S6828 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 17, 1995

maintaining in its present form. And

thus, it is from this point of view that

we take an active interest in Hong

Kong affairs now, and will most likely

continue to take in the post-1997 world.

How faithfully the PRC adheres to the

Sino-British Joint Declaration and the

Basic Law is of importance to us because of the impact such adherence—or

lack thereof—might have no these specific areas, and, in turn, on our economic stake.

These are the logical steps that our

Chinese friends do not seem to follow.

I think their failure is best illustrated

by an article in the May 8 edition of

the Hong Kong Chinese-language newspaper Wen Wei Po—a newspaper with

close connections to the PRC. In commenting on a speech by the United

States Consul General in Hong Kong,

the newspaper reported:

In his speech, Mr. Mueller said that the

United States not only has tens of thousands

of citizens, over 1,000 companies, and tens of

billions of dollars of investments in Hong

Kong, but also exports billions of dollars’

worth of products to Hong Kong. These facts,

he noted, show that maintaining and developing economic and trade relations with

Hong Kong is conductive to safeguarding the

common interests of Hong Kong and the

United States, this being indeed the point

Mr. Mueller was trying to make. What is

strange is that Mr. Mueller suddenly shifted

from economic topics to topics such as democracy, the legal system, and human rights in

Hong Kong * * * . (emphasis added).

So, let me explain simply how desiring to safeguard our economic interests

triggers a concomitant interest in

those topics. If the PRC cannot or does

not firmly establish and safeguard a

local independent judiciary in Hong

Kong after 1997, then businesses will

become skittish, pull out of the area,

and the economy will suffer. If the civil

and human rights presently available

to Hong Kong citizens are not safeguarded, and are instead limited to reflect those presently available to citizens on the mainland where the government is not known for its sterling

democratic reputation, then businesses

will become skittish, pull out of the

area, and the economy will suffer. If

the present orderly and stable bureaucracy is replaced by one such as that

currently in vogue in provinces like

Guangdong where family or party connections and a large amount of

renminbi are more important than the

rule of law, then businesses will become skittish, pull out of the area, and

the economy will suffer.

We understand very well the PRC’s

verbal pronouncements that everything is fine and will remain so after

1997. But as I pointed out after the visit

here of Lu Ping, to be credible and

calming those pronouncements need to

be backed-up with substantive actions.

So far, in some areas, that has not been

the case, and it this lack of substantive

assurances that concerns us. Let me illustrate.

A free press is one of the elements essential to Hong Kong’s future as a center of international trade and finance.

China has spoken about maintaining

freedom of the press, but we have seen

growing signs of a move to chill the

colony’s traditionally raucous press—a

press which has been quite even-handed

at denouncing Beijing and London, but

has denounced Beijing nonetheless.

There have been declarations that the

PRC will not allow Hong Kong to become a ‘‘nest of subversives’’—which in

the PRC’s lexicon could well include

free-minded members of the media. The

PRC’s Ministry of Public Security recently confirmed that it has been gathering information on Hong Kong citizens who are ‘‘against the Chinese government.’’ The PRC also tried in secret

Hong Kong reporter Xi Yang and sentenced him to 12 years in prison for

‘‘stealing state financial secrets’’—a

term which could include such simple

figures as production levels of

consumer goods, provincial GDP’s, etc.

Finally, there were the not-so-coincidental hostile actions taken by the

PRC against the Beijing commercial

establishments of Hong Kong publisher

Jimmy Lai after Lai published an open

letter critical of Li Peng.

A continuation of the present common law, independent judiciary is another element of Hong Kong’s continuing economic success after 1997. Businesses feel secure if they know that

any commercial dispute in which they

may be involved will be determined

using settled points of law adjudicated

by jurists beyond the influence of local

politics or influence. The PRC has

promised a continuation of this system, but again their actions speak

louder to us. Beijing has failed to endorse the Hong Kong Government’s

draft legislation designed to implement

the Court of Final Appeal; failure to do

so soon may leave the Hong Kong SAR

without such a court for the critical

period just after 1997. Moreover, China’s past commitment to the rule of

law has been very spotty at best. Although a signatory to the International Convention on Arbitration,

the PRC has blatantly violated that accord by allowing a Shanghai firm to

refuse to pay an arbitral award against

it in favor of a U.S. concern named

Revpower. China is a signatory to several agreements concerning intellectual property rights, but their compliance until lately was almost nonexistent. The terms of contracts in general

in China appear to be binding on the

foreign firm, and fungible as far as the

Government is concerned—witness the

recent unilateral breaking of McDonald’s lease for a site on Tiananmen

Square with which my colleagues are

no doubt familiar.

Aside from our specific interest in

these specific issues and the ramifications they will have for Hong Kong’s

future, how the PRC handles this transition also has implications in other

non-Hong Kong specific arenas. How

well the PRC keeps to their word will,

I think, demonstrate their dependability as they seek to accede to the WTO

and other similar organizations. Moreover, it will serve as an indicator as to

whether the Chinese are serious about

their own commitments to foreign investors, and will be a signal to those

considering future investment.

Mr. President, on May 25 the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific

Affairs, which I chair, will hold a hearing on this topic entitled ‘‘Hong Kong:

Problems and Prospects for 1997.’’ I

look forward to hearing from several

Hong Kong specialists about the

present state of the transition, where

the problem areas are, and what they

think the prospects are for the continuation of the colony’s present economic prosperity after 1997.

In closing, let me reiterate that we

are not seeking to meddle in Great

Britain and China’s purely bilateral affairs. But, where the actions of either

party might effect the business climate

in Hong Kong—and thus international

investment—I believe that we have a

legitimate reason for showing interest,

and the parties can be sure that we

will. This is our message to Beijing.

f ∑

THOUGHTFUL HOMILY OF MOST

REV. EDWARD M. EGAN

∑ Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I

recently came across a copy of a homily delivered last year by the Most Rev.

Edward M. Egan, bishop of Bridgeport,

that I believe is worthy of inclusion in

the RECORD.

With so much debate of late about

the quality of public discourse in this

country, the words of Bishop Egan remind us of the need to be respectful of

the heartfelt opinions of others, no

matter how strongly we might disagree

with their point of view.

The bishop’s homily was delivered at

the red Mass at Saint Matthew’s Cathedral here in Washington on October

2, 1994. The red Mass is an annual Mass

celebrated for people involved in the

legal profession and the bishop urges

lawyers, as ‘‘protectors of thought and

its free expression,’’ to do all they can

to protect the speech of those who

utter unpopular beliefs and to ensure

that all people in our society are allowed to enter the national dialogue

over the issues that govern our fate.

Speaking to leaders of the legal community, including the Attorney General, and members of the Supreme

Court, Bishop Egan cautioned that lawyers must ‘‘insist that the unapproved

point of view be heard and explored.’’

Bishop Egan has provided wonderful

leadership in his time in Connecticut

in so many different ways. I am proud

to consider him a friend. Whether my

colleagues agree or disagree with all of

Bishop Egan’s words and examples regarding political correctness, I know

they will find his homily to be eloquent

and thought-providing. It is in that

spirit that I ask that it be printed in

the RECORD.

The homily follows:
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6829

HOMILY OF THE MOST REV. EDWARD M. EGAN,

BISHOP OF BRIDGEPORT

Your Excellency, Archbishop Cacciavillan,

Reverend Clergy, Members of the John Carroll Society, Distinguished Representatives

of the Bench and Bar, and Friends All:

This past summer, in Canton in the South

of China, I sat in a hotel restaurant with a

Chinese tour-guide who spoke English quite

well. He had brought a busload of tourists to

a store that sold porcelain and silk; and once

they were safely inside, he invited me to join

him for a cup of tea.

He was forty-five years of age, he told me.

In his youth he had dreamed of mastering

the English language and French as well.

However, in the second year of his university

studies, the so-called Cultural Revolution

had intervened.

His eyes flashed as he described that decade of madness in China. He and dozens of

his fellow students had been forced to watch

two of their professors killed in a public

square by a government-inspired mob. He

had stood at attention for hours on several

occasions as thousands of books from the

university library were destroyed in bonfires. And in due course, he had been taken

to the West of China to labor for three years

on collective farms, his whereabouts unknown to family and friends.

‘‘What,’’ I asked him, ‘‘were the leaders of

the Cultural Revolution hoping to achieve

with all of this?’’

‘‘They wanted the people to stop having

unapproved thoughts,’’ he replied. ‘‘They felt

that the nation could prosper only if all were

thinking in the same way—their way, the approved way.’’

He winced a bit as he offered this explanation but was clearly convinced that his

analysis was correct. For he repeated it word

for word as he stared into his empty teacup:

‘‘They felt that the nation could prosper

only if all were thinking in the same way—

their way, the approved way.’’

You and I, my dear friends, are privileged

to live in a land in which the imposition of

thought by government is rejected out of

hand. And in no small measure we have the

legal profession to thank for this blessing.

It was lawyers like Montesquieu and

Montaigne who were crucial in developing

the basic political ideas of our free society.

Twenty-five of the fifty-six who signed the

Declaration of Independence, with its cry for

justice and equality, were practicing attorneys. Even more, the fundamental charters

of our nation, such as the Constitution and

the Bill of Rights, with their uncompromising commitments to freedom of thought,

were largely the work of legal experts with

names like Jefferson, Adams, Wilson, Jay,

Wythe, and Marshall.

Still, there are in our country today rumblings in many quarters about thoughts that

are approved and thoughts that are not.

Thus, the expression, ‘‘politically correct,’’

has become a staple in our vocabularies. Indeed, over the past year or two it has graduated to the level of a familiar abbreviation.

Few there are who do not know the meaning

of ‘‘p.c.’’

One is politically correct, we understand,

when one agrees with the ‘‘important’’ newspapers, the ‘‘quoted’’ professors, the ‘‘best’’

commentators, the ‘‘most influential’’ personalities. Nor can there be any doubt that

this understanding is operating with remarkable efficiency. From Atlantic to Pacific, the

vast majority of adult Americans are able to

identify with extraordinary ease and accuracy those ideas, positions, and thoughts

which are today in our land ‘‘correct’’ or, if

you prefer, ‘‘approved.’’

The Readings from Sacred Scripture in our

Mass this morning remind us of two cases in

point. The first of these Readings, from the

Book of Genesis, is among the most familiar

in all of Holy Writ. It speaks of the mind of

the Divinity as regards the basics of the

human condition. The male, we read, was

from the time of creation not to be left

alone. Rather, he was to be joined by a companion, a partner, a wife, so that together

they might live out their years, two in fact

but one in heart and love. And from that

love was to result a miracle within the wife,

a miracle before which every generation

since creation has stood in awe.

In our time, however, the miracle has become as well a source of controversy. Simply

put, the matter under discussion is this: May

society stand idly by while a private party

puts a violent end to the miracle?

Those who have embraced the ‘‘approved’’

thinking, the ‘‘correct’’ thinking, answer

with a resounding ‘‘yes.’’ The miracle, they

allege, may be killed with impunity.

Others, however, dare to sing outside the

chorus. Their reasoning should not be difficult to understand. The being within the

mother, they note, gives strong indications

of being a human being, a person with an inalienable right to live. Certainly, no one has

ever been able to prove the contrary. Hence,

they conclude, society has no choice but to

fulfill its most fundamental duty as regards

the being in question. It must protect it

against attack.

There is no hint of religion in any of this

unapproved thinking, though many religious

people, for a multitude of religious reasons,

support it. There is no mention of doctrine,

dogma, sacred writings, or anything of the

sort. At issue are only matters which are

properly and strictly matters of the law: the

meaning of personhood, the basic rights of

individuals, the power of legal presumptions,

and the most elementary and essential duties of society. These and nothing more.

Still, there is a tactic abroad in our land to

characterize the unapproved thinking as exclusively religious and to refuse to allow it a

fair hearing on this score. The tactic is clever, widespread, and effective. It should also

be frightening to all who cherish the free and

honorable exchange of ideas, positions, and

thoughts—lawyers first and foremost.

The Gospel Reading, too, calls to mind a

controversy of our time in which only certain thoughts appear to be approved.

The Lord, in the lovely account of Saint

Luke, instructs His closest followers not to

keep children from Him. ‘‘Let them come to

Me, do not hinder them,’’ He says, ‘‘for it is

to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs.’’

Parents there are, to be sure, who would

not be comfortable with having their children, the miracles of their love, accept such

an invitation. And in this free land of ours

their point of view is properly and vigorously

protected. But other parents there are who

firmly believe that the invitation of the Lord

is most worthy, parents who wish their offspring to be educated according to the mind

and will of the One Whom they call their

God.

The thought of this second group is, of

course, unapproved; and the tactic for dismissing it is well-known. All monies that

governments collect to support schools, it is

announced, must go only to those institutions in which every mention of the Divinity

is outlawed. For otherwise, the state would

be sustaining religion.

But when such a rule is implemented, the

unapproved thinkers protest, is not irreligion being sustained? Why erect a wall only

between religion and the state? Why not

erect another, no less high, between the

state and irreligion? Or more to the point:

Why not simply concede to all parents equally the right to choose the schools of their

children and to share in the funds gathered

by society to support them.

The plea is somehow ruled out of order.

The ‘‘important’’ newspapers, the ‘‘quoted’’

professors, the ‘‘best’’ commentators, the

‘‘most influential’’ personalities have spoken. It remains, it would seem, for lawyers

to insist that the unapproved point of view

be heard and explored. For they are uniquely

positioned to do this as counselors, judges,

writers, thinkers, and legislators; and what

is more: they have a long and noble tradition

in this land of respecting and defending

thought, even when it is ‘‘unapproved.’’

But the second Reading of our Mass this

morning, from the Epistle to the Hebrews,

provides yet another reason for lawyers to

address the aforementioned issues of unapproved thinking and any others that come to

mind. That reason is, I confess, plainly and

exquisitely religious. It is simply this: We

are all children of the one Father in heaven;

hence, we have no choice but to listen to one

another with attention, concern, and love.

Many years ago I pastored a parish on the

Southside of Chicago. The community was

African-American. In fact, one of my parishioners often reminded me that I was very

likely the only white voter in the precinct.

My closest adviser was a retired army

major who spent many an evening chatting

with me about life in the distressed neighborhoods of the Windy City.

‘‘Father,’’ he used to tell me, ‘‘we are

never going to be the nation we should be as

long as any of us are kept out of the national

conversation. We’ve got to find some powerful folks to let us all in.’’

This morning, thanks to the very kind invitation of the Archbishop of Washington,

James Cardinal Hickey, I have the honor to

speak to just such ‘‘powerful folks.’’ Over the

past thirty years, we as a nation have

learned that the Black community must be a

respected participant in the ‘‘national conversation.’’ We are every day becoming more

aware that the same is true of the Hispanic

community. I pray that now is the time for

the religious community as well. And I pray

too that lawyers will lead the way in this regard, not only because of their historic position as protectors of thought and its free expression but also, and especially, because

they realize, indeed, embrace in faith, that

we are all children of one God, sisters and

brothers who need—and have a right—to be

heard.

TRIBUTE TO MR. DARWIN

HINDMAN AND THE DOLPHIN DE-

∑

fFENDERS

∑ Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise

today to pay special tribute to Mr.

Darwin Hindman of Columbia, MO, and

the Dolphin Defenders of St. Louis,

MO. These outstanding Missourians are

among 15 honorees nationwide to receive this year’s Chevron-Times Mirror

Magazines Conservation Award. This

honor is being bestowed in recognition

of the contributions made by Mr.

Hindman and the Dolphin Defenders to

environmental conservation and development. I congratulate them for their

highly notable achievements and encourage their continued efforts to create balanced solutions to natural resources problems.

Mr. Darwin Hindman, Jr., the newly

elected mayor of Columbia and president of Missouri Rails Trails Foundation, Inc., is one of five receiving the

Citizen Volunteer Award. Mr. Hindman