[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 38 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H2342-H2347]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES SUPPORT OF TAIWAN
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 148) expressing the sense to the
Congress that the United States is committed to the military stability
of the Taiwan Straits and United States military forces should defend
Taiwan in the event of invasion, missile attack, or blockade by the
People's Republic of China, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Con. Res. 148
Whereas the United States began its long, peaceful, and
friendly relationship with the Republic of China on Taiwan in
1949;
Whereas since the enactment in 1979 of the Taiwan Relations
Act, the policy of the United States has been based on the
expectation that the future relationship between the People's
Republic of China and Taiwan will be determined by peaceful
means and by mutual agreement between the parties;
Whereas the People's Republic of China's intense efforts to
intimidate Taiwan have reached a level that threatens to
undermine stability throughout the region;
Whereas, since the beginning of 1996, the leaders of the
People's Republic of China have frequently threatened to use
military force against Taiwan;
Whereas for the past year the People's Republic of China
has conducted military maneuvers designed to intimidate
Taiwan both during its democratic legislative elections in
1995 and during the period preceding democratic presidential
elections in March 1996;
Whereas these military maneuvers and tests have included
the firing of 6 nuclear-capable missiles approximately 100
miles north of Taiwan in July 1995;
Whereas the firing of missiles near Taiwan and the
interruption of international shipping and aviation lanes
threaten both Taiwan and the political, military, and
commercial interests of the United States and its allies;
Whereas in the face of such action, Taiwan is entitled to
defend itself from military aggression, including through the
development of an anti-ballistic missile defense system;
Whereas the United States and Taiwan have enjoyed a
longstanding and uninterrupted friendship, which has only
increased in light of the remarkable economic development and
political liberalization in Taiwan in recent years;
Whereas Taiwan has achieved tremendous economic success in
becoming the 19th largest economy in the world;
Whereas Taiwan has reached a historic turning point in the
development of Chinese democracy, as on March 23, 1996, it
will conduct the first competitive, free, fair, direct, and
popular election of a head of state in over 4,000 years of
recorded Chinese history;
Whereas for the past century the United States has promoted
democracy and economic freedom around the world, and the
evolution of Taiwan is an outstanding example of the success
of that policy;
Whereas the Taiwan Relations Act directs the President to
inform the Congress promptly of any threat to Taiwan's
security and provides that the President and the Congress
shall determine, in accordance with constitutional processes,
appropriate United States action in response; and
Whereas the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 rests on the
premise that the United States will assist Taiwan should it
face any effort to determine its future by other than
peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes: Now,
therefore, be it;
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) the People's Republic of China should immediately live
up to its commitment to the United States to work for a
peaceful resolution of any disagreements with Taiwan, and
accordingly desist from military actions designed to
intimidate Taiwan;
(2) the People's Republic of China should engage in
negotiations to discuss any outstanding points of
disagreement with Taiwan without any threat of military or
economic coercion against Taiwan;
(3) Taiwan has stated and should adhere to its commitment
to negotiate its future relations with the People's Republic
of China by mutual decision, not unilateral action;
(4) the United States should maintain its capacity to
resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that
would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic
system, of the people on Taiwan, consistent with its
undertakings in the Taiwan Relations Act;
(5) the United States should maintain a naval presence
sufficient to keep open the sea lanes in and near the Taiwan
Strait;
(6) in the face of the several overt military threats by
the People's Republic of China against Taiwan, and consistent
with the commitment of the United States under the Taiwan
Relations Act, the United States should supply Taiwan with
defensive weapons systems, including naval vessels, aircraft,
and air defense, all of which are crucial to the security of
Taiwan; and
(7) the United States, in accordance with the Taiwan
Relations Act and the constitutional process of the United
States, and consistent with its friendship with and
commitment to the democratic government and people of Taiwan,
should assist in defending them against invasion, missile
attack, or blockade by the People's Republic of China.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Gilman] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] will
each be recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the Asia
and Pacific Subcommittee, Mr. Bereuter, and the ranking minority
member, Mr. Berman for bringing this important resolution before us.
Mr. Speaker, the administration is fond of promoting the concept that
its policy toward China is one of constructive engagement and that it
would be folly to attempt to isolate or contain China. It is true that
we must engage the dictators in Beijing. The trouble is that the
administration mistakes appeasement for constructive engagement.
Time and time again, the administration has ignored Beijing's
violations of MOU's and international agreements on trade, human
rights, and weapons proliferation. This is not constructive engagement.
This is appeasement and it is directly responsible for the current
crises that we face.
[[Page H2343]]
The administration must stop sweeping aside China's violations of its
many agreements with the United States by dismissing enforcement as an
attempt to isolate or contain China.
Accusations about isolation, containment, and political transition
periods avoid hard questions of how to deal pragmatically and
effectively with a totalitarian government with enormous resources to
cause havoc.
If China violates an agreement it must be held accountable.
Accountability is constructive engagement. It is appeasement to make
excuses when Beijing does not live up to its word.
Beijing and its apologists claim that there is a so-called cloud over
United States-Sino relations because the Congress insisted that
President Lee of Taiwan be allowed into our country. But the storm
began years ago when the Communists took control of China.
This current so-called cloud is really a smoke ring designed to hide
the root of the problem--Democracies and dictatorships are
fundamentally different and will always clash.
House Concurrent Resolution 148 is a fundamental first step in making
it clear where the United States should stand on the vital issue of
Communist China's threats against democratic Taiwan.
If the administration remains incapable of constructively engaging
China regarding other American interests such as nuclear weapons
proliferation, human rights violations, and trade, then the Congress
will step in again so that serious situations like the current one do
not repeat themselves.
In 1950, Secretary of State Dean Acheson was vague about our Nation's
commitment to South Korea, which tempted the North to attack. The
Korean war might not have occurred had the United States been more
clear about its interests.
We now face a similar problem and a similar solution.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent
Resolution 148.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, while I have some doubts about the content and timing of
this resolution, I do intend to vote for it.
For 24 years, United States policy toward Taiwan has been governed by
the one-China policy that has been enunciated and reaffirmed in three
communiques. It is legally established in the Taiwan Relations Act.
The essence of that policy is that the United States acknowledges
that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Straits maintain there is
but one China, and Taiwan is a part of China. We have chosen
deliberately and consciously not to challenge that position. That means
that the United States has chosen not to endorse the concept of an
independent Taiwan or the concept of two Chinas. That policy has been
followed by six Presidents, three Republican and three Democratic.
This is policy that has helped for the past generation to secure
peace and stability and promote remarkable economic growth in East
Asia. It is a policy that has enabled Taiwan and China to flourish, and
it has served United States interests well. The Taiwan Relations Act,
which lays out the legal basis for our relationship with Taiwan,
contains no commitment to come to Taiwan's assistance in case of
military threats or attack by the PRC.
Members should carefully note that there is today no commitment to
send troops to defend Taiwan or otherwise to use armed force to repel
an attack against Taiwan. The Taiwan Relations Act was carefully
written to give the United States maximum flexibility in dealing with
Chinese threats to Taiwan.
The resolution before us today sends a somewhat different signal
about U.S. policy. It may be only a sense-of-Congress resolution, it
may not spell out what the United States must do to assist in defending
Taiwan, it may stipulate United States actions to assist in defending
Taiwan be in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act, but the
resolution appears to push American policy further than it has ever
gone before in a quarter of a century. It appears to increase the
United States commitment to defend Taiwan, and many of the cosponsors
make this claim for the resolution. It articulates policy in a
different way than does the President. It could confuse the people in
leadership of Taiwan, of China, and of our many friends in East Asia.
My concern is that because its lack of reference to the one-China
policy and because of its rephrasing of the United States commitment to
Taiwan, the United States should assist in defending Taiwan. This
resolution could be subject to misinterpretation.
Now I also have some concerns about the resolution's timing. We are
facing a very serious situation in East Asia. Missiles are flying, live
ammunition is being fired, sea lanes and air corridors have been shut
down. Our friends in Taiwan feel, with justification, that they are
being bullied and coerced. Our relationship with China is strained. Our
friends in Tokyo and elsewhere in Asia are alarmed by China's
provocative actions, but they also worry about our reaction.
{time} 1515
This, in short, is a time for restraint and negotiation. But, Mr.
Speaker, a vote against this resolution sends the wrong message. A vote
against this message misleads Beijing about congressional opposition to
its recent outrageous actions in the Taiwan Strait. A no vote on this
resolution leads the PRC leadership to the erroneous conclusion that
the Congress is not united in its condemnation of China's bullying
tactics, so I plan to vote for the resolution, but with the reservation
I have stated.
Let me also say a word to the administration. This resolution
indicates that the administration and the Congress are drifting apart
on China policy. This resolution illustrates that the administration
has been too timid. I believe the President must now explain fully the
administration's policy on China. Now is the time for a clear,
authoritative statement from the President on what we expect of the
United States-China relationship and what we see as China's role in the
world. The administration should consider this resolution a wake-up
call. The long-standing consensus on China between the Congress and the
administration is eroding. The President and the Congress must reforge
a consensus policy toward China.
I would like to ask the principal author of the resolution what it
means when it says the United States should assist in defending Taiwan?
Is that a change in present policy? Does it mean, for example, that we
are prepared to commit United States military forces to defend Taiwan
under any and all circumstances? I wonder if the gentleman could give
us some interpretation of the words ``should assist in defending
Taiwan?''
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HAMILTON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, while the initial sponsor is not on the
floor at this time, I will attempt to answer the gentleman's inquiry. I
believe what this infers is that while not necessarily sending military
forces, it would mean trying to provide essential material and support
to Taiwan in the event that they were being invaded.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, does the gentleman see
in the resolution any extension of our obligation beyond the Taiwan
Relations Act, or just a reaffirmation of it?
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I think
it is intended to be a reaffirmation of what is set forth in the act.
Mr. HAMILTON. I find the gentleman's response reassuring, and I
commend the gentleman for that. I urge the adoption of the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letters for the Record:
Committee on International Relations, House of
Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 15, 1996.
Hon. Warren M. Christopher,
Secretary of State, Department of State, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Secretary: I am writing to express my concerns
about H. Con. Res. 148, relating to U.S. policy toward
Taiwan, which was adopted yesterday by the House Committee on
International Relations.
In my judgment, this resolution changes in a substantive
and obvious way the articulation of a twenty-four year policy
supported by six presidents. The resolution appears to rachet
up our commitment to Taiwan and to
[[Page H2344]]
promise a level of support for Taiwan that we have declined
to give for the past quarter century. It avoids any
reaffirmation of the one-China policy. As a consequence, it
appears to create a major difference between the Congress and
the executive branch.
I am writing now to ask for more details about your views
on this resolution. A representative of the State Department
has testified that the administration does not support this
resolution.
Why do you not support the resolution?
Does this mean that you oppose it?
What is the difference between not supporting, and
opposing?
Is paragraph 7 of the resolved clause the only provision to
which the administration objects?
What precisely is the nature of your concerns about this
paragraph?
Will the resolution help U.S.-China relations, or act as a
hindrance?
If the latter, how much damage will it do to U.S.-China
relations?
I would appreciate an answer to this letter by Monday,
since there is a good chance the full House will be asked to
act upon this resolution early next week.
With best regards,
Sincerely,
Lee H. Hamilton,
Ranking Democratic Member.
____
U.S. Department of State,
Washington, DC, March 19, 1996.
Hon. Lee H. Hamilton,
House of Representatives.
Dear Mr. Hamilton: Thank you for your letter of March 15
asking for the Administration's position on H. Con. Res. 148
regarding the security of Taiwan.
The Administration agrees with the objective of the
resolution's sponsors to make clear to the People's Republic
of China that a resort to force with respect to Taiwan would
directly involve American national interests and would carry
grave risks. We believe there should be no uncertainties
about this in Beijing, Taipei or anywhere else. It is
important that the Congress and Administration speak in a
unified fashion to make clear that the United States feels
strongly about the ability of the people of Taiwan to enjoy a
peaceful future.
However, the Administration cannot support the resolution
as it is currently formulated. Paragraph 7 of the resolved
clause uses language that does not appear in the Taiwan
Relations Act (TRA). This passage, in stating that the United
States should ``assist in defending'' Taiwan against
invasion, missile attack or blockade by the PRC, could be
interpreted as expressing an opinion taking us beyond the
carefully formulated undertakings embodied in the TRA.
Although the PRC military exercises have been provocative
and have raised tensions in the area, they have not
constituted a threat to the security or the social or
economic system of Taiwan. It is our understanding that the
Taiwan authorities agree with our assessment of the
situation. Should there be a threat to Taiwan's security, we
would promptly meet our obligation under the TRA to consult
with Congress on an appropriate response.
We will continue to convey our deep concern to Beijing in
unmistakable fashion through our statements and our actions.
We support a similar resolution in the Senate which uses
formulations we believe would be more helpful to our common
efforts to restore stability and reduce tensions in the area.
We hope this information is responsive to your concerns.
Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Barbara Larkin,
Acting Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his
supportive comments.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Rules, who has been a staunch advocate of democracy in Taiwan and one
of the major sponsors of this legislation.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you exactly what it means. But,
first of all, let me say this: Why should the United States come to the
rescue of a small island country halfway around the world? Let me tell
you why: Because we are proud Americans and we pay our debts. For those
that might not be able to remember, because the people of Taiwan, they
came to our rescue. We, the United States of America, standing shoulder
to shoulder against the Japanese imperialists that threatened our
freedoms. Do you remember that in World War II? Shoulder to shoulder
they stood with us when we were about to lose that war. Then standing
shoulder to shoulder again, for 40 years, they were an integral link in
the chain of defense against the spread of deadly, atheistic communism,
that threatened the freedoms of every single American in this world.
They stood as one of the strongest links in that chain of defense
against the spread of that deadly communism.
So, yes, we have a moral obligation to defend them against that same
deadly, atheistic communism that now threatens their very freedoms,
that democracy, that is similar to our own.
But, beyond that, let me tell you something: We owe it to them
because we have to abide by U.S. law. I helped write the Taiwan
Relations Act in 1979, along with you two gentlemen. Let me tell you
what it says. It says that we, the United States of America, will
supply the country of Taiwan with qualitative and quantitative weaponry
to help them defend themselves.
Let me tell you more importantly what it says, and I will say this to
my good friend, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], and the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. You read the Taiwan Relations
Act. It says the United States will stand ready and will be prepared to
help defend Taiwan, and this answers your question, Lee, against
military attack, from whomever, or economic embargo affecting both sea
and air lanes.
Every Member of this Congress has an obligation to come over here and
obey the U.S. law and vote for it, and then we ought to defend them
against that attack. That is what the law says.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, America is now facing a potential
military confrontation in the Straits of Taiwan, or the Taiwan Straits
as they are called. We should all come together, and that is what this
piece of legislation does, to make certain that the Communist regime on
the mainland understands that we are united in our opposition to any
use of force by the mainland on Taiwan, and that the United States will
respond militarily, if necessary, if force is used against the Republic
of China on Taiwan.
But this situation was a long time in coming. It was a long time in
the making. Mistakes have been made, and let us quit making those
mistakes.
The official policy of this administration has been strategic
ambiguity with the Communist dictatorship on the mainland. Ambiguity
with dictatorships does not work. If anything is a lesson we should
have learned in the past, it is that. The Chinese communists have
mistaken our ambiguity for weakness. When this administration decoupled
all consideration of trade policy with our discussions with the
Communist regime in China on human rights, they did not take that as a
sign of good faith from us we needed to discuss human rights. They took
that as a sign of weakness.
This President proved himself the worst enemy of human rights to ever
serve as President of the United States by decoupling any consideration
of human rights with trade discussions with the largest and most
heinous opponent and oppressor of people on this planet, the Communist
dictatorship in China.
What we have to do now is to reassert to those dictators on the
mainland of China that we side with the democratic people of the world,
especially in the Republic of China, and we will not tolerate their
expansionism or their threats or any other activities that threaten
their neighbors. We are a country that stands for human rights and
peace. We must be strong. That is what Beijing needs to hear. That is
what this resolution is all about.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to understand precisely the
language of the United States commitment to Taiwan. The Taiwan
Relations Act stipulates that it is United States policy to consider
any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful
means, including boycotts or embargoes, a matter of grave concern to
the United States.
The act also promises that the United States ``will make available to
Taiwan such defense articles and defense services as may be necessary
to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.''
Mr. Speaker, that is our commitment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
[Mr. Rose].
[[Page H2345]]
(Mr. ROSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROSE. Mr. Speaker, it is, in my opinion, a sad day that we have
come to this. It is sad that we even have to pass this resolution, 148.
I support it. I associate myself with the comments of my colleague,
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], and the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Gilman], and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], and
the gentleman from California [Mr. Rhorabacher], for what they have
observed about the situation.
Unfortunately, they are correct. I want to reflect just a moment on a
few things that I think our dear friends on the mainland should
consider, and that is the reason America was formed as a Nation. After
the revolution, Lafayette went back home to France and said, ``Freedom
has found a home, and it is America.'' The basic reason this country
was formed was to give freedom and liberty a home in the world. To
varying degrees, we have lived up to that heritage, some ways, very
disappointing to me and many Americans, but basically that is our
heritage. And when we give a gift like most-favored-nation treaty
status to a country somewhere in the world, we have a right to demand
that in return for that gift, that they respect the basic reasons for
the founding of our country, the basic principles that America believes
in, and it is freedom and liberty, and it is human rights.
Unfortunately, the principles of Jefferson, Madison, and Washington
go out the window when the dollar sign appears, and good old trade has
clouded our eyes about holding people's feet to the fire on the
principles for which this country was founded.
I strongly support 148. I regret deeply its necessity. But I would
urge all in this body to watch carefully at the final vote on 148, and
you will get a clear picture of the depth of the feeling of this
Congress, of the American people, as to how we feel about this very
important, yet symbolic issue.
Mr. Speaker, please support 148.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz].
Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, in less than 96 hours, Taiwan will hold
its first-ever direct Presidential election. The election is a
culmination of Taiwanese transition from 50 years of authoritarian rule
to full-fledged democracy. Freedom and democracy in Taiwan, however,
are apparently unacceptable to the People's Republic of China.
Resentful of Taiwan's growing free market economic prosperity,
Beijing apparently fears that Taiwan will be seen as a model for
political reform on the mainland, and in a blatant show of intimidation
the PRC is today conducting yet another in a series of military
exercises just miles from Taiwan's largest cities.
House Concurrent Resolution 148 strongly, and in no uncertain terms,
condemns China's efforts to intimidate Taiwan. It urges peaceful
relations between Beijing and Taiwan and expresses the sense of
Congress that the United States should help Taiwan defend itself.
Mr. Speaker, what is at stake here is not just the viability of
democracy in Taiwan, but the peace and security of the entire Asiatic
region and the world. Beijing's act of aggression must not be allowed
to stand. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
(Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Cox resolution today and
commend the gentleman for his leadership in bringing this legislation
to the floor and the chairman of the full committee for expeditiously
getting this through committee. I think this is a very important
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I have been in serious disagreement with the Clinton
administration on its China policy in relationship to trade, human
rights, and proliferation, but I do think on the issue of Taiwan that
the administration's actions have been prudent and appropriate. I think
they have been completely consistent with Mr. Cox's resolution. I
believe that we are voting for this resolution in support of the
actions of the administration that calls for a peaceful resolution of
the reunification issue between China and Taiwan, and that calls for a
cessation of the intimidation of the political process and the economic
progress on Taiwan.
These missiles, armed missiles, that the Chinese are lobbing at
Taiwan, are lobbed not only against Taiwan, but against democracy, and
it is important for this body to stand firm in our support of democracy
in Taiwan.
I commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].
{time} 1530
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], distinguished subcommittee chairman.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I am concerned about what is taking
place here in Taiwan. This is serious business. This week the people of
Taiwan will go to the polls for the first free and open election in
Taiwan's history. It is a terrible irony that at the very moment when
democracy triumphs, Taiwan is facing the greatest threat in a
generation.
This resolution that we are going to vote on embodies a bedrock
principle of American policy, that the United States will assist the
democracies of the world in defending against tyranny and oppression.
My only argument with the resolution I am going to vote for is I do not
think it is explicit enough. I think when we send a message, we should
send a real message, and I think that what we are doing is obfuscating
too much with this resolution. Either we stand with Taiwan or we do
not. If we stand with Taiwan, we should say it forthrightly. This is
where we stand because China, the rulers in China do not like
vacillation. They do not like weakness. Either we are with them or
against them. I think they respect their friends, they respect their
enemies. But I do not think that in between we send a strong message.
Other than that, I think it is a great resolution. Again, the
resolution embodies a bedrock principle.
The leaders of Beijing should make no mistake about it. As far as I
am concerned in voting on this, Congress is sending a clear message
that the United States will continue to play a role and a very active
role in the future of Taiwan and that we will stand behind our
commitment. At the same time, I think Congress is sending a message to
the Clinton administration that we need clear, consistent, and workable
strategy in working with China.
I commend, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues who have spoken here before on
this issue because I think they have been right on target and focused
on the issue.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for this resolution,
but I am very troubled about it. What we are doing is sending a variety
of messages. The situation is very, very tense. Last time we sent a
signal to Taiwan that we should invite its President here, I voted for
that. It caused irreparable damage to our foreign policy, especially
our relationship with China.
I know that we are all concerned about Chinese policy toward the
United States, toward human rights, toward nonproliferation. I
recognize that. But there are 2.25 billion people there, and we need to
start getting along with them. I found the Chinese actions outrageous
on a number of issues, but at the same time what we are doing here
today is possibly exacerbating an already very tense situation.
We are sending different signals about what U.S. policy is. We have
got the executive branch policy and now we have a new policy that the
House of Representatives is going to send. A key clause of this
resolution says, in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act and the
constitutional process of the United States, the United States
[[Page H2346]]
should assist in defending against invasion, missile attack, or
blockade by the People's Republic of China.
It may only be a sense of Congress resolution. It may not spell out
what the United States must do in assisting and defending Taiwan. It
might stipulate that United States actions to assist in defending
Taiwan must be in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act. But this
resolution appears to push American policy further than it has ever
gone in a quarter century.
President Nixon and Henry Kissinger with the Shanghai Communique,
with the Taiwan Relations Act, spelled out these issues rather
ambiguously and for a reason. It worked. The policy, the two-China
policy over the years has worked.
Where we are now is in a situation where I am very, very concerned
that we are sending a mixed message. A vote against this resolution
also sends a wrong message as well. A vote against this resolution
misleads Beijing about congressional opposition to its totally
outrageous action in the Taiwan Straits. A no vote on this resolution
leads the leadership in China to the erroneous conclusion that the
Congress is not united in its condemnation of China's bullying tactics.
So for once I think the best kind of policy that we have toward this
situation is to give the President flexibility, give the Secretary of
Defense some flexibility in dealing with a potential contingency action
but not go out there with a dramatic House of Representatives vote
which may provoke China into doing something irrational, which may
bring us to a situation which, instead of lessening the tension, we are
tying the hands of the executive branch where we are perhaps misreading
a situation with Taiwan.
Yes, we should defend Taiwan. They are our friends. We have all been
there many times. But why do we have to spell this out in such a
dramatic way? Why can we not let the executive branch conduct foreign
policy in a way that does not tie their hands?
This legislation on Taiwan will create confusion in our policy toward
Taiwan.
The legislation never mentions the one-China policy. It says that the
United States should assist in defending Taiwan against invasion,
missile attack, or blockade by the People's Republic of China. What is
different about this legislation than the Taiwan Relations Act?
This bill, which is supposed to send a clear signal to the Chinese,
actually muddles the signals that the Chinese will get. The Chinese
will view this as new legislation, and may see it as unnecessarily
provocative.
Reluctantly, I will vote for this bill because the Congress should
not appear split over policy toward China. A split in the Congress may
indicate to the Chinese that they can do what they will in the region
without a strong response from the United States.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi].
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the previous
speaker, and I do respect him, I think he overstates the importance of
the vote for President Li's visa. I believe the actions on the part of
the Chinese Government would be the same with or without the vote that
the Congress took at that time. I want the Record to show that.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], chairman of our
Republican policy committee and the sponsor of this resolution.
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of my
colleagues, particularly on the Committee on International Relations,
the chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the ranking
member, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne],
chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lantos], and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter],
the Democratic and Republican cochairs respectively of the
Congressional Human Rights Caucus and all of the Members, Democrat and
Republican, who stand in support of the principles of freedom and
democracy embodied in this resolution today.
This is a strongly bipartisan resolution. It is in strong support of
America's longstanding foreign policy vis-a-vis both Taiwan and the
People's Republic of China since 1979.
Specifically, we do and will continue to support the peaceful dialog
between Taiwan and Communist China. We will support whatever
arrangements they peaceably make between themselves. We shall not
impose our own view as to their futures. But we expect the People's
Republic of China and Taiwan to live up to their respective commitments
to a peaceful process.
In the Shanghai communique of 1982, the People's Republic of China
pledged to the United States that they would pursue peaceful rather
than violent means of settling the question of the future of Taiwan.
Since that time, in fact since 1979, and the Taiwan Relations Act, this
Congress and every President has supported democracy and its
development on Taiwan. What we will see this Saturday is the full
flowering of that successful policy.
We will see following last year's free, open, fair, and democratic
legislative elections on Taiwan, the first ever free, fair, open, and
democratic election for the head of Government in Chinese history, in
over 4,000 years of recorded Chinese history.
Everyone in America and everyone in this Congress applauds that
development. But the Communists who are jockeying for position and
power in Beijing this moment feel threatened alone by that democracy
and that freedom and, therefore, they are using this military campaign
to influence the vote on Saturday, to intimidate Taiwanese democracy
and to make it plain that they believe they have a right, not accorded
them in law or nature, to seize Taiwan, its people, and its Government
by military force. If that happens, there is no question what would be
the United States response indeed what would be the response of the
free world. We would be there to defend the free people and the open
society and the democracy on Taiwan.
Since that is the case, it is vitally important that we make that
plain, diplomatically, privately, and publicly to the rulers in
Beijing. They must not wage a campaign of assault and military
aggression against Taiwan on the mistaken premise that the United
States would not use force.
Unfortunately, some in the administration made comments to this
effect over the period of the last year and a half. Right now there is
not much question. The United States military is present in the Taiwan
Straits as we speak, and another carrier is steaming its way there from
the Persian Gulf. The President needs to be supported in these
communications with the P.R.C. There cannot be any doubt. The time for
ambiguity is over and the time for clarity is upon us.
Our friendship with the People's Republic of China and Taiwan,
different in each case, based chiefly on mercantile and trade interests
in the one and on our sharing of democratic values on the other, would
only be disrupted by war in the Taiwan Straits. We have a strong
interest in peace. The People's Republic of China is America's sixth-
largest trading partner. Taiwan is our seventh-largest trading partner.
The P.R.C. runs, in fact, the largest trade deficit with America. It
is true that Taiwan, in fact, buys more from the United States of
America than does the People's Republic of China. We certainly have
nothing to gain in a material sense from war in the Taiwan Straits.
Likewise, we have nothing to gain from the loss of the gains of
freedom and democracy on Taiwan over these last many years. Today we
will send a strong message of support and encouragement for our foreign
policy of so many administrations, so many years and decades, of
friendship toward the democracy and free and open society on Taiwan and
of support for continued peaceful discussions between the People's
Republic of China and the Government on Taiwan about their future
relationship.
The free world will defend democracy, if it should come to that. But
we wish to have peace through clarity and through strength rather than
war through weak negotiation. Lest we be misjudged, we pass this
resolution today. Again, I want to congratulate my Republican and
Democratic cosponsors, including all of the House leadership behind
this resolution today.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his very poignant
and eloquent remarks in support of the resolution and want to commend
him for his hard work.
[[Page H2347]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], chairman of our Subcommittee on Asia and the
Pacific of our House Committee on International Relations.
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 148 addresses
the highly volatile situation in the Taiwan Strait as the P.R.C. has
crudely sought to intimidate the people of Taiwan on the eve of
national elections. China's missile tests, live-fire exercises, and
huge amphibious force opposite Taiwan have been quite rightly labeled
as ``acts of terrorism'' by Speaker Gingrich.
This Member commends the distinguished member from California, Mr.
Cox for his initiative in drafting House Concurrent Resolution 148 in
consultation with this Member and others, and the distinguished
chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Mr. Gilman for
his successful effort to obtain quick committee action on the
resolution unanimously reported from the subcommittee I chair. The
resolution passed the committee by voice vote with overwhelming
bipartisan support.
At this precarious point, Mr. Speaker, miscalculation and
recklessness by either party could lead to catastrophe. Many Members of
this House--Republican and Democrat alike--were concerned that the
administration's initial reaction of deliberate and calculated
ambiguity did not convey an adequate expression of U.S. resolve. This
Member and others believe it is necessary to send an unambiguous signal
that the United States would not sit idly by were Taiwan to be
attacked. The decision to send a second Navy aircraft carrier group to
join the one already in the waters near Taiwan is an important
demonstration of United States intent. House Concurrent Resolution 148
seeks to add some clarity and consistency in our policy vis-a-vis
Taiwan's security and Chinese threats.
This Member would emphasize that it is not the intention of House
Concurrent Resolution 148 to be anti-P.R.C. when it criticizes
Beijing's coercive activities. Nor does the resolution offer
unequivocal support of all Taiwanese policies or actions. The United
States is not seeking to create new adversaries where none need exist,
and we must not be stampeded into adopting policies that are contrary
to the U.S. national interest. For example, while we enthusiastically
support and congratulate Taiwan's economic success and democratic
progress, the United States is not endorsing the efforts of some
Taiwanese politicians to enhance Taiwan's position in the United
Nations and other international organizations which require statehood.
Taiwan's leaders have been--and should continue to be--very careful
about such statements. Unilateral actions to establish an independent
Taiwan--which Taiwan's leaders consistently claim they are not
seeking--would be extremely dangerous, and would be inconsistent with
the policies of five successive United States administrations from both
political parties.
The purpose of House Concurrent Resolution 148 is simply to make very
clear to Beijing that the United States is committed--consistent with
the Taiwan Relations Act--to assist in the defense of Taiwan in the
event of an invasion, attack, or blockade. It is hoped that this
resolution will have a salutary deterrent effect by sending a clear and
unequivocal expression of support for peaceful resolution of Taiwan's
future status--something both sides say they support--and reaffirming
our rejection of any attempt to resolve the issue through the use of
force.
This Member urges all his colleagues to support House Concurrent
Resolution 148 to send a clear signal to Beijing that the United States
will not tolerate bullying of our friends in Taiwan.
____________________