[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 46 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S3182]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      THE FOREIGN RELATIONS REVITALIZATION ACT RELATING TO TAIWAN

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, last night we had several hours of 
debate and that debate was around the issue of the Foreign Relations 
Revitalization Act relating to Taiwan. As we addressed the disposition 
of the conference report, this particular portion received a good deal 
of scrutiny. There were a lot of words spoken, a lot of technical 
interpretations. What I am going to do today is simplify that debate by 
referring to the Taiwan Relations Act as the law of the land. I will 
also give a brief explanation of the section that was the subject of 
the debate, but I will use the actual factual language, as well as 
definitions, not just personal interpretations.
  I was surprised by the debate surrounding one provision in 
particular, and that was section 1601, which states that sections 3(a) 
and 3(b) of the Taiwan Relations Act supersede any provision of the 
1982 joint communique between the United States and China.
  I was surprised by the debate because, obviously, a number of people 
seem to be cloudy on just what ``supersede'' means. Allow me to clear 
up any misconceptions of that term. The Oxford dictionary refers to the 
term ``supersede'' specifically as ``overrides, takes precedence 
over.'' That definition seems pretty clear to me, Mr. President.
  The administration indicated it is going to veto the entire 
conference report, in part because of opposition to section 1601, even 
though that section only restates reality.
  In order to enlighten some of my colleagues on this issue, I have a 
chart here. I would like to refer to the chart. This is April 10, 1979, 
section 3(a):

       . . . [T]he United States will make available to Taiwan 
     such defense articles and defense services in such quantity 
     as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient 
     self-defense capability.''

  Section 3(b):

       The President and the Congress shall determine the nature 
     and quantity of such defense articles and defense services 
     based solely upon their judgments of the needs of Taiwan. . . 
     .

  It could not be any clearer, ``solely on their judgments of the needs 
of Taiwan.'' That is to say, the President and the Congress shall 
determine the nature, quantity of such defense articles, et cetera. It 
is crystal clear. The issue is the interpretation of the United States-
China joint communique. The previous reference was the law of the land. 
This is a communique. In the communique, August 17, 1982, the 
administration pledged, ``to reduce gradually its sales of arms to 
Taiwan, leading over a period of time to a final resolution.'' 
Paragraph 6.
  This pledge to reduce arms sales over time, for those of us who have 
labored in this vineyard and those in the defense community, we 
recognize this as the ``bucket,'' so to speak; that is, after the 
executive branch implemented the pledge by decreasing the amount of 
defensive goods and services that would be sold to Taiwan. That is 
readily understood. That was the specific intent.
  This is the communique, the other is the law of the land. But you can 
see the difference. Congress, and the President, clearly have the 
authority under the law of the land to designate and determine the 
nature and quantity of defensive arms provided to Taiwan.
  Yesterday in the debate, several of my colleagues claimed that 
section 1601 nullified the entire basis of United States-China policy.
  This simply is not true, Mr. President. I should know, this was my 
legislation. I know what the legislative intent was. As the original 
author of this legislation, I know the intent of the legislation is 
simply to reassert the legal primacy of the Taiwan Relations Act as 
public law over a statement of policy, such as the joint communique.
  It is this intent that so many of my colleagues on the other side, 
and evidently the State Department, are missing. It reasserts the legal 
primacy of the Taiwan Relations Act as public law over a statement of 
policy, such as the joint communique, if the two are in conflict. That 
puts the burden on the President and the Congress where it belongs.
  For example, if the threat to Taiwan is increasing, defensive arms 
sales may need to go up, and this should not be arbitrarily limited by 
the bucket. It has not been in the past. The bucket is whether it is 
inside or outside, and we have seen sales outside. Prior 
administrations have followed the principle and practice, such as 
President Bush's decision to sell the F-16's to Taiwan, even though 
they were outside the dollar limits and, therefore, outside that 
bucket. It is referred to, basically, as decreasing in the amount of 
collective arms sales to Taiwan.
  The point I want to make today is, more important, that Secretary 
Christopher, in a letter dated April 22, 1994, to me assured me that 
this administration's position is as previous administrations; the 
Taiwan Relations Act as public law takes legal precedent over the 1982 
Joint United States-China Communique. That is the issue, does it take 
legal precedent or does it not? The Secretary of State said it did.
  Let me make one more distinction, Mr. President. That communique I 
referred to, has never been ratified by Congress. The Taiwan Relations 
Act is the law of the land.
  In referring to this letter of April 26, 1994, the Secretary provided 
that letter and asked me not to release it for the Record. I am going 
to honor that commitment.
  But now the administration seems to say it is ready to veto the 
entire conference report, and one of the reasons, in part, is because 
of a provision that simply acknowledges their prior position. If they 
are going to veto it, that is their own business, but let us be up 
front about the veto, if other rationale is the driving force.
  Why is this being selected? I do not know. Has the administration 
been pressured to change some of its positions? I am sending a letter 
to Secretary Christopher today asking him to clarify his position: Does 
the administration stand by the April 22, 1994, letter or not? If not, 
then why not? It is my hope to share that answer with my colleagues.
  This is important, because many on the other side are very 
uncomfortable now as they recognize what the law of the land says and 
the fact the law of the land supersedes the communique if the two are 
in conflict. Very few people seem to have picked up on that difference 
and it's significance.
  Some of my colleagues have asked why this provision was necessary and 
if it was. My response is simply this: it sets legal precedent. This is 
a reason I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will 
appreciate. Sometimes it is necessary to remind the executive branch 
that the Executive policies cannot ignore the law of the land, and that 
is where we are today. The Taiwan Relations Act is the law of the land.
  So, Mr. President, this administration cannot ignore Taiwan's 
defensive needs nor the role of Congress in determining these needs, 
even if some in China demand it. That is what this legislation is 
really all about.
  Some of my friends in this body may imply that this language somehow 
suggests that former President Reagan was wrong when he signed the 
communique. That is certainly not my interpretation, nor my my 
intention. But the reality is, this is 1996, not 1982, and this 
language dictates that if the threat to Taiwan is greater now than in 
1982, arms sales may go up accordingly.
  So that is where we are, Mr. President. I hope that sheds some light 
on the debate over this language. I simply stated what was actually 
written, and hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will 
recognize this.
  (Mr. CRAIG assumed the chair.)

                          ____________________