IV 
108TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION 
H. CON. RES. 326
Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the arbitrary detention of Dr. 
Wang Bingzhang by the Government of the People’s Republic of China 
and urging his immediate release. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Mrs. NAPOLITANO (for herself, Mr. FARR, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. MCNULTY, Ms. 
ROS-LEHTINEN, Mrs. TAUSCHER, and Mr. WOLF) submitted the fol-
lowing concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
International Relations 
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 
Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the arbitrary 
detention of Dr. Wang Bingzhang by the Government 
of the People’s Republic of China and urging his imme-
diate release.
Whereas Dr. Wang Bingzhang is a permanent resident of the 
United States and his sister and daughter are United 
States citizens; 
Whereas Dr. Wang received his Ph.D. at McGill University 
in Canada in coronary-arterial research and is a well-re-
spected leader of the overseas Chinese pro-democracy 
movement and the founder of China Spring magazine;
•HCON 326 IH 
Whereas Dr. Wang is currently serving a life sentence in 
prison in the People’s Republic of China and is suffering 
from gastritis, varicose veins, phlebitis, and depression; 
Whereas Dr. Wang was abducted in northern Vietnam in 
June 2002 after meeting with a Chinese labor activist; 
Whereas Dr. Wang was driven to the border between Viet-
nam and the People’s Republic of China and forced back 
to China by boat; 
Whereas Dr. Wang was blindfolded and bound and held in 
various places in Guangxi Province and his captors de-
manded a $10,000,000 ransom, which Dr. Wang was un-
able to pay; 
Whereas Dr. Wang although provided his captors with the 
names and telephone numbers of his relatives, they were 
never contacted; 
Whereas Dr. Wang was finally taken to a Buddhist temple 
in Fangchenggang City in southern Guangxi Province 
where his abductors unexpectedly left and moments later 
he was ‘‘rescued’’ by the Chinese police; 
Whereas Dr. Wang was detained by the Chinese police and 
then transported to Nanning, the capital of Guangxi 
Province; 
Whereas Dr. Wang was held incommunicado for six months, 
during which time the Government of the People’s Re-
public of China denied any knowledge of his whereabouts; 
Whereas on December 4, 2002, the Chinese Government re-
versed itself, admitting that Dr. Wang had been in its 
custody since July 3, 2002;
•HCON 326 IH 
Whereas on December 5, 2002, Dr. Wang was charged with 
‘‘offenses of espionage’’ and ‘‘the conduct of terrorist ac-
tivities’’; 
Whereas on January 22, 2003, Dr. Wang was tried by the 
Intermediate People’s Court in the city of Shenzhen in 
Guangdong Province; 
Whereas Dr. Wang’s trial lasted only half a day and was 
closed to the public because the Chinese Government in-
dicated that ‘‘state secrets’’ might be revealed, thereby 
precluding family members, supporters, and reporters 
from attending; 
Whereas at the trial, Dr. Wang declared himself innocent of 
all charges; 
Whereas at the trial, the Chinese Government refused to re-
lease any evidence of Dr. Wang’s wrongdoing; 
Whereas at the trial, Dr. Wang was denied the right to due 
process, specifically the right to the presumption of inno-
cence, the right to adequate time and facilities to prepare 
for his own defense, the right to a fair trial before an 
independent and impartial tribunal, the right to call wit-
nesses on his own behalf, the right to cross-examine wit-
nesses testifying against him, and in general, the lack of 
other due process guarantees that would ensure his ade-
quate defense and a full hearing; 
Whereas Dr. Wang’s trial represented the first time the Chi-
nese Government had brought charges against a pro-de-
mocracy dissident under its new terrorism laws; 
Whereas although Dr. Wang was convicted and sentenced to 
life in prison on February 10, 2003, Dr.Wang’s lawyers 
stated that there was insufficient evidence to convict him;
•HCON 326 IH 
Whereas Dr. Wang’s lawyers immediately appealed the 
court’s verdict, but the appeal was rejected on February 
28, 2003; 
Whereas a human rights petition was submitted on Dr. 
Wang’s behalf to the United Nations Arbitrary Working 
Group of the Office of the United Nations High Commis-
sioner for Human Rights; 
Whereas the petition claimed that Dr. Wang was being arbi-
trarily detained and that the judicial standards employed 
in his trial fell far short of internationally recognized 
standards for judicial proceedings under provisions of the 
United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights; 
Whereas in its opinion, the United Nations Working Group 
noted that Dr. Wang is an internationally recognized pro-
democracy activist as opposed to the Chinese Govern-
ment’s characterization of Dr. Wang as an individual 
who advocates violence and suggests the use of methods 
such as kidnapping and bombings to achieve his goals, 
and that Dr. Wang had boasted of carrying out many 
violent terrorist activities; 
Whereas in its opinion, the United Nations Working Group 
further noted that the Chinese Government offered ‘‘no 
evidence of any specific occasion on which Wang made 
the alleged calls to violence’’ and that ‘‘[o]ther than the 
kidnapping of which Wang himself was a victim, as the 
Government itself acknowledges, no information has been 
given about other kidnappings or acts of violence initiated 
by Wang’’; 
Whereas in its opinion, the United Nations Working Group 
further stated that ‘‘Wang, during his first five months 
in detention, did not have knowledge of the charges, the
•HCON 326 IH 
right to legal counsel, or the right to judicial review of 
the arrest and detention; and that, after that date, he did 
not benefit from the right to the presumption of inno-
cence, the right to adequate time and facilities for de-
fense, the right to a fair trial before an independent and 
impartial tribunal, the right to a speedy trial and the 
right to cross-examine witnesses’’; 
Whereas in conclusion, the United Nations Working Group 
declared that ‘‘the detention of Wang Bingzhang is arbi-
trary, being in contravention of articles 9, 10 and 11 of 
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’’ and re-
quested ‘‘the [Chinese] Government to take the necessary 
steps to remedy the situation of Wang Bingzhang and 
bring it into conformity with the standards and principles 
set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’’; 
Whereas the United States Congressional-Executive Commis-
sion on China made the following recommendation in its 
2003 annual report: ‘‘The President and the Congress 
should increase diplomatic efforts to hold the Chinese 
government to [its commitments on human rights mat-
ters during the December 2002 U.S.-China human rights 
dialogue], particularly the release of those arbitrarily de-
tained’’; 
Whereas the report also stated the following: ‘‘The Chinese 
[G]overnment has also taken advantage of the global war 
on terrorism to persecute . . . political dissidents. In Feb-
ruary 2003, Wang Bingzhang, a U.S. permanent resident 
and veteran pro-democracy activist, was convicted of 
‘leading a terrorism organization’ and ‘spying’ and sen-
tenced to life imprisonment’’; and 
Whereas the report finally noted that ‘‘[i]n July 2003, the 
UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention declared that
•HCON 326 IH 
Wang’s arrest and imprisonment violated international 
law’’: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that—
(1) Dr. Wang Bingzhang, a permanent resident 
of the United States, is being arbitrarily detained in 
the People’s Republic of China in violation of inter-
national law; 
(2) the United States Government should re-
quest the Government of the People’s Republic of 
China to release Dr. Wang, permitting him to imme-
diately return to the United States; and 
(3) the President should make the immediate 
release of Dr. Wang by the Government of the Peo-
ple’s Republic of China a top priority of United 
States foreign policy.
Æ