[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.)
____________________