I cannot agree with Lofgren's moral calculus when it comes to the trashing of the US embassy. It is precisely because the bombing of the Chinese Embassy was so wrong that the trashing of the US embassy and burning of the US consulate was, well, so right. For surely there is justice, however rough, in retaliating against a deliberate attack. The last thing the regime wants is a confrontation with Chinese students, who are now on a nationalist kick, for that would be the end of the Chinese Communist Party. The Chinese government is not obligated, by treaty or international protocol, to commit suicide in defense of the American Embassy, but only to do everything within its power to maintain security at US diplomatic facilities.
Some people are just so hard to please.
The Secretary of State shall transmit to the Congress the text of any agreement to which the Institute is a party. However, any such agreement the immediate public disclosure of which would, in the opinion of the President, be prejudicial to the national security of the United States shall not be so transmitted to the Congress but shall be transmitted to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives under an appropriate injunction of secrecy to be removed only upon due notice from the President. What is happening is that the United States has agreed to suspend, at least temporarily, the massive military buildup on the island. Pointing out that fact does not require attesting to the guiltless purity of foreign countries. That is an old rhetorical fallacy, which weakens the main argument.