[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 88 (Tuesday, July 7, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7581-S7584]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 107--AFFIRMING U.S. COMMITMENTS TO TAIWAN

  Mr. LOTT (for himself, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Helms, Mr. 
Lugar, Mr. Mack, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Thomas, Mr. McCain, Mr. Gramm, Mr. 
Hutchinson, Mr. Bond, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Kyl, Mr. 
Abraham, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Burns, Mr. Warner, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. 
Faircloth, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Craig, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, and 
Mr. Brownback) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

                            S. Con. Res. 107

       Whereas at no time since the establishment of the People's 
     Republic of China on October 1, 1949, has Taiwan been under 
     the control of the People's Republic of China;
       Whereas the United States began its long, peaceful, 
     friendly relationship with Taiwan in 1949;
       Whereas since the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act in 
     1979, 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 would be determined by peaceful 
     means;
       Whereas in March 1996, the People's Republic of China held 
     provocative military maneuvers, including missile launch 
     exercises in the Taiwan Strait, in an attempt to intimidate 
     the people of Taiwan during their historic, free and 
     democratic presidential election;
       Whereas officials of the People's Republic of China refuse 
     to renounce the use of force against democratic Taiwan;
       Whereas Taiwan has achieved significant political and 
     economic strength as one of the world's premier democracies 
     and as the 19th largest economy in the world;
       Whereas Taiwan is the seventh largest trading partner of 
     the United States and imports more than twice as much 
     annually from the United States as does the People's Republic 
     of China;
       Whereas no treaties exist between the People's Republic of 
     China and Taiwan that determine the future status of Taiwan: 
     Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That Congress--
       (1) affirms its long standing commitment to Taiwan and the 
     people of Taiwan in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act 
     (Public Law 96-8);
       (2) affirms its expectation, consistent with the Taiwan 
     Relations Act, that the future of Taiwan will be determined 
     by peaceful means, with the consent of the people of Taiwan, 
     and considers any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by 
     other than peaceful means a threat to the peace and security 
     of the Western Pacific and of grave concern to the United 
     States;
       (3) affirms its commitment, consistent with the Taiwan 
     Relations Act, to make available to Taiwan such defense 
     articles and defense services in such quantities as may be 
     necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-
     defense capability;
       (4) affirms its commitment, consistent with the Taiwan 
     Relations Act, that only the President and Congress shall 
     determine the nature and quantity of defense articles and 
     services for Taiwan based solely upon their judgment of the 
     needs of Taiwan; and
       (5) urges the President of the United States to seek a 
     public renunciation by the People's Republic of China of any 
     use of force, or threat to use force, against democratic 
     Taiwan.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this resolution does not break new ground 
with regard to Taiwan. It simply reaffirms our support of the 
principles of the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act. It calls on the President 
to seek a Chinese renunciation of the use of force to affect Taiwan's 
future.
  President Clinton gave two impressive performances at Beijing 
University and at the joint press conference, but I am very much 
concerned about the perception of what he had to say, of what the 
effect is of what he had to say with regard to Taiwan. Instead of 
pressing Beijing to renounce the use of force against Taiwan, President 
Clinton accepted Beijing's position on Taiwan. By ending the ambiguity 
of the U.S. position, we have harmed democratic Taiwan's position.
  Congress has pressed previous administrations to change its policies 
with regard to Taiwan. In fact, the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 was a 
clear example of congressional restraint on executive actions on 
Taiwan. In 1995, we urged the President to grant a visa to Taiwan's 
President to enter the U.S. for a college reunion. The administration 
changed its position after Congress took that action.
  This resolution is necessary to correct the effects of the statements 
that were made in Shanghai. Before Shanghai, U.S. policy was to 
acknowledge

[[Page S7582]]

Beijing's position. Now we have prepared to make Beijing's position our 
policy.
  China refuses to take the use of force off the table. We should not 
unilaterally deny Taiwan membership to international organizations, and 
we should not take action in concert with the dictatorship in Beijing 
without even consulting the 21 million people under democratic rule in 
Taiwan.
  Instead of undermining Taiwan, we should support our fundamental 
national interest in the peaceful resolution of differences. We do not 
want to see a war in the Taiwan Straits. Deterrence is the way to avoid 
such a possibility.
  We should support the provision of missile defenses to Taiwan so that 
they can protect their democracy from a dictatorship's missiles. We 
should support Taiwan's membership in international organizations where 
they are willing and able to help an organization's goals--such as free 
trade and economic stability.
  There is a second resolution, S. Con. Res. 30, on the issue of 
Taiwan's membership in the IMF and the World Bank. It has already been 
passed out of the Foreign Affairs Committee by unanimous vote. I hope 
we can pass that resolution this week.
  I thank Senator Torricelli and the rest of our cosponsors. I urge 
other colleagues to join us because this is certainly a bipartisan 
issue. I look forward to rapid Senate action on the resolution to 
reaffirm our relationship with Taiwan and the primacy of the Taiwan 
Relations Act.
  I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that editorials from the Wall 
Street Journal and the Washington Post be printed in the Record at this 
point.
  There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, July 2, 1998]

                       Siding With the Dictators

       The outlines of a deal are beginning to emerge. China gives 
     President Clinton air time for his speech. Mr. Clinton says 
     what China wants to hear on Taiwan. Then, in classic Clinton 
     fashion, the White House tries to have things both ways, 
     denying that U.S. policy has changed when in fact it has, and 
     not for the better.
       Past administrations recognized the Beijing government as 
     the legitimate government of China and ``acknowledged'' 
     China's position with regard to Taiwan. But ``acknowledge'' 
     did not mean ``accept.'' The ultimate fate of Taiwan was 
     something for Taiwan and China to work out, peacefully. 
     Beyond that, the United States deliberately left its policy 
     shrouded in ambiguity.
       But recently officials of the Clinton administration have 
     explicitly adopted a ``three no's'' formula much more 
     pleasing to the Communist Chinese: no support for one Taiwan-
     one China; no support for Taiwan independence; no support for 
     Taiwan membership in international organizations such as the 
     United Nations. Now Mr. Clinton has given that policy a 
     presidential stamp of approval--and on Chinese soil, to boot.
       Why does it matter? Because Taiwan's 21 million people have 
     forged a prosperous democracy over the past decades. There is 
     no justification for the United States to oppose their right 
     eventually to determine their own future. It would be fine 
     for U.S. officials to reiterate that such a determination 
     must take place peacefully and to encourage Taiwan-China 
     dialogue. It would be fine for U.S. officials to warn Taiwan 
     not to expect U.S. support for a unilateral declaration of 
     independence. What's not fine is for the United States at 
     this time to rule out independence or any other option the 
     Taiwanese people eventually might choose.
       When China threatened Taiwan militarily in 1996, Mr. 
     Clinton responded with admirable resolve. But now he is 
     trading away the human rights of Taiwan's 21 million people 
     and sending an unfortunate signal to other democracies that 
     might hope to rely on U.S. moral support.
       As a practical matter, he's also significantly weakening 
     Taiwan's bargaining power if and when Taiwan and China begin 
     negotiations. China's main card always has been the threat of 
     force; Taiwan's has been its campaign to establish 
     sovereignty through membership in world organizations and 
     other means. By explicitly and needlessly slamming the door 
     on that campaign, Mr. Clinton has sided with the dictators 
     against the democrats. To pretend this is no change only 
     heightens the offense.
                                  ____

  


              [From the Wall Street Journal, July 2, 1998]

                             Bill's Kowtow

       Just when we were giving President Clinton credit for 
     sounding the right notes in China, he managed to turn his 
     visit into a fiasco after all. His kowtowing to China's 
     ``three no's'' over Taiwan is likely to set off a cycle of 
     reactions and counterreactions that ultimately will damage 
     rather than improve Sino-American relations.
       The bedrock of U.S. policy toward Taiwan has always been 
     the Shanghai Communique, issued in 1972 as the two nations 
     began their rapprochement, and affirmed in later agreements 
     and the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979. In this document the 
     U.S. declared that it ``acknowledges that all Chinese on 
     either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one 
     China and that Taiwan is part of China. The United States 
     government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its 
     interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by 
     the Chinese themselves.'' This was careful ambiguity, for 
     example in not dealing with the possibility that what the 
     U.S. acknowledged might someday no longer be true.
       A shred of this policy remained, of course, in President 
     Clinton's remark that U.S. policy ``has been'' that 
     reunification ``has to be done peacefully.'' This is 
     something short of a demand that China renounce the use of 
     force. And Mr. Clinton's mouthing of the ``three no's'' 
     formula tool place only in a carefully choreographed exchange 
     with a specially selected Chinese scholar, with National 
     Security Adviser Sandy Berger rushing around with notes. That 
     is to say, it was something the Administration was rather 
     ashamed of, despite the claim that is was no change in 
     previous policy.
       On that point, consider the President's language: ``We 
     don't support independence for Taiwan; or two Chinas; or one 
     Taiwan, one China. And we don't believe that Taiwan should be 
     a member in any organization for which statehood is a 
     requirement.'' Anyone who reads English can see that this is 
     miles beyond the careful language Richard Nixon and Henry 
     Kissinger crafted in 1972.
       So President Clinton got access to Chinese TV for some 
     statements about human rights and Tibet, giving him the aura 
     he wanted back home, and we continue to believe, some 
     beneficial impact within China. Mr. Clinton also got a dollop 
     of personal frosting with Jiang Zemin's public assurance that 
     his government had investigated ``the so-called political 
     contributions in the United States'' and discovered ``there 
     never was such a thing.'' There were also some trade 
     contracts.
       Yet even with the President in Shanghai, the on-again, off-
     again U.S. visit by a local opera company was definitely 
     called off. This is not a trifle, since the pique of some 
     petty official overrode contracts supported by both the 
     Chinese parties and the U.S. parties. This is precisely the 
     danger of business with China, as a visiting U.S. President 
     should take time to notice.
       President Jiang, by contrast, got his number one priority, 
     Mr. Clinton carving the next slice of salami toward the 
     Chinese goal of getting the U.S. to coerce Taiwan to join 
     China, or alternatively to stand aside while China invades. 
     Only two years ago, after all, the People's Liberation Army 
     was ``testing'' its missiles over the Taiwan Strait, closing 
     Taiwan's major ports and forcing the U.S. to dispatch two 
     aircraft carrier battle groups to the area.
       The issue of Taiwanese membership in international 
     organizations is especially ridiculous. We can dismiss the 
     United Nations as congenitally symbolic, and the sovereignty 
     requirement would not preclude Taiwan's application to the 
     World Trade Organization, which recognizes ``customs 
     territories.'' But Taiwan is already excluded from presumably 
     serious organizations such as the International Monetary Fund 
     and the World Bank, though it is among the world's top 20 
     economies and holds enormous monetary reserves. The world's 
     remaining superpower should be acting to curb this ongoing 
     farce, not entrench it.
       Mr. Clinton climbed to the pinnacle of politics by pleasing 
     the audience of the moment, but the ultimate impact of his 
     demarche will depend on others offstage, on Taiwan and 
     Capitol Hill. The Taiwanese are understandably upset, with 
     their foreign ministry declaring that the U.S. and China 
     ``are in no position to conduct bilateral negotiations on 
     anything related to our future.'' Even more to the point, 
     Parris Chang, a leader of the pro-independence Democratic 
     Progressive Party said, ``It's wrong, morally and 
     politically, for Clinton to collude with the Communist 
     dictatorship to restrict the future of a democratic country, 
     Taiwan.''
       The Democratic Progressives' position is that Taiwan is 
     plainly a separate country, and that recognizing reality is 
     always progress. They are already likely to form the next 
     government in Taipei, and Mr. Clinton's acceding to the three 
     no's almost surely improved their standing among Taiwan's 
     voters. Back in Washington, Congress, historically supportive 
     of Taiwan and already restive over its foreign-policy 
     prerogatives, will resist Mr. Clinton's unilateral change in 
     long-standing American policy.
       Taiwan is now plainly a democratic nation, and has every 
     right to determine its own future. In the end, the U.S. will 
     not resist this principle, whatever Mr. Clinton said in 
     Shanghai this week. The danger in Mr. Clinton's words is that 
     the Chinese leaders who heard them will not only be 
     disappointed but turn truculent.

  Mr. LOTT. These articles, certainly newspapers that don't always take 
the same editorial positions, certainly agree in this case and express 
their concern about siding with Beijing on this very important issue 
relating to the freedom and the democracy of Taiwan.

[[Page S7583]]

  I thank the handlers of this bill and the managers for yielding of 
this time. We wanted to get this submission done this afternoon.
  I am glad to yield to Senator Torricelli.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I want to thank the majority leader for yielding the 
time. I am very pleased to join with the majority leader and my 
colleagues in offering this resolution regarding the commitment of the 
United States to Taiwan.
  Like the majority leader, I, too, want to congratulate President 
Clinton for an extraordinarily successful visit to the People's 
Republic of China. He covered the issues of human rights, security, our 
economic relationships--I believe there was real progress made.
  Mr. President, it is sometimes said that international conflicts 
begin more often from miscalculation than design. I believe it is of 
service to the Senate and to our country to make clear upon President 
Clinton's return both what was said and accomplished and, indeed, what 
remains in place with regard to the U.S. relations with the people and 
the government on Taiwan.
  American policy toward Taiwan is governed by the Taiwan Relations 
Act. There are 4 principle components of this Act, accepted by this 
Congress, the bedrock policy of this country, and they remain 
unchanged.
  First, the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means. The 
Taiwan Relations Act does not say that the people of Taiwan and the 
mainland will be reunited by peaceful means. It says the future will be 
determined by peaceful means. That has not been altered.
  Second, the United States affirms that one of its principle 
objectives is the preservation and enhancement of the human rights of 
the people of Taiwan.
  Third, that the United States does not maintain as its policy the 
isolation of Taiwan, its government, or its people but there are many 
members of this institution, and, indeed, in this government, that 
believe it would enhance the security of the region and both peoples if 
Taiwan were admitted to international organizations.
  Fourth, the United States remains committed to sell those defensive 
means necessary for the security of the people of Taiwan.
  Mr. President, at a time of economic turbulence in Asia, it is 
notable that there is one government and one people that are a bedrock 
of economic stability. Taiwan is a model of development of democratic 
capitalism. It is a leader in technology and international trade, with 
a standard of living obtained for its people that is the envy of Asia. 
It is also notable that at a time when it is necessary for the 
President of the United States to discuss human rights with other 
countries, to discuss their means of government, that Taiwan remains a 
stable democracy, respecting the freedom of religion and of speech and 
of expression, where people choose their own leadership.
  For all these reasons, Mr. President, it is important that there not 
be any miscalculation. The policy of this country toward Taiwan is 
governed by the Taiwan Relations Act. We remain committed to that 
democracy and to its security. This is not of some small moment. This 
is, after all, the 19th largest economy in the world. Taiwan is the 
seventh largest trading partner of the United States--a vibrant 
democracy in the family of democratic nations.
  There are many of us who believe that in future years the security of 
the region would be enhanced by Taiwan's enhanced relationship with the 
United Nations, by its entry into the World Trade Organization and the 
Asian Development Bank, where its economic power could be heard and, 
indeed, enhance its economic stability.
  Mr. President, for all those who have watched this recent trip to 
Asia, it bears reminding that this Congress wrote the Taiwan Relations 
Act. The Taiwan Relations Act governs the relationship between the 
United States and all issues affecting the future of Taiwan and its 
people. Only this Congress can change the Taiwan Relations Act.
  Mr. President, we are all proud of President Clinton's trip to China. 
I believe that he came home with real substantive accomplishments. I 
believe it is also useful, as the majority leader has pointed out, to 
make clear both what has changed and what has not. The American 
commitment to Taiwan has not changed. It will not change. It is a 
bedrock of the American commitment to maintain special relationships 
with nations that choose their own leaders and live in the democratic 
family of countries.
  I thank the majority leader for his leadership on this issue. I am 
proud to join with him on this concurrent resolution.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the issue of Taiwan 
and the events concerning Taiwan which transpired during our 
President's trip to China. While President Clinton maintains that he 
did not make any concessions on Taiwan, or in any way alter our 
longstanding policy towards Taiwan, I am concerned that, indeed, he may 
have; and I think the facts back me up and show that President Clinton 
may have, in no small way, initiated changes in our policy towards 
Taiwan.
  I am specifically concerned with two incidents, Mr. President. First, 
during a question-and-answer period at Beijing University, President 
Clinton responded to a question on Taiwan. He remarked that ``when the 
United States and China reached agreement that we would have a one 
China policy, we also reached agreement that reunification would occur 
by peaceful means.''
  Well, Mr. President, to my knowledge, the United States and China 
have never reached an agreement that the Taiwan question would be 
resolved through reunification. While the United States has not ruled 
out reunification as a possibility, we have also not ruled out the 
possibility that the question of Taiwan could be resolved in some other 
manner, as long as it was done peacefully. So there is a difference.
  Our Federal law on this question is quite clear. Section 2(b)(3) of 
the Taiwan Relations Act states that ``The future of Taiwan will be 
determined by peaceful means.'' The United States has also signed three 
joint communiques with the People's Republic of China which further 
elaborate our position on Taiwan. While they all speak to the peaceful 
resolution of the Taiwan question, none--none--go so far as to speak to 
the question of reunification.
  So why am I concerned with the President's choice of words while he 
was in China? Because I think it is misleading, dangerously misleading. 
It indicates to the Chinese and the Taiwanese that our policy on Taiwan 
has changed, when the President says it has not.
  The second incident which raises concern, Mr. President, is when 
President Clinton seemingly adopted the ``Three-No's'' policy long 
advocated by China. The ``Three-No's'' policy states the United States 
does not support one Taiwan, one China; the United States does not 
support Taiwan independence; and the United States does not support 
Taiwan's membership in nation-state based international organizations.
  As the July 2, 1998, editorial in the Washington Post correctly 
points out, the United States has long ``acknowledged'' China's 
position on Taiwan, but has never ever accepted China's position on 
Taiwan. There is a significant difference.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this editorial be printed in 
the Congressional Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Considered collectively, which I know the Chinese 
Government is doing, this could appear to be a major concession by the 
United States on the issue of Taiwan. My guess is that the Chinese now 
believe that if the Taiwanese people declare independence, the United 
States will not support them. What does that say for democracy and the 
ideals that we have sworn to uphold and support?
  In 1996, when the Chinese military conducted military exercises off 
the coast of Taiwan in order to influence Taiwan's national 
Presidential elections, President Clinton rightly responded; swiftly 
and with resolve. He showed that the United States will not tolerate 
the threat of the use of force against Taiwan, just as we will not 
tolerate the use of force against Taiwan.
  Mr. President, I am concerned that the President's statements made in

[[Page S7584]]

China have now sent the wrong message, and one that could be 
destabilizing both to Taiwan and to the entire Asian theater.
  I think the United States should pursue our own ``three-no's'' policy 
on the question of Taiwan, and they are: We will not accept any 
nonpeaceful resolution of the Taiwan question; we will not force Taiwan 
to the table with China, nor will we be an intermediary in resolving 
this dispute; and we will not turn our backs on democracy and the right 
of the Taiwanese people, or any people, to live according to free 
democratic principles.
  So finally, Mr. President, well in advance of President Clinton's 
trip to China, I and a number of colleagues in the Senate sent a letter 
to the President urging him to press the Chinese Government on 
renouncing the threat of the use of force against Taiwan.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the 
Congressional Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 2.)
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I, again, call on the President to insist that the 
Chinese Government renounce the threat of the use of force against 
Taiwan and take great effort to clarify that our position in support of 
Taiwan and our commitment to Taiwan has not changed.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I thank the floor manager, 
Senator Bond, for the courtesy extended me at this time.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska.
  I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to the 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                               Exhibit 1

                       Siding With the Dictators

       The outlines of a deal are beginning to emerge. China gives 
     President Clinton air time for his speech. Mr. Clinton says 
     what China wants to hear on Taiwan. Then, in classic Clinton 
     fashion, the White House tries to have things both ways, 
     denying that U.S. policy has changed when in fact it has, and 
     not for the better.
       Past administrations recognized, the Beijing government as 
     the legitimate government of China and ``acknowledged'' 
     China's position with regard to Taiwan. By ``acknowledge'' 
     did not mean ``accept.'' The ultimate fate of Taiwan was 
     something for Taiwan and China to work out, peacefully. 
     Beyond that, the United States deliberately left its policy 
     shrouded in ambiguity.
       But recently officials of the Clinton administration have 
     explicitly adopted a ``three no's'' formula much more 
     pleasing to the Communist Chinese: no support for one Taiwan-
     one China; no support for Taiwan independence; no support for 
     Taiwan membership in international organizations such as the 
     United Nations. Now Mr. Clinton has given that policy a 
     presidential stamp of approval--and on Chinese soil, to boot.
       Why does it matter? Because Taiwan's 21 million people have 
     forged a prosperous democracy over the past decades. There is 
     no justification for the United States to oppose their right 
     eventually to determine their own future. It would be fine 
     for U.S. officials to reiterate that such a determination 
     must take place peacefully and to encourage Taiwan-China 
     dialogue. It would be fine for U.S. officials to warn Taiwan 
     not to expect U.S. support for a unilateral declaration of 
     independence. What's not fine is for the United States at 
     this time to rule out independence or any other option the 
     Taiwanese people eventually might choose.
       When China threatened Taiwan militarily in 1996, Mr. 
     Clinton responded with admirable resolve. But now he is 
     trading away the human rights of Taiwan's 21 million people 
     and sending an unfortunate signal to other democracies that 
     might hope to rely on U.S. moral support.
       As a practical matter, he's also significantly weakening 
     Taiwan's bargaining power if and when Taiwan and China begin 
     negotiations. China's main card always has been the threat of 
     force; Taiwan's has been its campaign to establish 
     sovereignty through membership in world organizations and 
     other means. By explicitly and needlessly slamming the door 
     on that campaign, Mr. Clinton has sided with the dictators 
     against the democrats. To pretend this is no change only 
     heightens the offense.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2


                                         United States Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, May 21, 1998.
     Hon. William J. Clinton, 
     The President, The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: As you prepare for your summit with the 
     leaders of the People's Republic of China in Beijing, we 
     thought it appropriate to share with you our thoughts 
     regarding U.S. relations with the people and the government 
     of Taiwan. We believe Taiwan has made extraordinary progress 
     in recent years as the Republic of China has moved to 
     establish a vibrant democracy with free elections, free 
     press, and improved trading practices.
       We believe the American people are united in their support 
     for freedom and democracy in Taiwan. Time and again, Congress 
     has made clear our commitment to Taiwan, beginning with the 
     1979 Taiwan Relations Act, and through many resolutions and 
     bills since then.
       Although we do not know what will be on the summit agenda, 
     we do know that the PRC is often eager to try and persuade 
     the United States to compromise our support for Taiwan and 
     its democracy. Mr. President, we urge you to oppose any 
     efforts at the summit by the PRC leadership to diminish 
     American support for Taiwan. We believe it is important for 
     the United States to make clear at the summit that while the 
     U.S. supports a peaceful dialogue between Taipei and Beijing, 
     the U.S. has committed not to pressure Taiwan on this issue 
     and to not play any mediation role. You should reiterate 
     statements made recently by members of your administration 
     calling on the PRC to renounce the use of force or the threat 
     of force against Taiwan.
       Further, we urge you to reject any plans for a ``Fourth 
     Communique'' on issues related to Taiwan; to not weaken our 
     defensive arms sales commitment to Taiwan (either by agreeing 
     to set an end date or by agreeing to hold prior consultations 
     with the PRC); to not make any commitment to limit future 
     visits by the elected representatives of the Republic of 
     China; to not agree to revise the Taiwan Relations Act; and 
     to not alter the U.S. position regarding sovereignty over 
     Taiwan.
       We in Congress are prepared to reiterate the commitment of 
     the American people to freedom and democracy for the people 
     and government of Taiwan. We look forward to your reassurance 
     on these issues in advance of the summit.
           Sincerely,
     Frank H. Murkowski.
     Robert G. Torricelli.
     Trent Lott.
     Jesse Helms.
     ------ ------
     Alfonse D'Amato.
     Tim Johnson.
     Tom Daschle.
     Craig Thomas.
     Chuck Hagel.
     Larry E. Craig.
     Connie Mack.

                          ____________________