met with
Subash Nemwang, Speaker of the House. The Speaker reiterated
the position of the Prime Minister that Maoists will not be
permitted to enter into any form of interim government until
they are disarmed. Speaker Nemwang expressed his desire to
see the Maoists repudiate violence and join the democratic
political process.
I then met with the Home Minister Krishna Prasad Situala
who is also the point person on the Government of Nepal's
peace talks. The Home Minister expressed hope that the
Maoists could be brought peacefully into the political
mainstream, but warned that the Maoists had not lived up to
the pledges made in negotiations. He stressed the importance
between Nepal moving towards a successful democracy and the
need to have the Maoists disarmed. He believes that the
United Nations could playa positive role in facilitating the
transition to democracy. I urged the Home Minister, in his
role as chief negotiator, to be firm and tough with the
Maoists, whose actions are similar to those of thugs.
Nepal has formed a Peace Secretariat, a think tank of
sorts, to advise the government on how to transition to
democracy. I met with the head of that agency, Vidyadhar
Malik, who also expressed an interest in having the UN
involved in Nepal. The Peace Secretariat believes the UN
could be able to provide some best practices options for
Nepal on how to ensure arms are not part of the political
equation.
Armed groups or political parties cannot be permitted to
participate in government unless they disarm. Hezbollah and
Hamas, both terrorist organizations, were permitted to
participate in government much to the detriment of citizens
in the region. During my conversation with Mallik and other
leaders, it became clear that were the Maoists to come to
power, Nepal would be more unstable and ruled through
intimidation and fear.
I was invited to the Ambassador's residence for a
roundtable discussion and lunch with the leaders of the
various Nepalese political parties. Attendees included: Sher
Bahadur Dueba, former Prime Minister and President of the
Nepali Congress, Madhav Kumar Nepal, General Secretary of the
Communist party, Ram Chandra Poudel, General Secretary of the
Nepali Congress party, Narayan Man Bijukche, President of the
Nepal Workers and Peasants party, Prakash Man Singh, Vice
President of the Nepali Congress, Chandra Prakash Mainali,
General Secretary of the Socialist party, Jhalanath Khanal,
Central Committee Member of the Communist party, Arjun
Narsingh, Central Committee Member of the Nepali Congress
party and Lilamani Pokhrel, Vice President of the People's
Front. We had a candid discussion about the parties efforts
to work together to confront the Maoists and the prospects
for a democratic Nepal.
Later that day, the Ambassador invited me to a dinner
reception at his residence where there were roughly seventy
political party leaders, civil society representatives, human
rights and women's rights activists. I had the opportunity to
engage in dialogue with many of those in attendance about the
status of Nepal and the prospects for stability. Many of the
leaders expressed their appreciation to me for coming to
Nepal and the support the U.S. has provided the country.

BHUTAN

On Monday, August 14th, we departed Kathmandu en route
Thimphu, Bhutan. Due to the mountainous terrain of Bhutan, we
had to take the Royal Druk Airline whose pilots are the only
ones permitted to fly into Bhutan. From the Paro airport we
took the windy ninety minute drive to the capital, Thimphu.
Bhutan is the world's last Buddhist kingdom. Although the
government places a heavy influence on the preservation of
its Tibetan Buddhist culture, Bhutan is slowly emerging from
self imposed international isolation and is in the process of
evolving into a constitutional monarchy with a
representative government.
The U.S. and Bhutan have not established formal diplomatic
relations; however, relations between the two governments are
cordial. The Public Affairs Section of the U.S. Embassy in
New Delhi administers the International Visitor (IV) and
Fulbright Exchange Programs for Bhutan. There are currently
sixty-seven Bhutanese alumni of the IV program including
Bhutan's Chief Justice, three Ministers, and six District
Governors. Thirty-three Bhutanese nationals have received
undergraduate degrees in engineering and the sciences through
the Fulbright Exchange Program. Most alumni now head
technical corporations working on infrastructure development
at Bhutan's regional level.
The following morning, I met with Prime Minister Sangay
Ngedup. The Prime Minister began by expressing his
appreciation for the United States as a great democracy and
global leader. He also informed me that Bhutan is going
through a lot of changes. Most notably, the King announced
that Bhutan will be voting on its first constitution in 2008
and instituting a parliamentary democracy.
The Prime Minister told me that this move is inspired in no
small part by the U.S. Constitution. Prime Minister Ngedup
said the country's leadership is working to ensure the
country will have good governance and good leaders for its
future. He believes Bhutan can serve as a model democracy for
the region. The Prime Minister expressed the view held in
Bhutan that happiness is the cornerstone of the society. In
fact, the country has developed a Gross National Happiness
indicator.
When King Wangchuk came to power in 1972, he announced that
government policies would be based on the pursuit of high
``Gross National Happiness'' rather than the conventional
Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The concept of GNH is based on
the premise that true development of human society takes
place when material and spiritual development occur side by
side to complement and reinforce each other. Since the King's
1972 announcement, the government has focused on what it
calls the ``four pillars'' of GNH (socio-economic growth,
cultural values, environmental conservation and good
governance) to guide the country's development plans. For
example, the government mandates that a minimum of 60 percent
of its land be covered in forest and has instituted policies
meant to encourage only high-scale environmentally
conscientious tourists to visit. The 2005 national census
found that 45.2 percent of Bhutanese are ``very happy,'' 51.6
percent are ``happy,'' and only 3.3 percent are ``not very
happy.''
The Prime Minister reminded me of the provision penned by
Thomas Jefferson regarding the pursuit of happiness. In
Bhutan,

[[Page S8937]]

they measure achieved happiness. The idea of a Gross National
Happiness is certainly unusual. I did commend my hosts
because it is wonderful that a government wants its people to
be happy and makes government work toward that end.
The Prime Minister wears two hats in that he also serves as
the government's point person for agricultural issues. His
role in ensuring a high level of Gross National Happiness is
to provide an adequate supply of food, shelter, clothing,
clean air and water. He told me about his work to increase
food production, raise rural income and improve the
livelihood of the nation's large rural population while
preserving the pristine natural environment and conserving
the rich natural resources.
We then met with Khandu Wangchuk, the Minister of Foreign
Affairs. Minister Wangchuk attended graduate school at Tufts
University. I pressed the Prime Minister on the issue of the
105,000 refugees living in UN-funded camps in Nepal. The
immigration of ethnic Nepalese to Bhutan has taken place
since the 17th century and ethnic Nepalese and ruling Drukpas
have shared cordial relations throughout the years. However,
in the late 1980s, concern over the increase 13 in the
population of and political agitation among ethnic Nepalese
prompted aggressive government efforts by Bhutan to assert a
national culture, to tighten control over the southern
regions, to control illegal immigration and to expel ethnic
Nepalese.
Beginning in 1988, Bhutan's government expelled large
numbers of ethnic Nepalese through enforcement of new
citizenship laws. In response to this perceived repression,
ethnic Nepalese protested, sometimes violently, leading to a
government crackdown and the closure of local Nepalese
schools, clinics, and development programs. In 1991, ethnic
Nepalese began to leave southern areas of the country in
large numbers and to take refuge in Nepal. Today, over
100,000 ethnic Nepalese who were expelled from Bhutan are
encamped in seven United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR) camps in southeastern Nepal.
In October 2004, then-Assistant Secretary of State for
Population, Refugees and Migration Gene Dewey visited Bhutan
and discussed the refugee issue with the King. During this
visit, the King agreed to immediately repatriate certain
categories of refugees. However, to date, no refugees have
returned, because of procedural disagreements between Bhutan
and Nepal. In recent months, the international community,
through a Core Group on Bhutanese Refugees (consisting of the
US, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, and
New Zealand), has begun discussing a comprehensive solution
to the refugee problem that would likely include resettlement
of a large number of refugees to third countries. Ambassador
Moriarty noted that the U.S. could possibly accept upwards of
75,000 refugees spread out over many years.
The Foreign Minister, well-versed in this issue, explained
that this refugee issue is unique and complicated. He
informed me that Bhutan, a country of 700,000 does not have
the capability to absorb large numbers of people in its
society and large-scale immigration would be difficult to
accommodate and perhaps pose a threat to stability due to the
scramble over resources and infrastructure.
The major problem facing the bilateral relationship between
Bhutan and Nepal is the instability in Nepal. The constant
changes in Nepal's government have made it difficult for
Bhutan to negotiate.
The Foreign Minister requested that my committee and
colleagues consider allowing Bhutanese students, studying in
the United States, the ability to have multiple entry visas
to allow them to return for holidays and to visit family.
Additionally, he requested I inquire about funds belonging to
Druk Air, the national airline, which were frozen by the
United States as a result of the sanctions placed on Burma.
While in Nepal, many leaders expressed concern that if
those in UN camps were allowed to go to a third-party
country, such as the United States, Bhutan would expel
additional ethnic Nepalese. The Foreign Minister assured me
that the government would do no such thing.
Following our meeting with the Foreign Minister, we had an
audience with King Jigme Singye Wangchuk who ascended to the
throne in 1972 at the age of 17. As head of state, the King
is responsible for all matters relating to the country's
domestic policies, security, and sovereignty. However, in
1998, King Wangchuk voluntarily transferred his executive
powers to the ten member- Council of Ministers. Ministers are
nominated by the King and approved by the 150 member National
Assembly, 106 of whom are elected by the people. The
remaining Assembly members are selected by the King, Buddhist
clergy, and the Council of Ministers.
In March 2005, King Wangchuk unveiled a draft constitution,
which envisions a constitutional monarchy with a Parliament
consisting of an upper and lower house. The proposed draft
Constitution legalizes political parties and guarantees
fundamental human rights such as the right to life, liberty
and security of person, the right of association, freedom of
speech and press, freedom from torture or inhuman punishment,
and freedom from discrimination based on race, sex, language,
religion, or politics. The draft also mandates the abdication
of the monarch on his 65th birthday and would allow the
National Assembly to force a royal abdication if the motion
was backed by three-quarters of its members. The draft has
reportedly been sent to every household in the country for
review. The King has said the Constitution will be ratified
through a public referendum, although a date has not yet been
set.
In December 2005, King Wangchuk announced that when the
nation holds elections for its first elected government in
2008, he will abdicate to his son, Crown Prince Dasho Jigme
Khesar Namgyal Wangchuck. I asked the King why he chose to
reduce the power of the monarchy. The King responded that he
``became King due to birth, not merit... which is a flaw of
monarchies'' and that ``national interests come first.'' I
found this action rare and refreshing in contrast to a world
where more and more people are trying to gain more and more
power. We spoke at great length about a wide variety of
issues including terrorism, the Middle East, radical Islam,
Iraq and Afghanistan. We had an informative dialogue and I
was impressed with the King's knowledge of world events
during the course of our hour-long meeting.
Following the meeting with the King, I had the opportunity
to meet with the Chief Justice of the Royal Court, Sonam
Tobgye. The Bhutanese legal system is primarily based on
Buddhist natural law. The court has three levels, the High
Court, established in 1968, over which the Chief Justice
presides, the Dzongkhag Court, established in 1960, and the
Dungkhad Court, established in 1978. The High Court consists
of seven to nine Judges. A Dzongkhag court comprises of a
minimum of single judge and a maximum of three judges. A
Dungkhag court is comprised of one judge.
The drafting committee for Bhutan's constitution is headed
by the Chief Justice and consists of 39 members of elected
representatives. The current system of government provides
for a unicameral assembly. The new government will be a
bicameral system with an assembly, or lower house, and an
upper house. I asked the Chief Justice why the King supports
a move towards this form of governance. He responded by
saying that the King told him, ``it is better to trust the
people than to hope for the best in one person.''
From Bhutan we flew back to Kathmandu, passing Mount
Everest, to change planes before heading to Kuwait.

KUWAIT

On Friday, August 18th, we landed in 118 degree weather at
Ali al Salem Air Base located 45 minutes outside Kuwait City
and forty miles from the border with Iraq. We were met by
First Secretary and Chief of the Political section from the
U.S. embassy, Natalie Brown.
Ali Al Salem Air Base is located just 39 miles from the
border with Iraq and the bomb damage from Iraq's occupation
of Kuwait is still visible. Kuwait can host as many as 90,000
U.S. military personnel at any one time, most of whom are
rotating in or out of Iraq. Following the U.S.-led effort to
liberate Kuwait from Iraq in 1991, Kuwait signed a ten year
defense pact with the U.S. In September 2001, the pact was
renewed for another ten years. On April 1, 2004, the Bush
Administration designed Kuwait as a Major Non-NATO Ally
(MNNA), a designation held by only one other Gulf state
(Bahrain).
Kuwait privately supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003,
even though it publicly opposed the U.S. action. In the run
up to the invasion, Kuwait closed off 60% of its territory in
order to secure the U.S.-led invasion force of about 250,000
personnel and several thousand pieces of armor; allowed U.S.
forces to use two air bases, as well as its international
airport and sea ports, and provided $266 million in burden
sharing to support combat operations. Kuwait has contributed
$213 million in burden sharing support to OIF in FY2005, and
is expected to contribute $210 million in both FY2006 and
FY2007. Kuwait has also built a water line into Iraq, assists
the Polish-led security sector in Hilla, Iraq, and runs a
humanitarian operation center (HOC) that has funneled over
$500 million in assistance to Iraqis since the fall of
Saddam.
Prior to the toppling of Saddam Hussein, Kuwait hosted
about 1,000 U.S. Air Force personnel enforcing the ``no fly
zone'' over southern Iraq. Kuwait also hosted about 5,000
U.S. forces during Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in
Afghanistan that ousted the Taliban.
On Saturday, August 19th, I met with U.S. Ambassador
Richard LeBaron who updated me on the recent developments in
the region. Ambassador LeBaron informed me that Kuwait plays
host to the largest military base outside Iraq in the Middle
East. Kuwait also gives more aid and support than any other
country to support U.S. efforts in Iraq.
According to the Ambassador, Kuwait is very concerned about
Iraq and what they describe as the ``emergence of a failed
state.'' LeBaron requested I pursue the issue of Iraq with
Kuwaiti leaders and seek their views on the future of its
northern neighbor. LeBaron further asked me to seek the views
of Kuwait on the problem of Iran. While the US. is primarily
concerned about Iran's capability to attain nuclear weapons,
Kuwait is concerned about the environmental hazards
associated with nuclear energy. More specifically, Iran's
Bushehr nuclear facility is located closer to Kuwait city
than Tehran. Any accident or leak at the facility could have
a profound impact on Kuwait's water supply and air quality.
The State Department's 2005 Country Reports on Terrorism
credits Kuwait for bolstering measures to protect U.S. forces
in

[[Page S8938]]

Kuwait from terrorist attacks but notes that Kuwait has been
``reluctant to confront extremist elements within the local
population.'' In May 2006, Kuwaiti judges dismissed charges
against five Kuwaitis who were repatriated from the U.S.
facility at Guantanamo Bay. In December 2005, Kuwait
convicted six men of belonging to a terrorist group (``Lions
of the Peninsula'') allegedly planning attacks on U.S. troops
in Kuwait. Since January 2005, Kuwaiti security forces have
engaged terrorists in at least five confrontations in Kuwait
City. Shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks, Kuwait
moved to block the accounts of suspected Al Qaeda activists
in Kuwait, and the State Department reports that Kuwait has
established an office at the Ministry of Social Affairs and
Labor to monitor Islamic charities.
On the social and political fronts, Ambassador LeBaron
reported that Kuwait has taken steady steps towards
liberalization. Women received the right to vote in 2005 and
ran in elections in 2006. However, no women were elected. The
U.S. has been providing technical assistance to Kuwait
through organizations like the International Republican
Institute and the National Democratic Institute. Kuwait has
had a functioning legislature for forty years which the
Ambassador portrayed as a ``serious body'' that is not a
rubber stamp and is often critical of Kuwait's leadership.
The royal family is widely respected by the people of
Kuwait. The Ambassador pointed out that they do not
monopolize wealth and are part of the system. Kuwait's
substantial oil wealth, which accounts for ten percent of the
world market and three percent of U.S. imports, is not owned
by the ruling family but rather the Kuwaiti people.
Currently, there is much debate about over how much oil the
country has, but the Ambassador said Kuwait has plenty and is
still finding more.
For some time, I have questioned the validity of claims
that the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, told Saddam
Hussein that the U.S. would not stand in the way should he
wish to take Kuwait. Unfortunately, this answer still eludes
me as Ambassador LeBaron did not have an answer.
As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have been heavily
involved in examining the issues surrounding the detainees at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The U.S. released six Kuwaitis who were
later tried and released in Kuwait. However, five Kuwaitis
remain at Guantanamo.
Our discussion expanded to many issues confronting the
region, namely the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Ambassador
informed me that many in the Arab world would like to see the
peace process rejuvenated. Even if progress is slow, Arabs
want to see the United States and others engaged in a process
and working towards a solution.
The Ambassador and I then headed to Seif Palace to meet
with the Amir of Kuwait, Shaykh Sabah Al-Ahmed Al-Jaber Al-
Sabah, the fifteenth Amir of Kuwait. During the hour-long
session, I asked the Amir what needs to be done to get Iran
to stop aiding Hezbollah and the insurgents in Iraq. The Amir
responded by saying that Iraq will not be stable in the next
few years and that Iran has been emboldened and strengthened
by the chaos in Iraq and the situation in Lebanon. He advised
me that the U.S. should speed up the training of the Iraqi
army and that U.S. forces should not enter town and cities
unless invited.
I asked Amir Sabah if it is realistic to think that a
United Nations peacekeeping force of 15,000 in Lebanon can
stabilize the situation between Israel and Hezbollah. The
Amir felt the force will only be effective if they are given
a good mandate and the necessary authority to control the
region.
When I asked about Kuwait's bilateral relationship with
Iran, the Amir told me Kuwait had good relations but that
they are concerned about the impact a nuclear accident in
Iran would have on Kuwait and their fear that Iran will
transfer peaceful nuclear technology to a military
capability. Given his concern about Iran becoming a nuclear
state, I asked if Kuwait had pressed Iran to stop their
pursuit of weapons. The Amir responded in the negative with
the rationale that if the U.S. and Europeans could not
convince Iran to give up their pursuit, a small country like
Kuwait would not be able to make any progress. However, the
Amir did say he would support sanctions.
I asked the Amir about his views on the Arab-Israeli
conflict. Former National Security Advisor, Brent Scowcroft,
wrote an article suggesting relations between the two could
improve if Israel retreated to its 1967 borders. Saudi Arabia
reportedly said it would enter into a peace agreement with
Israel if it agreed to this proposal. The Amir also said
Kuwait would support such a proposal and pointed out that the
Arab League declared its support for such a proposal at the
2002 Arab summit. However, we both expressed doubt that
Israel would agree to such a proposal.
I asked the Amir what should be done about Hamas and their
view that Israel should be destroyed. The Amir doubted Hamas
had the capability to destroy Israel and that Hamas attacks
Israel with ``fireworks.'' I informed the Amir that
``fireworks do not kill people.''
The Amir asked me to review the case of five Kuwaitis being
held in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and work to
secure their release to his government. The Amir assured me
that they would be tried for any crimes and punished
accordingly if found guilty. Six Kuwaitis were released to
Kuwait from Guantanamo, tried and found not guilty.
Following my audience with the Amir, I met with Prime
Minister Nasser Al-Mohammed Al-Ahmed Al-Sabah. The Prime
Minister served as Ambassador to Iran for ten years and
shared with me his views on that country. He pointed out that
President Ahmadinejad came to power via democratic means and
therefore he must be recognized and dealt with. The Prime
Minister suggested that the U.S. should directly engage Iran
in a frank and direct manner because, as is the case with all
conflicts, dialogue and discussions should be exhausted
before any other action is pursued. I agreed with the Prime
Minister's assessment with the caveat that Iran's support for
terrorism and its desire to possess nuclear weapons poses a
threat to the region and the world. When Nasser suggested
that the U.S. meet with Iran in Vienna to discuss the issues
confronting our bilateral relationship, I informed him of my
prior meetings with Iranian officials in New York and my
desire to have a parliamentary dialogue.
On the issue of peacekeeping efforts in Lebanon, the Prime
Minister hoped the U.N. efforts would be fruitful but that
the key to success will be having a coalition of nations
respected by both sides. On the issue of Hamas, the Prime
Minister said that Hamas was democratically elected and that
they must be recognized. However, he noted that Kuwait has
counseled Hamas that they are now policymakers inside the
government and must act accordingly. Following my meetings at
Seif Palace, we left the Gulf for Israel.

ISRAEL

On Saturday, August 19th, we landed at Ben Gurion in Tel
Aviv after a technical stop in Amman, Jordan. The following
morning I met with Israel's Defense Minister, Amir Peretz in
Jerusalem. Joining the meeting were Major General Etian
Dangott, military aide to Minister Peretz, Eyal Sela from the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Amos Gilad, Political Director
of the Ministry of Defense and Commander Tom Williams, United
States Navy.
Peretz expressed his view that the International Community
must examine the rules of war for the U.N. mission in
southern Lebanon as Hezbollah is not a conventional force. If
Hezbollah is not disarmed, the U.N. must know that Israel
maintains the right to defend itself. Peretz was disappointed
that the U.N. has not been quick to provide the necessary
forces to implement the Security Council resolution and asked
the U.S. to pressure nations who have committed troops, such
as France, to make good on their word. I concurred and
believed that if there is not a sufficient force on the
ground in short order, Hezbollah will have the opportunity to
re-arm and we will find ourselves in the same situation in
the future. Israel agreed to the cease-fire based on the
U.N.'s commitment to provide 15,000 troops, of which France
was to provide 3,500. As of the time of our meeting, France
had only provided 200.
After sharing with me information that Iran has provided
training and equipment via Syria to Hezbollah, I asked him if
Israel considered retaliating against Iran and/or Syria for
their open support of Hezbollah. He said that Israel did not
want to open another front on the war and in particular,
Israel felt fighting Syria would move them closer to Iran and
result in Syria moving back into Lebanon. Peretz told me that
there is much debate over whether to fight Syria or try to
have a dialogue with them in an attempt to move them out of
Iran's sphere of influence.
I asked the Defense Minister to update me on the status of
the Israel Defense Force soldiers taken by Hamas and
Hezbollah and the likelihood that they will be returned to
Israel. Peretz expressed optimism that through negotiations
with Abu Mazen and Egypt that the soldier taken by Hamas
could be returned to Israel. However, he declared that Israel
will not negotiate with Hezbollah as they do not want to
strengthen the hand of Hassan Nasrallah who has not only
requested the release of Lebanese prisoners from Israel, but
also Palestinians.
I asked the Minister whether there was any possibility
Israel would return to its pre-1967 borders. He expressed
concern that without the disarmament of Hamas and Hezbollah,
the proposal would only permit them to hit targets further
inside Israel. He felt it was a complicated proposal because
the question of Jerusalem remained unanswered and that Syria
would have to be brought in as well.
Following my meeting with the Defense Minister, I went to
Israel's Supreme Court to meet with the Chief Justice, Aharon
Barak. Barak has served on the court for 28 years, of which
he was Chief Justice for the last eleven. Barak will be
retiring in September 2006 due to an Israeli limitation that
judges must retire at 70. We discussed many issues
including the interrogation of detainees, the use of
torture, the power of the executive, rule of law and
abortion.
Barak has had a long and distinguished career having served
as dean of the law school, being appointed as Attorney
General by Yitzhak Rabin in 1975 and serving through the
Menachem Begin administration prior to his appointment to the
court. Barak expressed his view that democracies cannot
conduct or condone torture and that those taken into custody
must be interrogated properly and given a prompt trial. Aside
from our legal discussions, I asked him his

[[Page S8939]]

views on the Arab-Israeli dilemma. The Chief Justice felt
constrained from speaking candidly on this question as the
Chief Justice, but said that ``there is light at the end of
the tunnel but the problem is that the tunnel keeps getting
longer.''
After lunch, I traveled to the Knesset to meet with Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert. The Prime Minister began the meeting by
expressing his realization that he knew his job would be
difficult but that he did not expect to be in the middle of a
war a few months into the job. He described in some detail
the assistance Iran and Syria were giving to Hezbollah and
the great threat that poses to Israeli security. He gave me
many examples supporting his conclusion and pointed out that
Hezbollah guards were trained in Iran and Iranian
Revolutionary Guards are in Lebanon. He further explained how
Iran has provided top class weapons to Hezbollah.
The Prime Minister said the Israeli forces were extremely
effective in eliminating most of the long range and medium
range missiles through its sophisticated systems and that no
launcher fired a rocket twice. He declared that Israel won
every confrontation with Hezbollah, but that fighting against
well-equipped guerrillas is difficult. Despite these
victories, he expressed concern about the growing influence
being projected by Iran.
I asked the Olmert if he was frustrated that Israel could
not retaliate against Iran. The Prime Minister explained that
Israel should not have to deal with Iran alone and that the
international community must realize the threat Iran poses
and act to confront it accordingly. Olmert reminded me that
it was only 65 years ago when a dictator declared his desire
to eliminate Jews and now there was another leader who has
stated a similar desire and who is seeking nuclear weapons--a
convincing argument as to why the world should be moving
aggressively to eliminate the threat posed by Iran.
I asked the Prime Minister if the ceasefire will hold.
Olmert informed me that he had received criticism from
Israelis for agreeing to the ceasefire and that he agreed to
the proposal after assurances that a robust international
force would be provided to bring calm to the region. He
further explained that Security Resolution 1701 has to be
implemented or Israel will be left with no choice but to
continue to defend itself. He mentioned that this proposal
was not of Israeli origin but rather from the French and the
United States.
On the question of Hamas, the Prime Minister expressed hope
that Abu Mazen will exert his authority and garner more
control over the territories. He doubted there could be any
progress with Hamas and he refuses to negotiate with them. He
did believe that there could be progress in getting back
soldiers taken by Hezbollah, possibly in exchange for those
taken by Israel during the conflict.
I asked Prime Minister Olmert his views on the idea that if
Israel returned to the 1967 borders, peace would come between
the Arabs and Israelis. He responded by saying it was an
outdated proposal and Hamas still wants to destroy Israel.
Olmert expressed his belief that the next few years will be
critical for Israel's survival as they combat Hezbollah,
Hamas, Syria and most importantly Iran--who is seeking the
capability to wipe Israel off the map.

LIBYA

On the morning of August 21, 2006, we departed Tel Aviv en
route Tripoli, Libya with a brief technical stop in Cyprus.
We were greeted at Mitiga International Airport by Dr.
Suleiman al-Shahumi, the General People's Congress Secretary
of Foreign Affairs and by Charge Greg Berry and Political and
Economic Officer, Elizabeth Fritschle.
After a brief rest at the hotel, we traveled to the U.S.
embassy annex in Tripoli for a country team briefing. The
U.S. Embassy is temporarily located in the hotel we were
staying at, but is insufficient to serve as a place for the
U.S. Government to do its business. Charge Berry requested my
assistance in speaking with Libyan leadership in hopes of
security land for a permanent facility to build a mission.
Additionally, he informed me that airline companies in Libya
were in the process of deciding between Boeing and Airbus to
supply them with a new fleet. President Chirac, Prime
Minister Blair and Chancellor Merkel have all visited Libya
and offered their support for Airbus. Charge Berry requested
my assistance in sharing the benefits of the Boeing product.
In October 2005, Boeing received an order for two 737-800s
from Buraq Air, a privately held airline, valued at $250
million and the planes are scheduled to be delivered by
November 2006. However, Boeing is competing against Airbus to
sell up to fourteen 737s and twelve 787s to Libyan Airways,
the flag carrier. This deal is estimated to be worth $2.9
billion. Boeing has a significant footprint in Pennsylvania
employing 4,681 workers and 915 venders and suppliers. Boeing
spent $264,279,109 in Pennsylvania in 2005. In each of my
meetings with Libyan officials, I described the benefits of
the Boeing aircraft and highlighted the fact that it
incorporates the latest technologies and offers significant
fuel efficiencies.
Following the brief, we met with Dr. Suleiman al-Shahumi
for about an hour. Dr. Shahumi expressed his government's
desire to continue the improvements in our bilateral
relationship. He briefed me on Libya's efforts to combat
terrorism and their desire to have peace in Africa and the
Middle East. Dr. Shahumi and I discussed our country's
efforts to combat terrorism and our views on the issue of
Iran. We both agreed that we are entering a new phase in
U.S.-Libyan relations but that three decades of no
communication will take some time to overcome.
Dr. Shahumi shared with me Libya's problems with illegal
immigration. I told him about the ongoing immigration debate
in the United States and the eleven million illegal
immigrants residing in the country. Dr. Shahumi informed me
that an estimated 50,000 illegal immigrants pass through
Libya every month in an attempt to leave the continent for
Europe.
I told Dr. Shahumi that it was important that the U.S. be
permitted to establish an embassy quickly and he concurred.
The people to people exchanges are very valuable in
establishing sound relations between our countries. It was
brought to my attention that the note taker from the Libyan
government studied at Penn State University in 1980 and that
her son was born in State College, PA.
I asked Dr. Shahumi to work with the United States to
permit Dr. Donald White, an archaeology professor at the
University of Pennsylvania, to continue to have access to
various sites in Libya. Dr. White had previously had
difficulty securing the appropriate documents needed to enter
Libya. I also raised this issue with other members of the
Libyan leadership during my stay. Following our meeting, Dr.
Suleiman al-Shahumi hosted us for dinner at a beautiful
downtown Tripoli restaurant located adjacent to an arch
constructed in honor of Marcus Aurelius.
The following morning we departed for the Ministry of
Justice to meet with Ali Umar al-Hasnawi, Secretary of the
General People's Committee for Justice. As was customary
during all of my meetings with Libyan officials, the meetings
always began with a brief dialogue about the problems between
the U.S. and Libya in the past and both nations' desire for
better relations in the future.
I pressed Mr. Hasnawi about resolving the outstanding
issues surrounding the cases involving the bombings of Pan Am
Flight 103 and the La Belle Disco. On December 21, 1988, a
bomb exploded on Pan Am flight 103, over Lockerbie, Scotland
killing 270 people, including 189 Americans. The U.N.
Security Council passed three resolutions that placed
sanctions on Libya until its government surrendered for trial
men suspected of the Pan Am flight and the bombing of French
flight UTA 772 in 1989. Libya surrendered the two men on
April 5, 1999, and the U.N. suspended sanctions the same day.
In August 2003, Libya accepted responsibility for the Pan Am
bombing and agreed to pay the families of each American
victim $10 million in compensation. To date, the victims'
families had been paid $8 million each over two payments with
the remaining $2 million to be paid when the U.S. removed
Libya from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. Libya has
been removed but the final payment has not been made.
On November 13, 2001, a German court found four
individuals, including a former employee of the Libyan
embassy, guilty in connection with the 1986 La Belle disco
bombing. Two U.S. servicemen were killed and eighty other
servicemen and women were injured in the bombing. In August
2004, a compensation deal for non-U.S. victims was agreed to;
however U.S. victims continue to pursue their claims in
federal court. While the U.S. Government was not party to
either of these suits, I stressed the importance of having
these outstanding issues resolved and the benefit it will
have in aiding Libya reemerge into the international
community. Mr. Hasnawi informed me that both sides are
working to bring the issue to a conclusion by the end of 2006
and should the cases go to court, he pledged that Libya would
accept the ruling.
Charge Berry raised the issue of the five Bulgarian female
nurses and one Palestinian male doctor who were arrested in
1999 on charges that they infected 426 Libyan children with
HIV. They were found guilty on May 6, 2004, and sentenced to
death by firing squad. However, a French doctor testified at
the trial that the children had been infected in 1997, one
year before the Bulgarians and the Palestinian arrived in
Libya. On December 25, 2006, Libya's Supreme Court overturned
the convictions and death sentences, and ordered a retrial
which began in May 2006. Mr. Hasnawi responded that he
anticipates a ruling in the case by no later than November
2006.
I then traveled to the Foreign Ministry to meet with Abdul
Rahman Shalgam, Deputy Secretary of the General People's
Committee for Foreign Relations. I asked Mr. Shalgam what can
be done to address the tragic situation in Sudan. He informed
me of Libya's involvement over the last three years to bring
all sides in the conflict to Tripoli to participate in a
dialogue. The key to peace and stability in Sudan, according
to Shalgam, is to fulfill three requests made by all parties
involved. Each of whom want to participate in power, benefit
from the country's wealth and participate in a federal form
of government to allow for local administration of the
various regions. I requested that his government apply
pressure on the government in Khartoum to permit the United
Nations to enter the country.
I found the about-face in our bilateral relationship unique
in modern history and asked Mr. Shalgam what were the factors
that convinced Libya to reengage the United States and could
it be used as a template to improve relations between the
U.S. and Iran.

[[Page S8940]]

He informed me that it was in the best interest of Libya to
have good relations, commerce and trade with the United
States and that living under sanctions was detrimental to the
economy and the Libyan people. He further stated that Libya
wants recognition for their actions to eliminate weapons of
mass destruction and their cooperation on counterterrorism
efforts. It is this recognition, and a seat at the
international table, that Iran seeks, according to Shalgam.
He believes the U.S. should directly enter into dialogue
with Iran--a response shared by most officials I met with
during my trip.
After lunch, I departed for a meeting with Ali Baghdadi al
Mahmudi, Secretary of General People's Congress. Mr. Mahmudi,
whose position is not unlike that of a Prime Minister, was
running a cabinet meeting which was running overtime. This
delay provided me an opportunity to speak with Mohammad
Siala, Secretary of International Cooperation, about the
steps Libya has taken to restore its economy. Prior to
serving in his current capacity, Mr. Siala led Libya's
tourism bureau. Mr. Siala, echoing the statements of Mr.
Shalgam, stressed the importance of U.S. markets, in
particular, the U.S. financial and banking system, to the
growth of the Libyan economy. He expressed his interest in
having a delegation from the U.S. Export Import Bank come to
Libya in the near future to discuss proposals to aid Libya's
infrastructure and commerce.
When the cabinet meeting broke, I met with Mr. Mahmudi who
shared his view that the U.S.-Libyan relationship was on a
positive track. He expressed his desire for enhanced trade
and tourism with the U.S. and greater cooperation on issues
of mutual concern such as radical Islam. Mahmudi views
delegations from the U.S. as invaluable in enhancing our
understanding of one another and hoped that more would come
in the future.
During our discussion on Iran, Mr. Mahmudi believes the
U.S. should not impose preconditions for talking to Tehran.
On the issue of Libya serving as a framework in which the
U.S. and Iran could foster better relations, he warned that
the U.S. has not done enough to show the advantages of
ditching weapons of mass destruction. Many Libyans question
the move to surrender the weapons as they have not seen
anything in return for their actions, such as technology and
knowledge transfers. He believes that should the U.S. want to
convince Iran to forego nuclear weapons, it should set an
example by aiding Libya and showing the benefits that can be
brought to those who chose that path. He mentioned that Libya
has good relations with Iran and North Korea and that Libya
may be able to play a role in future negotiations.
Following my meeting with Mahmudi, I was whisked to Mitiga
International Airport as I was to meet Colonel Muammar
Qadhafi in Surt, located about a one hour flight from
Tripoli. Upon arrival at a vacant airport, I was led in a
motorcade into the desert. The drive revealed the desolate
landscape which was dotted with a few tents and camels. I
arrived at Qadhafi's location to find a man-made pond,
paddleboat, a few tents and a recreational vehicle. Perhaps
the strangest fixture at this location was Congressman Tom
Lantos, who was also meeting with Qadhafi. He commented how
difficult it was to see each other in Washington, D.C. and
how odd it was to be chatting in Libya.
As the sun was setting, we were summoned to enter Qadhafi's
tent. We exchanged pleasantries and our desires for enhanced
relations between our countries. I pressed Qadhafi to move
expeditiously towards settling the outstanding disputes
involving the bombings of Pan Am 103 and the La Belle disco.
I also requested he work expeditiously to grant the U.S.
the necessary land to build an embassy. Qadhafi said that the
U.S. would be given land, but that it would not be a typical
embassy. He elaborated that the mission in Tripoli would not
serve as an ``outpost for democracy and opposition'' and that
the U.S. Ambassador should not interfere with local affairs.
Charge Berry responded by reassuring Qadhafi that ``the U.S.
will be good guests.'' Qadhafi declared that he did not want
the U.S. mission involved in Libyan politics and did not want
U.S. funds being distributed to political parties and
democracy efforts. Charge Berry quipped that he did not have
any money to spend.
I asked Qadhafi if democracy was in Libya's future. He
responded by saying democracy was derived from an Arabic term
and that he hoped the United States would follow Libya's form
of government declaring it was the most pure form of
democracy in history. He believed that direct representation
does not serve the people of the United States and that
Libyans do not use proxies to make decisions on their behalf.
Qadhafi believes that peace will happen only when all the
people are in power and can decide the course of their
government. He further declared his desire to end the
existence of armies, classes, parliaments and to place wealth
back into the hand of the people.
Qadhafi informed me that there was no animosity held by the
Libyan people for Americans but that leaders of countries are
typically responsible for actions that create animosity
between peoples. For an example, he recanted his
confrontation with President Ronald Reagan and the action
taken by the United States which resulted in the killing of
his daughter. He asked the question, ``was that a decision of
the American people?''
I discussed the problems the United States is having with
Iran and their support for terrorism in the region, their
desire to attain nuclear weapons and their statements seeking
to wipe Israel off the map. I asked Qadhafi if there were any
lessons to be learned from the experience between the U.S.
and Libya and if it would be applicable to dealing with Iran.
Qadhafi informed me that Libya urged North Korea and Iran to
turn over their weapons and halt nuclear programs. However,
Qadhafi believes that unless the U.S. shows the benefits of
the actions taken by Libya to give up its weapons of mass
destruction, the U.S. will not be able to approach either
North Korea or Iran with any such proposals.
I asked Qadhafi what he wanted from the U.S. He replied by
saying President Bush promised he would help with technology
transfers and knowledge transfers but that nothing has
happened since the agreement was reached in 2004. He also
suggested that the United States provide free power
facilities for Libya. While I could not promise they would be
free, I concurred that the U.S. should aid Libya with their
infrastructure.
Qadhafi declared it would be counterproductive for us to
look towards the past and expressed his desire for the U.S.
and Libya to confront international terrorism, disease,
climate change and Middle East peace. I asked Qadhafi how we
should combat the issue of fundamentalism and terrorism. He
responded by saying that the U.S. is supporting it by
supporting Saudi Arabia. I told him we did not do so
intentionally and that some U.S. leaders, myself included,
have long been concerned about our relationship with Saudi
Arabia. I highlighted my frustration with the Saudi
government which began with their lack of cooperation
following the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996 to their support
for textbooks which incite hatred. I told him about
legislation I have authored, the Saudi Arabia Accountability
Act, and my desire for a closer examination of our
relationship with Riyadh.
He further stated that Wahabbism, which emanates from Saudi
Arabia, is spreading across the region and is taking root in
the Horn of Africa and is a threat to the entire Muslim
world. Qadhafi went on to say that Saudi Arabia was
responsible for the Bali bombings and behind the escape of
seven individuals from Yemen responsible for the attack on
the U.S.S. Cole. I asked Qadhafi to provide evidence to
support these claims and did so at a subsequent meeting but
was not provided anything to back up these charges.
Our meeting lasted about 45 minutes after which I was
escorted through the desert back to the air base and back to
Tripoli where we arrived at approximately 10:00 p.m.
On August 23rd, we departed Tripoli for Shannon, Ireland to
rest and refuel prior to returning to Philadelphia on August
24, 2006.
I yield the floor.
____

Temple University, Beasley School of Law, Rule of Law Projects in
China--Special Report on Temple Students

executive summary

Temple's initiatives in the People's Republic of China are
grounded on the common theme of developing carefully-selected
Chinese legal professionals who are poised to make
significant contributions to the rule of law in China. Temple
accomplishes this goal through three main categories of
programs: the Temple Beijing LL.M degree program, non-degree
education programs for judges and prosecutors, and law
development and reform initiatives. Each of these programs is
operated in cooperation with influential and high-level
Chinese partners.
Education is long-term investment in the legal
infrastructure of a society. However, Temple's programs have
the benefit of also having an immediate impact. We are
educating judges and prosecutors who are in the courtroom
interpreting China's laws and applying them to real cases
every day. Temple educates National People's Congress
Legislative Affairs Committee members who are using their
legal education to draft China's legislation. We instruct law
professors who incorporate program content and critical
teaching methods into their own classes, thus shaping more
future judges, prosecutors, and lawyers. Temple graduates are
developing the rule of law from within the system. As these
leaders advance in their careers, the opportunities to use
their Temple legal education will only gather momentum to
bring about even more truly effective law reform.
The Temple-educated legal community has the potential to be
enormously useful to the U.S. Government as it supports the
rule of law in China. Temple graduates and current
participants represent a reflective, highly-placed community
of judges, prosecutors, state officials, professors, and
legal advocates who have a special understanding of the
principles of the U.S. legal system.
A total of 554 legal professionals have participated or are
participating in at least one of Temple's China educational
programs since 1997. Of these, 81 percent are from the public
sector. We maintain contact with all graduates through the
newly formed Temple Law Alumni Association of China (TLAAC),
publishing directories, maintaining a website, and hosting
national reunions at least once a year.
The Master of Laws (LL.M.) degree program
The Temple Beijing LL.M. degree program, operated
cooperatively with Tsinghua University, is the most
comprehensive educational program Temple--or any other
foreign legal educational institution--offers in China. The
educational experience is designed for Chinese legal
professionals and

[[Page S8941]]

aims to have a profound impact on these key legal change
agents.
A total of 293 Chinese legal professionals, including
judges, National People's Congress and State Council
legislative officers, prosecutors, government officials, and
law professors have graduated from or are currently enrolled
in Temple's Beijing and Philadelphia LL.M. programs. Of
these, 64% are from the public sector. Moreover, 12.7% are
ethnic minority lawyers, many from traditionally
disadvantaged regions within China.
The number of Temple-educated Chinese lawyers is impressive
and important. Temple has educated a substantial core
community of influential Chinese lawyers who have a deep
understanding of the fundamental principles of the rule of
law such as transparency, due process, accountability, and
high ethical standards. They will carry these ideas with them
as their careers mature.
Temple is constantly seeking out lawyers who work in NGOs
and public interest work to admit to the LL.M program. Among
our current students: Tu Lijuan is an experienced human
rights advocate, having worked for the Domestic Violence
Network; Shui Miao is a drafter with the Legislative Affairs
Office of the National People's Congress; and Xue-Dan Is the
Director of Training for the State Intellectual Property
Organization. Jiefeng Lu, a protege of the famous anti-
discrimination lawyer, Professor Zhou Wei, worked on cutting-
edge employment discrimination cases in China, plans to
become an activist-scholar in discrimination law.
Four LL.M. students from the public sector, including two
law professors, one official with the Legislative Affairs
Office of the State Council, and one official with the
Ministry of Justice (All China Lawyers Association),
participated in a one month internship at Reed Smith. Their
experience culminated in mock trial before Senior Circuit
Judge Edward Becker of the U.S. Third Circuit Court of
Appeals. The fact pattern simulated that of Kelo vs. New
London, the controversial property rights case involving the
government taking of private property for private economic
development. The students will take this knowledge on the
U.S. law of condemnation back to China, where the similar
issue of confiscation of private property is a sensitive
issue that requires public participation and commentary.
Each year Temple makes efforts to locate law professors to
attend the LL.M. program. To date, we have educated 19 law
professors, including seven during the term of this grant. We
know that these professors are incorporating what they have
learned into their courses in Chinese law schools, thereby
having a direct impact on what is being taught and, perhaps
more importantly, how it is being taught. As a result, a new
generation of Chinese lawyers will be able to critically
examine Chinese law and be exposed to principles of U.S law.
Class of 2006 Beijing LL.M. student and Professor Meng
Yanbei teaches antitrust at Renmin University. She reports
that her Temple education directly influences her teaching
and scholarship--and how she assesses her students. Meng took
antitrust with Professor Burton Caine in the fall of 2005 and
learned how to analyze cases from different angles and
appreciate how judges with different opinions set forth their
legal reasoning, and synthesize the law. The class
discussions often focused on how cases differ and overlap,
creating a living body of law, thus providing Meng with
greater insight into the law and how it should be taught.
Prior to her Temple education, she read antitrust and
anticompetitive law materials through translation into
Chinese, but now she reads the original source materials in
English. She said that many translated materials are
imprecise or misleading, and her improved English abilities
allow her to teach more competently about U.S. sources of
law. She also provides English case materials to her
students, explaining to them that it is better to work hard
at reading the original cases rather than fall back on
translations.
On March 7, 2006, we observed Meng's fourth-year
undergraduate law school anti-competition law class at Renmin
University. She arranges in advance for students to discuss
various topics and have them lead discussions using Power
Point. In the class we observed, the student made a series of
creative arguments in an effort to categorize the various
forms of anticompetitive behavior, and Meng made comments to
supplement the student points while also stimulating class
discussion to help the presenter clarify her ideas. She also
encouraged the students to think creatively about the law,
how a court may consider public policy in making decisions,
and to take a more active. role in their learning.
The impact of any program its demonstrated by its graduates
and what they do with their education. Our alumni report that
they are profoundly affected by their education. The
following anecdotal stories--from a judge who published a
book on how to cite legal authority and rationales in
judicial opinions; a prosecutor who writes the standards for
the Beijing People's Procuratorate stressing prosecutorial
restraint; and a teacher who uses advocacy techniques in the
courtroom and classroom--all illustrate the varied ways
Temple graduates are using their education to promote the
rule of law in China.
Mr. Feng Wensheng is the deputy director of the research
and policy division of the Supreme People's Court of Hebei
Province. Judge Feng graduated from the Temple Beijing LLM
program in 2003 and is now responsible for drafting internal
court procedures for all courts in the province--with
emphasis on judicial conduct. He continually focuses on
matters regarding judicial neutrality and the role of the
judge to seek truth from the facts before making any legal
determinations. His Temple experience also enabled him to
publish ``Reasoning and Annotations'' (Law Press: 2005), in
which Judge Feng draws on principles of U.S. and
international law to create a model for Chinese judicial
rationale drafting.
Mr. Chang Guofeng is the Director of the Discipline and
Guidance division of the Beijing People's Procuratorate. Mr.
Chang graduated from the Temple Beijing LL.M. program in 2004
and is responsible for writing policy directives that are
distributed to the entire Beijing procuratorial system. He
reports that his Temple education gave him a stronger view of
prosecutorial restraint, and his directives reflect the
spirit that the role of prosecutors is to vigorously
represent the interests of the state without trampling the
rights of the defendant. His directives include strategies
and suggestions for prosecutors to take a middle course when
carrying out investigations and prosecutions, as the larger
interest of the state is not just to convict the guilty but
to ensure a fair trial and accurate result for all
participants.
Ms. Shen Jia is a professor of law at Beijing City
University and 2005 graduate of the Beijing LL.M. program.
Professor Shen reports in a recent e-mail:
``To be frank, I am proud of what I have learned from
Beijing LLM program . . . Just think, two years ago, I knew
nothing about common law system, not to mention trial
advocacy. But now I can stand in front of a judge trying to
persuade the court what I've got to say. I know what the
judge wants from me by asking those questions, so I can turn
them into advocating for our side. It's because of the help
from all Temple professors . . . that made all these things
possible.''
Professor Shen teaches a U.S. common law course at Beijing
City University. She now provides a fresh and updated
teaching presentation to her students using strategies
similar to those employed in her Temple trial advocacy class.
Her teaching will inspire students to take a greater interest
in the importance of transparent laws and effective advocacy
trial practice.
Non-degree judicial education program
Temple has had a partnership with the National Judicial
Training College of the Supreme People's Court to operate a
non-degree judicial education program since 2002. Associate
Chief Justice Cao Jianmin personally oversees the program and
meets with Dean Robert Reinstein each year to discuss
progress and future collaboration.
The program consists of a three-month Introduction to the
U.S. Legal System course at the National Judicial College of
the Supreme People's Court, followed by a concentrated four-
week program in the United States. As part of the U.S.
module, participants attend a three-week session on the role
of the judiciary in a rule-of-law based legal system at New
York University School of Law's Institute for Judicial
Training. The judges also visit the Temple main campus in
Philadelphia for a discussion on judicial review hosted by
Dean Reinstein. Moreover, they visit Washington, D.C.,
meeting with their American judicial colleagues, the
Department of Justice, and other legal institutions.
The Judicial Education Program was created primarily to
educate those judges who could benefit from some exposure to
U.S. and international law, but could not enter the LL.M.
program due to work commitments. To date, 138 judges have
completed or are participating in the program.
Participants are from geographically diverse parts of
China, including many judges from lesser-developed Western
regions. Temple maintains records on program participants and
has integrated the judges into the Temple Alumni Association
of China.
Judge Li Xinfang of the No.1 Civil Chamber of the Zhanjiang
Intermediate Court, Guangdong Province, reports that the
Introduction to U.S. Legal System course and one-month
session in the United States in 2005 has greatly expanded the
scope of resources she now uses to decide cases. In
particular, her visits to courts and interaction with
colleagues in the United States provided her a fresh
perspective on dispute resolution while underscoring the use
of due process and transparent norms as the guiding principle
for all judicial action.
Previous program participants report that their Temple
education allows them to exercise greater influence in their
home courts. The judges emphasize that they are often asked
to share information from their Temple training with their
colleagues at staff meetings and through written reports.
Their Temple experience also allows them to answer individual
questions for colleagues who must resolve an issue currently
unsettled under Chinese law but that may have common practice
in the United States. Judges state that this multiplier
effect allows their Temple education to carry tremendous
weight and influence in courts well beyond the training of
one individual judge.
Past Judicial Education Program participants also emphasize
the long-term value of the program.
Mr. Bai Zongzhao is a judge on the Supreme People's Court
of Sichuan Province. He participated in the 2003 Judicial
Education Program and then graduated from the

[[Page S8942]]

Temple Beijing LLM program in 2004. He is now the deputy
director of the high court's criminal division. Judge Bai has
indicated, in a 2005 interview, that his Temple education
provided him with a profound sense of substantive knowledge
and court procedure. When he is the presiding judge in a
case, he now holds a pre-trial hearing and instructs the
prosecutors and defense attorneys on more efficient court
practice-skills Judge Bai says he learned in his Temple trial
advocacy class. He informs counsel that the purpose of the
hearing is to resolve questions the judges have about the
weak points of the cases, and not simply to recite the
written pleadings. Judge Bai insists that creating a more
adversarial-style hearing allows him to ask more detailed
questions and arrive at a more legally accurate conclusion.
Overall, he concludes that the Temple program positively
affects graduates' way of thinking about law, with greater
adherence to law and procedure, and will pay long-term
dividends in China's legal culture.
Temple and the National Judicial College remain very
satisfied with the educational experience and the progress of
our graduates. This year we have added an additional course
in Civil Procedure to the Beijing portion of the program.
The National Judicial College has recently agreed to
conduct a joint survey with Temple of all judges who have
attended the program with the specific goal determining what
has been most useful to our participants. We will likely use
our findings as a basis to refine the curriculum.
Non-degree prosecutorial education program
In 2002 the Supreme People's Procuratorate invited Temple
to create a non-degree prosecutor education program modeled
on our successful partnership with the Supreme People's
Court. In December 2005, the second prosecutorial education
program was held in Beijing, Philadelphia and Washington,
D.C.
Seasoned and well-reputed Temple faculty delivered sessions
on search and seizure protections, pre-arrest warnings, jury
trial procedures, and proper police practices in collecting
evidence. To supplement the faculty discussions, Temple was
fortunate to procure the enthusiastic participation of the
U.S. Attorney's Office in Philadelphia as well as the
Department of Justice in Washington DC. Investigators from
the Federal Bureau of Investigations in both cities also took
part. Experienced U.S. prosecutors and FBI agents delivered
sessions on motion practice, importance of defense lawyers,
and strategies for combating official corruption.
An underlying strategy of the Temple program was to
underscore the importance of due process and transparent
norms at all stages of criminal investigation and
prosecution. Mr. Xu Yanping, Vice President of the Shanghai
Pudong District Procuratorate, served as group leader and
provided continual feedback to the program directors. He
continually remarked how the program impressed upon the
participants the depth and scope of U.S.-style protections,
the tremendous knowledge of the faculty and practitioners,
and the importance of an open and transparent system. This
combination of factors will influence the prosecutors to
carry out their own laws with fairness as well as to
continually bring themselves to higher levels of professional
excellence.
In a follow-up interview with Mr. Xu in Shanghai in
February 2006, he underscored the value to him of his
participation in the program, particularly how the material
now provides him a new frame of reference in making decisions
in his current job.
Similarly, Bian Fei, a participant in the 2003 program,
reported that his superiors asked him to do a presentation on
the information he acquired from the program to 100 of his
peers upon his return. Some of the ideas were subsequently
used in an office reorganization plan.
Participants reported that the training program was well-
run and extremely beneficial to their professional
development. They underscored that many areas of their
prosecutorial practice, particularly criminal procedure, are
still being developed in China--and that understanding of US.
practice helps to fill certain gaps. Some participants were
trial prosecutors, others were administrators and
prosecutorial researchers, so the multiplier effect of
training one person will also carry weight in various levels
of the Chinese prosecutorial system.
As part of Temple's overall plan to create a community of
U.S.-educated legal professionals, participants have been
fully integrated into the Temple Law Alumni Association of
China.
By all accounts, this program is effective and highly
valued by the Supreme People's Procuratorate. Unfortunately,
this program's funding was cut from the current year's grant.
Outreach to ethnic minorities in China
Temple is committed to identifying and supporting minority
students in our programs, and we aggressively recruit
qualified minority students, particularly from the Western
regions of China. Our partner organizations in China have
indicated that further development of the Western regions of
China is critical to the overall stability of China's legal
system, and so Temple has created a minority outreach program
to educate students who have the social commitment to return
to their home regions and carry out rule-of-law reforms in
less-developed areas.
Temple has an extraordinary record of success in educating
qualified minorities with a law degree--a rare commodity.
Temple's reputation is so well-known that minority students
are beginning to refer their friends to the program.
To date, 29 ethnic minorities have either graduated from or
are currently attending our LL.M. program. Thirteen minority
graduates now work in the public sector: four are judges,
three are prosecutors, and one works at the State Council.
Four graduates are law professors, currently teaching at the
laws schools of Central University for Nationalities,
Zhengzhou University, and Sichuan University. The LL.M.
program has educated nine Tibetans, eight Huis, three
Manchurians, two Mongolians, and one each Kazak, Li, Miao,
Tijia, Uigyur, Yi, and Zhuang.
As part of our partnership with the Central University for
Nationalities, Temple has supported Mr. Kalsang Tsering. Mr.
Tsering is an ethnic Tibetan who studied English in Temple's
Intensive English Language Program for two years. Upon his
graduation from Temple in May 2006, returned to Tibet to work
with the Tibet Hengfeng Law Firm to provide legal services to
the Tibetan community. Mr. Tsering states that his Temple
education will help him to provide access to justice for more
Tibetans while also assisting in facilitating foreign
investment in Tibet. He also feels a social obligation to
serve his community, and he ultimately hopes to work both as
a lawyer and law lecturer at newly-created law department at
Tibet University.
Kalsang studied international human rights course and wrote
a scholarly paper on how the Chinese government can take
additional action to protect Tibetan language rights and
establish a bilingual system in Tibetan regions.

conclusion

We are gratified by the accomplishments of Temple's rule of
law projects in China. Temple's programs are making tangible
contributions to China in its ongoing process of developing a
credible legal system. It is an honor and a privilege to be
entrusted with such an important job by the Department of
State.
____

My View of the Temple/Tsinghoa LLM Program

Senator Specter: I am greatly honored for this opportunity
to express my view of the Temple/Tsinghua Program by writing
a letter to you.
First of all, heartiest thanks to you for your brief and
instructive speech to us students of the program during your
visit to China. Among the students, I was the luckiest person
to have had the chance to answer your inquiry about the
protection of the rights related to the accused persons in
China. In my opinion, there are many differences between
America and China on this issue, and the reasons are quite
complicated.
Politically speaking, China has a more than 2000 years
history of feuda1ism which is charateristic of autocracy,
that is to say, we have a strong tradition to give more than
enough belief and reliance to the government to decide
whether a person is guilty or not. Even though we are trying
to apply modern criminal procedure strictly to protect the
legal rights of accused persons, the phenomenon of
disregarding the suspects' legal rights still exists. More
time is needed to change, and I hope the sooner the better.
Judicially speaking, we have used the standard of the
presumption of guilt for many years, as it was hard to
believe that a person could be innocent when he/she was
accused of a crime in the past. From 1997, we began to apply
a new standard of the presumption of innocence, however, in
reality, we could not completely remove the influence of the
old notion. I am sure things will change with the development
of law in China.
Economically speaking, we have been focusing more on
economic development than on social justice. Sometimes we do
not have time to pay attention to the legal rights of accused
persons. But now we have put forward the social object of
justice, which no legal right can be ignored, nor can be the
accused persons' legal rights.
As far as I know, the difference about the protection of
the rights of the accused persons between America and China
is so large that it is usually difficult for us to understand
and agree with each other. Personally speaking, I think that
America may give too much protection to the accused person,
which is not very often good for the control of crime, and
that China may pay too much attention to social stability and
economic development, which sometimes sacrifices the accused
persons' legal rights. Therefore, the two countries can make
efforts to find common ground through communication. This
program will surely enhance the mutual understanding of each
other's legal systems.
I also know that it is your instrumental role in promoting
this program that makes the judicial communication between
America and China so specific and effective. All the students
of the program have benefitted a lot from the program, and we
will play a fundamental role in the legal communication
between America and China.
Once again thanks for your continued attention to the
program and to us students. We will try our best to study in
the program. I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts on
this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Feng Zhaojiu/Thomas,
Student of LL.M of Temple/Tsinghua.

[[Page S8943]]

____
My Impression of the Temple/Tsinghua Program

Senator Specter: First of all thanks for your supports to
the program and meeting with us!
The exchange and cooperation between Temple University and
Tsinghua University law school is very valuable. It provides
a good platform for Chinese judges, prosecutors, attorneys,
and government officials to understand the legal system of
the United States. The Master of Laws Program of Temple/
Tsinghua University provides legal education that causes
fruitful development in China. It opens a window for us to
use the advanced legal system of the United States for
references.
I come from the Dongying Intermediate Court of Shandong
Province. I have been working as a criminal judge for six
years, hearing more than 150 cases. I chose to attend this
program with the encouragement of my American teachers when I
studied in National Judicial College this year. What
impressed me most is their patience and responsibility!
As to this program, I wish that it could contain more
hands-on practical training, so that it could be even more
efficient and valuable to us. In addition, I wish we can be
given more lectures by American judges, prosecutors, and
government officials; this will provide us additional
information to help us carry out our jobs as judges in China.
Finally, this program is a big challenge to me because
English is not my native language, and America's legal
culture is very different from China's legal culture. I will
do my best to achieve my goal in the program, meanwhile I
wish I can obtain more help. I know it is only beginning,
even if I can survive the LLM program! My dream is to become
an excellent judge. In the future, I wish I can do some
beneficial work for judicial exchange and cooperation between
China and the United States.

Chen Litian,

Graduate of the LLM of Temple/Tsinghua University.
____

August 24, 2006.
Dear Senator Specter: I am very pleased to write this
letter to you. I truly admire you for your abundant
experience and your contribution to the judicial relationship
between the United States and China. Your excellent and
useful lecture impressed me deeply.
I am a young female Chinese judge of Bayannaor Intermediate
Court in Inner Mongolia. I was appointed to the judiciary in
March 1997.
I am very lucky to have this good opportunity to take part
in Temple/Tsinghua LLM program. First of all, it is very
convenient for Chinese law practitioners to learn the legal
system of the United States at Tsinghua, which is a famous
university in China, and then spend two months at Temple
University in Philadelphia. We really appreciate the
financial aid supplied by the American government. Secondly,
the program has opened a broad vision for us to master the
American legal system in such a short time with the help of
American law professors. Thirdly, the ``checks and balances''
principle of the American legal system causes us to
reconsider our own legal system, as it is also very helpful
as a model for Chinese judicial reform.
As a judge, I have handled over 200 cases including both
civil cases and criminal cases. In dealing with cases, I have
found many problems which need to be solved in the Chinese
legal system, although there has been progress: such as when
police officers question suspects in the investigation
process, and when lawyers or records are needed. We have
absorbed American due process theory and set up a similar
system. However, other problems need to be solved. For
instance, there is only one Civil Code and one Civil
Procedure Law in China. All judges apply the same law, but
different judges make different decisions on similar factual
matters. The parties cannot understand the results. I was
taught some the fundamentals of U.S. law and the legal system
by professors of Temple University. I found the interaction
very useful to help me solve legal problems in my own
practice. The Supreme People's Court of China should set up
some cases system to instruct judges in applying new laws and
principles.
I believe this study experience in Temple University will
bring me great success in my future career.
Sincerely.
Wei Xiaoxia.
____

Tsinghua University Beijing.

August 20, 2006
Hon. Senator Specter: I do appreciate your visit! Thank you
very much for your care and support for our program!
I have been engaged in civil case trials for 15 years in
the Fujian Province High People's Court. I first worked in
the civil division for 11 years, and now work in supervision
division. It is my honor to enter the LLM of Temple
University at Tsinghua University.
The function of the judge in the civil law and common law
systems is different. However, the role of Chinese judges is
undergoing change with the development of China. Judges no
longer apply law mechanically. We are realizing the
transformation of adapting the letter of the law to social
reality and demands. No judge acquires the wisdom to apply
laws without long-term study and practice. The judicial
system based on case law is the essential element of American
law. This is just what we should learn and refer to. So never
can we learn the extensive and profound American law without
the knowledge of a specific case and its process. So we need
this opportunity to learn.
Although I have rich work experience and profound basis of
legal theory, I wish to enlarge my scope of knowledge, to
acquire more knowledge of the U.S. legal system, by taking
advantage of this opportunity. I also want to improve my
knowledge base in order to excel in my duties as a judge in
the future.
Thank you again!
Yours faithfully,
Zhao, Yumei.
____

Dear Senator Specter: I am glad to have attended the
meeting in which I met with you in Beijing on July 11th. It
is a great honor for me to further discuss with you the topic
of the Temple Program's value to strengthen the cooperation
and communication between the Sino-US legal systems.
I am the deputy presiding judge of the No. 1 Civil Tribunal
(trial of civil cases, mainly including real estate, tort,
contract, and domestic relations) of the Intermediate
People's Court of Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province. I began my
judicial career in the court since I graduated from China
University of Political Science & Law in Beijing in 1994.
During that same year, I passed the National Lawyer's
Qualification Exam. I have worked as a clerk, an assistant
judge, and a judge in the same court for more than 12 years.
In 2004, I passed the entrance exam of Juris Master Degree in
Pudan University (located in Shanghai. 126 kilometres away
from Wuxi City) with the third highest score and am pursuing
that degree part time.
Since 1999, I have been engaged in the trial of tort,
contract, intellectual property, bankruptcy, and commercial
matters involving foreign aspects as a judge in my court. In
2004. I become a presiding judge through tough competition.
At present, all the cases which I was the main judge and
wrote judicial opinions for have exceeded 370, not including
those which I took part in as a member of the panel or a
presiding judge.
Through my resume, you can imagine how challenging and
exciting the job is. I am strongly interested in the
practical trial of cases while I deeply know the importance
of legal research beside the overload of the job. 1 like to
read valuable treatises and communicate with other
outstanding judges and some scholars to broaden my eyesight.
On Feb. 2006, I was selected to attend the program of
training judges co-sponsored by the P.R. China Judicial
College and Temple University. It is a good opportunity to
obtain an international view over the Chinese legal system
and jump out from the busy daily work to think about what I
can do to improve it.
This three-month training course is very impressive. As one
of the monitors of the training course, I fully noticed that
all the professors in the group treated the job seriously and
devoted their extra efforts to adapt to our critical judges.
For example, Professor Melindah Bush, the group leader, was
so popular that she approved our request for her to give more
lectures every weekend and kept doing it from the first
beginning till the last end. She also invited some
experienced and smart personal friends to give us extra and
helpful lectures, all at which exceeded the duty she must do
and showed the program's friendliness and flexibility to
adapt to our needs. Another example is Professor Peter
Castagnaro, an expert in linguistics, who tried to convince
us, mostly in our thirties or forties, to commence a
scientific new style to learn English as a foreign language,
which proved to be very effective. He even brought A4 paper
for us to do homework when he heard we talked about the
inconvenience to buy it. Surely the result of the training
course manifested that their works brought us so many new
ideas and was so successful that all the judges requested the
program to be extended as long as possible until most of them
must go to New York for the next stage training course. We
were very grateful to see the request had been met again.
For my individual point of view, I acquired a general idea
of American legal system from the judges training program.
Different with an American attorney's emphasis on the
distinction between Sino-US legal systems, whose lecture
pointed out more than 10 differences, I found more important
the common points between the two legal systems and arrived
at a conclusion that doing further research about US legal
system will be very helpful to improve our own legal system.
As a judge, I prefer to avoid to arrive at any hasty
decisions. But the extremely effective training program is a
powerful supporting evidence to encourage me to apply for
attending the Temple-Tsinghua LLM Program. I believe the
precious opportunity will be beneficial to enhance my
judicial ability and enable me to share new knowledge with
other Chinese judges. I hope I can make full use of the time
in the LLM program, learn new and practical ideas as much as
possible to improve my court's judicial reform, and become
familiar with the American culture and promote the
communication and understanding between the people.
Finally, I shall express my deepest thanks to your kind
support and serious concern with the program which provides
such an effective way for me to learn something valuable to
improve our judicial work and

[[Page S8944]]

strengthen the understanding of US legal system.
Yours sincerely,
Shen Dongemi,
Judge of the Intermediate People's Court of Wuxi City,
Jiangsu Province, P.R. China.

____________________