From: Chinese.news@chinese.umass.edu
Subject:      Forward of Lobby
Reply-To: Chinese.news@chinese.umass.edu
Organization: Indiana University
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:35:51 -0400
Comments: To: China-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu

          Message id: RFC-822
                                    RFC-822: 01GMW5OD0GL8AC2X63@ramoth.usc.edu
                          Organization name: SATURN-GW
                             Private domain: UMASS
                      Administrative domain: UMASSMAIL
                                    Country: US


To:                 RFC-822: ifcss%wam.umd.edu@USC.EDU
           Organization name: SATURN-GW
              Private domain: UMASS
       Administrative domain: UMASSMAIL
                     Country: US
CC:                 RFC-822: net-cord%lab.ultra.nyu.edu@USC.EDU
           Organization name: SATURN-GW
              Private domain: UMASS
       Administrative domain: UMASSMAIL
                     Country: US
From:                RFC-822: JUENKUNG@ramoth.usc.edu
           Organization name: SATURN-GW
              Private domain: UMASS
       Administrative domain: UMASSMAIL
                     Country: US

Subject: Lobby

------------ Letter Body Part 1 - Text  ------------

RFC-822-HEADERS:
Return-Path: <JUENKUNG@ramoth.usc.edu>
Received: from ramoth.usc.edu by ramoth.usc.edu (PMDF #12519) id
 <01GMW5OD0GL8AC2X63@ramoth.usc.edu>; Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:40 PST
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:40 PST
X-Vms-To: IN%"ifcss@wam.umd.edu"
X-Vms-Cc: IN%"net-cord@lab.ultra.nyu.edu"


------------ Letter Body Part 2 - Text  ------------

Note:
	For those who are concerned about the 1992 PRC Student Protection
Bill in  US congress, the following information might be useful, and
the relevant net managers may think of posting it to CSS(Chinese
Students & Scholars), thank you for your attention. J.Kung.

*************************************************************
	I just paid a visit to one of my uncle's friend who is a
Chinese-American lawyer and is quite familiar with the immigration and
political issues, especially the cases between China and U.S. When I
talked to him about the current 1992  PRC student Protection Bill in
the House and the current lobbying efforts, he had following comments
and suggestions which I think is helpful:
	First, he said that lobby and no-lobby is a big difference in
America, and that lobby your local or residential congressmen is more
effective than lobby the other congressmen, since the congressmen
usually more value the opinions from their election area or district.
As this protection Bill is mainly about the CSS, therefore, the
congressmen actually need the opinions from CSS in US. For example, he
said that among five co-sponsors of the House version protection Bill,
one is Ms.Pelosi from San Francisco, the other 4 are all from Los
Angeles, this is really unusual since there are over 400
congressmen/congresswomen all over the US. He said this is mainly due
to the fact that CSS members and /or their friends, relatives  in Los
Angeles did a heavy and effective lobbying job, especially the  UCLA
and USC Chinese students. His suggestion is that, for current lobbying
the rule committee or the judiciary committee, whatsoever, the IFCSS
should try to initiate and/or organize some lobbying effort at those
committee member's residential area or election district.
	He also commented on the current anti-lobbying effort, i.e., in
addition to write letters directly to the congressmen, the Chinese
government also secretly hired some US law firms and organize some
"CSS members"(mostly Communist Party members'Dangyuan', and a few who
has already got green cards but has some special relationship with the
Chinese government)sign letters or call congressmen's offices to
oppose the Bill. He told me don't be too worried about these . First,
the number of those anti-bill people  are very small compared to the
vast majority of support-bill CSS members. Also, those few anti-bill
PRC nationals  might have trouble sometime in future to stay in the
U.S., or to apply or keep their green cards, since they may
automatically become the FBI's monitoring targets, or become
prospective or qualified candidates in the black name lists of INS.
Secondly, the Chinese government know very clear that very few CSS
members are willing to return, especially after the "6.4" in 1989,
therefore, their anti-bill lobby effort is quite offensive to the
majority CSS members, and they don't want to loss the masses here.
That is why they would rather keep such anti-bill effort not so
public,or at low profile. On the other hand, they announced  unusually
quick and public that the overseas CSS no longer need re-exit
visas(chu-jing-ka)and that it'll be very SAFE when they visit or
return home.
	The last point he mentioned is try to prevent ANY amendments being
attached to the S1216, i.e., try to keep it as original as possible in
current lobbying effort, because more amendments, more troubles.
	Overall, his feeling is that if the CSS all over the US make full use
of the limited remaining time and struggle hard, there's great
possibility to success, otherwise, failure is also not beyond.

** END OF MESSAGE **
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china