[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 45 (Thursday, March 28, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3123-S3124]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 1996 AND 1997--
                           CONFERENCE REPORT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I may 
need. I see several Senators who are waiting to give remarks. I alert 
them that I will not be long. I simply must make a remark or two about 
the statements that have been addressed before the Senate by my 
colleague from Louisiana.
  He, obviously, is very much a student of the issues of China and 
Taiwan and the United States. He speaks with great sincerity and 
knowledge. I think he raises a significant dilemma. While we all 
acknowledge the scope of new China, the People's Republic of China, its 
size, its military prowess, its emerging economy, it almost reminds you 
of the Gold Rush, the oil booms, but given that, bigness in size and 
power alone cannot be the stanchions upon which we, or the rest of the 
world, establish our relationship with the People's Republic of China.
  Yes, those are critical ingredients. They cannot stand apart from 
everything else. The 20 million people who live in the Republic of 
China Taiwan also have long claim to one-China policy, but it does not 
accept dictatorship or oppression or many others of the grievous 
policies of the People's Republic of China.
  From the time Chiang Kai-shek retreated to that island in 1949, that 
was a conquest, in a sense, of Taiwan. The native Taiwanese, who 
outnumbered those who retreated, have long harbored the independent or 
nationalistic movement. I think a reality of contemporary review of 
this situation has to acknowledge that that movement is likely to grow, 
and a reality of this democratic election that just occurred was that 
President Li was faced, as we are, with contemporary issues in our own 
country, with the nationalistic spirit that is emerging there.
  The one-China policy cannot, with the flick of a light, turn that 
way, even though it is much larger, much more powerful. It just cannot 
obviate this nationalistic movement, and I do not think we can ignore 
it.
  I do not believe that the People's Republic of China--and I heard Dr. 
Kissinger when he appeared before the Foreign Relations Committee. He 
basically slapped the wrist of the United States and Taiwan and the 
People's Republic of China.
  But for the People's Republic of China to come to the point where, 
because of their size and because of their prowess, they are going 
dictate to the United States who can visit here--I mean, what is a 
visit is not an abrogation of the one-China policy. Their leaders visit 
here, too. I think that does need to be confronted, or addressed; maybe 
that is a better word.
  So, I think the Senator is right that it is not just appeasement and 
not just confrontation. But that projects appeasement as well as 
confrontation. In the tone of the remarks, I felt it was somewhat of an 
apology for our endeavoring to struggle with the People's Republic of 
China and we should accept their edicts because of their size and their 
power. I personally would reject that. I do not think that is what the 
Senator meant, but in the tone of it, the excusing of the sale of 
powerful weapons, human rights violations--that is still a rogue 
government. It is still a dictatorship.

[[Page S3124]]

  While I think it is a delicate issue for us to struggle with, I do 
not accept appeasement because of their size nor because of their 
economy. I do not mean to dwell on that long, but I did want to 
comment.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. If the Senator would yield, I was not suggesting--and I 
tried to make it clear--I was not countenancing any violations of the 
missile treaty control regime, which, by the way, I do not. If they 
violate it--my own opinion is they did. That violation was, what, 3, 4 
years ago. I forget exactly when. They have the capacity to continue to 
violate it further, but are not at this time.
  I do not excuse that. But I say that really what we ought to do is 
reassure Taiwan, as we have, that the law of the land is the Taiwan 
Relations Act, that we will not countenance any invasion of Taiwan, but 
that our policy ought to encourage peaceful reunification, one China, 
peaceful reunification, two regimes, which six Presidents have signed 
on to, and we should not change that--that is what I am saying--and 
reassure both parties.
  Mr. COVERDELL. But if I might, six Presidents have reaffirmed that. 
That is a long time. As the Senator has said, the burgeoning economy of 
China has gotten to a place that even the Senator had missed, and the 
Senator has revisited and seen it. That is a massive change during this 
course of time. The point I am trying to make is, there are equally 
important changes that are occurring in Taiwan.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Exactly.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Among them, that cannot be undone, is there is a 
growing movement that it is a democracy. That is a democracy. The 
People's Republic of China is not. They are miles apart in that. There 
is a growing and emerging spirit within this island that they should be 
free and they should never be intimidated into the kind of government 
that the People's Republic of China still is, and they have empirical 
evidence of the way that government would operate by watching even the 
situation in Hong Kong today, which is a very disruptive situation, as 
you know, and very controversial.
  So they have reason to be deeply concerned about their own freedom 
which they now own. That is a change in the flow of events among them.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Is the Senator saying that we should encourage a 
unilateral declaration?
  Mr. COVERDELL. No, I am not. That phenomenon is as real and different 
as some of the changes the Senator pointed to that have occurred in the 
People's Republic of China. It cannot be ignored.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Would my friend find at fault this formulation, that 
the United States should make it clear to both sides that 
reunification, if it occurs, is a bilateral decision of the two 
countries, to be taken peacefully, and that the United States step 
aside, step out of the arena, having reassured both sides--Taiwan that 
we do not countenance any invasion, and the PRC, that we are not 
encouraging a unilateral declaration of independence--and let those two 
parties make their decision?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I think one of the things that the Senator said in his 
initial remarks, that would be my answer to that--and it goes back to 
the point I just made about massive changes occurring in the People's 
Republic of China and in Taiwan--would be that when you call upon the 
President to maybe articulate, as much of what all of us say are 
captured by views and attitudes that perhaps were obsolete.

  So I do not know that I would specifically accept or embrace the 
point the Senator made just now, but I would acknowledge that there are 
major changes occurring in the geography of the area and it does 
require all of our attention. I admire the effort that the Senator has 
given to the subject, but I just wanted to remind us that there are two 
sets of phenomena and changes that are occurring. I do not believe 
President Li had any option but to acknowledge the winds of change and 
attitudes on his own island.
  Mr. President, I was going to make some remarks about the drug 
policy, but I am going to defer that. I see the manager of the bill has 
returned to the floor. I know the Senator from California----
  Mr. THOMAS. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I certainly would.
  Mr. THOMAS. With regard to the discussion that we are having, I 
wonder if the gentleman would agree that what we are talking about here 
basically is the bill before us, and some of the discussion has been 
about several of the components of that bill which I find do not place 
us on the side of being opposed to the one-China policy, and they do 
not place us on the side of being particularly supportive of one or the 
other of these parties, but rather indicate that we expect to stick 
with the agreements that are made on both sides.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I would agree.
  Mr. THOMAS. I was a little surprised that the suggestion was that all 
of the problems were because President Li came here. There are some 
problems on the other side, agreements that have not been lived up to. 
I wonder if the gentleman would agree that that is what this bill is 
about, is to have agreements with both of these sides and to expect 
that they be lived up to?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I do agree. I appreciate the remarks by the Senator 
from Wyoming. I mentioned, in the colloquy between myself and the 
Senator from Louisiana, that, indeed, I do not find the visit by 
President Li as a reprehensible act. It seemed to me to be a rather 
normal exchange. I concede the sensitivities, but I do not believe the 
People's Republic of China should be carrying their concerns and 
sensitivities to the point that they are telling us who we might have 
visit the United States.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I will.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. When the statute says we should invite President Li, 
they should come with all appropriate courtesies, that is just not a 
casual visit, as if by a foreign tourist. ``All appropriate 
courtesies'' means, in effect, we ought to invite a head of state and 
have this, in effect, as a state visit. Is that not what the plain 
language means?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I think you expand the interpretation of the language. 
That may be interpreted in the eye of the beholder, but it would 
certainly be viewed by President Li one way and the People's Republic 
of China another. But we extended appropriate courtesies to the leaders 
of the People's Republic of China that visited our country.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I know. But when it says we should seek a visit with 
``all appropriate courtesies,'' what does ``all appropriate 
courtesies'' mean?
  Mr. COVERDELL. As I just said, it could be interpreted in many ways. 
But I would remind the Senator that that is nothing more than a sense 
of the Congress, and not law.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HELMS. I yield--how much time does the Senator want?
  Mr. THOMAS. Ten minutes.
  Mr. HELMS. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator. But before 
he begins, Mr. President, I have a little housekeeping task to do for 
the leader.

                          ____________________