From: IFCSS HQ <ifcss@WAM.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      IFCSS HQ Special Report 4017: Protection Bill Update
Reply-To: IFCSS HQ <ifcss@WAM.UMD.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:32:33 -0400
Comments: To: cgsa@fuzzy.umd.edu, china-news-post@mentor.cc.purdue.edu,
              china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu, cnd-us@library.uta.edu,
              osu.chinese@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu,
              soc-culture-china@ucbvax.berkeley.edu,
              soc-rights-human@ucbvax.berkeley.edu

**************************************************************
IFCSS Headquarters Special Report No. 4017       July 28, 1992
              MORE INFORMATION ON THE BILL
**************************************************************
Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars (IFCSS)
   733 15th Street, N.W., Suite 440, Washington, D.C.20005
         Tel. (202)347-0017  Fax: (202)347-0018
                Email: ifcss@wam.umd.edu

              More Information On the Bill
              ============================

Dear IFCSS Members:

     The HQ has been receiving hundreds of phone-calls
and emails every day. Please be assured that your opinion
and concerns are heard and have been taken seriously. We
cannot answer all inquires one by one. Right now, we can only
answer the most commonly asked questions in the HQ official
announcements. The HQ is trying to do its best to put
this year's IFCSS work into perspective while giving full
support to the ongoing nation-wide campaign for the protection
bill. Please note that the HQ staff worked as late as 5:00 am
this morning (see Special Report 4016) and woke up by phones
at 8:40 to discuss the protection bill.

     There are also a huge amount of information been
exchanged in the networks and in other channels. The
information might be true and might be wrong. It takes
time to collect and study the information and to produce
proper strategies for new situations. Please be patient.

     The following is the newest report on the bill:

     1. The Bill passed House Judiciary last Wednesday,
(see Zhao Haiqing's report). As late as yestoday, the
bill was not sent to the Rules Committee. (See Special
Reports). This morning, a post in China-net said that
the Bill has been sent to the House for action, which
is not true.

     The current situation is actually like this:
The bill was NOT sent to the whole House for action.
It is in the House Rules Committee waiting to be
scheduled. However, at 12:00 noon, the Rules
Committee has not taken actions on the bill because
to do so, the Rules Comm. has to receive a request
from the Judiciary Comm. for actions on the bill. The
Judiciary Committee has not sent that request yet.
The Rules Comm. is only responsible for setting a
date for the bill to be picked up by the whole House
and the ways in which it will be debated.

     2. SHOULD WE CALL JUDICIARY COMMITTEE?

     Definitely YES. But change the tactics. A.
Ask the Judiciary Comm. to send request to Rules
Comm. to take actions on the Bill. B. Call individual
members of the Judiciary Committee. They are also members
of the House. So they will vote again when the bill comes
to the whole House. Ask them to support the bill and
oppose any IRRELEVANT amendments. (Also thank them for
supporting the bill in the Judiciary Comm.)

     3. CAN WE LOBBY RULES COMMITTEE

     Yes, but be careful. The Rules Comm. serves as a
secretary to the whole House. The bill will not stay long
in this Committee. An email posting to China-net in last
week prematurely urged lobbying the Rules Comm. Offices
in that Committee have shown resentment against premature
lobby efforts. Right now when the lobby should focus on
the Rules Comm., calls to that Comm. would be inpatiently
answered. The Rules Comm. staffs asked us to pass the
words around: "Congress will not sent Chinese students
/nationals back to China." Any way, we should defend our
interests. But please be polite and thankful to the staffs
when you make the calls.

     4. CLOSED RULE OR OPEN RULE

     Two different opinions have emerged in the net, one
wants CLOSED RULE, another wants OPEN RULE. We want CLOSED
RULE. CLOSED RULE would prevent further amendments to the
bill. About the changes in the House, they would help the
bill pass the White House, according to our discussion with
Congressional members this morning. The changes were proposed
by INS and the Judiciary Department, therefore, President is
not likely to veto a bill which has amendments from his adminis-
tration. We have requested the Judiciary Comm. version of
the bill and will post it as soos as we receive it.

     5. RACE AGINST TIME

     We are racing against time. Such an effort needs the
involvement of a lot of people. The HQ has other plans
to help the lobby.

     There are all kinds of information. Please keep calm.
The HQ will keep you informed. Wait for next report on
plans for the lobby.

     Thanks you all for your help.





***************************************************************
         IFCSS Headquarters Office    Signature
***************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china