[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 46 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3236-S3237]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          TAIWAN RELATIONS ACT

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this morning, the distinguished 
Senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, was on the floor speaking about 
a provision in the State Department Authorization conference report 
that was voted out last night.
  The provision was section 1601, which declares that the provisions of 
the Taiwan Relations Act supersede provisions of the United States-
China Joint Communique of August 17, 1992.
  His basic point was that the provision was written not to be a 
wholesale repudiation of the 1982 Joint Communique, but rather to say 
that where the two conflict, specifically with respect

[[Page S3237]]

to arms sales to Taiwan, the Taiwan Relations Act, as the law of the 
land, must override the communique. He referred to an April 22, 1994 
letter he received from Secretary Christopher saying that the 
Administration agrees that the Taiwan Relations Act takes legal 
precedence over the communique.
  Indeed, it is true that the Taiwan Relations Act takes legal 
precedence over the 1982 Joint Communique. One is the law of the land, 
and the other is a diplomatic agreement not ratified by Congress.
  But that is precisely what makes this provision superfluous. If the 
intent is to say that the law of the land takes legal precedence over 
other documents, it is absolutely unnecessary. If we add this language 
to the Taiwan Relations Act, we may as well add it to every other law 
we pass: ``The provisions of this act supersede the speech made by the 
President on a similar topic on such-and-such a date.''
  The Senator from Alaska says the meaning of the word ``supersede'' is 
that the Taiwan Relations Act overrides the Communique only if their 
provisions conflict. He cites the Oxford English Dictionary's 
definition of ``supersede.'' But, according to Webster's Third New 
International Dictionary, the word ``supersede'' also means ``to make 
obsolete,'' ``to make void,'' `` to annul,'' ``to make superfluous or 
unnecessary,'' and ``to take the place of and outmode by superiority.''
  Therefore, regardless of the provision's intent, it has the 
appearance of Congress issuing a wholesale repudiation of the 1982 
Joint Communique.
  This Joint Communique includes not just a paragraph on arms sales, 
but a reaffirmation of the One-China policy and the principles of 
sovereignty and territorial integrity as espoused in the two previous 
Joint Communiques of 1972 and 1979. By saying we supersede the 1982 
Joint Communique, we give the impression that we might be repudiating 
it outright. To do this would shake United States-China relations to 
their very core. The fundamental basis of the relationship would be 
called into question.
  Under any circumstances, this would be a dangerous course of action, 
but it is especially so at this extremely sensitive time in relations 
between the United States, China, and Taiwan.
  Congress needs to be exceedingly careful not to take actions that 
will have farther-reaching effects than we intend. We should not 
underestimate how seriously this provision--which may seem harmless to 
us--would be viewed not just in Beijing, but also in Taipei.
  It seems particularly foolhardy to take such a risk over an 
unnecessary provision, which essentially says nothing more than that 
the law of the land is the law of the land, which of course it 
is.

                          ____________________