TAIWAN ENABLING ACT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 34
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 27, 2008
• Sequence Number: 8
• Publication Date: March 13, 1979
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

S2570
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SIENATIE March 13, 1979
talk and continue to negotiate, then
there has not been failure.
The President has kept the negotia-
tions moving. While we all would like to
see an immediate treaty, I have not la-
bored under any illusions, and I hops
that most Americans have not suffered
illusions in this regard. It is a long proc-
ess. We should realize, from the years
of pain and suffering and strife and
bloodshed, that it is a thorny, difficult,
profoundly complex matter, and that it
will take time.
During my own conversations with
Middle Eastern leaders last year, I
learned first hand how infinitely com-
plex and difficult diplomatic negotia-
tions on the conflicts. in that area are,
and how imperative it is that such nego-
tiations be pursued with patiende and
tenacity. President Carter could well have
departed from his meetings with Pres-
ident Sadat and Prime Minister
Begin with some kind of instant limited
agreements on peripheral Issues, and the
impression would have been imparted
that great success had been realized.
However, the mettle of such agreements
would have become evident to all when
the pressures of the real conflict began
to build once again.
President Carter understands the na-
ture and the complexity of the challenge
that he has accepted in the Middle East,
I believe, and I commend him.
I appreciate the fine spirit that has
been exemplified on the floor just now by
the minority leader and by the distin-
guished Senator from Arizona, as they,
too, have commented on the dedication
that President Carter has demonstrated
in his efforts for peace.
The tragic and chronic confrontation
in the Middle East has lasted for more
than three decades. Moreover, it has
Arab and Israeli alike. Already, in jus
than any of his predecessors, in spite of
all their commendable efforts.
I congratulate President Carter on his
efforts as he returns from Egypt and
Israel today, and I encourage him to con-
tinue to exert his efforts and use his in-
fluence to achieve the peace that all men
of good will around the world hope will
come eventually to the Middle East. Not
only will our generation give him its
thanks, but all future generations will be
indebted to him for this effort.
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi-
dent, does any Senator wish me to yield
time from the time allotted to me?
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from West Virginia (Mr. ROBERT
C. BYRD) is recognized for not to exceed
15 minutes, under the previous order.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi-
dent, I suggest the absence of a quorum,
on my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR RECESS UNTIL 11 A.M.
TOMORROW
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr: Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous. consent that
when the Senate completes its business
today it stand in recess until the hour
of 11 a.m. tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ROUTINE MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under
the previous order, there will now be a
period for the transaction of routine
morning business for not to exceed 15
minutes with statements therein limited
to 5 minutes each.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
CONCLUSION OF MORNING
BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
further morning business? If not, morn-
ing business is closed.
TAIWAN ENABLING ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the
previous order, the Senate will now re-
sume consideration of the pending
business, S. 245, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 245) to promote the foreign pol-
icy of the United States through the main-
tenance of commercial, cultural, and other
relations with the people of Taiwan on an
unofficial basis, and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unan-
imous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objedtion, it is so ordered.
AMENDMENT NO. 100
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I understand
the parliamentary situation to be that
each side has 5 minutes, the yeas and
nays have been ordered, and a motion to
lay on the table has been made: is that
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the
Senator's preceding question is on
amendment 100 of the Senator from
Kansas, on which there is a limitation of
5 minutes of debate for each side, the
Senator is correct. The yeas and nays
have been ordered on the motion to lay
on the table.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I would just
say very quickly that I think the issue is
not particularly complicated.. It may be
controversial, but it is certainly not com-
plicated. It is just a question of whether
or not we want the Senate to have any
voice in confirming, advising, and con-
senting on the director of the institute.
We have simply provided that our Amer-
ican Institute-
shall be headed by a Director, who shall be
appointed by the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate and who
shall hold such appointment for a period of
not to exceed two years.
Mr. President, my amendment con-
cerns the question of Senate responsi-
bility and the Senate's obligation to the
American people and to the Constitution-
I believe, it is vital that the Senate
have a provision for passing on the
qualifications of the director of the
American Institute on Taiwan. This
amendment creates such an official
avenue and safeguards the principles
of advise and consent set forth in the
Constitution.
I am not asking for official recogni-
tion of Taiwan by this amendment. I
am only urging the Senate to have the
opportunity to pass on the worthiness
and judgment and ability of the person
who will be the instrument of the United
States. The institute will be carrying
out U.S. foreign policy. On some occa-
sions the director of the institute may
even be placed in the position of tnitiat-
ing policy and actions that will affect
U.S. strategic interests.
Again, let me state that it is not my
intention to upset the balance my dis-
tinguished colleagues on the Foreign Re-
lations Committee have carefully worked
out, nor to destroy the delicate under-
standing upon which our normalization
with the mainland rests. I am in favor of
the normalization process when properly
carried out. We have much to gain, in
a closer relationship with Peking.
My concern here, however, is with the
constitutional responsibility of the Sen-
ate. It seems to me that this bill, as it
stands now, is asking the Senate to
ignore some of that responsibility which
we in the Senate now have to advise and
consent to certain actions by the execu-
tive department.
As my distinguished colleague on the
Foreign Relations Committee remarked
yesterday, various elements of the execu-
tive department will be performing over-
sight functions in regard to the Institute,
including the Comptroller-General. U.S.
taxes are going to be channeled into the
Institute to provide its operating funds.
These facts only further indicate, the
legitimate need for the Senate also to
fulfill its oversight responsibilities.
Now it is certainly true that the rela-
tionship we are implementing in this leg-
islation with Taipei is unprecedented. We
cannot, therefore, lightly address the
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
The Sen)Q met at 10:15 a.m., on the
expiration o the recess, and was called
to order by Ho . ROBERT C. BYRD, a Sen-
ator from the to of West Virginia.
L. R. Elson, D.D., offked the following
prayer:
Let us pray.
0 Lord our God, in who we live and
move and have our being, know not
what any day may bring. O this, we
know that every day is judgm t day.
Thou dost judge us in the mo nt of
action and in the grand climax of h tory.
Thou dost judge us for what we are nd
what we do. Thou dost judge the .y
we work, the way we think, the way
speak, the way we vote, the way we play'
the way we pray. Thou dost judge us ac-
cording to the love we show and the help
we bring. Judge us then according to Thy ,
loving kindness for "Thy judgments are
true and righteous altogether."
Let the words of our mouths and the
meditations of our hearts be acceptable
in Thy sight, 0 Lord our strength and
our Redeemer. Amen.
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESI-
DENT PRO TEMPORE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will please read a communication to the
Senate from the President pro tempore
(Mr. MAGNUSON).
The legislative clerk read the following
letter:
Q.S. SENATE,
PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE,
Washington, D.C., March 13, 1979.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, section 3, of
the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby
appoint the Honorable ROBERT C. BYRD, a
Senator from the State of West Virginia, to
perform the duties of the Chair.
WARREN 0. MAGNUSON,
President pro tempore.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD thereupon re-
sumed the chair as Acting President pro
tempore.
RECOGNITION OF LEADERSHIP
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. The minority leader, the Senator
from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER) is recog-
nized.
THE JOURNAL
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I ask unan-
imous consent that the Journal of the
proceedings of the Senate to date be ap-
proved.
TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1979
(Legislative day of Thursday, February 22,1979)
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
SPECIAL ORDER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. The Senator from Tennessee is
recognized under the standing order.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I thank
the Chair.
I have no immediate need for my time
under the standing order and I yield
5 minutes to the distinguished Senator
from Arizona.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. The Senator from Arizona (Mr.
GOLDWATER) is recognized for up to 5
minutes.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I thank my friend
from Tennessee for his usual courtesy.
(The remarks of Mr. GOLDWATER at
is point in connection with the intro-
d ction of legislation are printed under
St ments on Introduced Bills and Joint
Re utions.)
Mr. STEWART assumed the chair.
PRESIDTT CARTER'S PEACEMAK-
ING E ~TS IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Mr. GO WATER. Mr. President, I
doubt thatt1ere is any one person in
this country, k maybe the world, who
has been more c tical of President Carter
in the field of for 'gn policy than have I.
I do not want an one to think for one
moment that by wh t I am going to say
this morning I have uddenly changed
my spots and will wak up on the other
side of the bed.
I think that with the n ws we all read
and heard and saw last n ht, with the
news we all read and heard *d saw this
morning, it is rather evade t that the
peace President Carter went t?kthe Mid-
dle East to try to achieve is of going
to be achieved.
I am not one American, nor p rticu-
larly one Republican, who is go g to
chastise President Carter for making his
effort. I believe it took a great dea of
courage. I think his performance ov r
being forthright, even though we do not
agree with him. _
I would like to see him receive.the
accolade in this field that I think he de-
serves, and I urge my friends who are
running for office at any level not to
make of this Mideastern trip a political
subject but, rather, to recognize that in
this effort he has joined other Ameridans
who served us as President, who showed
courage in acting even though their ac-
tions were not fruitful.
So, Mr. President, I merely am offering
these words as a man who is highly criti-
cal of this administration but as one who
feels that the President does deserve a
pat on the back for this trip, because we
all have to admire a little guts.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I join the
distinguished Senator from Arizona in his
remarks.
I think it would not be unseemly of me
to remind our colleagues that before the
President went, I said from this place
on this floor that I thought it was a risk
worth taking, and I still think so.
I do not know what the final result
of the President's efforts will be or what
will happen in the. remaining hours be-
fore he returns to the United States, but
it was a risk worth taking. From the
appearances that generate from newspa-
per and television accounts that we have
seen, I believe that some progress has
been made.
I admire the President for his efforts in
this matter, and I join the distinguished
Senator from Arizona in his remarks and
in his evaluation.
PRESIDENT CARTER'S LATEST EF-
FORTS ON BEHALF OF PEACE
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
President Carter flew to Cairo and Jeru-
salem last week in the latest phase of
his ongoing efforts to achieve a perma-
nent peace between Egypt and Israel. In
spite of the fact that advisers closest to-
the President warned prior to this mis-
sion that Mr. Carter did not expect to
return with a treaty, some observers are
-already pronouncing that this most
recent effort is a failure, and they are
predicting the direst consequences for
the hopes of peace in the Middle East.
I share with the distinguished Sena-
tor from Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER) and
with Mr. BAKER, the distinguished minor-
ity leader, the compliments they have
stated here publicly for the President's
efforts. To have done nothing would
have justified criticism.
As I view it, the President's efforts
may have brought the parties closer to-
gether. I have no way of knowing yet
what the results are or what has been
achieved. In any event, they have kept
the negotiations moving forward; and
a ieved immediately, I am not about
to y that the President's efforts have
bee in vain.
Bo of the parties in the Middle
East- hese are the people who would
be the ictims of failure-will pay the
immedia a price of failure, if and when
there is f ilure. But as long as there is
flexibility nd as long as leaders on
both sides o the question are willing to
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 p p Approved For Release 2008//10~7/27 : CIA-RDP85-000003R000100050008-4
March ar&& 1, 9 1979 CO G~SSIOyAlly RECORD -SENATE
manner in which this relationship will be nuances in this legislation are probably
carried out, We are setting a precedent more important than in most actions we
here today. And we should not make an have taken on the floor of the Senate.
ill-advised precedent for a short-term (Mr. TSONGAS assumed the chair.)
and purely political expediency. Once the Mr. BIDEN. I have just a few brief
director of this nongovernmental insti-
tute is appointed, he will not be subject to
our direct control. It is necessary for us
to have an opportunity to judge the
-worthiness of this unofficial official, be-
fore he is granted such unconditional
scope for action.
Mr. President, that is the issue. I un-
derstand the questions being raised. One
question raised is that Senate confirma-
tion would destroy the nongovernmental
character of the institute. I believe it
does not. If the Secretary of State, acting
for the President, has the authority to
appoint this individual without giving an
air of officiality to the proceeding, then
surely the Senate can merely inspect the
candidate for merit without doing the
same. It is my understanding that the
Senate must advise and consent to the
directors of the corporation for public
broadcasting, yet that body remains a
nongovernmental corporation.
We have all the questions raised as
to why Congress does not pay more heed
to what goes on in our so-called foreign
policy. It seems to me that this is an
opportunity to know one little thing. It
does not shake the balance, or destroy
that delicate balance worked out by the
committee.
I would like to say again that I sup-
port closer ties with Peking in the hope
that they will lead to a better under-
standing between our countries. Normal-
ization may lead to greater chances for
peace and economic prosperity. The
United States under the Carter admin-
istration has gone a long way, has bent
over backwards-perhaps too far-to
accommodate the People's Republic on
the issue of Taiwan.
I just left a meeting with Secretary
Bergland, where we discussed an increase
in agricultural trade with the People's
Republic of China. it. Is a growing
market, and with more chance for com-
munication, it seems to me we will not
offend the People's Republic of China
and' we will not give a cloak of officiality
to the institute; we will simply preserve
the right we should have in the Senate
to pass on the qualifications of the
director.
The question of congressional over-
sight is a greater responsibility for us
than this transitory problem of Taiwan.
I do not believe it is in the best inter- the articles of incorporation and bylaws of
est of the United States to make this the American Institute in Taiwan, the Secre-
t&lporary accommodation to suit the tary of State appoints and removes the ?trus-
requirements of the current regime in tees of the institute.
Peking. Because the Institute is not an agency or
instrumentality of the Government, and be-
It is as simple as that. On that basis, cause its trustees are not officers of the
I -hope the amendment will be supported United States, it would not be appropriate
by my colleagues. I reserve the remainder for the Senate to advise and consent to the
of my time. appointment of. trustees or officers. However,
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, our distin- the names of prospective trustees and offi-
guished colleague from Kansas indicated cers will be forwarded to the Foreign Rela-
it was not his intention to upset the deli- tions Committee. If the Committee expresses
Cate balance arrived at in the Foreign reservations about a prospective trustee or
re-
Relations Committee; but I would re officer, we will undertake to discuss and re-
olve the m tt full
a er
i h
t th
C
S2571
tion and enable the Senate to participate in
the selection of trustees in an appropriate
manner.
Sincerely,
CYRUS VANCE.
Mr. BIDEN : It says in part :
However, the names of prospective trustees
and officers will be forwarded to the Foreign
Relations Committee. If the Committee ex-
presses reservations about a prospective
trustee or officer, we will undertake to dis-
cuss and resolve the matter fully with the
Committee before proceeding.
Mr. President, I think the proposed
amendment is unnecessary to accomplish
the goals for which it was ostensibly in-
troduced in the first instance, and I think
it would run serious risk of upsetting the
delicate balance which we are attempt-
ing to achieve here through our legisla-
tion.
I fully concur with the Senator from
Kansas when he says that the normal-
ization process is useful and in our own
self-interest for many of the reasons that
he cited. I again respectfully suggest that
passage of this amendment will put in
jeopardy the very end that the Senator
from Kansas is seeking.
I would also conclude by saying that if
the Senator from Kansas is successful in
his quest, he may find that he, in prac-
tice, prefers the arrangement proposed
by the committee.
So for a number of reasons, both per-
sonal, practical, and official, I suggest
that the Senator from Kansas is ill-ad-
vised in moving the amendment.
Assuming the Senator from Kansas is
willing to yield back the remainder of his
time, I am willing to yield back the re-
mainder of my time. I move at this time
to table the amendment, if that is agree-
able to the Senator.
Mr. DOLE. That is not what I have
in mind.
Mr. BIDEN. I yield to the Senator from
West Virginia, the distinguished major-
ity leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, The Chair
will advise the Senator from Delaware
that he has 20 seconds remaining and
and the Senator from Kansas has a min-
ute-and-a-half remaining.
Mr. BIDEN. I suggest the absence of
a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is
not sufficient time for a rolicall. The re-
quest is out of order.
Mr. BIDEN. Then I suggest I keep
speaking so the Senate is not out of
'order. Then I will yield for the minute-
and-a-half to the Senator from Kansas.
I do not really have much more to say,
especially in 20 seconds. I have difficulty
saying my name in 20 seconds.
[Laughter.]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator's time has just expired. The Senator
from Kansas has a minute-and-a-half.
Mr. DOLE. I have no desire to use that
time, Mr. President. I would be happy
to yield to the distinguished majority
and minority leaders.
y
W
e
ommittee MIDEAST PEACE NEGOTIATIONS
spectfully suggest that is what this
before proceeding.
amendment would do. This arrangement will enable the Institute Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD..Mr. Presi-
As the Senator from Kansas knows, the to retain its character as a private corpora- dent, I thank the distinguished Senator.
comments I would like to make. The Sen-
ator from Kansas indicates that he is
merely asking that the institute be
headed by a director appointed by the
President with the advice and consent
of the U.S. Senate. I suggest that that
does complicate this Institute and raise
it to a level that is not contemplated in
the initial agreement with the People's
Republic.
The amendment is, I believe, also in-
consistent with normalization. Our abil-
ity to have diplomatic relations with PRC
and simultaneously maintain commer-
cial, cultural, and other relations with
the people on Taiwan depends on the
latter relations being conducted on an
unofficial basis. The American Institute
in Taiwan was established under District
of Columbia nonprofit corporation law as
a private corporation precisely to avoid
the appeaarnce of officiality that this
amendment, I believe, would create.
The appointment of a director of the
AIT through the procedures specified in
the Constitution for appointing officers
of the United States would, I think, be
disruptive to the delicate set of relation-
ships this legislation is intended to pro-
mote.
Second, Mr. President, I think this
amendment is unnecessary. Congres-
sional oversight over the operation and
management of the Institute is assured,
I believe, in the present bill. In reflection
of this amendment, I hope the Senator
will turn to page 20 of the bill, title III.
He will see that the committee spent a
good deal of time dealing with that par-
ticular aspect of relationship.
We also have, and I would like to sub-
mit it for the RECORD, a letter to the
chairman of the Foreign Relations Com-
mittee from the Secretary of State. I will
not trouble the Senate with reading the
entire submission. I ask unanimous con-
sent that it be printed in the RECORD at
this point.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
Washington, D.C., February 23, 1979.
Hon. FRANK CHURCH,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN. As you know, under
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 S 2572
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4 1
(CUNGR1E55][UNA1jL REQ:URD- bEN i ii 1 march 13, 1979
The President of the United States just
called me from Air Force 1 to say that
he had talked again with President
Sadat, and President Sadat has agreed
to the proposals that have been dis-
cussed. The President did not go into
any details as to what the proposals are
or have been. But he said that Mr. Sadat
has agreed to them; that Mr. Begin is
going to submit those to his cabinet
shortly and to the Knesset; that hope-
fully the Israel Cabinet and the Knesset
will agree to the remaining issues, and
that a treaty may result.
That was the sum and substance of
what the President had to say to me.
The distinguished minority leader re-
ceived a call. I yield at this point to the
minority leader for any comment he
may have.
Mr. BAKER. I thank the distinguished
majority leader.
Mr. President, the Vice President of
the United States called me a little while
ago to say that the President had re-
quested that I be notified. It appeared
that an agreement had been reached for
submission, as I understood it, to the
Parliament of Egypt and to the Knesset
in Israel. My information coincides ex-
actly with that described by the dis-
tinguishel majority leader.
I would only add that I am pleased
and relieved. I think the President took
a risk that was worth taking. I am hope-
ful now that these other negotiations
and considerations by the governing au-
thorities of each country will result in a
peace treaty.
Early on I commended the President
of the United States for his initiative in
undertaking this trip: I think the indi-
cations are now that the result may be
favorable. I join with him and with the
majority leader in our statement of
pleasure at that result.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the
distinguished minority leader.
Mr. President, it is hoped, following
what the minority leader has stated, that
impending developments will result in a
favorable action. My understanding is
that President Sadat has agreed with
all of the matters at issue. Again, I am
not aware of all the details.
I can see, I think, the difference in the
positions of Mr. Begin and Mr. Sadat. I
have had the impression that Mr. Sadat,
is in a little better position within his
country to authorize and to give approval
to proposals which Mr. Begin alone
might not be equally able to do within
his country.
I am hopeful that the Israeli Cabinet
and the Knesset will add their stamps
of approval.
It seems, Mr. President, based on these
conversations that the distinguished
minority leader and I have had with the
Vice President and the President re-
spectively, that things are looking up and
that the hoped-for agreement may yet
be achieved. Let us hope this will be the
result.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator's time has expired.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the
distinguished Presiding Officer. I ask that
the time that he has so graciously al-
lowed us to proceed to use be charged
against both sides on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
TAIWAN ENABLING ACT
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of S. 245.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I move to
table the Dole amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the motion.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I suggest the absence of a quorum and
ask that the time be charged equally
against both sides on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will
call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The question now is on agreeing to the
motion by the Senator from Idaho to lay
on the table the amendment of the Sen-
ator from Kansas. The yeas and nays
have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called
the roll.
Mr. CRANSTON. I announce that the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BOREN),
the Senator from Florida (Mr. CHILES),
the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr.
DURKIN), the Senator from Alaska (Mr.
GRAVEL), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr.
MATSUNAGA), and the Senator from Con-
necticut (Mr. RIBICOFF) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. BAKER. I announce that the Sen-
ator from Alaska (Mr. STEVENS), and the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
THURMOND) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and
voting,- the Senator from South Carolina
(Mr. THURMOND) would vote "nay."
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Has
every Senator had a chance to vote?
The result was announced-yeas 54,
nays 38, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 16 Leg.]
YEAS-54
Baucus
Heflin
Nelson
Bayh -
Huddleston
Nunn
Bentsen
Inouye
Pell
Eiden
Jackson
Percy
Bradley
Javits
Pryor
Bumpers
Johnston
Randolph
Burdick
Kassebaum
Riegle
Byrd, Robert C. Kennedy
Sarbanes
Cannon
Leahy
Sasser
Chafes
Levin
Stafford -
Church
Long
Stennis
Cranston
Magnuson
Stevenson
Culver
McGovern
Stewart
Danforth
Melcher
Talmadge
Eagleton
Metzenbaum
Tsongas
Ford
Morgan
Weicker
Glenn
Moynihan
Williams
Hart
Muskie
Zorinsky
NAYS-38
Armstrong
Garn
McClure
Baker
Goldwater
Packwood
Bellmon
Hatch
Pressler
Boschwitz
Hatfield
Proxmire
Byrd,
Hayakawa
Roth
Harry F., Jr.
Heinz
Schmitt
Cochran
Helms
Schweiker
Cohen
Hollings
Simpson
DeConcini
Humphrey
Stone
Dole
Jepsen
Tower
Domenici
Laxalt
Wallop
Durenberger
Lugar
Warner
Exon
Mathias
Young
NOT VOTING-8
Boren
Gravel
Stevens
Chiles
Matsunaga
Thurmond
Durkin
Ribicoff
So the motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I move to reconsider the vote by which
the motion was agreed to.
Mr. JAVITS. I move to lay that motion
on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
AMENDMENT NO. 101 (AS MODIFIED)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
PRYOR). Under the previous order, the
Senate will now proceed to the consider-
ation of amendment No. 1@l, offered by
the Senator from New Hampshire, with 1
hour of debate.
The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows :
The Senator from New Hampshire (Mr.
HUMPHREY) proposes an amendment num-
bered 101.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ate will be in order.
The Senator from New Hampshire is
recognized.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
have a technical correction to my
amendment which I send to the desk,
and I ask unanimous consent that it be
accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
The modified amendment is as follows:
On page 23 after "SEC. 501", and before
"This Act shall have taken effect on January
1, 1979" insert the following: "Contingent
upon the President of the United States se-
curing written assurances from the People's
Republic of China that the People's Republic
of china will not undertake military opera-
tions of any nature against the people of
Taiwan.".
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I be-
lieve that S. 245 will be vastly improved
by my amendment. It would make the
effectiive date of this law January 1,
1979, if approved by Congress, contin,e-
gent upon the President's securing from
the People's Republic of China written
assurances that the People's Republic of
China will not engage in military activi
ties against the Republic of Taiwan. I
believe that the bill would be improved
vastly; and I think it goes without saying
that the security of the Republic of
Taiwan, the security of the people of
Taiwan, would be improved vastly.
I believe it is quite possible that the
People's Republic of China would agree
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
ill a 'ch 13, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
to give those concessions. I think the
People's Republic of China has a great
deal more to gain from improved and
formal relations with the United States
than the United States has.
It is highly unfortunate that in his
negotiations with the People's Republic
of China, President Carter and his peo-
ple failed to press for such an assurance.
In fact, it came out during the hearings'
of the Foreign Relations Committee not
only that the President did not press for
such assurances, but also, that he never
even bothered to ask for them, which is
a shocking revelation, in my opinion.
There are those who will say that my
amendment works against the best inter-
ests of the people on Taiwan. I point out
that today, at this moment, we have
neither an ambassador nor an embassy
in Taiwan; at the same time, neither do
we have the so-called American Insti-
tute. We are in a hiatus. Yet, the people
on Taiwan remain free, they remairf
prosperous, our American Investments in
Taiwan remain secure, and the mutual
agreements between this country and the
ROC remain in force. So, should the
Senate decide, in its wisdom, to approve
this amendment, we would not be creat-
ing any further vacuum than exists at
this moment.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder
of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Idaho is recognized.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, it would
be ruinous to adopt this amendment.
The whole purpose of this bill is to
establish a basis whereby the United
States can continue to maintain its rela-
tions with the people on Taiwan. The
whole purpose of this bill is to serve the
needs of that relationship. The commer-
cial aspects, the cultural aspects, and
our concern for the future security of
the people on Taiwan are embraced in
this bill.
Why is it necessary to bring this bill
to the Senate in the first place? The
answer to that question is.. known to
Senators. We are faced with a unique
condition. There are two Qovernments
that continue to maintain that, each is
the Government of China. Both Govern-
ments agree that there is but one China,
and that Taiwan is a part of it. That is
not only an assertion of Peking; that is
also an assertion of Taipei. The choice
before the United States is, which of
these Governments shall we recognize
officially?
,Obviously, the circumstances do not
permit that we recognize both. The
President of the United States has found
the resolution to put aside 30 years of
self-deception and to acknowledge that
the-People's Republic of China does in
fact constitute the Government of China
and the seat of that government is in
Peking. It exercises effective jurisdiction
over a billion human beings, who com-
prise one-fourth of the human race.
If this amendment were to be adopted
we would be saying that everything con-
tained in this bill that benefits Taiwan
is made contingent upon some future
written guarantee furnished us by the
government in Peking that there never
will be an armed attack upon the island
of Taiwan.
Mr. President, Senators appreciate
that when both the Chinese on Taiwan
and the Chinese on the mainland re-
gard the resolution of the Taiwan issue
as an internal question, a Chinese ques-
tion, there is no possibility of ever ob-
taining such written assurance. Thus, the
adoption of this amendment effectively
kills the bill through which we Will other-
wise be able to maintain all of our exist-
ing relations with the people on Taiwan
on an unofficial basis. If Senators want
to kill the bill, this is the way to do it.
I certainly have confidence that the
Senate will show more mature judg-
ment than to act favorably upon this
amendment.
Mr. STONE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I am happy to yield to
the distinguished Senator from Florida.
Mr. STONE. As a vigorous supporter
of the Republic of China on Taiwan and
one who in the committee worked as
hard as possible to strengthen our rela-
tionships with the Republic of China on
Taiwan, I believe that to adopt this
amendment would not be in the interests
of the Republic of China on Taiwan. We
have a gap. We have a hiatus which we
are now engaged in and we are doing our
best to live through it. If this bill be-
comes law in the next few days, as it can,
then our tremendous trade relations
with the Republic of China on Taiwan,
which exceeds $7 billion a year, can and
will go on and even improve. And I think
there could come a day in which strong-
er, more governmentally based relations
with the Republic of China on Taiwan,
could again take place.
At this moment, though, the best we
can do for our relationship with them is
to pass this bill which is far different than
the bill initially presented to the Foreign
Relations Committee. This bill has been
strengthened in so many ways that it
really does the job.
And I think that we should oppose
this amendment as well-meaning as I
am sure the Senator from New Hamp-
shire is in this regard. He does want to
help the Republic of China on Taiwan,
as does the Senator from Florida. But
I think that it is very, very important
now to get on with this bill, which has
strong definitions, strong property rights,
and strong standing in court for our
friends on Taiwan, and let us get on with
it and pass this bill very quickly, because
otherwise our friends could suffer sub-
stantially and- that is not appropriate.
I think I should also say one other
thing. This bill also has not merely a
commitment to supply appropriate de-
fensive weapons to Taiwan, but at my
suggestion the Senator from Idaho and
the Senator from New York incorporated
the concept of a sufficiency of weapons,
enough weapons so that they can defend,
themselves successfully.
Under those circumstances, and with
what this bill now represents, and par-
ticularly after the amendment of yester-
day, what this bill represents in every
way, I really believe that it is time for us
rapidly to pass this bill, send it to the
President, and let us get on with our very
S2573.
good and we hope steady and improv-
ing relations with our friends on Taiwan.
Mr. CHURCH. I thank the Senator
very much for his statement. I wish to
add to it that the hiatus he refers to
is one that should be of concern to us. It
is one that should spur us on not only
to enact this bill, but to reject any
amendment that would put the effective
date into the indefinite future, because
there is nervousness right now about the
hiatus to which the Senator from Florida
has referred. I am informed that some
Taiwanese banks and business firms
have already withdrawn several hun-
dred million dollars in funds because of
the uncertainties about when this bill
will take effect.
To prolong those uncertainties would,
of course, simply aggravate the problem
and doubtlessly result in massive with-
drawals of Taiwanese funds from Ameri-
can banks.
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I am happy to yield to
the distinguished Senator from Cali-
fornia.
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I join
in opposition to the amendment for all
the reasons spelled out so succinctly by
the distinguished Senator from Idaho
and the distinguished Senator from
Florida.
I add that I applaud the work that
they and Senator JAvITs, Senator STONE,
Senator GLENN, and others have done in
the Chamber in handling this measure so
very, very effectively.
An amendment like this one, like
several others that have been proposed,
would destroy our efforts to develop a
meaningful substantive relationship with
the People's Republic of China.
I make plain that I support the Tai-
wan Enabling Act as reported by the
Foreign Relations Committee and with
the perfecting amendments that have
been adopted to date. I have long been
a proponent for U.S. diplomatic recog-
nition of the People's Republic of China.
It is in the interest of the United States.
the most powerful country in the world,
to establish a viable working relation-
ship with the People's Republic of China.
the most populous country in the world.
I do not see how we can be expected to
deal with many worldwide problems of
vast importance that are of vast sig-
nificance to the people of our country if
we are unable to talk in any direct and
meaningful fashion with the People's
Republic of China when we take into ac-
count how many people on the face of
this world that Government represents.
Our two countries have very different
systems and values. Yet, we also have
many common interests. Our mutual
concerns can now be discussed in an at-
mosphere conducive for resolution of
our common problems. The recent agree-
ment for the settlement of frozen assets
is an example. But more important, the
cooperation and participation of China
are crucial in our search for solutions to
such global issues as food, population,
energy, and arms control.
At the same time, I am an advocate
of continuing our commercial. educa-
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 S 2574
1
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE March 13, 1.979
tional, cultural, and scientific relations
,with the people of Taiwan. The United
States and Taiwan have enjoyed a long
and valued friendship and it is in our
mutual interest to continue these good
relations. While we nurture a new friend-
ship, we cannot and should not forget
our old ones.
I believe the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee should be commended for the
excellent job it has done in putting to-
gether the Taiwan Enabling Act, S. 245.
This bill clarifies much of that which
the administration implied but left am-
biguous. Further, the committee has
added an appropriate and necessary
component to the framework of our fu-
ture relations with the people of Taiwan.
That essential component is the security
clause asserting the continuing American
concern and interest in the security of
Taiwan and the western Pacific area.
This provision in section 114 of the act
is particularly necessary in the absence
of an express pledge by Peking not to
use force against Taiwan.
On several occasions I have spelled out
the many reasons why I believe Peking
will not use force against Taiwan, and I
will not repeat them here for the record
again. But since Peking would not re-
nounce expressly the use of force against
Taiwan, the United States must keep
open its options to respond in the un-
likely event there is a use of force by
Peking. Therefore, I am pleased that
the committee has incorporated the es-
sential thrust of the resolution Senator
KENNEDY and'I introduced with the broad
bipartisan support of 28 other Senators
regarding the peace, prosperity, and wel-
fare of Taiwan. And I am pleased that
the Senate yesterday adopted a perfect-
ing amendment by voice vote to section
114(b) (3) reflecting this substance.
The committee, in its thorough delib-
erations, has tackled a difficult and un-
precedented situation. And the resulting
committee language demonstrates the
committee members' understanding of,
and sensitivity and commitment to our
future relations with the people of Tai-
wan.
As we preserve the substance of our
commercial, cultural, and other relations
with the people to Taiwan, it is impor-
tant that we maintain these bonds on
an unofficial-though no less substan-
tive-basis. It would be inconsistent to
maintain official relations with both
Peking and Taipei.
The Taiwan Enabling Act establishes
the necessary balance in our relations
with the people of Taiwan and the
Peking Government. And it is a balance
that must be maintained. The adminis-
tration can live with this bill. I believe
the Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan
Strait can also live with it-as it is with-
out further changes. This bill will es-
tablish the balance which is in the inter-
ests of all parties. To upset the balance
serves no one.
I am convinced that S. 245 is adequate
and appropriate in governing our future
unofficial relations with the people of
Taiwan. I ask my colleagues to join
me in this support, and I urge them to
oppose amendment like the pending pro-
posal that would destroy our opportunity
to develop appropriate relations with the
People's Republic of China.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I thank the Senator
very much for his intervention, and I
yield now to the distinguished Senator
from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am sure
that any comments by me at this point
following the clear and lucid analysis of
this amendment by the distinguished
manager and the chairman of the For-
eign Relations Committee and my col-
leagues, Senators STONE and CRANSTON,
is not necessary. However, it seems to me
as an opportune time for me to indicate
my support for the pending legislation as
well as my opposition to this amendment.
On December 15, 1978, President Carter
announced that effective January 1, 1979,
the United States would recognize the
People's Republic of China. At the same
time he asserted that the American peo-
ple and Taiwan "would maintain com-
mercial, cultural and other relations
without official basis."
Since President Nixon signed the
Shanghai Communique in 1972, a U.S.
policy goal has been to work toward
normalization of ties with mainland
China. This was difficult to achieve due
to our recognition of a strong alliance
with the Republic of China. Both Taiwan
and mainland China take the position
that there is only one China, but that
each considers itself the sole legitimate
government of the Chinese people.
Recent U.S. recognition of the People's
Republic of China as the sole legitimate
Government of China now precludes our
Government from dealing with Taiwan
on an official basis.
The legislation before us assures the
continuation of full commercial, cul-
tural, and other relations between the
United States and the people of Taiwan,
on an unofficial basis. U.S. relations
and interests with Taiwan will be
handled by the American Institute of
Taiwan, a private organization funded by
the U.S. Government, established ex-
pressly for this purpose. The institute will
be the channel through which most U.S.
agencies and departments will carry out
programs, transactions, and other rela-
tions with Taiwan. The institute will
conduct its business with Taiwan through
a similar private institution established
by the people of Taiwan which will rep-
resent their interests.
Mr. President, let me emphasize that
this legislation is independent of the
President's decision to recognize the Peo-
ple's Republic of China. This. legislation
cannot affect that decision and no
amendments to it or rhetoric about it
can change that fact.
This legislation is important to Tai-
wan. It is important to American inter-
ests in Taiwan. It is the only vehicle
available to legally assure a continuing
commercial, social, and military rela-
tionship with Taiwan.
I know that some of my colleagues who
disagree with the recognition of the PRC
are frustrated by the fact that there is no
legislative vehicle available to overturn
the President's decision to culminate the
policy initiated by President Nixon to
normalize relations with China. I know,
too, that some of my colleagues would
like to amend this legislation so as to
create a political issue-though obviously
not a partisan issue.
But, Mr. President, the fact is that
this effort and this amendment smacks of
biting off one's nose to spite one's face.
Taiwan needs this bill. America's Inter-
ests in Taiwan need this bill. conversely,
I suggest the People's Republic of China
might be pleased to see this bill die.
This amendment would have as its
sole.effect the denial of all of the bene-
fits which S. 245 would confer upon the
people of Taiwan. The entire thrust of
this bill is the protection of the relation-
ship with the United States and the peo-
ple on Taiwan, their eligibility for pro-
grams and relationships, the standing of
Taiwan's authorities and people in the
U.S. courts, the applicability of Taiwan's
laws in U.S. courts, the continuation in
force of treaties and agreements with
Taiwan, the protection of Taiwan's as-
sets, the security amendment, and so on.
The administration has not made the
continued relationship with the United
States and the people on Taiwan contin-
gent upon the PRC's conduct.
For Congress to do so would be com-
pletely inconsistent with its desire to
protect the people on Taiwan.
We may wish the Chinese would issue
a statement formally renouncing the
use of force. There is no reason to believe
they will do so.
To make our continued relationship .
with the people on Taiwan contingent
upon the PRC taking an action that
clearly it has no intention of taking will
simply punish the people on Taiwan.
I would hope that each of my col-
leagues would bear this in mind as they
consider amendments to and final pas-
sage of this legislation. With this in
mind, Mr. President, I would like to ad-
dress the bill in specific terms.
For purposes of U.S. domestic law, this
legislation :views Taiwan as a country,
absent the official sovereign status. It ex-
tends to those representing Taiwan in-
terests, all privileges and immunities
necessary in conducting business with
our country. Thus Taiwan will continue
to be eligible under such statutes as the
Arms Export Act, the Export-Import
Bank Act, and the Atomic Energy Act.
All existing international agreements,
with the exception of the Mutual Defense
Treaty, made between the United States
and the People's Republic of China will
continue in force notwithstanding the
changed status of Taiwan.
This legislation also details the close
relations between the American Insti-
tute of Taiwan and the U.S. Government:
The Institute is authorized to enter into
new agreements as necessary. Such
agreements will continue to be subject to
congressional approval and consultation,
pursuant to U.S. law.
The basic structure of the bill as sub-
mitted by the administration remains
intact. However, the committee has clar-
ified and specified some of the provisions
to guard against legal loopholes or ques-
tionable application of U.S. domestic laws.
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
March 13, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL, RECORD -SENATE
which would have the effect of under-
mining American-Taiwan relations.
TAIWAN AND THE SECURITY QUESTION
One of the most discussed issues of the
bill has been the nature of our defense
ties with Taiwan. The committee decided
to add a section to S. 245 under which
the United States would continue pro-
viding defensive arms to Taiwan and
would assist the people of Taiwan to
maintain a sufficient self-defense capa-
bility, whether through the provision of
arms or other means. This section also
directs the President to immediately in-
form Congress of any threat to Taiwan's
security or to U.S. interests related to
Taiwan. Any U.S. reaction to such
threats would be carried out within the
confines of U.S. law and constitutional
processes. These confines include the
provisions of the war powers resolution
which insures congressional consultation
by the President before any U.S. Armed
Forces are committed to hostilities.
U.S. law and constitutional procedures
precludes any absolute security guaran-
tee for Taiwan or any country.
IMPACT OF U.S.-PRC NORMALIZATION ON TAIWAN
AND THE ASIA REGION
Normalization of relations between the
United States and the People's Republic
of China provides for a more cooperative
relationship between our Government
and their Government and enhances the
prospects for a peaceful resolution of
the Taiwan issue. The Mutual Defense
Treaty which will be terminated in Jan-
uary 1980 has not and cannot in itself
guarantee a peaceful future for Taiwan.
This in no way diminishes our continued
concern for the welfare of Taiwan. We
have made it very clear to the People's
Republic of China that our relations with
them rests on the expectation that the
Taiwan question be peacefully resolved.
During my trip to the People's Repub-
lic of China in the latter part of Novem-
ber 1978, the Chinese made clear to the
congressional delegation their commit-
ment to the "four moderizations,"
China's plan for large-scale economic
development. They frankly stated that
China's access to U.S. credit, agricul-
tural commodities, and technology is a
key to their country's development pri-
orities. Furthermore the People's Repub-
lic of China seems far more preoccupied
with Soviet influence in many parts of
the world than with a forced takeover of
Taiwan. Their trade interests with the
United States coupled with their con-
cern over Soviet expansionism are in-
icentives for the People's Republic of
China to seek a peaceful coexistence
with the people of Taiwan.
Likewise U.S. normalization of ties
-with the People's Republic of China re-
duces the likelihood of a confrontation
between China and the United States in
the Asia region. This is especially signif-
icant for our Asia allies. Our coinciding
interests in the Soviet role in Asia will
also diminish possibilities of China pre-
cipitating political and economic up-
heaval in the region.
This bill is vital to our future relations
with Taiwan, as it lays the groundwork
upon which commercial, cultural, and
other relations between our country and
Taiwan will continue on an official basis.
There is no reason to believe that this
new basis will hamper our bilateral rela-
tions. On the contrary, there is every rea-
son to believe that our relations will
flourish and expand. Under a similar ar-
rangement between Taiwan and Japan,
established a few years ago, trade be-
tween them has actually increased.
I am sure my colleagues here share the
same deep concern that the members of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
felt during their deliberations on S. 245:
That the United States will not abandon
Taiwan. With this concern very much in
mind, the committee held extensive heax-
ings on this bill, carefully considering
wide-ranging views including those of
the State Department, legal experts,
business interests, congressional mem-
bers, and defense experts. At the same
time the committee was careful to avoid
including language in the bill which
would risk undermining or disrupting
relations between the United States and
the People's Republic of China. Such pro-
visions would not safeguard Taiwan's
future or our relations with them. Rather
such provisions could only jeopardize
Taiwan's future. I appeal to my col-
league's to not be misled by amendments
that may seem to strengthen our ties with
Taiwan, but which actually undermine
them and thus place in jeopardy the en-
tire purpose of this bill.
Quite simply if this legislation is not
passed, our relations with Taiwan go
down the drain. We should waste little
time in passing S. 245.
There are risks involved in this new
policy toward the People's Republic of
China and Taiwan, but I believe that this
new policy is of such mutual interest to
the People's Republic of China and to the
United States and other countries whose
'future is of concern to us in the Western
Pacific that the end result will be sta-
bilization of the situation in the Western
Pacific. Such a stabilization will work to
achieve what this amendment seeks to
achieve explicitly, but which it cannot,
given the realities, achieve today on the
Senate floor.
For that reason, Mr. President, I sup-
port the position taken by Senator
CHURCH and others of my colleagues in
opposing this amendment and support-
ing the pending legislation.
May I say I particularly appreciated
the observations of my good friend from
Florida (Mr. STONE) with whom I had
the privilege of visiting and touring
through the People's Republic of China
last November. /
We returned just 3 weeks before the
President's historic decision, and I think,
at least so far as I am conserned, that
I am assured the Chinese at this point
view it as in their interest to begin and
continue an open relationship with the
West, and that that objective would be
inconsistent with the use of force
directed toward Taiwan.
In the pending legislation, as Senator
STONE has so articulately said, we have
made it eminently clear to the People's
Republic of China that we would regard
it as against our interest for them to use
S 2575
force against the people of Taiwan. So
I am delighted to have followed, and
am prepared to follow, Senator STONE's
comments on the pending amendment
here this morning.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I yield
to the Senator from New York such
time as he requires.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I think
Members have already put their fingers
on the critical points here, but I would
like to sum them up, as one of the
authors of this bill.
This measure.we are passing, as Sen-
ator MUSKIE so very properly said, is for
the benefit of Taiwan. The People's
Republic of China would probably be
delighted if we did not pass this, because
then all we do is exchange ambassadors.
Everything is normalized, everything is
regularized, and they have a free hand
in respect of Taiwan, and we leave the
Taiwanese up in the air as to whether
they are going to be backed, defended,
or traded with respect to what unilat-
eral commitment we are making to
them. That is all left up for grabs.
I could not think of anything that
would be more satisfying to Teng than
the collapse of the relations between the
United States and Taiwan, which would
result in leaving them totally alone.
Where else are they going to go? They
are orphans, at the mercy of 900 million
people, who can certainly overwhelm
them sooner or later.
So the passage of this bill is our way
of giving them the assurance which they
need and, for a change, in American
policy-which has been bedeviled by the
idea that the President cannot deliver
has begun to stand out in the world, so
that nations now doubt that we are reso-
lute and are going to come through-
here is a situation in which we are join-
ing with the President, and we say as
a totally united United States "We are
going to fee that you are not overrun,
that you are not prejudiced, that you are
not coerced either by force or by the im-
plication of force or by boycott or
blockade."
It seems to me that is a critical point,
and there is no question about the fact
that this will kill this whole proposition,
because can you conceive of Teng, who
is the inventor of this policy, swallowing
this one?
He was just here, he just debated this
proposition, and just told that they have
got lots of time; they can wait forever.
They do not intend to use force or change
the social conditions, and so forth, on
Taiwan. They value what is now their
American connection. They do not want
to jeopardize it, and in the face of that
we say, "We want it in writing, or else."
The second point, which I think is
exceedingly important, is this: What al-
ternative do we offer to this way of ap-
proaching this problem? The alternative
now is one of complete uncertainty for
the people on Taiwan, and for this rea-
son: let us assume, for the sake of argu-
ment, that we obtained this written
promise, which is inconceivable under the
circumstances. It seems to me anybody
can see that, that the Chinese cannot do
it, and if we should do this and incorpo-
rate it in this law it would simply mean
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 S 2576
s
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
CONGRIESSIONAIL RECORD -SENATE March 13, 1979
the collapse of all the negotiations with
respect t o where we are today.
But let us assume we can get it. What
is the sequel to that? We now have a
written agreement with the Chinese. We
do not have to do anything further. We
do not have to assure them of arms, as-
sure them of trade, assure them of back-
ing down the road, and a solemn promise
by the United States. The Chinese have
written it and have said they are not
going to use force, and we are out of it,
and that is all this amendment says. It
says:
Contingent upon the President securing
written assurances from the People's Re-
public that they will not undertake military
operations.
What about boycott? What about
blockade? What about telling every na-
tion in the world "If you do any business
with Taiwan, don't you show your nose
in the People's Republic of China?
They have no promise from us, because
we will have done all that you wished
us to do by proposing this amendment.
We get a written statement which just
says that China will not use any military
operations. Well, they can strangle them
about 50 ways from the middle without
any military operations.
So with all respect to our colleague,
and I respect and appreciate the oppo-
sition to this measure, I really think it
is better to kill it in open combat and
fair duel than by stealth, and that is all
this would do. Instead of knifing him in
the front you are going to knife him in
the back, and I do not believe that this
is what our country wants. .
Now, as to the differences between
Teng and ourselves on the question of
force, I think that is a very important
question, and I wish to point out again,
as one of the conceptualists in respect
of this legislation, that it was my pur-
pose, and I can only account for myself
and I think it is carried out in'the legis-
lation, to make a unilateral promise by
the United States which was not depend-
ent or contingent upon anybody else's
promise. We know that people forget,
and we know that notwithstanding that
this is a highly interdependent world,
Taiwan is far away, so are the people
of the People's Republic of China, and it
is very hard for our people to get accus-
tomed to the idea that that is where our
frontiers are. If it is a war, that is where
it is going to start, whether it is on that
frontier, the European frontier, the Mid-
dle East frontier; it certainly is not going
to start in Los Angeles, San Francisco,
or New York.
So we felt this had to be enshrined in
some way in American policy, like any
other major declaration, that our people
for generations would not forget what
we have promised the Taiwanese in
terms of their survival and their ability
to exist under whatever system they de-
cide to adopt.
So, it seems to me that we can under-
stand Teng's statement, that they can-
not give up the right of the use of force.
"Maybe these people someday will deny
their motherland," as he put it; they
cannot denigrate their own concept that
there is one China, including Taiwan,
by agreeing to anything which denigrates
that idea.
And we say, "All right, that was in-
corporated In the Shanghai communi-
que, which we accepted, and you can
feel that way, and even the people on
Taiwan can feel that way. Although we
doubt that they do; we really think it is
the people who came over from the
mainland who have those strong feelings.
But be that as it may, we are telling you
now we will not stand still for it, and
will react with everything we have ac-
cording to the constitutional processes
of this country-and you do not have to
agree to this, we are saying it) unilat-
erally-if-you use force, direct or indi-
rect, or coercion against these people, not
only to suppress them but to suppress
their social or. governmental system."
It seems to me that when a great nation
makes that kind of a condition, not based
on something those people say or do or
do not do, that is the strongest kind of
commitment we can give the people on
Taiwan.
And the proof of that is that whereas
there was consternation on Taiwan when
this policy was announced, everything
has calmed down and the people there
now have a sense of assurance that, with
the people of this country unilaterally in
back of them-x,pt just industry or busi-
ness-based, upon what people may do,
they can now fgel secure in developing
their society and their economy. I think
that was the intent of the people of this
country, which will be expressed by this
bill.
So, while I deeply appreciate the fact
that our colleague who proposes this
amendment believes it will give more
assurance to the people of Taiwan, I re-
spectfully submit that it will give. them
much less than they have by this bill.
That would appear from the impracti-
cality of dreaming for a moment that we
can get such a thing as this amendment
proposes, or that there will be any other
result than the total collapse of what we
are trying to accomplish, if we should
accept the amendment and it should be
incorporated in the law.
So I hope very much that the Senate
will reject it.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, there
have been several references in this dis-
cussion to the security of Taiwan, and
how wonderful S. 245 is in that respect.
It is not wonderful at all. It represents
a step backward when you compare it
with the Mutual Defense Treaty which is
in force today between the United States
and the Republic of China.
The section dealing with military ag-
gression in S. 245 is section 114. Let me
read what it says. It says it is the policy
of the United States-
to consider any effort to resolve the Taiwan
issue-
I would like to know what that issue
is, by the way.
by other than peaceful means a threat to the
peace and security of the Western Pacific area
and of grave concern to the United States;
What entity is the Western Pacific
area? And what military forces does that
entity of the Western Pacific area have
at its disposal? Will this entity, the West-
ern Pacific area, come to the defense of
Taiwan?
That is vague, deliberately vague lan-
guage, and it means nothing.
The very least we could do for our
friends on Taiwan, whose only sin was
that they trusted us, would be to obtain
assurances from the PRC that it will not
resort- to force against the Republic of
China. We should have done that months
ago. I believe such assurances could have
been obtained; I believe they can still be
obtained, because the PRC has far more
to gain by improved relationships be-
tween our two countries than the United
States does.
Our colleague from Idaho has spoken
of the need for speedy action on this leg-
islation. I believe our country suffers
from undue haste in bowing to the de-
mands of the Communists. Who made all
the concessions? Did the PRC make one
major concession? No, they did not. It
was the United States which made all the
major concessions. It bowed to the Chi-
nese demand that we derecognize Tai-
wan, which. is a sovereign country sup-
ported by its people. We bowed to their
demands that we derecognize Taiwan,
that we terminate our Mutual Defense
Treaty, and that we withdraw our mili-
tary presence. That is underway today;
it is in fact virtually completed.
Who made all the concessiosn? We
did. I suggest that haste has botched up
this thing. President Carter made a very
poor deal, which stinks to high heaven
and begs for rectification. That is what
my amendment aims to do, Mr. President.
Mr. President, if there is no further
debate on this issue from the other side
of the question, then I am prepared to
relinquish the remainder of my time.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, a par-
liamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator will state it.
Mr. CHURCH. How much time re-
mains to the opponents of the amend-
ment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
opponents of the amendment have 5
minutes remaining.
Mr. CHURCH. First of all, let me say
there is a fine irony-I am sorry; has
the Senator from New Hampshire
yielded the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. He has
yielded the floor.
Mr. CHURCH. There is a fine irony
in this amendment. If it were sponsored
by a Senator who carries a liberal label,
I am quite certain that it would be op-
posed by the very Senators who may vote
for it. The argument then would be
how on earth can you trust the word of
Peking? what good is a written assur-
ance from Peking? what value does that .
have to the people on Taiwan? Conserva-
tives would be in here en masse, criti-
cizing and ridiculing the amendment,
suggesting that there is no basis what-
ever for depending upon any assurance
from Peking, written or verbal, and that
the guarantee contained in the amend-
ment is worthless. '
I submit, Mr. President, that if we put
the proposition to the. people on Taiwan
and asked them, "Which would you
prefer, a written statement from the
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
March 13, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
Peking Government that they never will
attack you in the future, or a unilateral
statement by the Government of the
United States that we base our whole
new relationship with Peking upon the
expectation that they will never resort
to force in the settlement of the Tai-
wan issue; that furthermore, we pledge
ourselves to furnishing Taiwan, in the
future, whatever weapons it may need
for its own defense; and that further-
more, we would regard any attack upon
Taiwan, including a boycott or block-
ade, to be a threat to the peace and se-
curity of the Western Pacific and of
grave concern to the United States."
Mr. President, I know what they would
say. They would say, "Give us that uni-
lateral declaration of support from the
United States. Do not force us to rely
upon written assurances from Peking."
What a fine irony to have this amend-
ment proposed by the very Senators who
would ridicule it and vote against it if
it were sponsored by some liberal Sena-
tor.
I find no good reason for the support
of this amendment and its adoption by
the Senate. Every Member should know
that the amendment would kill the bill
and suspend indefinitely everything
within the bill that would enable us to
proceed with our normal relationships
and our peaceful ties with the people of
Taiwan.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Will the Sen-
ator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I am happy to yield.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I will be very brief. I support the man-
ager of the bill, Mr. CHURCH, and the
ranking p lnority member, Mr. JAVITS, in
opposing this amendment. I do not for a
moment speak in derogation of the au-
thor of the amendment or any of its
supporters, but I think it would be a se-
rious mistake if the Senate were to
adopt this amendment. It would, in my
judgment, effectively negate all that we
are seeking to do in the bill. Let me say
it this way: It would operate ultimately
to the detriment of the very people about
whom we are concerned here, in regard to
our continuing relationships.
The effect of this amendment would be
to injure the Status of the people of Tai-
wan. It would have the realistic effect
of killing the bill. I am sure the Presi-
dent would not sign the bill. He would
veto the bill, if this amendment were in-
cluded. He would have no alternative.
The People's Republic of China does
'not want to injure the relations which
it is developing with the United States.
It does not want to jeopardize those re-
lations. The PRC is in no position to
- militarily attack Taiwan or to take Tai-
wan by military force at this time. And,
at any time in the future that military'
action might be taken, the United States
always has the option of acting within
its constitutional processes in its own
best national and security interests.
Mr. President, this amendment does
not say anything about blockades. It says
nothing about boycotts. It talks about
military operations. I do not think there
is a Member of this body who thinks for
one moment that the People's Republic
of China is going to give any written
assurance that it will not undertake mili-
tary operations of any nature against
the people of Taiwan at any time. Pre-
mier Teng was in this country and he
stated very clearly that the PRC has no
intention of taking such action, but he
would not completely close the door. He
would not completely forgo the option
of taking action at some future point.
I can see from his standpoint why he
would not do that. He is not going to
give any written assurances.
For us now to demand that there be
written assurances would be to. jeopar-
dize the very legislation that is in the
best interests of the people of Taiwan.
If this amendment passed, I have an
idea where some other happiness would
prevail, and that would be the Soviet
Union.
Just for once, Mr. President, let us
think about the interests of our own
country. We are all interested in Taiwan.
We are all interested in cultural rela-
tions, and in continuing educational, sci-
entific, and trade relations with Taiwan.
That is what this legislation is all about.
I think, and I hope most of us believe,
that this legislation is in the interest not
only of the people of Taiwan, but of the
people of the United States.
So let us think once in a while of what
is in the best interests of the United
States.
Let the Senate adopt this amendment
and the leader of the Soviet Union will
say, "Amen." They will say, "Hurrah."
Perhaps "amen" is not in their lexicon.
But they would be happy, they would
be deliriously happy to see this amend-
ment adopted, because they do not want
to see the normalization of relations be-
tween the United States and the People's
Republic of China go forward.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
NELSON). All time has expired.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask for 2 minutes on the bill.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I grant 2
more minutes on the bill.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
the Soviet leaders do not want to see
our relations with the People's Republic
go forward. Normalization was bad news
in Moscow.
I do not want to go out of my way to
offend anybody. We want to continue to
cooperate with the Soviet Union where
we can, to be friendly with the Soviet
leaders. But the interests of the United
States of America should come first.
Where do those interests lie? They lie in
passing this legislation without this
amendment.
So let us be concerned about the inter-
ests of the United States. Let us not for
a minute, not for 1 minute, be deluded.
This would not be to the benefit of the
people of Taiwan. But the leaders of the
Soviet Government would be delighted to
see this, because it would be a roadblock
in the path of normalization of relation-
ships between the United States and the
People's Republic of China. I am not for
1 minute about to support this amend-
ment, and I hope the Senate will reject
it shortly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from New Hampshire.
S 2577
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
must say I am delighted at the high-
powered opposition which floor mana-
gers have mustered against this amend-
ment. I certainly was entertained by the
statements prepared overnight which
shows they are worried about this
amendment. Well, they ought to be.
I am not opposed to realistic relations
with the People's Republic of China, Mr.
President. That has been implied. I am
not. Neither are a great many of us who
are opposed to the weaknesses in S. 245.
I am, however, adamantly opposed to
knifing our friends, either in the front.
the back, it the side, and that is what
President Carter proposes to do.
My colleagues in this room have auto-
matically dismissed the possibility that
the PRC might be willing to grant in
writing those assurances which I seek.
I think they might. I point out again
that the PRC needs us far more badly
than we need the PRC. Why do we need
them? I am not against having realistic
relations with them, but we have gotten
along beautifully now for decades with-
out a close connection with the PRC.
We can get along nicely for a few more
months without those connections. T
say there is a good possibility. that we
could receive those assurances if we de-
mand them. They ought to have been
demanded. We ought now to demand
them in the President's place.
There seems to be worry expressed
about a Presidential veto. Well, what is
the worry about that? Are we a rubber
stamp? Must we rubber stamp a bad.
stinking deal the President has made in
notifying our friends? I say no. I say let
us pass this amendment. Let us, in ef-
fect. renuire the President to go out and
deal again with the PR.C and come back
with a deal that is better for our friends.
Mr. President, if those who oppose me
in this amendment wish to have no fur-
ther discussion. I am prepared at this
time to relinquish the remainder of my
time.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President. I am
prepared to yield back my time. I believe
it has expired anyway.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time
yielded back? All time has been yielded
back.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I move to
table the amendment and I ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second? There is a sufficient
second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the notion of the
Senator from Idaho. The yeas and nays
have been ordered and the clerk will call
the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CRANSTON. I announce that the
Senator from Florida (Mr. CHILES), the
Senator from Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL), the
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. HUDDLE-
sTON), and the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. MATSUNAGA) are necessarily absent.
Mr. STEVENS. I announce that the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. THUR-
MOND) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100650008-4
 S 2578
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE March 13, 1979
voting, the Senator from South Carolina
(Mr. THURMOND) would vote "nay."
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Have all
the Senators present voted?
The result was announced-yeas 74,
nays 21, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 16 Leg.]
YEAS-74
Baucus
Ford
Pell
Bayh
Glenn
Percy
Bellmon
Hart
Pressler
Bentsen
Heflin
Pryor
Biden
Heinz
Randolph
Boren
Inouye
Ribicoff
Boschwitz
Jackson
Riegle
Bradley
Javits
Roth
Bumpers
Jepsen
Sarbanes
Burdick
Johnston
Sasser
Byrd, Robert C. Kennedy
Simpson
Cannon
Leahy
Stafford
Chafee
Levin
Stennis
Church
Long
Stevens
Cochran
Magnuson
Stevenson
Cohen
Mathias
Stewart
Cranston
McGovern
Stone
Culver
Melcher
Talmadge
Danforth
Metzenbaum
Tsongas
DeConcini
Morgan
Warner
Domenici
Moynihan
Weicker
Durenberger
Muskie
Williams
Durkin
Nelson
Young
Eagleton
Nunn
Zorinsky
Exon
Packwood
NAYS-21
Armstrong
Hatfield
McClure
Baker
Hayakawa
Proxmire
Byrd,
Helms
Schmitt
Harry F., Jr.
Hollings
Schweiker
Dole
Humphrey
Tower
Garn
Kassebaum
Wallop
Goldwater
Laxalt
Hatch
Lugar
NOT- VOTING-5
Chiles
Huddleston
Thurmond
Gravel
Matsunaga
So the motion to lay on the table
Amendment No. 101, as modified, was
agreed to. '
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I move to
reconsider the vote by which the motion
to table was agreed to.
Mr. JAVITS. I move to lay that motion
on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
AMENDMENT NO. 99
(Purpose: To permit individuals representing
the people on Taiwan to be admitted to
the Senate diplomatic gallery)
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have
an amendment at the desk and ask that
it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The second assistant legislative clerk
read as follows:
The Senator from Mississippi (Mr.
COCHRAN) proposes amendment No. 99.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 13, line 15, before "The" Insert
(a)?
On page 13, after line 24, insert the fol-
lowing:
"(b) In exercising its duty under paragraph
2 of rule XXXIV of the Standing. Rules of
the Senate, the Committee on Rules and Ad-
ministration of the Senate shall issue regula-
tions providing that the head and first sec-
retary of the instrumentality referred to in
section 109, and their families and suites,
shall be admitted to the gallery in the Senate
Chamber set apart for the use of the diplo-
matic oorps. This subsection is enacted as
an exercise of the rulemaking power of the
Senate.".
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the
purpose of this amendment, which is to
section 113 of the bill before the Senate,
is to require that there be extended to
the first Secretary, and others designated
in the amendment, the privileges of the
diplomatic gallery for those who are in
that capacity representing the instru-
mentality of Taiwan which is created to
carry on relations here in the United
States.
It is in keeping, in my judgment, Mr.
President, with the intentment of the
section as it now reads.
I hope that through discussions here
on the floor with the distinguished chair-
man of the Committee on Foreign Rela-
tions and the: distinguished chairman of
.the Committee on Rules and Adminis-
tration that we may establish that this
can, in fact, be done under the existing
rules of the Senate. If it cannot, then we
would pursue the amendment.
With that hope in mind, Mr. President,
I reserve the remainder of my time, to
permit the distinguished charman of the
Committee on Foreign Relations to re-
spond to this hope.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, it is my
understanding that the objective of the
amendment lies within the discretion of
the Committee on Rules and Adminis-
tration of the Senate. Therefore, it
would not be necessary nor advisable to
write this language nito the statute.
I note that the able chairman of the
Senate Committee on Rules and Admin-
istration is present; and with the Sena-
tor's permission, I will ask him, as the
chairman, to respond to the Senator's
question.
Mr. PELL. I am glad to do so.
Mr. President, as we know, the diplo-
matic gallery-the gallery on the south
side, behind the clock very often is
empty. It is entirely for diplomats,
except the first and second rows on the
east side. The first one on the east side
is for guests of the President, and the
second one is for guests of the Vice
President. All the other rows are for
diplomats. The original rule said that it
was open only to the Secretary of State,
foreign ministers, and so forth. Through
usage, this has been expanded to include
all members of the diplomatic corps.
From my point of view, I would think
that, by the same custom of usage, the
representatives of Taiwan, or Formosa-
whatever we call it-should continue to
have the same access to that gallery as
long as they are being treated as they
are, in a diplomatic manner, by the Gov-
ernment of the United States. That is
my thought, and the thought which I
would convey to the doorkeepers there.
If there is any questioning of this
thought, it can be raised in the Rules
Committee at a later date, to see if the
committee will sustain this recommend-
ation or suggestion of mine. That would
be my intention.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank
the distinguished manager of the bill. I
believe that under the provisions of the
rule, the chairman of the Committeee on
Rules and Administration clearly has au-
thority to issue, to such persons who are
entitled to its privileges, cards which will
permit them access to that gallery.
With that assurance, I will withdraw
my amendment. I ask permission to with-
draw my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator has a right to withdraw it.
W. CHURCH. Mr. President, I thank
the Senator for withdrawing the amend-
ment in the light of the assurances he
has received. I appreciate his coopera-
tion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
is open to further amendment.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The. PRESIDING OFFICER. On whose
time?
Mr. HELMS. To be divided equally.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, reserving
the right to object-and I shall not ob-
ject-I say to the Senator that-
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair cannot hear the Senator.
Mr. HELMS. I withdraw it, then. The
time is still running.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, there is
plenty of time, on the bill. There are 5
hours on the bill. So I suggest that the
Senator suggest the absence of a quorum,
with the time chargeable to the time on
the bill.
Mr. HELMS. All right. I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I yield to
the Senator from New Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from New Hampshire.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I am
concerned about a particular provision
of S. 245; namely, section 113 on page 13
of the printed document which states:
The President is authorized and requested,
under such terms and conditions as he deter-
mines, to extend to the instrumentality es-
tablished by the people on Taiwan and the
appropriate members thereof, referred to in
section 109, privileges and immunities com-
parable to those provided to missions of
foreign countries,.
And so forth.
Mr. President, it has been alleged in`
some quarters, and I do not know wheth-
er it is true or not, that pressure was
brought to bear on the Republic of China
to accept the institute concept, pressure
along the lines of threats to expell their
personnel from this country, and I am
concerned that in the future that kind of
pressure could be exerted against the
representatives of the people on Taiwan.
I am informed by counsel that the
Senate cannot compel or direct the
President to grant such privileges and
immunities, but I wish to solicit the
opinion of the floor managers relative to
this section.
Is it their feeling that.the threat of
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 March 13, 1979 ' ' (CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -S1ENATIE S 2579
withdrawal of diplomatic privileges and
immunities by a President in order to
sway the representatives of the people on
Taiwan to a particular point of view be
inappropriate behavior on the part of the
President?
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, in my
judgment that would run counter to the
purpose and intent of this section.
The purpose and intent of this section
is that the appropriate members, that
means in my definition, the senior peo
pie in this Taiwan Institute shall have
privileges and immunities comparable to
those provided to missions of foreign
countries.
When the President signs this bill
into law, in my Judgment, he is at the
same time to follow the intent of Con-
gress undertaking a moral obligation to
extend these comparable privileges and
immunities, and the word "comparable"
is the word used in the bill, as well as
the word "appropriate," to the appropri-
ate members of the Institute, to wit, the
senior people.
When he signs the bill, he undertakes
that moral obligation as a result of the
intent of Congress in this provision.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I thank the Senator.
Mr. CHURCH. I concur in the re-
marks made by the distinguished rank-
ing member of the committee.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I thank the Senator
very much.
I understand it is the opinion of the
Senator that the threat of withdrawal
of privileges and immunities by a Presi-
dent would be counter to the intent of
this section.
Mr. JAVITS. Based on differences of.
opinion in trying to make him do some-
thing he does not want to do, yes.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
does the Senator from North Carolina
wish to be heard?
Mr. HELMS. No.
RECESS FOR i nova
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I ask unani-
mous consent that the Senate stand in
recess for 1 hour, and that the time be
charged equally against both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
BAUCUS). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Thereupon, at 1:12 p.m., the Senate
took a recess for 1 hour.
The Senate reassembled at 2:12 p.m.,
when called to order by the Presiding
Officer (Mr. HeLIN).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
. Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, a parlia-
mentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator will state it.
Mr. HELMS. Does the unanimous-con-
sent agreement automatically bestow
time upon the Senator from North
Carolina?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the
Senator offers an amendment, he will
have time on his amendment.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent before we begin with
my amendment that Vhe distinguished
Senator from New Menfes ba heard
briefly.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, we will
yield 2 minutes to the Senator. I yield 2
minutes to the Senator.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank my friend
from New York. I do not believe I will
need 2 minutes.
Mr. President, the Senate will soon
complete its work on S. 245, legislation
designed to outline the framework of our
future relations with Taiwan. This leg-
islation is a unique exercise in diplomacy
because we are seeking to establish quasi-
official relations with a nation we no
longer recognize. A special burden is
placed upon us, and our colleagues in the
House, because the decisions we make
could well determine the fate of 17 mil-
lion people. If we act wisely and firmly
we will enhance the future security and
freedom of these people.
I, along with many of my colleagues,
are greatly troubled that the executive
branch yielded to all the major demands
made by the People's Republic of China
without receiving any appreciable con-
cessions in return. By acting as it did,
the administration did. little to insure
the future freedom and security of the
people of Taiwan. It must not be forgot-
ten that since before the turn of the cen-
tury, Taiwan has fallen under the con-
trol of the Chinese Government for less
than 5 years. Fifty years of Japanese
rule and 30 years of separate "nation-
hood" since 1949, have enabled the peo-
ple on Taiwan to create a distinctly dif-
ferent socioeconomic-political and cul-
tural system from the one that exists in
mainland China.
In his December 15 speech President
Carter spo2e of the existence of the Peo-
ple's Republic of China as a "simple re-
ality." I do not differ with the President's
judgment-as far as it goes. There may
be only one China, as acknowledged by'
Chinese officials in both Taipei and Pe-
king, but there are two sovereign gov-
ernments exercising effective control over
portions of China's territory. For 30
years we refused to recognize the exist-
ence of the People's Republic of China.
Now, however, we are refusing to recog-
nize the existence of the 40th largest na-
tion in the world by population, and our
eighth largest trading partner. The true
Asian reality is that there are two Chinas.
The Foreign Relations Committee has
gone a long way to compensate for the
deficiencies that existed in the original
legislation transmitted to the Congress.
I commend the members of , the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee for the dili-
gent effort made to strengthen this leg-
islation. It is my intention to vote for
final passage of S. 245.
Having said that, however. I do not
want to leave the impression that I be-
lieve we have done enough to secure the
future right of self-determination for
the people of the Republic of China.
That is why I supported those amend-
ments that were designed to upgrade fu-
ture U.S. relations with Taipei, and
strengthen the degree of our commit-
ment to the security, freedom, and right
of self determination for our friends and
former allies on Taiwan. In particular, I
cept Senator PERCY's effort to send a
dear signal to Peking that an attack on
Taiwan would be a "threat to the se-
curity interests of the United States."
million people who have-over the
years-come to depend upon us for their
Mr. President, throughout this debate
we have seen the new Sino-American
relationship from several different points
wan we must put ourselves in their posi-
tion. A television news commentary by
Bruce Herschensohn, which was broad-
cast over KABC-TV in Los Angeles,
Calif., just 4 days after the President's
announcement, approaches this prob-
' has just recently come to my attention,
transfers the Chinese experiences over
on the traditions and the governmental
procedures which we as Americans had
come to cherish.
pulled the rug out from under the people
of Hawaii in much the same way that
President Carter undermined the long-
range position and security of the Re-
public of China on Taiwan. This com-
mentary is, in my opinion, especially use-
ful because it enables us to view the free
Chinese experience from a perspective
leagues, and I therefore ask unanimous
consent that it be printed at the conclu-
objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit No. 1.)
dent, let me stress that the long-range
future of the Republic of China will con-
tinue to depend, in large part, on the ac--
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 S 2580
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
CONGRESSXONAL RECORD - SENATE March 13, 1979
not end our involvement with or our
commitment to Taiwan; it just embarks
us on a new phase in our relations with
the people .and the government we have,
until recently recognized as the Repub-
lic of China. Many questions remain to
be answered:
Can and will the United States, over
the long run, act forcefully to deter mili-
tary action against Taiwan?
Does the United States consider the
Taiwan Strait to be international water?
If so, are we prepared to assert ourselves
to establish and maintain this principle?
Will the Carter administration and
succeeding administrations have the will
and the courage to resist Peking's pro-
tests and sell. Taiwan the up-to-date
weapons they will need to maintain a
modern defense capability?
Will the United States, in concert with
our allies, seek to limit the transfer of
advanced military technology to the PRC
so as to reduce the danger of aggression
.against Taiwan and.China's other neigh-
boring states?
. If we do sell armaments to the PRC
in the future, will we insist upon the
usual restrictions against the use of
American-supplied weapons for offensive
purposes? Will we make it clear to Pe-
king that we will not tolerate the use of
American-supplied weapons in any at-
tack upon the territory controlled by the
Republic of China on December 31, 1978?
If future Presidents and Congresses
act with firmness and courage, the future
of Taiwan can be secure, peaceful, and
prosperous. That is my hope, as we con-
clude our consideration of S. 245.
EXHIBITION 1
CHINA
Imagine that 30 years ago there was a tre-
mendous uprising in the United States
among military elements that backed a to-
talitarian regime; and imagine further, that
the uprising won and took over our country.
We fought and lost; but before the takeover,
you and I and millions of Americans includ-
ing the President, managed to escape onto
the Hawaiian Islands.
Our friends stood by us. Great Britain was
particularly horrified over the events and the
Parliament of Great Britain voted unani-
mously for a mutual defense pact with us.
The new dictatorship on the Mainland of
North America called itself the People's Re-
public of America. We, on Hawaii, retained
our flag and name of the United States
of America because it's what we represented,
not simply representing Hawaii alone.
As time passed, new refugees escaped the
Mainland of America and told us of mil-
lions who were being tortured and executed
in California . people we knew .. .
friends ... relatives ... and millions upon
millions of others in the country. We
learned that all civil liberties had been taken
away . that all churches and syna-
gogues had been closed .. _. that all pri-
vate property had been confiscated . no
free press . and that in Washington,
the statues of Lincoln and Jefferson had been
removed from their memorials and de-
stroyed . . . with the shells of the shrines
re-dedicated to the conquerors . . . and
we learned that American children were
taken from their parents and educated in
political schools with their main course
being the future takeover of Hawaii. The new
generation was being brainwashed into being
political, atheistic robots.
During the ensuing years, Great Britain
became engaged in its own foreign conflicts;
and to keep our side of the Mutual Defense
Treaty, we sent troops to fight beside the
British for their cause, and we supplied them
bases while the People's Republic of America
killed English soldiers and killed our soldiers
with them.
Then, one night, little more than a week
before Christmas, while Parliament was out
of session, the new Prime Minister of Eng-
land, who was unschooled in foreign affairs,
and a self-proclaimed moralist, went on tele-
vision, smiled, and said, "In this season of
peace, I take special pride in announcing
that as of Jan. 1, 1979, Great Britain will
recognize the People's Republic of America
as the sole legal government of America.
And we acknowledge the People's Republic
position that there is but one America and
Hawaii is part of it. And these decisions and
actions open a new and important chapter
in world affairs."
The story I told you is true. Only the
names have been changed to protect the
identity of those who are bringing about a
new world order, without morality, loyalty
or liberty. Some day, the names we used here
may be accurate. .
UP AMENDMENT NO. 43
(Purpose: To declare that the people on
Taiwan, as defined in this Act, constitute
an international personality)
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send to
the desk an unprinted amendment and
ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
HELMS) proposes an unprinted amendment
numbered 43:
On page 14, after line 12, insert the follow-
ing paragraph:
"(5) to declare that the people on Taiwan,
as defined in section 101(b) of this Act,
constitute an international personality with
the right to maintain its territorial integrity
and sovereignty, notwithstanding the with-
drawal of diplomatic relations with the en-
tity recognized by the United States prior
to January 1, 1979 as the Republic of China."
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as I have
noted in my additional views in the com-
mittee report, the legislation before us,
S. 245, is based upon a fatal contradic-
tion. At one time or another, to one de-
gree or another, and in one way or an-
other, I think most Senators agree with
that statement because, on the one hand,
this legislation assumes that the United
States can continue a normal relation-
ship with the people on Taiwan but, on
the other hand, it dismisses all the at-
tributes of sovereignty upon which such
a relationship could be based.
The committee report itself attempts
to draw a distinction between domestic
law and international law. The report
says on page 7:
The Administration has stated that it rec-
ognizes the People's Republic of China (PRC)
as the sole legal government of China. It
has also acknowledged the Chinese position
that Taiwan is a part of China, but the
United States has not itself agreed to this
position. The bill submitted by the Admin-
istration takes no position on the status of
Taiwan under international law, but does re-
gard Taiwan as a country for purposes of
U.S. domestic law. The bill assumes that any
benefits to be conferred on Taiwan by statute
may be conferred without regard to Taiwan's
international legal identity.
I note also that our official policy to-
ward Taiwan is referred to on page 6
as "derecognition," a term, I believe,
which has no basis in international law.
And further on, on page 6, the committee
report correctly summarizes the admin-
istration testimony:
,The Administration did not press the PRC
for a pledge not to use force against Taiwan
during the negotiations preceding normal-
ization, on the ground that no Chinese gov-
erment would renounce the use of force
against what it regarded as a province of
China-a position repeatedly stated by the
PRC. However, the Administration states
that it made clear to the PRC that nor-
malization rested upon the expectation that
the Taiwan issue would be resolved peace-
fully.
Thus, Mr. President, the report makes
this clear that the United States is seek-
ing to avoid any action in international
law which would prejudice the PRC
claim, the Red Chinese claim, to exer-
cise sovereignty over Taiwan, our
friend, our ally, and anti-Communist
government. This in itself is an action
that obviously supports the claim of the
People's Republic of China.
But is it really possible to take one
position in our domestic law, and an-
other in our conduct of international
relations? In the judgment of the Sen-
ator from North Carolina, it is an im-
possibility. So the question that we must
really settle before we act upon this
legislation, is whether the arrangement
is one that is expected to continue in-
definitely, or whether it is a framework
for the so-called peaceful transition
of the people of Taiwan into domination
under the Communist yoke.
That is the essential question. Much
as I regret to raise this question this
afternoon, it is one that in good con-
science the Senator from North Caro-
lina cannot avoid or ignore.
Although the.committee report seems
to say that we can ignore Taiwan's in-
ternational status while concentrating
on our domestic law, let us look at that
status for a moment. For, if the United
States does not make clear its position
on the international status of Taiwan,
we will not be able to challenge success-
fully any threatening PRC moves
against Taiwan. Moreover, Taiwan's
status does not depend objectively upon
what the President of the United States
does or says. Its status is independent
of what we say. Yet in the long run
Taiwan must be able to defend its status,
either alone, or with the help of allies.
By withdrawing our support of what,
Taiwan believes to be its status, we, as
Taiwan's major ally, are actually con-
tributing to the demise of that status.
So we cannot escape the consequences
of our actions. As testimony presented to
the committee by Professor Hungdah
Chiu has pointed out, the Government of
the Republic of China has had effective.
control of Taiwan for more than 30 years.
The Republic of China possesses all four
essential elements of statehood in inter-
national law, namely: First, a defined
territory;- second, a permanent popula-
tion; third, a government; and fourth,
the capacity to enter into international
relations. There is nothing in interna-
tional law to prevent the United States
from recognizing the Republic of China,
even if the United States at the same
time recognizes the People's Republic of
China.
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
March 13, 1979 CONGRIESSXONAIL RECORD - SIENA1I'IE
As Professor Chiu stated:
How can the United States maintain its
existing close relations, including treaty re-
lations, with Taiwan without recognizing
the Republic of China in Taiwan's interna-
tional personality? According to internation-
al law, "the existence in fact of a new stag
or a new government is not dependent on its
recognition by other states." (Hackwor'th.
Digest of International Law, Vol. 1, 1940, p.
161). This principle also finds support in the
1933 Inter-American Covention on Rights
and Duties of States which provided in
Article 3 that "The political existence of the
state is independent of recognition by other
states." While the United States may not
want to formally recognize the ROC even as
a state and government within the territory
under its control, it may take position
somewhere in between recognition and non-
recognition with respect to the international
legal status of the Republic of China in
Taiwan.
The point is, Mr. President, that we
cannot "derecognize" Taiwan. We can
recognize Peking as the "sole govern-
ment of China" if we wish; but once we
have recognized Taiwan and Taiwan
continues to control its territory, we can-
not take back that recognition. We can
break relations, or withdraw our Ambas-
sador. We did that to our enemies in
World War U. But it is impossible to
withdraw recognition. Not eyen the Pres-
ident has claimed to withdraw recogni-
tion. He has made no statement to that
effect at all. Nor have administration
spokesmen made any such statement.
Rather, they have asserted that the
United States takes no position on the
PRC's claim to Taiwan. All that we have
done is to withdraw diplomatic represen-
tation from Taiwan.
But I ask, Mr. President, is it possible
to revise our domestic law, as the pend-
ing bill would do, without taking a posi-
tion in international law? I submit that
it is not. If we do not admit that the
Republic of China Government is the
legal governing authority on Taiwan,
how can we have any relationship at all
that is legal in international law? Can
we have any relationship with the peo-
ple of any nation that is not sanctioned
first by the governing authorities in that
territory? And if the authorities in
Peking are the legitimate authorities-
the "sole government," in the President's
term-then how can we continue a rela-
tionship with a rival entity that claims
to be the governing authority on Tai-
wan?
How can we sell military equipment
and arms to the people on Taiwan when
we have recognized Peking as the "sole
government" of China? Are we not,
then, selling arms to a rebellious prov-
ince? And more to the point, how can
the United States itself defend Taiwan
against any economic or military pres-
sure from the government that we have
declared to be the sole. government of
China?
Mr. President, I think that it is clear
in international law that we have no
right to do any of these things under the
circumstances. This bill says that the
President can conduct relations with the
people on Taiwan; but the President has
recognized another government as the
sole government of China.
This bill says that we can maintain
commercial, cultural, and other rela-
tions with the people on Taiwan; but
under international law, such relations
cannot be conducted with "a people."
This bill says that the United States will
assist the people on Taiwan to maintain
a sufficient self-defense capability
through the provision of arms of a de-
fensive character; but how can we pro-
vide arms to the people on Taiwan when
we refuse to take a clear position on the
international status of the people to
whom we are supplying the arms?
It should be plain, Mr. President, that
we bannot accept the sophistry that our
domestic law can authorize something
that is in conflict with our position in in-
ternational law. We must resolve that
conflict before we approve this legisla-
tion.
=Mr. President, I think that a middle
position can be found that would recog-
nize the realities of the situation with-
out invading the President's preroga-
tives or powers. The basic principles
would be as follows :
First. A middle way would not contra-
dict the 'President's statement that
Peking is the sole government of China.
Second. A middle way would not'insist
upon diplomatic relations, government-
to-government relations, or any com-
ment upon the legality of the governing
authorities of the people on Taiwan.
Third. A middle way would confirm
that the people on Taiwan had the right
to act to maintain their independence
from the mainland regardless of
whether peaceful or military pressures
were imposed. ?
Now we get down to the difficult ques-
tions Mr. President. That is why I am
proposing that a fifth paragraph be
added in section 114 in the declaration of
the policy of the United States. This
paragraph would say that it is the policy
of the United States "to declare that the
people on Taiwan, as defined in section
101(b) of this act, constitute an inter-
national personality with the right to
maintain its territorial integrity and
sovereignty, notwithstanding the with-
drawal of diplomatic relations with the
entity recognized by the United States
prior to January 1, 1979 as the Republic
of China."
Now what about this language-what
does it do? First of all it is a declaration
of U.S. policy. Taiwan's rights do not
derive from what the United States says
about those rights; but a declaration of
policy with the force of law makes it
clear where we stand, and enables us to
defend Taiwan against the protests of the
PRC.
Second, it states that the people on
Taiwan constitute an international per-
sonality; that is to say, they are a dis-
tinct entity that can be treated in a way
distinct from the mainland.
Third, it provides the basis for the
defense of the territorial integrity of that
personality.
Fourth, it declares that the people on
Taiwan are not in violation of interna-
tional law in conducting international
relations and defensive actions.
Fifth, it would solve an anomalous
S 2581
problem that has not yet been addressed;
namely, the legal status of the mutual
Defense Treaty.
We have walked all around the peri-
phery on this issue, but we have not
come to a confrontation with it.
As we all know, the President on
December 15 announced that he would
give 1 year's notice of termination of the
Mutual Defense Treaty on January 1,
1979, and did so. Yet on the same date,
he recognized Peking as the "sole govern-
ment" of China. That being the rase, it
would appear that for one more year we
have a treaty with an entity which we do
not recognize as a state.
Now it should be recognized that the
Mutual Defense Treaty is not with the
so-called people on Taiwan. The treaty
is with the Republic of China. Perhaps
we can can somehow change our domestic
law to enable us to have relations with
the people on Taiwan, but we cannot
unilaterally change the terms of an in-
ternational treaty. Whether we like it or
not, for one more year we have a Mutual
Defense Treaty with the Republic of
China, even though we have withdrawn
diplomatic representation. Therefore, in
order to abide by our international obli-
gations, we must take action that takes
note of Taiwan's status as an interna-
tional personality, capable of defending
its territorial integrity and sovereignty.
If that is not the policy of the United
States, then we have no right to be fur-
nishing arms to the people on Taiwan.
Alternatively, if that is not the policy
of the United States, then the proper 1
year's notice, required under the treaty.
was not given. If we ceased to recognize
Taiwan as an entity with an interna-
0
tional personality on January 1, then the
President gave only 15 days notice, not 1
year's notice.
The logic of it is very simple. We can-
not continue defending an entity that
has no right of self-defense, not even
for 1 year. Either the President gave 1
year's notice, or he did not. If this legis-
lation before us is to have any consis-
tency whatsoever, it has to take a stand
on whether or not it is proper under in-
ternational law to extend military as-
sistance to the people on Taiwan as an
entity with international personality and
the right of self-defense. If we do not
take such a stand, then we are declaring
that the President acted improperly in
only giving 2 week's notice, instead of 1
year's notice, of termination of the
treaty. A vote against this amendment.
then, is a vote against the President.
Mr. President, this amendment does
not invade the President's perogatives.
It is only a declaration of policy, like the
other four paragraphs of this section.
and just as valid as the other four para-
graphs. It does not insist upon diplo-
matic relations with the people on Tai-
wan. It is not incompatible with the
concept of the American Institute on
Taiwan. And finally, it does not contra-
dict any of the publicly expressed agree-
ments with Peking.
If we really believe that the people
on Taiwan have the right to resist uni'
fication, have the right to resist coming
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 S 2582
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
C?NGI[ SIIONAIL RiECORD -SENATE March 13, 1979
under communist domination, even by We have been over this point so many from Idaho, it occurred to me at several
peaceful means, then it is urgent that times that X am somewhat embarrassed points that we are not really in disagree-
this declaration of policy become a part to bring it up again. But if there is one ment and perhaps we can work this
of this legislation. proposition upon which the Government thing out so that I will agree further
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I do hope in Taiwan located in Taipei and the Gov- with him or he with me.
that the Senate will reject the pending ernment of the mainland located in But I notice that he said, that legal
amendment offered by the distinguished Peking agree upon, it is the proposition scholars appearing before the committee
Senator from North Carolina. The that there is but one China and that failed to make any such suggestion as
amendment serves no useful purpose. Taiwan is part of China. contained in this amendment.
Yesterday, this body undertook to de- So when we introduce words like "sov- I will have to differ with him.
termine the title to real property in this ereignty" in an amendment that at- Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, will the
city, property that is the subject of pos- tempts to define the status of the people Senator yield on that point?
sible court action, property which in- on Taiwan, we interject an unnecessary 'Mr. HELMS. Yes.
volves a justiciable question. I do nd% problem into this argument. Mr. CHURCH. What I said, actually,
remember a time when the Senate has This amendment tends to contradict was that legal scholars consulted by the
ever undertaken to substitute itself in the agreement we reached with the Peo- committee-'
the place of the court and, by vote of the ple's Republic of China. It tends to confer Mr. HELMS. I see.
Senators, to decide who owns a given a status on Taiwan that suggests a differ- Mr. CHURCH. The Senator will
piece of property. I doubt our jurisdic- ent character than either the Govern- remember that after we heard from one
tion to make such a determination. ment in Taipei or the Government in. such witness, the committee suggested
I have no doubt that we are not com- Peking extends to it. to me that other prominent scholars
petent to make such a determination. Why do that? What useful purpose be consulted. I had reference to the
Today, if the Senate adopts this amend- does it serve? Why complicate things opinions of those scholars.
ment, we shall make a great leap farther when it is unnecessary? Mr. HELMS. I appreciate the Sen-
and undertake to define the status of If this amendment were adopted, Mr. ator's clarification. I imagine he was
praiwaai under international law. Mr. President, it could set a precedent for referring to the Honorable Victor Li of
President, we have no competence to other groups that would like to receive Stanford University who appeared before
make such a determination. recognition by an official body of their the committee, and the Honorable Hung-
Furthermore, by adopting this lan- international personality. No one knows dan Chiu, of Maryland Law School,
guage, we accomplish nothing of value how far such a precedent might carry us. whom I quoted a few minutes ago.
for the people on Taiwan. The fact Is No one voting for this amendment could Just so the record will show Dr. Li 's
that the island exists. The fact is that know its limits. position,.1 ask unanimous consent that
there are 17 million people living on the So, for all of these reasons, It seems to his testimony, or a part of it, be printed
island, working in factories and on farms me imprudent for the Senate to adopt in the RECORD' at this point, in which
and in various businesses, engaging in a the amendment offered by the distin- he begins by saying:
voluminous international trade. The fact guished Senator from North Carolina, I believe the United States should make
is that a government exists on that is- even. though it pains me not to accept it explicit that it regards Taiwan as a de facto
land, and nothing that we can say in an owing to the fact that he is a fellow mem- entity with an international personality.
amendment of this kind affects or alters ber of the committee. I would like to I might add, that is where I got the
in any way the facts of life as they oblige him, as I understook to oblige him word "personality."
relate to Taiwan. yesterday in connection with half a dozen I have marked. Mir. President, the
amendments that he offered at that time. portion which I wish to have printed
So, my first question is, Why do we But the issues involved in this partic- persist in hanging ornaments on this ular case are well set forth on page 7 of the RECORD at this point.
tree? It is necessary for us to come to the the committee report, where it reads: There being no objection, the material
Senate with a bill that will enable us to was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
The Administration has stated that it rec- as follows:
continue our relationship With the pe0- ognizes the People's Republic of China (PRC) VICTOR LI, STANFORD UNIVER-
ple on Taiwan through an institute that as the sole legal government of China. It has STATEMENT OF SCHOOL LAW, PALO ALTO, CALIF.
is created by the bill and on an unofficial also acknowledged the Chinese position that
basis. Taiwan is a part of China, but the United I believe the United States should make ex-
That is the tree we need to plant and, States has not itself agreed to this position. plicit that it regards Taiwan as a de facto
indeed, it is the tree that will be planted The bill submitted by the Administration entity with an international personality.
takes no position on the status of Taiwan Such a stand accurately reflects. the reality.
when the Senate and the House of Rep- under international law, but does regard Derecognition has not affected the autono-
resentatives, later in the day, come to a Taiwan as a country for purposes of U.S. moue manner in which the authorities of 17
firm vote on this measure. But, Mr. domestic law. The bill assumes that any million inhabitants of Taiwan manage their
President, we do not have to hang orna- benefits to be conferred on Taiwan by statute affairs.
merits on every branch of this tree- may be conferred without regard to Taiwan's I should note that this approach does not
ornaments that only detract from Its international legal identity. The legal violate the principle of one China. The de
scholars consulted by the Committee agreed facto entity concept deals with present po-
pristine beauty. I suggest that this is with this view. Most of these scholars litical realities, and does not require, or pre-
such an ornament. thought it would be unwise to try to define clude, eventual reunification, or any other
If it were not for the fact that I be- Taiwan's international legal status. They said outcome. Indeed, Vice Premier Teng's recent
lieve it might impair the health of the that the best approach would be to spell out indication that Taiwan may retain its politi-
the specific manner in which relations with cal and economic systems as well as main-
s I would, out of a spirit of comity, Taiwan will be maintained by the United taming separate armed forces acknowledges
saay y to my good friend from North Caro- states. The proposed changes and. amend- the same realities.
ling, "If you want to hang this ornament ments to S. 245 basically follow this approach. As a de facto entity with international
on the branch, be my guest." But, un- personality, Taiwan can do virtually anything
fortunately, Mr. President, I do believe. There is little question but what this a de lure recognized state or government can
it would impair the health of the tree, was the predominant position of the do. distinctions American between legislation the de does jnoture and make major
because it unnecessarily raises the very best legal scholars the committee could facto entities. Judicial practice also holds
questions that we seek to avoid in estab- consult. few, if any, additional disabilities.
lishing an unofficial basis for our future I hope that for these various reasons Finally, one of the reasons fo? moving
relationship with the people on Taiwan. the Senate will see fit to reject the ahead with normalization is to bring Ameri-
It unnecessarily attempts to define amendment. can policy into accord with reality, a laud-
their status under international law with Mr. President, I reserve the remainder able goal. Structuring our dealings with Tat-
such imprecise terminology as "interna- of my time. wan the as PRC though would it be a were a departure from subordinate m unit of
reality.
tional personality"-whatever that that The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- I believe that the United States should
means-and with the additional words, ator from North Carolina. make clear that it regards Taiwan as a . de as I is_ "the right to maintain its territorial in- teneMr. d to HELMS.
. 'facto entity with International tegrity and sovereignty."
my distinguiishedt, colleague Such a stand accurately reflects reality: de-
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
Approved
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
Mai oh 13, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
re 'on has not affected the manner in
whi h the authorities and 17 million inhabit-
ants of Taiwan conduct their affairs. The
United States simply is acknowledging the
fact that Taiwan continues to manage its
affairs in an autonomous manner.
I should note that the above suggestion
does not violate the principle of one China.
The de facto entity concept deals with pres-
ent political realities, and does not require
or preclude eventual reunification or any
other outcome. Indeed, Vice-Premier Teng's
recent indication that Taiwan may retain its
own political and economic systems as well
as maintain separate armed forces acknowl-
edges the same realities.
The United States may derive some short
term benefits from refusing to clarify the
legal rationale for continued dealings with
Taiwan. After all, explicitly calling it a de
facto entity would aggravate the PRO, while
adopting the successor government theory
would damage Taiwan. This policy of inten-
tional ambiguity may be difficult to maintain
for an indeterminate time. In the years to
come I suspect that we will see many situa-
tions where the PRC would attempt to assert
its position as the successor. Each instance
would set a precedent for future dealings.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, if my
friend from Idaho would not object, I
would like to raise a few questions with
him and perhaps we can come to an un-
derstanding on this question.
Does the Senator believe the People's
Republic of China has de j ure sovereignty
over Taiwan?
Mr. CHURCH. I think that the exist-
ing Government on Taiwan, the one we
formerly recognized as the Republic of
China, has the de facto jurisdiction over
the people of Taiwan. It is the de facto
government.
Mr. HELMS. So the answer to my
question is "Yes"?
Mr. CHURCH. I would prefer to state
the answer in my own words, if the Sen-
ator does not mind.
Mr. HELMS. I am not trying to-
Mr. CHURCH. Rather than say "Yes"
I rely instead upon the answer that I
gave the Senator. to his question.
Mr. HELMS. Will the Senator repeat
it?
Mr. CHURCH. My answer to the Sen-
ator's question was that the government
in Taipei is the de facto government of
Taipei. It is in charge and presently ex-
ercises jurisdiction over the people liv-
ing on Taiwan.
Mr. HELMS. If it is a de facto gov-
ernment over Taiwan, then it obviously
would have sovereignty. I understand
what the Senator is saying.
As the Senator said earlier-
Mr. CHURCH. If the Senator would
not mind my intervention at that
.,point-
Mr. HELMS. Not at all.
Mr. CHURCH. I think that the sub-
ject of sovereignty is a broader subject,
inasmuch as the government in Taipei
as well as the government in Peking hold
to the proposition that there is but one
China and that Taiwan is part of that
China.
So the argument having to do with the
exact legal status of Taiwan under those
conditions is one we prudently could
leave to the Chinese.
It is a problem for them to resolve in
the fullness of time. I believe it would be
unwise for us to attempt to define the
exact legal status of the Government in
Taipei for purposes of this legislation.
Mr. HELMS. What we are doing with
this legislation is understanding our po-
sition for ourselves here in the Senate. I
take it that we are not attempting to dic-
tate either to Peking or to Taiwan.
Mr. CHURCH. The Senator is correct.
We are not.
Mr. HELMS. Let me ask the Senator
this: Does Peking have the right to de-
fend the people on Taiwan?
Mr. CHURCH. I believe that is a ques-
tion that can be answered only by the
Government in Peking. But the fact Is
that the Government in Taipei possesses
the means to defend the island and its
people, and it has expressed the deter-
mination to do so.
Mr. HELMS. That was my next ques-
tion: Does the Government in Taipei
have the right to defend the people of
Taiwan?
Mr. CHURCH. The Government in
Taipei asserts that right, and we do not
quarrel with it. In fact, as the Senator
knows, we have expressly included in
this bill, as a part of the stated policy
of the United States, that we will assist
the people on Taiwan to maintain a
sufficient self-defense capability through
the provision of arms of a defensive
character.
Mr. HELMS. I take it that the Senator
will not seriously object to this Sena-
S 2583
Mr. CHURCH. And we do that, I say
to the Senator.
Mr. HELMS. That is the purpose of
this amendment.
Mr. CHURCH. We do that exceedingly
well I think. My compliments to the
committee and, indeed, to the Senator,
himself. I think he contributed to the
definition that we set forth on line 19,
page 8, under title 1 of the bill, section
101(b), which reads:
Except as provided in section 205(d) of
this Act, the term "people on Taiwan", as
used in this Act, shall mean and include the
governing authority on Taiwan, recognized
by the United States prior to January 1, 1979
as the Republic of China; its agencies, in-
strumentalities, and political subdivisions;
and the people governed by it in the islands
of Taiwan and the Pescadores.
I do not know how we could better de-
fine the people on Taiwan than in the
words chosen by the committee.
Mr. HELMS. As the able Senator
knows, the difficulty is not in what he
and I may want. We are trying to obtain
a piece of legislation that will escape
being regarded as a sham.
I ask the Senator this: Does the with-
drawal of diplomatic representation
constitute withdrawal of recognition
that the governing authorities of the
people of Taiwan constitute an interna-
tional entity?
Mr. CHURCH. I am unable to answer
the Senator's question, because I do not
Taiwan occupy a defined territory. Is_ believe it is within our power to define
that right? an entity for purposes of international
Mr. CHURCH. I agree.
Mr. HELMS. And he would not object
to my assertion that the people on Tai-
wan have effectively controlled that ter-
ritory for 30 years.
Mr. CHURCH. I agree.
Mr. HELMS. And I take it that he
would not dispute my assertion that the
people on Taiwan have. governing au-
thority at this time.
Mr. CHURCH. I agree.
Mr. HELMS. I take it that he would
not dispute that the people on Taiwan
have carried on international relations
for more than 30 years and are continu-
ing to carry on international relations.
Mr. CHURCH. I agree.
Mr. HELMS. The Senator was good
enough to say earlier that a government
exists on Taiwan.
Mr. CHURCH. I agree. And is not that
enough?
Mr. HELMS. No, sir.
Mr. CHURCH. Do we have to go fur-
ther and attempt to define its exact
status in international law, when that
would complicate matters for us? ,
The purpose of this bill, as the Sena-
tor knows, is to serve the interests of the
United States by continuing to maintain
commercial and cultural relations with
the people on Taiwan. It is not necessary
that we define their legal status with
precision.
Mr. HELMS. The Senator, I am sure,
would acknowledge that the Senator
from North Carolina is not trying to
confuse the issue. My purpose is to try
to make clear the status of Taiwan for
the purposes of enacting this legislation.
the floor?
Mr. CHURCH. I believe the Senator
from North Carolina has.
Mr. JAVITS. I believe we should yield
on our time.
Mr. HELMS. We can work that out.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I rise be-
cause this is the particular point which
it seems to me is critical. I ask the
Senator from North Carolina to follow
me carefully.
Mr. HELMS. I am delighted to do so.
Mr. JAVITS. It is a legal argument.
We have proceeded on the theory that
we are drawing a statute which will de-
termine our action unilaterally..
Mr. HELMS. Precisely.
Mr. JAVITS. Whether we will give
them arms, whether we will come to their
defense, whether we will trade with
them, whether we will give their people
the right to sit in the gallery, whether
we will give them a house and home here,
like Twin Oaks, and so on. We have dealt
with all that. Those are things we can
do.
The thing that troubles me about this
amendment-
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
PRYOR). The time of the Senator from
North Carolina has expired.
Mr. JAVITS. The Senator has yielded
on our time. I yield myself 5 minutes on
our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator may proceed.
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 S2584
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE March 13, 1979
Mr. HELMS. I say to the Senator that
I have no intention of calling up another
amendment, so perhaps we can have
latitude in the disposition of time.
Mr. JAVITS. The thing that troubles
me about this amendment is that the
Senator from North Carolina wants us
to say something we cannot say but
which only they can say. That is the real
sticking point.
We have defined the people on Taiwan
as including the governing authorities
on Taiwan. We say that in section 101
(b), page 8, line 21: "the term 'people on
Taiwan,' as used in this act, shall mean
and include the governing authority on
Taiwan."
The Senator from North Carolina
wants to say that this governing author-
ity on Taiwan has the right to maintain
its territorial integrity and sovereignty.
We say, "We are sorry, Senator HELMS.
We don't have to say that in order to do
all the things we want to do for them in
this act unilaterally."
So let them say that, if they wish; and
if they want to fight with the People's
Republic of China about that concept,
that is their problem. We may or may
not come to their defense if they do that.
We said here that we have to go through
our constitutional processes, and so
forth, and we did not contemplate that
kind of quarrel between them; because
in the Shanghai communique they, too,
said they were part of China. But if they
want to do this, that is their pigeon, not
ours.
That is the real sticking point in this
thing. The Senator from North Carolina
wants to do something which we cannot
make or unmake; only they can do that.
That defeats the whole concept of this
legislation. That is why I cannot accept
the amendment.
All the law we had cited to us says
that the authorities on Taiwan, the peo-
ple on Taiwan, are whatever we make it,
whatever we say it is. If we say it can
sue in the United States, it can sue. If we
say it can own property, can trade, can
have agents, can have an office, that is
it. But we cannot say that these authori-
ties on Taiwan have "the right to main-
tain its territorial integrity and sover-
eignty." That is not in our power; that
is in their power, if they want to do it.
Mr. HELMS. Obviously, it is within
their power.'
Mr. JAVITS. Therefore, this amend-
ment defeats the concept of what we are
trying to deal with here, and that is why
I would have to oppose it.
Mr. HELMS. I just do not see how it
does defeat anything of interest to the
United States; it merely makes explicit
the implicit rationale of the bill.
I presume that I may ask a few more
questions, even though the time situa-
tion is tight.
Mr. CHURCH. On our time.
Mr. JAVITS. There is no problem with
that. Po not worry about that.)
Mr. HELMS. Can the United States
supply arms to an entity which we do not
recognize?)
Mr. JAVITS. Of course. Why not?
There is no law of the United States that
I knc-a of, and we are making this one
prec=.ct everyth.ing, .so even if there is
one that I do not know about this pre-
empt-so it. We have a full preemption
clause in hare which I wrote myself pre-
c.sely for that reason, so there could be
no question about it. Notwithstanding
any other raw, we say "was gi7en suf-
ficient arms." We can do it. That is
something we control.
Mr. CHURCH. Besides we have an
many occasions in the put furnished
arms to groups that we did not officially
recognize as governmental entities.
Mr. HELMS. Such as?
Mr. CHURCH. Such as the guerrilla
forces during World War II in various
countries, including Yugoslavia. The
United States is not limited to dealing
only with governments that it officially
recognizes.
As the Senator from New York has
pointed out, the very purpose of this
bill is to establish an unofficial basis for
continuing to do business with the peo-
ple on Taiwan.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator for
his statement that the United States
is not limited to dealing only with gov-
ernments that it officially recognizes. If
I could ask the Senator from New York,
does he feel that with this legislation we
are saying that Taiwan is subject to the
sovereignty of Peking?
Mr. JAVITS. No. We are taking no
position on that except whatever may
be implied from the fact that we have
recognized Peking. I do not know what
that is. It is going to be very arguable.
Nonetheless, that is something that in
this world we cannot settle everything.
Mr. CHURCH. It is, after all, a Chi-
nese question to be settled among the
Chinese themselves.
Mr. JAVITS. That is right.
Mr. HELMS. The Senator under-
stands that. I do not purport that we
have the right to settle that question
for China, either one of them, and I am
pleased with the distinguished Senator's
clarification that with this legislation
we are not saying- that Taiwan is sub-
ject to the sovereignty of Peking. I am
just saying for our own purposes- that
this legislation should be clear as to the
position of the United States, and it
has not been sufficiently clear to me.
That is my problem.
Mr. JAVITS. Let me restate my prop-
osition, I say to Senator HELMS. My
proposition is that there is an entity,
a people, and a structure which satis-
fies the definition of 101(b), to wit,
there are people and there are govern-
ing authorities on Taiwan.
Mr. HELMS. Therefore, a government.
Mr. JAVITS. Pardon?
Mr. HELMS. Therefore, a government.
Mr. JAVITS. I cannot say that.
There are governing authorities. That
is what we said here. There are govern-
ing authorities.
Now, then, whatever we wish to do
with them we can do under our domestic
law. We can say they can, buy, they can
sell, they can own, they can sue, they
can sit in the gallery, and so on. That is
complete as far as we are concerned.
But when the Senator is going to ask
us to say that they have the right to
maintain their territorial integrity and
sovereignty, I say we do not.
Mr. CHURCH. That is an interna-
tional issue.
Mr. JAVITS. This is net within our
power or authority or the whole concept
of this legislation. If they feel that way,
they will do what they can about it, if
anything. But we cannot give it to them.
We cannot confer it an them, and we
should not. And it is unnecessary to the
purpose of this particular piece of legis-
lation.
Mr. HELMS. It is not the intention of
my amendment to confer status upon
Taiwan-only to provide the rationale
for this unique legislation. Will the Sen-
ator say that it is U.S. policy insofar as
we are concerned to allow Taiwan to re-
sist unification if it des?res to do so?
Mr. JAVITS. I m not going to pass on
that because it Is unnecessary to the de-
cision of this case, I say to the Senator
from North Carolina. All that I say is
that we will give them sufficient moneys
to resist any effort to suffocate, suppress,
or coerce them, and that is what we say
and that is what we mean and we will do
it. But as to their decision as to how
they will deal with the People's Repub-
lic of China, no. We will give them the
means, but they make the decision.
Mr. HELMS. The Senator from Idaho
had some problem with the word "per-
sonality." Would he feel more secure if
I inserted "entity" there instead of "per-
sonality"?
Mr. CHURCH. I do not think so. This
amendment, I say with all due deference
to the distinguished Senator, is funda-
mentally flawed.
Mr. HELMS. Just like this bill is.
Mr. CHURCH. Well-
Mr. HELMS. And that is the problem.
It is going to be a lawyer's paradise, I
will tell the Senator that.
Mr. CHURCH. The Senator may vote
for or against the bill. I think the Sen-
ator is going to vote for it. I do not pre-
dict the Senator's vote, but I will be sur-
prised if he does not vote for it, because
it does many of the things that he and
I both want to see done for Taiwan.
Mr. HELMS. It Is the only game in
town as the Senator knows.
Mr. CHURCH. And it is a bill that the
committee has strengthened and im-
proved. We bring to the Chamber with
pride, and I commend the Senator for
his part. He was a fellow architect of
this bill. He joined with us in improving,
strengthening, and perfecting this bill.
Mr. HELMS. I did the best I could.
Mr. CHURCH. Yes, the Senator did.
Mr. JAVITS. He did mighty well.
Mr. CHURCH. Now, the Senator goes
too far with this amendment, because all'
we can do in this bill is to determine
how as a matter of our domestic law we
are going to deal with the people and
governing authorities and other entities
that exist in Taiwan. That is all the Sen-
ate has the authority to do. But the
amendment offered by the Senator from
North Carolina goes further and at-
tempts to define the status of Taiwan
under international law, which Is beyond
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 , _ _ . _ - Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
the province of the Senate of the United
States.
Mr. HELMS. This Senator has not
done anything except state what inter-
national law is. I went down the four
points generally accepted in interna-
tional law and the Senator said yes to
each one of them. So, in effect, what the
Senator says was that the people on
Taiwan have sovereignty. But we have
made a pretty good legislative history
here.
Is there no way that we could modify
this amendment so that it would be more
appealing to my friend? I will be willing
to strike the word "sovereignty" and in-
sert the word "security" if that will help.
Mr. CHURCH. Yesterday the Senator
had more amendments accepted to this
bill than any other Member of this body.
Mr. HELMS. I appreciated the distin-
guished chairman's . cooperation and
comity.
Mr. CHURCH. And I would appreciate
it very much if as a reciprocal gesture
the Senator would Withdraw this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All the
time on the amendment has expired.
Mr. JAVITS. I yield him time on the
bill.
Mr. HELMS. As I said earlier, Mr.
President, there was a total period of
3 hours set aside for three amendments
by the Senator from North Carolina,
and I am willing to dispense with two of
them provided we can ventilate this one
a little bit.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield for a question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection?
Mr. HELMS. I do not have any time,
but I am sure the Senator from New
York will yield time.
Mr. JAVITS. I yield time.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I have been listen-
ing to this debate, and I have read the
Senator's amendment. I might say for
the edification of my friend from North
Carolina that I discussed this with the
Taiwan people. In fact, I first discussed
it when they were summarily tossed out
of the United Nations.
You can very well call yourself an-
other nation. You do not have to be a
part of China.
And I took this matter up again in a
friendly way with Ambassador Shen, and
he did not make any comments about it.
I hate to find myself in the position of
disagreeing with my friend, but I do be-
lieve that if Taiwan is to become a
separate nation it is up to the people
living on Taiwan to'make that decision.
I really do not think that we have the
power. As I say, I have agreed with my
two friends from the Foreign Relations
Committee before but damn seldom, but
I find myself in agreement with. them
this time.
Mr. HELMS. I say to the Senator, if
the able chairman will yield to me, I
do not propose nor does this amend-
ment propose to stipulate what either
China may do or,be. This amendment
is simply for the purposes of the U.S.
Senate understanding the role of the
U.S. Government in this thing.
I am perfectly willing to strike the
word "sovereignty" and substitute
therefor the word "security." I am not
trying to take over any responsibility of
either Peking or Taiwan.
This amendment does not declare
Taiwan a nation. It only stipulates that
it is an entity, which it is, and which
has been admitted, acknowledged, on
this floor. It is an entity with which we
can legitimately deal.
I say to my friend from Arizona there
is no disagreement between him and me.
I shall always be distressed when there
is.
But I say again that while the dis-
tinguished Senator from New York, the
distinguished Senator from Idaho and
some of the rest of us have worked hard
on this thing, it is still going to be a
lawyer's paradise. It could be described
as the Lawyers' Relief Act of 1979.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question before the Senate, as the
Chair sees it, is the Senator from North
Carolina has requested that 2 hours on
the other two amendments be trans-
ferred to the pending amendment be-
fore the Senate. Is there objection?
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, we do not
need that. I thought we could abandon
the time, and we are just about through.
Mr. CHURCH. There are some other
amendments we need to take up at some
other time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The re-
quest is withdrawn.
Who yields time?
Mr. HELMS. I wish to speak frankly
With the chairman and ranking Re-
publican of the committee, and I ask
that it be in order for me to suggest
the absence of a quorum, with the time
bharged to no one.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President,
can I mace a parliamentary inquiry?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator will state it..
Mr. GOLDWATER. Do I understand
that we vote on this matter by 5 o'clock
regardless?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator is correct.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I thank the
Chair.
Mr. HELMS. I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The. Sen-
ator from North Carolina is recognized.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have
been very pleased with the legislative
history that has been made here in
discussing this amendment. I think
nothing more can be accomplished by
a rollcall vote, whether it went with me
or against me.
I want to say to my friend from Idaho
and my friend from New York that I
appreciate their candor in their effort
to clarify certain issues, and I think
they have.
S 2585
With that in mind and with my grati-
tude to them, Mr. President, I withdraw
the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I want
to thank the distinguished Senator from
North Carolina for his cooperation. I am
grateful to him for withdrawing the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
is open to further amendment.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I sug-
gest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The- assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
IIP AMENDMENT NO. 44
(Purpose: To provide for the maintenance of
the appropriate number of offices for the
Taiwan Institute)
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I offer an
amendment to permit the People on
Taiwan to maintain the present number
of offices they have in the United States.
I take this action to promote what I
see. as one of the goals of the piece of
legislation before us today. So I call up
an unprinted amendment and ask for its
immediate. consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
The Senator from Utah (Mr. HATCH) pro-
poses an unprinted amendment numbered
44:
On page 13, line 25, insert the following
new section:
SEC. 113. (b) The President is authorized
to extend to the instrumentality established
by the people on Taiwan-
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 13, line 25, insert the following
new section:
SEc. 113. (b) The President is- authorized
to extend to the instrumentality established
by the people on Taiwan, that in order to
continue the present range of commercial,
cultural, economic, and other relations with
the people of Taiwan, the representatives of
the people of Taiwan should be allowed to
maintain the same number of offices and
complement of personnel as previously op-
erated in the United States by the govern-
ment recognized as the Republic of China
prior to January 1, 1970 upon the condition
that the American Institute in Taiwan is
reciprocally allowed such offices and per-
sonnel.
Mr. HATCH. I offer this amendment to
permit the people of Taiwan to maintain
the present number of offices they have
in the United States. I take this action
to promote what I see as one of the goals
of the current piece of legislation before
us today. The administration has been
outspoken in its intent that all existing
agreements with Taiwan, commercial,
cultural and others, will continue in ef-
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 S 2586
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
COia7~C]H'~]ESSl(?NAL ]t JECORIJ - Si 1NA'll1E march 13, 1979
feet except for termination of the de-
fense treaty. I point out to my colleagues
that aside from the defense and mutual
security agreements between the two
parties, there are accords in the follow-
ing fields: Agricultural commodities,
atomic energy, aviation, claims, customs,
economic and technical cooperation, ed-
ucation, finance, health and sanitation,
investment guarantees, a language and
area study school, maritime matters,
narcotic drugs, postal matters, relief
supplies and packages, scientific coop-
eration, surplus property, taxation, trade
and commerce, and visas. In order to
maintain all of these agreements, it
would become necessary for both the
United States and the people of Taiwan
to maintain a large staff in each locality.
Mr. President, all of the agreements
which I mentioned previously have led
to a substantial investment by the U.S.
business community 4a Taiwan. It is esti-
mated that the total U.S. financial com-
mitment in Taiwan is nearly $3 billion,
including both government and private
investments and loans. It is an acknowl-
edged fact that the trade between the
two nations has reached a significantly
large amount. For these reasons I feel
it becomes imperative that the people
of Taiwan be able to maintain an ade-
quate number of offices in this country
to maintain the business and commercial
as well as cultural and social ties that
they have with the American community.
This issue came up in the hearings be-
fore the Foreign Relations Committee
and I would like to relay a part of that
debate to my colleagues here today. Dur-
ing these hearings, Senator STONE ques-
tioned Mr. Roger Sullivan of the State
Department concerning the issue of the
number of offices and their staffing that
would be allowed the Republic of China.
The dialog went as follows:
Senator STONE. Can I turn briefly, then, to
Mr. Thomas? Mr. Thomas do you or Mr. Sul-
livan have any idea as to whether we are
going to require a reduction in the number
of staffing of offices that the Republic of
China now maintains when and if they es-
tablish other relations with us? Are we tell-
ing them that they cannot have the same
offices and the same number of personnel?
Mr. TnoMAS. May I defer to Mr. Sullivan,
please?
Senator STONE. Yes.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, Senator. We have told
them that they can keep four offices other
than the main offices.
Senator STONE. How many do they have
now?
Mr. SULLIVAN. I think they have 14.
Senator STONE. How can we continue to
do $7 billion worth of business for which
they have 14 offices by telling them they can
have only 4?
Mr. SULLIVAN. We think 14 offices is exces-
sive to their needs.
Senator STONE. But they think that 14
offices takes care of their needs.
Mr. SULLIVAN. They have specifically said,
Senator, that one of the reasons why they
need many of those offices is to maintain
their relationship with the Chinese com-
munities in those cities and we think it
would be inappropriate to have a Chinese
civil war imported into our cities.
Senator STONE. Is that what their offices
cre doing,- maintaining a Chinese civil war?
Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, they have told me the
.purpose of some of their offices Is to main-
tain contacts with the Chinese community,
cud we do not think It appropriate to allow
them to have more offices than they need
to maintain the practical relationships be-
tween us.
Senator STONE. Do you mean they can only
have those offices which deal with American
citizens, not with American citizens of
Chinesa origin?
Mr. SULLIVAN. American citizens. We do not
make a decision between Americans of
Chinese origin or any other origin.
Senator STONE. You just did.
Mr. President, I do not think that 14
offices is excessive in view of the large
amount of trade between the two par-
ties. The business community of the
United States is widespread, and the
headquarters of many large corporations
are in various cities. In order to ex-
pedite matters of business it makes it
simple to have offices and representa-
tives in regionally located offices. Four-
teen offices would be about the right
number to achieve this goal.
The economic aspect of this problem
is only one part of the issue. The admin-
istration has also stressed the continued
culture and social relationship with Tai-
wan. A large number of the American-
Chinese communities have ties in Tai-
wan. They look to the offices of Taiwan
to nurture the Chinese culture they hold
so dear. I would dare say they would find
little assistance from the offices of the
People's Republic of China, a Communist
nation. Yet Mr. Sullivan of the State
Department spoke of a Chinese civil war.
I find this quite contradictory. We are
writing safeguards for Taiwan's security
into this legislation and refusing to allow
them offices in this country on the
grounds it will bring a Chinese civil war
to American cities. What I think the real
issue is, concerns more economic matters
than those of a civil war. The People's
Republic of China would like to eradicate
all Taiwanese presence in this Nation. To
them, the 14 offices might be a loss of the
so-called oriental "face." It matters not
that there might be a need for these of-
fices. It matters not that both the Amer-
ican and Taiwanese business communi-
ties desire them. All it appears the ad-
ministration is interested in doing is ap-
peasing the Red Chinese. I think it is
time we look at what we need from this
agreement. Let us save our "American
face."
Mr. President, as I understand it, the
managers of the bill have agreed to take
this amendment, as modified, and it will
read as follows:
her. I therefore assume that I can speak
for him as well as for myself in indicating
the amendment is acceptable.
Therefore, I am prepared to yield back
to the remainder from my time, if the
Senator from Utah will do likewise.
Mr. HATCH. I yield back the remain-
der of my time and move the adoption
,of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques- .
tion is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to
reconsider the vote by which the amend-
ment was agreed to.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. I thank the managers of
the bill for their cooperation.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I yield 10
minutes to the Senator from New
Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, the
Senate will soon be voting on final pas-
sage of S. 245 after 6 weeks of con-
sideration in committee and on the floor.
It has made some minor improvements
in a bill which, in its original form,
largely disavowed the Republic of China
and left it to its own fate. In committee,
it is important to note that a security
section was included, as was a definition
of the "people on Taiwan" that specifi-
cally cites the country's government.
Similarly, a handful of constructive
amendments were adopted on the floor.
The Senate voted to create a Joint Com-
mission on Security and Cooperation in
East Asia, and to include a reference to
Taiwan's membership in international
organizations. It passed language that
will secure to the ROC a steady supply
of nuclear fuel from the United States.
Reporting requirements were added
under which the President will have to
report to the Congress on prospective .
arm sales both to the Republic of China
and to Peking.
So the legislation is slightly better.
But it is still not good. In essence, the
Senate made slight improvements with-
in the framework sent to it by the Presi-
dent, but unfortunately stopped short of
making any real changes in that frame-
work itself.
There are two main aspects to the
President's basic policy, both of which
have emerged largely unscathed. One is
Section 113(b) the President is authorized the absence of any recognition of the
to extend to the instrumentality established ligitimacy of the Republic of China's
me number of
i
th
th
l
T
b
wan,
e sa
e peop
e on
a
y
Government. The other is the absence
offices and complement of personnel as pre-
viously operated In the United States by the of a specific commitment- to the secu-
government recognized as the Republic of . rity of Taiwan either from a military or
China prior to January 1, 1979, upon the from an economic point of view.
condition that the American Institute in Mr. President, the announcement by
Taiwan is reciprocally allowed such offices President Carter which established the
and personnel. fundamental policy we have been ela-
I am very grateful to the managers of
the bill for being willing to take this
amendment in this form, and I would like
to express that appreciation at this time.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, the
amendment in its modified form is ac-
ceptable to the managers of the bill. It
was worked out in collaboration with the
distinguished Senator from New York,
the ranking Republican committee mem-
borating was described by Dr. Ray Cline
of the Georgetown Institute on Strategic
and International Studies as a "hasty,
ill-conceived decision ? ' ? to sell out
Taiwan lock, stock and barrel, territory
and people to the Communist regime in
Peking, the People's Republic of China."
Clearly, the Congress has no power to
recognize or derecognize a country. That
is strictly the prerogative of the Presi-
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
March 13, 1979
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE S 2587
dent. Still, options were open to Congress
which it unfortunately did not choose
to pursue. It could have passed sense of
Congress language urging President to
renew diplomatic relations with the Re-
public of China. At the very least, it
could have established that United
States-Republic of China relations would
be conducted on a government-to-gov-
ernment level.
The most eloquent reason arguing in
favor of the exchange of liaison offices is
simple fairness. At the time that we did
not recognize Peking, our relations with
that country were conducted through
liaison offices. Why not do so now with
Taiwan? It is, moreover, the height of
absurdity to suddenly adopt the legal
position that there is no Republic of
China; that the government which effec-
tively controls the 17 million free Chi-
nese on Taiwan has suddenly vanished
into thin air.
I am similarly concerned about the
absence of adequate language on the
question of Taiwan's future security.
We have had at least one opportunity
to make a committment to the survival
of Taiwan in the context of a military
threat. Last week, the distinguished
Senator from Illinois (Mr. PERCY) intro-
duced an amendment establishing as our
policy that the use of force to settle the
Taiwan issue was a "threat to the secu-
rity interests of" the United States. In
my view and that of others this was the
very least we should have been prepared
to approve. As the amendment's own
sponsor asserted, it in no way even
pledged us to defend Taiwan with our
own military force. --
But the administration opposed even
this slight change in the wording..Dur-
ing consideration of the amendment we
heard much rhetoric on this floor about
the need to have a vote in support of the
President, given the crucial negotiations
he was engaged in in the Middle East. It is
amusing that, as the distinguished Sen-
ator from North Carolina (Mr. HELMS)
noted on the floor, that very morning a
constituent had observed to him that
this would be the very argument used to
sway votes. In the end, the amendment
of the distinguished Senator from Illi-
nois was defeated.
Nor has Taiwan, in my opinion, been
properly protected against the threat of
embargoes by the PRC. This, Mr. Presi-
dent, is a very real threat. According to
'Robert B. Parker, president of the Amer-
ican Chamber of Commerce in Taiwan,
it is already happening. The PRC, for
example, refuses to honor American Ex-
'press travelers checks because that
company operates in Taiwan. At the
same time, Pan American World Airways
suddenly dropped its scheduled service to
Taipei-and a few weeks later made a
major hotel deal with Peking. According
to Mr. Parker, Ambassador Leonard
Woodcock has "inadvertently confirmed
the existence of such a boycott when he
said that Pan American is now the
favored U.S. carrier in China and that
no U.S. airlines will be granted landing
rights on the mainland as long as it
serves Taiwan."
So the problem -exists. It has serious
implications-and, although it is against
the Export Administration Act for Amer-
ican companies to be parties to such boy-
cotts, there has not been a single inves-
tigation of the matter that I am aware
of by the U.S. Government. It is a posi-
tive contribution that, in the course of
the colloquy on this floor, the Senate
made legislative history that such eco-
nomic boycotts be interpreted by the
United States as a threat to the survival
of Taiwan. Nevertheless, I regret that it
was impossible to include language ex-
plicitly expressing that feeling, such as
has been done by the other Chamber.
In summary, Mr. President, we have
made some improvements in what has
been described as the "unprecedented,
indeed bizarre"-and certainly inade-
quate-proposal submitted to us by the
President. We cannot measure our suc-
cess, however, on the basis of relative
improvement. The only significant yard-
stick is whether or not we have provided
security for Taiwan's future territorial
integrity. Sadly, in my opinion, we have
not.
Mr. President, the decision, in effect,
to disavow Taiwan will have serious re-
percussions throughout the world. At the
very least, it will strengthen the already
substantial. concerns of many of our
allies, encouraging them to give still more
serious thought to political realinement.
It is safe to say that, at this moment,
leaders of many small countries which
have heretofore been U.S. allies are ask-
ing themselves, "Will we be next?" We
already know that the President's deci-
sion sent a tremor through Israel, mak-
ing many of its leaders relutant to trust
any U.S. guarantee of protection. Our
new Taiwan policy has seriously affected
the integrity of our international alliance
system and our credibility worldwide as
an ally.
The President's decision and its execu-
tion are as inept an exercise in foreign
policy as we have witnessed for a long
time. In the first place, all but the
staunchest supporters of President Car-
ter agree that he did little more than
cave in to Chinese demands without
making any real attempt to negotiate
conditions favorable to Taiwan. It has
been pointed out repeatedly that the
terms which he accepted-and which he
has been seeking to portray to us as con-
stituting a diplomatic coup-are exactly
the same as could have been accepted by
Presidents Nixon or Ford some years ago,
but which both rejected as being tanta-
mount to a sellout. The White House af-
firms that we were involved in intense
negotiations-but who, in fact, made all
the concessions? The answer is obvious:
We did. I challenge anyone to point out
to me a single substantive concession we
received from Peking. In every case, the
side to cave in was the United States; and
the victim in every instance will be Tai-
wan. ? -
The White. House aggravated its diplo-
matic mistake by the cavalier manner it
adopted toward Taiwan immediately
after the decision was reached. Both the
President of the Republic of China and
its ambassador to this country were given
notice of only several hours of the De-
cember 15 announcement which has so
radically altered the position of their
country. During subsequent negotiations,'
it put increasing pressure on the ROC
Government to accept all its terms, in-
cluding the concept of strictly unofficial
relations. Taiwan reluctantly accepted
this arrangement,, incidentally, only days
before the old relations were to lapse al-
together, and it is safe to assume that the
fear of having no relations at all played a
major role in its final acquiescence.
Finally, in what can only be described as
a petty gesture, the administration
sought, through a legal maneuver, to
hand the diplomatic real property of the
Republic of China to the PRC.
Mr. President, I have been to Taiwan,
and I have been impressed and inspired
by the dedication and achievements of its
people. As Dr. Ray Cline has stated,
Taiwan is an island of hope, prosperity, and
human liberty in an Asian sea of poverty and
turbulence. There the best of American and
Asian political philosophies and economic
technologies have been blended to show how
to modernize Chinese society without giving
up freedom. The "modernization" of-main-
land China is a hope, a dream, quite possibly
an impossible dream. In Taiwan it is a present
reality.
I share Dr. Cline's grief that the United
States has adopted a policy of premedi-
tated murder of this gentle and prosper-
ous land to use his words.
Mr. President, Senate consideration of
the future of Taiwan will soon be his-
tory. Our new relationship with Taiwan
will be inadequate regarding many
fundamentals. The President made what
has been described as a "morally shabby"
deal with Peking, and, in many ways,
our vote will serve to ratify that agree-
ment. I can only hope that all of us will
work diligently to protect Taiwan from
the harrassment, large and small, it will
inevitably suffer from the PRC in years
to come, and that our actions in the face
of real threat to the survival of the ROC
will be in keeping with the spirit of
commitment to its future which has been
expressed so often on this floor.
Mr. President, the President of the
United States and the Senate are about
to present the ROC an empty box. It is
a box which is gaily wrapped, a box
festooned with ribbons of vague phrase-
ology. But it is an empty box, Mr. Presi-
dent, because it is empty of sovereignty.
The Senate, apparently is about to en-
dorse President Carter's giveaway of Tai-
wan to the Communists. Implict in the
passage of this bill is the tacit acknowl-
edgement of the Communists' contention
that they own Taiwan.
Mr. President, I do not wonder that
the world has fallen into chaos-that
communism is everywhere on the ad-
vance. American leadership has lost its
nerve-not her people, but her leader-
ship.
Mr. President, I passed the statue of
President Harry Truman as I entered
the Chamber a few minutes ago. There
was a man who called a spade a spade.
There was a man who would have called
President Carter's proposals just what
they are: a shameless, cowardly sellout
of a valuable ally.
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
S 2588
I shall not assist now in papering over
President Carter's mistake with the im-
pressive but essentially meaningless
phrases of S. 245. I shall vote against it
in the hopes the Senate will cause the
President to return to the bargaining
table to secure better terms for our good
friends in the Republic of China, that
we should have secured in the first place,
and cause the President to reverse his
decision to conduct relations between our
nations on less than a government-to-
government basis.
UP AMENDMENT NO. 45
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I'have
an amendment which I send to the desk
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Idaho (Mr. MCCLURE)
proposes an unprinted amendment numbered
45, as follows:
On page 9, line 10, following the word Tai-
wan, insert the following: "by the people on
Taiwan."
On page 12, line 3, following the word
Taiwan, insert the following; "by the people
on Taiwan."
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, this
amendment merely states more explicitly
what I believe is the obvious intention
of this section of the bill. By making the
bill clear, we shall prevent trouble that
possibly could occur if the State Depart-
ment claimed that the term "the law ap-
plied to Taiwan" means the law of the
Communist regime on the mainland.
Since the Carter administration wants
the Chinese Communists to be viewed as
the sole legal government of all China,
including Taiwan-at least that is the
legal framework for the agreement-it
is important that the law which we pass
be precise in saying that the law on Tai-
wan is the law which is recognized by the
people on Taiwan. I think that that pre-
serves and follows the format of the bill
as presented to us.
I understand that the managers of the
bill have the opportunity to look at this
amendment and, while they do not neces-
sarily embrace it with, enthusiasm, they
do not think it does violence to the bill.
I hope that, if that is true, they can
accept the amendment.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, first of
all, I think the record should be clear
regarding the position of the United
States. It is true that we have agreed in
the Shanghai Communique entered into
by President Nixon some years ago, and
again at the time that President Carter
normalized relations with the People's
Republic of China, that the Peking gov-
ernment, as well as the Taipei govern-
ment, both agreed that there is but one
China, and Taiwan is part of that China.
The position of the Government of the
United States is to acknowledge that the
Chinese take this view. But the U.S. Gov-
ernment itself has not adopted this view,
or any particular view regarding that
matter.
As for the amendment offered by my
able colleague from Idaho, I think that
it bears out what the committee intended
in the report on page 27 in the section-
CONGREESSIONAL RECORD --SENATE March 13, 1979
by-section analysis of the bill; namely, The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
section 110. METZENBAUM). The Senator from Idaho.
The committee says: UP AMENDMENT NO. 45 (As MODIFIED)
This section provides that when the ap-
plication of United States law depends upon
foreign law, the law actually applied by the
people on Taiwan shall be looked to for that
purpose. The provision does not affect the
enforceability of judgments rendered by the
courts on Taiwan.
So it is clear that the law to which
the language of the statute itself refers
on line 3, page 12, of the printed text is
meant to be the law actually applied on
Taiwan.
I think that the amendment suggested
by the Senator would eliminate any pos-
sible doubt on that score, and bring the
text of the bill into full. conformity with
the intention of the committee and the
explanations contained in the committee
report.
For that reason, I have no objection
to the amendment. I would like to hear
from Senator JAVITS, the ranking Re-
publican member, before we proceed to
a vote.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, while
we are awaiting the expression of the
minority floor manager of the bill, I
might just remark in passing that I ap-
preciate the comment that has been
made. I appreciate also the chairman's
pointing out that the report does, in
effect, say precisely the same thing that
this amendment says.
Oftentimes, there is a gap between the
enforcement of a statute when, after the
passage of some time, people forget what
was in the report and read only what is
in the statute. It would seem to me, to
preclude that possibility as far as it is
humanly possible, the statute should
conform to the intention that is ex-
pressed in the report. I do not think this
does vary from that intention.
I appreciate what my colleague from
Idaho has said. I hope that the Senator
from New York will come to the same
conclusion and that perhaps this amend-
ment will then be accepted.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, while
the Senator from New York is studying
the matter, I would suggest to the Sena-
tor from Idaho that the best way to
settle this is for him to trade this amend-
ment for the other amendment, in which
case we have everything settled.
Mr. DAVITS, Mr. President, I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On whose
time?
Mr. JAVITS. On the time of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the
time of the bill.
The clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the wording of
the amendment be changed to read "by
the people on Taiwan." So that the
wording on line 3 of page 12 with the
change would be "The law applied by
the people on Taiwan."
I would ask that a similar change be
made in the second place that is referred
to in my amendment, and .that the
amendment be modified accordingly.
Mr. JAVITS. That is the second page?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator has a right to modify his amend-
ment. Would the Senator be good enough
to send his amendment to the desk?
Mr. McCLURE. Yes.
Mr. President, the amendment would
then read as follows, and I will send it
to the desk, that on page 9, line 10, fol-
lowing the word "applied" insert the
following, "by the people."
On page 12, line 3, following the word
"applied" insert the following: "by the
people."
It has the same effect and is consistent
with the words of art that are used
throughout the bill and in the report.
Mr. JAVITS. Would the 'clerk state
the amendment as modified?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The second assistant legislative clerk
read as follows:
On page 9, line 10, following the word
"applied" insert the following: "by the peo-
ple".
On page 12, line 3, following the word "ap-
plied" insert the following; "by the people".
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, the amend-
ment is acceptable to me.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, as I al-
ready have indicated, the amendment is
acceptable to me. If the Senator from
Idaho will yield back the remainder of
his time, we will yield back ours.
Mr. McCLURE. I yield back the re-
mainder of my time on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment, as
modified.
The amendment, as modified, was
agreed to.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr.. President, I have
a second amendment, which I send to the
desk, and ?I ask for its immediate con-
sideration.
The PRESIDING' OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Idaho (Mr. MCCLURE)
proposes an unprinted amendment numbered
46:
On page 14, line 6, following the word
"peaceful", insert the following: "and volun-
tary"
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, section
objection, it is so ordered. 114 of the bill expresses our grave con-
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, the able cern for the military security of Taiwan.
Senator from New York has suggested We should also point out that attempts
a slight modification of the amendment. to destroy the freedom and prosperity of
I believe that the sponsor of the amend- free China which do not involve mili-
ment (Mr. MCCLURE) wishes to address tary invasion are also of concern to us.
that point. I think that throughout the debate we
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
March 13, 19 79 CONGRESSIONAL RJECORID - SIENATE
have said so, in a variety of ways, in the
bill and in the report. We have said that
is what our concern is.
Economic strangulation could be at-
tempted through political blackmail,
boycotts, attempts to interfere with in-
ternational trade of Taiwan or claim
its foreign assets. These efforts will not
succeed if major trading partners such as
the United States and Japan refuse to
go along. However, complicity on our
part would put our longtime friend, the
Republic of China, in the untenable posi-
tion of having to submit to the Commu-
nists' demands or face economic collapse.
Therefore, I believe it is necessary for
us to state clearly at the outset of our
formal relations with Red China, that
any such act, whether unilateral or
through international organizations, will
be opposed- by the United States. By add-
ing the word "voluntary" to this sec-
tion, we put on notice the Communist
rulers of the mainland and our friends
in the State Department that any at-
tempt to place the people of Taiwan
under a Communist subjugation by mili-
tary conquest or economic. strangula-
tion is of grave concern to the United
States.
Mr. President, it is my understanding
that there is some concern about this
language. I hope that concern is ex-
pressed not in terms of the objective of
this language, but I am perfectly willing
to discuss with the managers of the bill
the effects or the proposed effects of the
terms that say that this should be volun-
tary.
It seems to me that that is really our
intention as we go through the entire
discussion of this bill over the last 2 or 3
days in the Senate. It will be my hope
that it is not our intention, conversely,
to say that the reunification or the join-
der together of these two parts of China,
as properly has been stated-both the
government ? in Taipei and the govern-
ment in Peking have indicated that is
their view-will not be accomplished by.
means that are other than voluntary,
according to the procedures in effect
under the rubric used in this bill of "the
people on Taiwan."
The question of whether or not the
people on Taiwan may agree or disagree
certainly should not detract from the
basic premise upon which we proceed,
that the people on Taiwan have an
existence that is somewhat different
from that of just another province of
China. We certainly are not setting up a
parallel procedure for dealing with other
provinces of the People's Republic.
Therefore, we do have a special relation-
ship with the people on Taiwan; and
without calling them a government, we
have carefully called them, throughout,
the people on Taiwan.
I am not trying to indicate by this
that we establish that voluntarism by
any means other than that which is ac-
ceptable and usual to the forms and the
laws in effect, under the rest of the the-
ory of the bill, with respect to the people
on Taiwan.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder
of my time.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, the ob-
jection we have to this amendment is
that it again interjects us into a Chinese
question.
The interest of the United States has
nothing to do with whether the main-
land and Taiwan are reunified as long
as the Chinese decide that question
-peacefully. We have an interest in the
peaceful resolution of that question. We
recognize that it is a Chinese question,
not an American question. Our only in-
terest is that, when and if it is possible
for the Chinese themselves to settle the
question, it be settled peacefully.
That is what was said in the Shanghai
Communique entered into by President
Nixon in his much-praised opening to
China. The same interest was reiterated
by President Carter when he decided to
consummate what Nixon began, with the
recent normalization of relations be-
tween the United States and the govern-
ment in Peking. The same terminology
is used in the pending bill.
If this amendment were adapted, we
would be interjecting for the first time
a new word. I suggest that it is difficult,
if not impossible, to know what that
word means in the context of this par-
ticular question.
For example, the bill defines the
people on Taiwan as, first, the govern-
ing authority on Taiwan, which was
recognized by the United States prior to
January 1, 1979 as the Republic of China,
and also as its agencies, instrumentali-
ties, and political subdivisions, and
finally as the people governed by it in
the islands of Taiwan and the Pesca-
dores. So in the definition of "the people
on Taiwan," we include both the govern-
ing authorities and the people. If we
interject the word "voluntary" as the
Senator from Idaho proposes, many
questions would immediately arise. ?
Now does the United States determine
whether or not some future agreement
between the Chinese has been voluntary?
What, indeed, does "voluntary" mean
when we are dealing with two authori-
tarian governments, neither of which
rests upon the consent of the governed
in the sense that our Government does?
Does "voluntary" refer to some future
pact between the Taiwan authorities and
their counterparts in Peking? Is it ade-
quate if the authorities at the top volun-
tarily agree? Or is it necessary, before
this standard is satisfied, that some kind
of referendum be held and that the
people give their consent in national
elections? If one would go that far, then
how could we ascertain whether those
elections were in fact free?
It is obvious. that this amendment is
fraught with problems. I suggest that it
would be unwise to adopt it, particularly
in view of the assurance we give the peo-
ple on Taiwan contained in subsection 1
of part (b) of section 114 of the bill,
which reads:
The United States will maintain its capa-
city to resist any resort to force or other
forms of coercion that would jeopardize the
security or the social or economic system
of the people on Taiwan.
What more can we do than that?
The committee has gone very far to.
give all the necessary assurances to the
people on Taiwan, mindful as we have
been all along of the alliance that has
S 2589
existed between those people and our-
selves. This amendment would not clar-
ify our intention; it would cloud our in-
tentions with ambiguity.
Therefore, it is the feeling of the com-
mittee, insofar as r can speak for the
committee as manager of this bill, that
the amendment offered by the Senator
from Idaho-though I am sure it is well
intended-should not be approved.
Mr. JAVITS. I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. President, this amendment raises
very much the same issue which we found ?
so troublesome with the amendment of
Senator HELMS, in the sense that it seeks
to take us out of the area of unilateral
declaration as to what we will do in given
circumstances and makes us dictate or
prescribe what the people on Taiwan will
do.
And, the difference is the difference
between a state of facts and a state of
mind. A state of facts, which we can
find out ourselves and objectively ascer-
tain, is we believe there has been coer-
cion or we believe there has been force
or blockade or boycott. That is a state
of facts which is perceptible by factual
proof. On the other hand, the word "vol-
untary" is a state of mind of the people
on Taiwan. God knows what secret,
clandestine, Byzantine propositions may
have influenced them so that it is in-
voluntary and how much argument, al-
most theological, there can be as to
whether it is voluntary or involuntary.
As Senator CHURCH, and I associate
myself with everything he said, has prop-
erly outlined, what indicia are we go-
ing to have of voluntarism, a vote, a con-
stitution, a plebiscite, a Harris poll? It
simply puts us, in my judgment, in the
untenable situation of trying to pene-
trate the mind of the Taiwanese, in-
stead of allowing us to make our deci-
sions based upon factual evidence, and
those factual evidences are now fully in-
corporated in the bill. Therefore, in my
judgment to add this additional qualifi-
cation relating to the state of mind of
17 million people would make it impossi-
ble and would be causb for all kinds of
controversy, mischief, claims, and coun-
terclaims.
Hence, I really do not see how we can
find our way out of this except by the
Senate voting it up or down. I hope very
much the Senate-having labored now
through the process, and we have taken
many amendments which have fortified,
locked in, insured everything that we
can do unilaterally to preserve the
economic and social system on Taiwan-
will not now undo everything it has done
by adding this new test which depends
upon the state of mind of the people on
Taiwan and, therefore, would completely
change and make impossible the admin-
istration of the concept upon which this
bill is based.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I am
not sure whether I thank my friends
from Idaho and New 'York for their
commentaries on the amendment,
because I am not sure whether I under-
stand what it is they have been trying
to say, and that perhaps is my lack of
understanding or perhaps the artfulness
of their argument.
As I understand what they have tried
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
S 2590
CONGRIE55IIONAIL ]DIEGO
to say it is that everyone understands
the words "force" and "coercion," but
they do not understand the term "volun-
tary," and I can proceed to a diction-
ary ' and look up the term "force". I
could raise some issues about what is
force and what is not force and say
there is all kinds of ambiguity in that
term, but that is not so ambiguous that
we cannot use it. I could get the defini-
tion of the term "coercion," and supply
it for the Senate, and I could raise some
questions about whether or not that term
is precise or ambiguous, and apparently
it is precise enough for some and too
ambiguous for others.
And similarly the term "voluntary,"
and I understand what my friend from
New York has said with respect to a
state of mind, but certainly the actions
that are taken tell what the state of
mind of the legal authorities is. We do
recognize legal authorities on Taiwan.
We do that throughout. If they took
actions pursuant to their laws that were
set in conformance with their laws, to
say that this reunification was what they
desired to do, in accordance with their
laws, not ours, their understanding, not
ours, their state of mind, not ours, their
judgment of their state of mind, not
ours, it would satisfy the requirements
of this amendment.
But I guess beyond that what concerns
me is the unspoken, the other side of
this issue. What happens if as a matter
of fact the People's Republic of China
attempts to enforce some action against
the people on Taiwan and attempts to
exert pressure to force them to give up
their demand for independence? Would
we then say that that was coercion?
Is my friend from New York prepared
to say that the U.S. representatives to
multinational organizations will resist
the efforts made by the People's Repub-
lic of China to force the people on
Taiwan to give up their claim of
independence?
My understanding from the earlier
debate is that no, we would not, that
apparently the term "force or coer-
cion" is ambiguous enough to permit
them to use that kind of force and coer-
cion. I might ask my friend from New
York if that is correct.
Mr. JAVITS. Give me a minute and
I will comment on it.
Mr. McCLURE. All right.
Perhaps my friend from Idaho would
like to answer the question as to
whether or not the U.S. representatives
in international organizations will be
instructed by this statute to resist the
attempts to use membership in or ac-
tivities of multinational organizations
to protect the people on Taiwan against
the attempts by the People's Republic
of China to exert pressures on them to-
ward their relinquishment of their in-
dependence.
Mr. CHURCH. I am sorry but I think
I only heard part of the question and,
therefore, I am not in position to re-
spond.
Mr. McCLURE. I will try to rephrase
the question, because it has been argued
that the term "voluntary" is ambiguous
but that the terms "force" and "coer-
cion" are well understood and unam-
D - SIENATIE March 13, 1979
biguous. If, indeed, the terms "force"
and "coercion" are so unambiguous that
they do not need any further definition
by the term "voluntary," then I would
like to ask whether or not it is the under-
standing of the managers of the bill that
the U.S. representatives being directed
by the congressional expression in this
statute, this bill before us today, S. 245,
as a mended, will resist the attempts if
made by the People's Republic of China
to exert pressures upon the people bn
Taiwan through multinational organiza-
tions, their memberships in those organi-
zations, or their rights to be represented
there.
Mr. CHURCH. As the Senator knows,
the instructions given to our repre-
senatives in multilateral institutions
are given by the executive branch of the
Government. Therefore, I am not in a
position to respond to the Senator's
question.
However, I would draw his attention
to the fact that on page 14, beginning
on line 14, the phrase in question is:
Tho United States will maintain its ca-
pacity to resist any resort to force or other
forms of coercion that would jeopardize
the security, or the social or economic sys-
tem, of the people on Taiwan.
In other words, the term "coercion" as
as used in the bill does not exist in a
vacuum. It is related to the other words
in the phrase, and those other words are
directed toward the security of the peo-
ple on Taiwan and toward their social or
economic system.
The forms of coercion referred to are
forms of coercion that would jeopardize
their security, or the social or economic
system that exists on the island.
Mr. McCLURE. Might I say to my
friend, first of all, that indicates the term
"coercion" Is ambiguous and requires
some understanding, and that it also
would require a judgment on our part as
to whether or not it would jeopardize the
security or, the social or the economic
system of the people on Taiwan. That is
a matter of judgment equally as grave
and equally as difficult as the judgment
of whether or not the action take is vol-
untary.
But let me point out beyond that that
the section to which he refers is subsec-
tion (b), a subsection under that, in order
to achieve the objectives of this section.
The section that I seek to amend is on
the same page, line 6, in that expecta-
tion upon which this whole thing is pre-
mised. It has nothing to do with whether,
a test of whether or not, we will recog-
nize the action. As the Senator from New
York has suggested, it has only to do with
what is our expectation at this time of
the matter by which the dissolution of
the independence of the people on Tai-
wan might be effected in the future.
It seems to me that since that is our
expectation we ought to be able to say
that we think that whatever the process
may be it will seek the voluntary action
of the people on Taiwan, however, that
may be expressed, pursuant to their own
forms and their own laws.
If that is not our expectation-and
certainly that must be read into the re-
jection of it-then we are saying, in
effect, that there are some circumstances
under which we would expect perhaps
that the People's Republic of China ...-
would force the people on Taiwan to ac-
cept a change by means other than vol-
untary. That is one of the things that a
number of us have been very concerned
about and, as I had understood my col-
league from Idaho to be concerned about,
whether or not this could be a peaceful
and voluntary evolution or whether or
not it would be effected by other means.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder
of my time.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I made
the argument against this amendment. I
think the argument still stands. It is
much easier to legislate against such ac-
tions as maybe coercive or forceful than
it is to either define or enforce affirma-
tive standards.
I have tried to explain the difficulties
involved in knowing what is meant by
"voluntary," given the circumstances of
the case, and there is no need for me to
reiterate those arguments at this time.
My colleague from Idaho has asked
what American policy might be relative
to membership by the Taiwanese in cer-
tain international organizations.
Earlier in the debate, either yester-
day or late last week, an amendment by
Senator HOLLINGS from South Carolina
was approved making clear that nothing
in this bill affects in any way American
policy relating to Taiwan representation
or Taiwanese representation in interna-
tional organizations. The bill does affect
this one way or another.
I think I came to a period, I am not
quite certain, but I believe it was a com-
plete sentence. [Laughter.]
Mr. McCLURE. If it is not I am sure
the Record will be corrected to reflect it.
Mr. CHURCH. In any case, Mr. Presi-
dent, we are about out of time and I
think we have made the argument
against the amendment.
I believe it will be unwise of the Sen-
ate to adopt this amendment. It would
add confusion and not clarification, and
it would be at variance with 'the stated
policy of this country under two admin-
istrations, one Republican, the other
Democratic.
So, for these reasons I hope the Senate
will reject the amendment.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I yield
myself 3 minutes merely to point out
that I state, as the draftsman, that the
legislative intention, as I understand it,
is that the words "by peaceful means
on page 14, line 6, exclude the facts or
the situation referred to on page 14,
lines 15 to 17, inclusive, to wit, "any
resort to force or other forms of coercion'
that would jeopardize the security, or
the social or economic system, of the
people on Taiwan." There will be no
argument or question as to our con-
struction of the words "will be by peace-
ful means," and the reason I say that
is because I think this is, with all re-
spect, a very bad amendment, because
it depends on the state of mind of the
people on Taiwan. We cannot go into
that.
We can, and it is an absolutely normal
and commonsense experience, make an
assessment as to the use of force or
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
March 18, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
other forms of coercion that would
jeopardize the security or the social or
economic system of the people on Taiwan.
Those are acts not states of mind. So I
oppose the amendment.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I do
not want to get this dialog locked into
the framework of pride of authorship,
pride of authorship on behalf of the
committee that thinks they have con-
sidered every eventuality and take pride
in their work product, or the pride of
authorship of the Senator who offered
this amendment who believes this is a
constructive addition to the meaning
by offering the word "voluntary," and I
think that is where we have got our-
selves locked in now.
The Senator from New York says he
thinks it is a bad amendment, because
he thinks it would be difficult to deter-
mine whether or not the actions are
voluntary but,' at the same time, we can
assess the factor that there has been
force or coercion.
To me, if you can assess the facts to
determine whether it was voluntary you
can assess the fact of whether there has
been force or coercion. I do not want to
get locked into that impasse of difference
of approach to an identical problem, to
an identical objective.
If I read correctly or hear correctly
what the Senator from New York said
in terms of what the word "peaceful"
means, what it is to actually expect, and
whether we use the term "peaceful" or
whether we use the term "voluntary"
our expectation is that whatever may be
be done to resolve the issue of Taiwan-
and that is the context of the language
in this section-will be done as the result
of the will of the peoples involved and
not by force or coercion brought upon
the people of Taiwan by any other
force.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. McCLURE. I am happy to yield to
Senator from New York.
Mr. JAVITS. I cannot accept that. The
words stated mean to me the will of the.
people on Taiwan. That is the toughest
thing in the world to define. But let me
state what I am saying. Any resolution
of the Taiwan issue will be by peaceful
means, and that includes any resort to
force or other forms of coercion that
would jeopardize the security or the so-
cial or economic system of Taiwan. That
is out.
In other words, we incorporate that
.concept as the negative of the words
previously mentioned.
Mr. McCLURE. I see.
Mr. JAVITS. If we stay with that, I am
all with you, and that is the legislative
intent.
Mr. McCLURE. I understand what the
Senator is saying. He has repeated again
the language of subsection (2).
Mr. JAVITS. Right.
Mr. McCLURE. And again the lan-
guage of subsection (b) (1).
Mr. JAVITS. Right.
Mr. McCLURE. But he has done so in
the context of a discussion of whether
or not it is voluntary. If we can set aside
for a moment-I used the term "the will
of the people of Taiwan." I certainly
would not want the record to indicate
the Senator from New York is suggesting
that this action be taken against the will
of the people of Taiwan.
Mr. JAVITS. Of course not. And I did
not say that.
Mr. McCLURE. All right. Second, I
would like to point out that that same
curious lack of a positive is apparent in
the amendment to which my colleague
from Idaho referred earlier, of Senator
HOLLINGS. I read:
Nothing in this Act may be construed as
a basis for supporting the exclusion or expul-
sion of the people on Taiwan from continued
membership in any international financial
institution or any other international orga-
nization.
But it does not say that we will resist
that exclusion.
I would think that in the context of
this discussion, and again not to com-
plicate the discussion, we are again say-
ing that our expectation is that the reso-
lution of the issue on Taiwan will be done
without force or coercion, and I will not
use the term "voluntary," I will not use
the term "according to the will of the
people on Taiwan," but express it in the
opposite way, that says our expectation
is that coercion and force will not be
used. If that is our understanding of
the terms that are meant, in the context
of my having offered the word "volun-
tary," and that having caused some diffi-
culty, I would be prepared to withdraw
the amendment.
Mr. JAVITS. There is only one quali-
fication, and that is coercion of the size,
character, and quality that would jeop-
ardize the security or the social or eco-
nomic system of the people on Taiwan.
Mr. McCLURE. I understand what the
Senator is saying, but again recognize
that that requires a judgment, a judg-
ment difficult to make, and perhaps just
as subjective as what is in the state of
mind of the people on Taiwan.
Mr. JAVITS. That is our criterion.
Sure, it calls for a judgment, but at
least a judgment based on acts. That is
all I say, and that is what we are saying.
Mr. McCLURE. Again I would say to
my friend from New York whether or not
it is voluntary, you say, is in the minds
of the people on Taiwan. That could be
a judgment we make, based upon our
evaluation of the way in which it has
been expressed. The Senator rejects that.
I have just as great difficulty with ac-
cepting the question of whether or not
coercion is sufficient to threaten
Mr. JAVITS. To Jeopardize.
Mr. McCLURE. To jeopardize the
security or the social or economic system
of the people on Taiwan. That is still to
be judged on the basis of the future
facts. I hope that the record is clear that
the United States is in a position not
only to reject the attempts to coerce, but
to resist the attempts to coerce. We have
entered into a mutual defense treaty
with a government that does not exist
any more. We have given notice of the
abrogation of that treaty, although I
suppose under that treaty we are still
bound to defend a government that does
not exist for the year in which the treaty
52591
does exist, as I understand the legal fig-
ments under which we are operating
here.
But, again, with the assurances of my
colleague from Idaho and my friend
from New York, I will withdraw the
amendment.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I thank
my colleague for withdrawing the
'amendment and engaging in the
colloquy.
Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Senator also.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Idaho yield me a min-
ute or two, so that I may explain my
position on this measure?
Mr. CHURCH. Surely; I am happy to
yield to the Senator from Arizona.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, at
the outset of these several days of debate
on this matter, I said I would support
the legislation. I rise to say, Mr. Presi-
dent, that I have changed my mind. I
cannot support this, as much as I would
like to support it.
We had several chances during the
course of the debate to have cleared some
things up that need clearing up badly,
chief of which is the position .of the Sen-
ate in future treaty negotiations, should
they be created, on abrogating.
Because of the failure of several
amendments to pass which I think would
have added some muscle and strength
and meaning to this measure, Mr. Presi-
dent, I very reluctantly have to say that
I will vote against it.
That does not take away for one mo-
ment from my appreciation for the very
hard work done by the managers of the
bill. They have come up with something
that was better than nothing; but it is
not good enough.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
rise in support of S. 245, the Taiwan
Enabling Act. My support; however, is
not without reservations. The issues in-
volved are complex and the implications
of this legislation are enormous. In the
final analysis, however, I concur in the
opinion of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee that this "bill as amended
and approved will, if implemented prop-
erly, enable the United States to con-
tinue to have a close and friendly rela-
tionship with the people on Taiwan while
simultaneously developing a mutually
beneficial relationship with the People's
Republic of China."
Mr. President, let me make clear at
the outset that I emphatically do not
condone President Carter's withdrawal
of diplomatic recognition from a long-
time ally and friend, the Republic of
China (Taiwan). As pointed out in the
additional views of Senator HELMS of
North Carolina to the report of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee on
the Taiwan Enabling Act-
This precipitant action not only was un-
necessary, it came at the worse possible
time. As the world looked to the United
States for a demonstration of resolve and
fidelity after a period of growing setbacks
for American interests, the world saw in-
stead vacillation, weakness and betrayal of
friendship in the derecognition of the
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
S2592
Republic of China. It is not up to the Con-
gress to change that action. The President
may choose the Nations he wishes to rec-
ognize, and which he does not. The issue
of derecognition may well be a matter to be
dealt with in the 1980 Presidential Elections.
That is a more proper form of settlement of
that issue.
. The essence of this legislation, S. 245,
is to preserve existing commercial, cul-
tural and other unofficial relations by
authorizing the continuation of existing
agreements, statutory programs and
other relevant sections of U.S. laws.
This legislation creates an American
Institute in Taiwan, a private nonprofit
corporation which is the entity through
which future relations between the
United States and the people on Taiwan
are to be primarily conducted. The ac-
tivities of the Institute will be governed
and controlled by a contract executed
between the Institute and the Depart-
ment of State. Although I would prefer
that relations be handled through offi-
cial channels; namely, liaison officers. I
think the Institute is workable and
therefore not a serious impediment to
enactment of this legislation.
Mr. President, I feel that it is signifi-
cant that this legislation provides for
the continued security of Taiwan, both
in an economic sense, and a military
sense. Among other things, this legisla-
tion provides that all treaties and other
international agreements in existence
between the United States and the Re-
public of China (Taiwan) will remain
in force. Thus, we may be assured that
the strong cultural and financial ties be-
tween the People on Taiwan and the
United States will continue.
Mr. President, the continued security
of Taiwan is of grave concern, to me.
I am disappointed that the negotiations
did not obtain firm assurances by the
People's Republic of China that they
would not try to reunite Taiwan with
mainland China by use of force. Chinese
leaders have recently made statements
on a number of occasions indicating a
desire for peaceful reunification, such as
the statement made by Vice Premier
Teng Hsiao-P'ing to the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee during his recent
visit to Washington that "so long as
Taiwan is returned to the mother land,
and there is only one China, we will
fully respect the realities on Tiawan."
Other reports, however, are not so re-
assuring. The National Chinese News
Agency recently reported that Teng
stated on January 5 that "we cannot
commit ourselves to use no other than
peaceful means to achieve reunification
of the mother land ? 0 ? we cannot tie our
hands in this matter." The inherent in-
stability of the 'present system of gov-
ernment in the People's Republic of
China must be considered in dealing
with that country. The instability of the
present system is evident in the fact that
Teng Hsiao-P'ing has been purged twice
in the past and rehabilitated three
times.
Caution must be exercised to avoid
any policy that hinges on the personal-
ity of any individual who happens to be
in power at this time. Moreover, there is
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE March 13, 1979
no established mechanism for the trans-
fer of power within the framework of the
present Government of the People's Re-
public of China.
It is in this context that legislation is
critically important to reaffirm the U.S.
commitment to the freedom and security
of the people on Taiwan so that future
changes in the Government of the Peo-
ple's Republic of China will not have an
adverse effect on Taiwan.
A military invasion of Taiwan seems
unlikely given the present military
strength of Taiwan and U.S. Commit-
ments to continue arms sales to Taiwan.
However, I am concerned that the Peo-
ple's Republic of China may use other
pressure tactics to force reunification,
such as an economic boycott, a military
blockade, seizure of the offshore islands,
or nuclear blackmail. For these reasons,
I view section 114 of the proposed legis-
lation, which was added by the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, to be es-
sential to this legislation. The impor-
tance of this section cannot be over-
emphasized:
SEC. 114. (a) It is the policy of the United
States-
(1) to maintain extensive, close, and
friendly. relations with the people on Tai-
wan;
(2) to make clear that the United States'
decision to establish diplomatic relations
with the People's Republic of China rests on
the expectation that any resolution of the
Taiwan issue will be by peaceful means;
(3) to consider any effort to resolve the
Taiwan issue by other than peaceful means
a threat to the peace and security of the
Western Pacific area and of grave concern
to the United States; and
(4) to provide the people on Taiwan with
arms of a defensive character.
(b) In order to achieve the objectives of
this section-
(1) the United States will maintain its
capacity to resist any resort to force or other
forms of coercion that would jeopardize the
security, or the social or economic system,
of the people on Taiwan;
(2) the United States will assist the people
on Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-
defense capability through the provision of
arms of a defensive character;
(3) the President is directed to inform the
Congress promptly of any threat to the se-
curity of Taiwan and any danger to the
interests of the United States arising there-
from; and
(4) the United States will act to meet any
danger described in paragraph (3) of this
subsection in accordance with constitutional
processes and procedures established by law.
The language of the committee report
explaining this section is of great signifi-
cance, and therefore, Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that it be
printed in the RECORD at the conclusion
of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection. it is so ordered.
[See exhibit 1.1
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the
language of the report makes it unequiv-
ocal that the United states will main-
tain its capacity to resist not only direct
force, but indirect force as well, such as
a blockade or boycott that would jeop-
ardize the social or economic system of
the people on Taiwan. The report also
emphasizes the importance and necessity
of assisting the people on Taiwan to
maintain a sufficient defense capability
through the provision of arms to that
country. It is made clear that in assist-
ing the people on Taiwan, the United
States will not be limited solely to the
supply of arms, but could assist in other
appropriate ways. Thus, actions taken by
the United States may be military if such
actions would be in compliance with the
war powers resolution. This does not,
however, restrict the United States from
using.whatever means would be most ef-
fective to aid the people on Taiwan,
whether such action be diplomatic, eco-
nomic or in some other form.
Mr. President, I find this "New China
Policy" objectionable not because of the
recognition of the People's Republic of
China, but rather because of the aban-
donment and sudden nature of the de-
recognition of a long-time friend and
ally, the Republic of China (Taiwan).
My foremost consideration here today is,
therefore, the continuing interest of the
United States in the security and the de-
fense of the people on Taiwan.
The social, cultural, economic, and fi-
nancial ties between our two countries
should be preserved and to that end, I
find this legislation to be necessary.
Congress must, however, keep a close
oversight on the Institute to insure that
it is used to preserve the freedom and in-
dependence of the people of Taiwan and
not to destroy it. Section 402 of the
Taiwan Enabling Act was adopted by the
Foreign Relations Committee to aid Con-
gress in fulfilling this mandate.
This provision requires that every 0
months, a report describing and review-
ing economic relations between the
United States and the people on Taiwan
shall be transmitted to the Speaker of
the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate, noting any interference with
normal commercial relations. This re-
quirement must be utilized by Congress
not as a merely perfunctory exercise, but
rather as a tool to enable Congress to
insure the continuance of normal com-
mercial relations between our countries.
The announcement made by President
Carter of normalization of relations be-
tween the People's Republic of China
and the United States on December 15
came as a surprise to the American people
and to Congress. There was no meaning-
ful prior consultations with Congress de-
spite section 36 of the International Se-
curity Assistance Act of 1978 which called
for prior consultation on any proposed
policy changes affecting the continuation
in force of the mutual defense treaty
with Taiwan.
The additional views of Senator HELMS '
Of North Carolina succinctly state the
issues raised and the consequences of this
precipitous action by the President as:
First, the perceptions of the world com-
munity, particularly among our allies is
that the United States lacks any cohesive.
or comprehensive foreign policy, and
abandons its friends and allies whenever
the United States views it expedient to
do so.
Second, the actions of the President are
of doubtful legality and constitutional
validity both because of the President's.
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
March 13, 1979 ONGRIESSIOI\\TAIL RECORD - SIEIIA`II?IE
S 2593
failure to consult with Congress and for will do to achieve the policy objectives set sible instance to consult with the Congress
assuming authority to unilaterally ter- forth in subsection (a). The Committee made before introducing the United States Armed
minate the 1954 mutual defense treaty clear that each part of both subsections must Forces into hostilities or into situations
with the Republic' of China. be read and interpreted in the context of all where imminent involvement in hostilities is
Senhe epubli' words a. these issues the other parts and of the entire section. clearly indicated by the circumstances.
ELMS on Thus subsection (b) (1), providing that the Paragraph (4) of subsection (b), added by
were: "United States will assist the people on Tai- the Committee as proposed by Senator
Needless to say, this unprecedented action wan to maintain a sufficient self-defense ca- Glenn and modified by Senator Javits, re-
has not gone without notice by allies and pability through the provision of arms of a quires that any action taken by the United
opponents alike around the world. Despite defensive character", relates not only to the States to meet any danger described in para-
Administration protestations to the contrary, objective of subsection -(a) (4), "to provide graph (3) comply with all applicable con-
many of our allies rightfuly question the the people on Taiwan with arms of a defen- stitutional and statutory requirements.
value of the United States' mutual security sive character," but also to the objective No mutual security treaty to which the
commitments. Newspaper reports that the spelled out in subsection (a) (1) "to main- United States currently is a party authorizes
Ambassador to the United States from one tain extensive, close, and friendly relations the President to introduce the armed forces
nation bordering the Indian Ocean littoral with the people on Taiwan." into hostilities or requires the United States
has sought to be moved to Moscow because ....,.--_"---. , .,..,,. -- -__..__--.. .-
matic aberration. How much the Presidential language in 114(a) (3) in connection with an treaties provides that it will be carried out
decision to abandon the people on Taiwan amendment offered to it by Senator Percy. by the United States in accordance with its
affected the Ambassador's decision one only He proposed that the words "of grave con- "constitutional processes" or contains- other
can speculate; but it is difficult to believe ? cern to the" be replaced by the words "to language to make clear that the United
that it had no effect. the securtiy interests of" on the ground that States' commitment is a qualified one-that
The Congress may not be the proper forum this would provide a stronger and clearer the distribution of power within the United
to deal with the specific issue of termination statement of United States policy toward States Government is precisely what it would
of the treaty, per se, although Congress cer- Taiwan. This view received support from be in the absence of the treaty, and that the
tainly must deal with the broader issue of some Members of the Committee. Other United States reserves the right to deter-
the defense of the people on Taiwan. Already, Members argued that the phrase "of grave mine for itself what military action, if any,
a court suit has ben undertaken to deal with concern to the" United States adequately is appropriate.
the particulars of the treaty termination conveyed the importance that the United Thus, an "absolute" security guarantee for
matter. Its outcome will say much about the States should attach to a peaceful settle- Taiwan would go further than any current
scope of the President's power to terminate ment of the Taiwan issue, especially when mutual defense treaty to which the United
a treaty with an ally, unilaterally and with- taken together with the other provisions of States is a party. In addition, it is question-
out prior consultation with and approval the section, while at the same time allowing able whether, as a matter of constitutional
by the Congress. At a time when the Ameri- the United States to respond in a flexible law, an absolute security guarantee can be
can public is wary of overextension of Execu- manner to any effort to resolve the Taiwan made-either by treaty or by statute. Be-
tive power, a proper resolution of the issues issue by other than peaceful means. The cause the Constitution vests the power to de-
raised in the suit will do much to define the amendment proposed by Senator Percy was Clare war in the Congress rather than in the
limits of Executive power. defeated by a vote of 10-4. Senator Percy President, it is doubtful whether the author-
had earlier reserved the right to discuss his ity to make that decision can constitution-
Mr President, President, I am gravely concerned amendment on the floor of the Senate and ally be delegated to the President-I.e.,
about the President's actions. I supported possibly to offer whether he can be empowered prospectively
the amendment offered by the distin- by the Committee. t there if it were rejected to determine under what conditions the
guished Senator from Virginia, Mr. Subsection (b) States armed forces will be introduced the pow-
HARRY F. BYRD, JR., that would have ) into hostilities. Under separation of pow-
The Committee made clear in its discus- ers doctrine, one branch ch of the government
stated that, "It is the sense of the Senate sion of subsection (b) (1) that the United cannot, even willingly, transfer to another
that approval by the Senate of the United States was concerned with external threats branch powers and responsibilities assigned
States is required to terminate any mu- or coercion rather than with internal chal- to it by the Constitution.
tual defense treaty between the United lenges to the security or to the social or Turning to the provision at hand, para-
States and another nation." economic system of the people on Taiwan. graph (4) of subsection (b), the Committee
Although this amendment was with- In discussing the matter of possible coercion, notes that the United States is not required
drawn, I am pleased that the Foreign the Committee indicated that the United or committed, under this provision, to take
Relations Committe has agreed to hold States would maintain its capacity to resist any action. The United States, and only the
ee
hearings on this matter and report not only direct force but indirect force as United yStates will determine the existence
back well, such as a blockade or a boycott, that of any danger described in paragraph (3). If
to the Senate by May 1, 1979. It is my would jeopardize the social or economic sys- the United States determines that such a
understanding that this resolution will tem of the people on Taiwan. During the danger exists, it and only it will determine
then be made the pending business of the hearings, several Senators emphasized the what response, if any, is appropriate. While
Senate. applicability of the anti-boycott provisions action taken by the United States may be
In SUM, Mr. President, even though of the Export Administration Act to the military-provided that that action is in
diplomatic ties with the People's Repub- China-Taiwan context.- Those provisions compliance with the War Powers Resolu-
lic of China may be advisable, the price make illegal compliance by U.S. citizens or tion-it may also be diplomatic, economic, or
we paid, tabandonment b le, long-time corporations with economic boycotts against of some other form-and, indeed, it may be
friend and the h ally, dTaiwan, m was too Taiwan. the judgment of the United States that the
great. The Committee also stressed the impor- most effective action, from the standpoint of
It is hoped that this legislation that we tance of assisting the people of Taiwan to the United States or the people on Taiwan
today consider Will reaffirm the U.S. maintain a sufficient defense capability or both, is no action. This broad discretion
commitment to the continued independ- through the provision of arms of a defensive is reserved for the United States through
ence, freedom and security of the people character. The Committee indicated, in dis- incorporation of the reference to the United
Of Taiwan. Therefore, Mr. President, with cussing (b) (2), that in assisting the people States' "constitutional processes"; by requir-
the qualifications other Senators and I on Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self- ing that, any action taken by the United
have Outlined, during debate on this defense capability, the United States was not States be in accordance therewith, this pro-
measure, I Support S. 245, the Taiwan limited solely to the supply of arms, but spvision makes clear that no ouse of any kind is required, since tithose
Enabling Act, and urge its enactment. could assist in other appropriate ways. The processes may result in a decision to do noth-
Ex81Brr 1 Committee also indicated that the United ing. The net effect is thus to make clear that
States retained the right to determine what the allocation of war-making power within
SECTION 114 was "sufficient".
This section was the United States Government is precisely
proposed and adopted Paragraph (3) of subsection (b) directs the what it would have been in the absence of
unanimously as an amendment to the Ad- President to inform the Congress promptly the provision-that the President has no
ministration's original bill by Senators of any threat to the security of Taiwan and greater authority to introduce the armed
Church, Pell, Glenn, Javits and Baker. Its any danger to the interests of the United forces into hostilities than he would have
Purpose is to express the strong and con- States arising from such a threat. The lan- had had the provision not been enacted.
tinuing interest of the United States in a guage comprehends threats both military and This conclusion is bolstered by section 8
peaceful solution to the Taiwan issue. This is non-military in nature, deriving from any (a) (1) of the War Powers Resolution, which
done through a unilateral statement of source external to Taiwan. It should not be provides as follows:
United States policy objectives in subsection construed to derogate from the, provisions of Sec. 8. (a) Authority to Introduce United
(a), which is supplemented by subsection section 3 of the War Powers Resolution, States Armed Forces into hostilities or into
(b), which sets forth what the United States which requires the President in every pos- situations wherein involvement in hostili-
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
S 2594
CONGRESSIONAL RECO
ties is clearly indicated by the circumstances
shall not be inferred-
(1) from any provision of law (whether or
not in effect before the date of the enact-
ment of this joint resolution), including any
provision contained in any appropriation Act,
unless such provision specifically authorizes
the introduction of United States Armed.
Forces into hostilities or into such situations
and states that it is intended to constitute
specific statutory authorization within the
meaning of this joint resolution. .
The consequence'of this provision is two-
fold: (1) it precludes the President from in-
ferring authority from paragraph (4) to in-
troduce the armed forces into hostilities or
into situations wherein involvement in hos-
tilities is clearly indicated by the circum-
stances; and (2) it reinforces the non-auto-
maticity of the United States' undertakings,
since, unless the President were authorized to
introduce the armed forces into hostilities,
the United' States could not be considered to
have undertaken to respond, automatically,
in the event of danger.
While the Committee inserted the refer-
ence to "procedures established by law" pri-
marily to make clear that the War Powers
Resolution is fully applicable to all actions
taken in connection with this section, it
would note that the reference is not legally
necessary since all provisions of the Resolu-
tion are applicable under their own terms.
Accordingly, the inclusion of this reference
in this bill should not be construed, in the
case of some other, similar statute enacted
in the future, as suggesting in any way that
the absence of any such reference in that
statute has rendered the Resolution inappli-
cable. The provisions of the Resolution will
continue to apply ex proprio vigore.
O Mr. WEICKER. Mr. President, this
Nation's diplomatic recognition of the
People's Republic of China is a welcome
event which I whole-heartedly support.
But the manner in which the Carter ad-
ministration has handled that decision
and the legislation before us falls short
of the standards we should expect of
American diplomacy.
On December 15. President Carter
stated that we were establishing full re-
lations with the PRC in recognition of
"simple reality." It is certainly ti.' a that
we are rectifying a diplomatic mistake
therefore nearly 1 billion Chinese people
with whom we should have full relations.
But to glibly derecognize 17 million
people of Taiwan in the process is not
my idea of "simple reality." We as a
people and as a government should do
everything in our power to realize and
recognize that we have two entities here,
not one China.
'The security arrangements of this
agreement are clouded by reports that
the Carter administration did not seek
a guarantee from the mainland Chinese
against military action against Taiwan.
Based on that frank and forceful display
'of American dealings with our new
friend, provisions.in this bill which ex-
press our "grave concern" for the securi-
ty of Taiwan do not amount to much. We
know it and the Chinese know it.
In terms of the integrity of our word
and system of government, the Presi-
dent's hastily engineered recognition re-
flects poorly on us and how we conduct
ourselves in this democracy.
On the matter of the "American Insti-
tute in Taiwan," we are asked in this bill
to enact a falsehood. The Carter admin-
D - SENATE March 13, 1979
istration tells us in one breath that first
governmental relations with Taiwan
must cease and second that the Congress
must authorize and appropriate funds
for an Institute to carry out those func-
tions.
Mr. President, it is a hoax to call an
institute which is conceived, authorized,
funded by the United States Government
"nongovernmental." I will have no part
in devaluing our moral currency just to
close this particular deal.
The integrity of our democratic sys-
tem is challenged, Mr. President when
our Chief Executive Officer ignores the
expressed intent of Congress. President
Carter's failure to respect the unanimous
vote of this body requesting prior consul-
tation on any change in status in the
Mutual Defense Treaty, damages the
constitutional dynamics of our foreign
policy decisionmaking, now and for the
future.
Mr. President, by passing this bill in
its present form, the Senate would certi-
fy a logic and morality which have no
place in our foreign policy. When we deal
realistically, forcefully and honestly with
our own people and the people of the
world we earn their respect. When we
settle for expediency, compromise and
gimmickry we cheapen everything the
United States stands for and hopes to
be.O
O Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I will vote
for passage of the Taiwan enabling leg-
islation which we are considering today
because it provides the best possible
means for maintaining and assuring the
the continued prosperity and security
for the people of Taiwan. This is in our
vital national interests to do.
I belive that the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations has produced a flinely
crafted bill which will enable both the
United States and the Government of
the Republic of China on Taiwan to con-
tinue to derive mutual economic, cul-
tural and political benefit from a strong
and stable relationship. The fact that
Taiwan is the second most successful
and that our trade turnover with that
island last year was over $7 billion indi-
cates the significant role Taiwan plays in
the stability and progress of the region.
The Government of Taiwan has also
been a longtime ally and friend of the
United States. We therefore have a moral
responsibility to provide Taiwan with
the defensive weapons it needs to main-
tain its own security and discourage the
People's Republic of China for settling
the final status of Taiwan unilaterally
and by other than peaceful means.
The security section of the bill is very
clear on this point. What is equally as
clear is the strong support which the
people of Taiwan enjoy in this country.
If the PRC Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping
learned anything from his trip to the
United States, it was the continuing con-
cern which Americans feel for the future
of Taiwan. I believe the security section
of S. 245 is appropriately worded so as
to leave no doubt in the mind of any
present or future PRC leader that to use
military force against Taiwan puts
China's relationship with the United
States at great risk. While I do not be-
lieve that the PRC has either the mili-
tary capability or political intentions to
attempt an armed takeover of Taiwan -
now or in the foreseeable future, we must
firmly state our expectations as to this
regard. President Carter himself recently
commented that nothing in the agree-
ment to establish diplomatic relations
with the PRC would prevent him or some
future President from direct military
support of Taiwan if attacked by the
PRC or threatened from some other
source.
Last Thursday, I voted with my col-
leagues to defeat an amendment to sub-
stitute language in section 114 which
states specifically that any effort to re-
solve the Taiwan issue by other than
peaceful means would be considered a
threat to the peace and security of the
? Western Pacific area and of grave con-
cern to-the United States. The amend-
ment which was defeated sought to state
specifically that such efforts would not
only be considered a threat to the peace
and security of the Western Pacific area
but also to the security interests of the
United States. While I appreciate and
share the concern of my colleagues who
voted for this change, I concluded that
this change in language was unnecessary
since the security interests of the United
States extend to the Western Pacific area.
Despite the value of such a redundant
statement for domestic political pur-
poses, this small change in the wording
of a paragraph in section 114 of the bill
could not be decisive in terms of whether
the United States would act if the time
ever came when Taiwan came under at-
tack from mainland China. Nothi~g in
the legislation restricts the President
from taking any action he deems appro-
priate to meet such a contingency. Every-
thing in section 114 is an affirmative mes-
sage to the people of Taiwan and the
People's Republic of China that the
United States will uphold our moral obli-
gation to help assure their safety and
security and protect our vital interests in
the area.
Mr. President, I think the complexity
of the issue S. 245 addresses should also
impress upon us that the security of Tai-
wan means more than the ability to beat
back an armed invasion attempt. There-
fore, it is especially important that part
of the security section of this bill spe-
cifically states that-
The United States will maintain its capac-
ity to resist any resort to force or other forms._
of coercion that would jeopardize the secur-
ity, or the social or economic system, of the
people of Taiwan.
The fact that Taiwan's economic sys-.
tem is so highly developed also makes it
vulnerable to economic boycott and
blackmail. While the prevailing economic
conditions in the East and Southeast
Asian area where Taiwan has extensive
commercial relationships owning to its
high level of technology intensive indus-
tries certainly make it hard to imagine
what non-Communist countries would
abet such an effort, it is important that
the United States state clearly its con-
cern and retain our capacity to help our
friends on Taiwan resist such coercion.
Because of my own concern, I cospon-
sored an amendment which was accepted
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
March 139 1979 OONGR ESSXO TAIL RIE(C?IIBD - $IENATZ
by the Senate to go further by adding a
new section which provides that noth-
Ing in S. 245 shall be construed as a basis
for supporting the expulsion or exclusion
of the people of Taiwan from continued
membership in international financial
' and other international organizations.
The importance of the Asia Develop-
ment Bank, the World Bank, the Inter-
national Monetary Fund, and other mul-
tilateral economic institutions cannot be
stressed too strongly in a world growing
Increasingly dependent upon financial
cooperation in undertaking development
projects. How tragic it would be if one of
the foremost examples of an underde-
veloped nation becoming a highly de-
veloped one and good customer for
American products were to be systemat-
ically excluded from participation In
these important enterprises.
Because the legislation we are con-
sidering seeks to assist the President in
doing something literally without prece-
dent in our diplomatic history, I believe
it is also only right that Congress be a
full partner in this process, Accordingly,
I also cosponsored and the Senate ac-
cepted an amendment establishing a
Joint Commission for Security and Co-
operation in East Asia. Again, the im-
portance of this oversight when I refer
to our considerable mutual economic in-
terests with Taiwan and when we realize
that the instrumentality to carry for-
ward this relationship-the American In-
stitute in Taiwan-is untested.
The commission will have 12 members,
6 from the House and 6 from the Senate
and would monitor and report on the full
range of policy concerns expressed in the
bill, including the operation and pro-
cedures of the instrumentality responsi-
ble for our relations with Taiwan, the
degree of success in maintaining free
and unfettered cultural, commercial, and
other relations between Taiwan and the
United States; and human rights.
Finally, Mr. President, the normaliza-
tion of our relations with the People's
Republic of China has required a "de-
recognition" that the Government of the
Republic of China on Taiwan is the sole
and legitimate government for all of
China. To insist that we could succeed
or devise. a plan under the present cir-
cumstances where we could impose upon
the PRC acceptance of the political fic-
tion of the Government of the Republic
of China's claim is wholly inconsistent
with the Shanghai Communique of 1972.
But it is more than that. It is an un-
helpful Impulse to see the world as we
would wish it to be and not as it truly
Is. While some critics of this course would
dismiss such a realization as a retreat
by the United States, I would strongly
disagree. On the contrary, the decision
to establish formal ties with the PRC
signals a renewed U.S. commitment to
participate in the process of peace and
stability in Asia and the Pacific basin.
It enhances our influence in the area
and helps us assure the security of Ja-
pan, our principal ally in the region and
the real anchor of our security interests
in East Asia. I say this to point out that
a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan issue
is not just In the interest of the United
States but important to the other na-
tions committed to peace, progress, and
stability in the region.
In short, the "derecognition" of the
Government of the Republic of China
on Taiwan is not and, as long as I am
in the Senate, will not be an abandon-
ment of the people of Taiwan. I cannot
tell my colleagues in this Chamber what
the precise future of the people on Tai-
wan will be in terms of their final polit-
ical status. But I can say a determination
of that status will come about through
the process of negotiation rather than
through force of arms, because of the
dedication and concern for the future of
these brave people shared by my col-
leagues and the American people whom
we represent.O
o Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, after a
great deal of consideration, _I have re-
luctantly decided to vote for final pas-
sage of S. 245, the Taiwan Enabling Act.
I shall vote for S. 245 because there is
no realistic alternative at this time. This
issue has been handled poorly from the
beginning.
-with the Congress prior to his surprise
December 15 announcement can only in-
dicate that the President does not recog-
nize the constitutional and political role
of Congress in the formulation of for-
eign policy which has evolved over the
years. His decision to terminate the Mu-
tual Defense Pact is particularly
troubling. I am certain, Mr. President,
that many nations are now reconsidering
the value of a treaty with the United
States. It is of grave concern to me that
If the President's decision on this treaty
is allowed to stand, this President or any
future President can unilaterally. termi-
nate any treaty such as the NATO
Treaty, the SALT Treaty, or the Mutual
Defense Pact with the Republic of Korea.
Mr. President, while I support the rec-
ognition of the People's Republic of
China, there is absolutely no reason why
that recognition was contingent on the
derecognition of the Republic of China
and the abrogation of the Mutual De-
fense Pact. The normalization of rela-
tions with Peking is of greater benefit to
the PRC than to the United States. It is
absurd that the United States made the
greater concessions in the negotiations.
Be that as it may, the legislation to
provide for relations with the people and
Government on Taiwan which was sub-
mitted by the President did not even
adequately provide for the security of the
island. Only after extensive reworking
by the Senate Foreign Relations Commit-
tee has the legislation become somewhat
acceptable. It has, however, been obvi.
ous that only certain changes in the bill
will be tolerated. Efforts to strengthen
the security guarantees to our allies on
Taiwan have been defeated. The argu-
ment has been that these amendments
"would weaken the office of the.Presi-
dent." Since when, Mr. President, do
guarantees for the security of our friends
weaken the Presidency? If the improv-
ing of this legislation does, in fact,
weaken the Presidency, then we certainly
do not need this bill.
Mr. President, I supported the amend-
ment to establish a liaison office in Taipei
since one existed in Peking for a number
S 2595
of years. This amendment was defeated.
I supported the amendment to more
clearly define the term "people . on
Taiwan." This amendment was defeated.
I supported the amendment to send a
loud and clear message to Peking that
no threat to the security of Taiwan will
be tolerated at any time in the future.
This amendment was also defeated. At
that point, it was obvious that the Sen-
ate failed to write the type of bill which
was beneficial to the.long-term interests
of both the United States and Taiwan
and of our allies everywhere.
The reality of the situation, however,
is that we must establish some type of
relationship with the people and Gov-
ernment on Taiwan. Due to the poor
handling of the situation by the admin-
istration and due to the hurried time-
table. which the administration arbi-
trarily imposed, Taiwan is today left
without any type of formal or informal
relations with the United States. In an
effort to resolve this embarrassing situa-
tion, I shall reluctantly support S. 245.0
sINO-AMERICAN RELATIONS
0 Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, we have
been fortunate in the foresight of the
leaders and diplomats who have made
possible the dramatic breakthrough in
diplomatic relations between China and
the United States.
First there was Chairman Mao and
Premier Zhou on the Chinese side and
President Richard Nixon and Secretary
of State Henry Kissinger for the United
States who succeeded in negotiating the
Shanghai Communique of 1972.
Ambassador Huang Zhen, who later
became the first Chinese Ambassador to
be stationed in Washington, was Am-
bassador to France in 1972 and promoted
relations between the two countries
through his contacts with his counter-
part, U.S. Ambassador to France Ar-
thur K. Watson.
These important initial meetings were
followed by meetings with President Ford
and Henry Kissinger, President Jimmy
Carter, Secretary Cyrus Vance, and As-
sistant to the President for National
Security Zbigniew Brzezinski, together
with such congressional leaders as Mike
Mansfield, Hugh Scott, TED KENNEDY,
and many others who have traveled to
Beijing to speak directly to Chinese
leaders. U.S. Ambassador Leonard Wood-
cock, an established expert in labor nego-
tiations, played a key role in the final
weeks of progress. Both Chairman Hua
Guofeng and Vice Chairman Deng Xia-
oping have provided the leadership nec-
essary on their side to see our negotia-
tions culminate in full diplomatic rela-
tions. And former Ambassador Huang
Chen, former Deputy of the PRC'liaison
-office Hua Xu, as well as His Excellency
Chaff Zemin, China's new Ambassador to
the United States, have all- played im-
portant roles in establishing our new re-
lations.
We owe a great deal to these distin-
guished leaders on both sides of the
Pacific and to many others, both Repub-
licans and Democrats, who have con-
tinued to work toward normalization of
relations between our, two nations.
Normalization is in the best interest of
(See exhibit 1.)
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
S 2596
CONGRESSIONAL R]ECORD -SENATE March 13, 1979
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the
Congress is now completing a historic
process begun last December 15. On that
date, President Carter announced our
Nation's recognition of the People's Re-
public of China. Since then, we have
demonstrated our ability to adopt a real-
istic policy toward the nearly 1 billion
people on the Chinese mainland. We
have recognized the fact that Peking has
governed these people for nearly three
decades. We have made it possible to
move forward, at long last, toward nor-
mal and enduring relations between our
two countries.
At the same time, we are behaving with
responsibility to the people of Taiwan.
Through the Taiwan Enabling Act (S.
245), the Congress will demonstrate our
ability and our readiness to maintain a
full range of unofficial relations with
Taiwan. Our ties with its people should
remain unimpaired, because they should
remain the same in substance even
though they change in form. The Taiwan
Enabling Act will maintain "commercial,
cultural, and other relations with the
people on Taiwan," on unofficial instead
of official terms.
This achievement is due in no small
part to the careful and thorough work of
the Committee on Foreign Relations and
its chairman, Senator CHURCH.
I was pleased to be able to testify be-
fore the committee and contribute to its
work. I welcome particularly its subse-
quent incorporation of section 114, de-
signed to help insure the future security
of the people on Taiwan.
This section reflects the full substance
of the Taiwan Security Resolution (S.J.
Res. 31) introduced by 30 Senators,,in-
cluding Senators CRANSTON and myself,
as well as by Congressman WOLFF and
106 Members of the House. As a result
of its incorporation in the Taiwan En-
abling Act, we have made legislative pro-
vision for substantive 'continuity in our
relations ? wi$h the people on Taiwan in
the vital security sphere-also on unoffi-
cial terms, in a manner consistent with
our new diplomatic relationship with the
People's Republic of China.
Mr. President, I am confident that our
ties with the people on Taiwan will not
only remain unimpaired, but will actu-
ally be enhanced in the months and
years ahead. We have finally removed
Taiwan as a diplomatic issue between
China and the United States. No longer
do the Chinese feel duty-bound to object
to official relations based on our past
pretense that the government of 17 mil-
lion controls a nation of almost 1 billion.
In turn, the Chinese have agreed to con-
tinue unofficial ties between us and
Taiwan-ties which should expand and
strengthen just as Japan's did after it
normalized relations on the same basis
in 1972. It is no accident that Japanese
trade with Taiwan as well as with the
mainland has quintupled since normali-
zation, from roughly $1 billion each in
1971 to over $5 billion each in 1978.
The senior Senators from Virginia and
Arizona (Senators BYRD and GOLD-
WATER) and others resurrected their
argument last week that the President
lacked authority to give 1 year's notice
of termination of our mutual Defense
Treaty with Taiwan-in spite of that
treaty's explicit provision for such termi-
nation under its article X, which states
that-
Either party may terminate it 1 year after
notice has been given to the other party.
They argue, furthermore, that the con-
sent of two-thirds of the Senate or a
majority of both Houses of Congress is
required for the termination of any
Mutual Defense Treaty concluded by the
United States. These arguments are of
great interest to members of the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary, which I have the
privilege of chairing.
I have carefully examined the consti-
tutional and historical basis of these
objections, and I am personally con-
vinced that the President had full au-
thority to take the actions he did to
normalize relations with Peking, includ-
ing termination of the defense treaty
with Taipei. I am confident that the
President's decision will not be reversed,
either by the courts or by the Congress,
and I look forward to the debate on
this issue in committee and on the floor
later this spring.
While focusing on the exact terms of
normalization for both Taiwan and the
Chinese mainland, I believe that we
should all bear in mind the broader con-
text in which these terms have become
possible.
There are some who say that normali-
zation was a reflection of American
weakness. I say the opposite. Normaliza-
tion is a reflection of American strength:
Our strength to recognize the reality of
nearly 1 billion people controlled not by
Taipei but by Peking. Our strength to
act with responsibility to the 17 million
people on Taiwan, with whom we have
enjoyed close ties for over three decades.
Our strength to consolidate and
strengthen relations with the creative,
industrious and rapidly modernizing
Chinese people, and thus to contribute
to the peace and stability riot only of
Asia but of the world.
Mr. President, last week I received very
thoughtful statements on the implica-.
tions of normalization from academic,
business, civic, religious, and other com-
munity leaders throughout the United
States. I would like to share some of these
statements with my colleagues, who
I believe will find them'as helpful as I
have in assessing the broader Implica-
tions of our China policies now and in the
future. I request that the statements be
printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the state-
ments were ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENTS
Prof. Harlan Cleveland, Director, Program
in International Affairs, Aspen Institute for
Humanistic Studies, Austin, Tex.
"Normalization of relations with the PRC
was overdue. But our debate about it risks
making this move look a lot more than it ip.
Let's be clear about three things that normal-
ization is not:
"1. It is not the dawn of a nice, easy,
comfortable relationship. Diplomatic rela-
tions don't protect us against unpleasant
surprises-not on China's southern border
and not in the Middle East or Africa or the
Persian Gulf either.
"2. It is not the end of Taiwan's chance
to live its own life. The Japanese have al-
ready shown how to conduct business as
usual without an embassy in Taipei.
113. It is not an anti-Soviet move. The rift
between Moscow and Peking was not made
in Washington. Our cue is to get along with
both the Soviet Union and China, even if they
elect not to get along with each other."
Prof. Okira Iriye, Department of History,
University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill.
"I am irf favor US-PRC normalization as
it facilitates greater commercial and cultural
interactions between the two countries. They
have a great deal to offer to each other. I
do hope, however, that normalization will not
lead to any kind' of military alliance which
will unnecessarily create tensions among the
countries of the Far East, especially between
the US and the Soviet Union. I favor nor-
malization in the hope that it will lead to
lessening of tensions and eventual arms re-
duction in Asia, rather than to increased
chances of war."
Prof. Victor H. Li, Stanford University,
U.S.-China Relations Program, Stanford, Cal-
ifornia.
"I am delighted that normalization of re-
lations with the People's Republic of China
has finally taken place. The announcement
of December 15, 1978 marks a fundamental
point in developing cooperative ties with that
major country.
"But it should be stressed that normaliza-
tion, in and of itself, does not lead to full
friendly relations. Many political and legal
issues must still. be resolved. For example,
in the short term we must consider the
means by which normal dealings with China
could be enhanced-including how to cope
with the unrealistically high expectations for
trade and investments held by some persons.
More importantly, we must examine the long-
term strategic effects that improving US-
China relations would have on our relations
with the Soviet Union, Japan, and other
areas. In addition, the normalization process
has successfully avoided confronting the Tai-
wan problem. Yet that problem must be
dealt with eventually. As the people on Tai-
wan go about the difficult and potentially
disruptive business of deciding their future
course, the US will likely face a series of
politically and morally troublesome decisions
concerning our dealings with China and with
Taiwan."
Mr. Winston Lord, President, Council on
Foreign Relations, New York, N.Y.
"As one who has been directly involved
from the outset in the opening to China, I
strongly favor improved relations with that
country. I believe this process can lessen ten-
sions and strengthen stability in Asia and
the world, improve our overall international
position, and bring cultural, economic and
other bilateral benefits. Normalization of re-
lations with Peking is a significant step in
that process which I support, although the
crucial factor in our relationship will remain
the vision and steadiness of our world role.
We also have a deep obligation to the people
on Taiwan, who have been loyal friends and
have behaved with great decency and re-
straint through troubled times. Thus I wel-
come firm Congressional expressions of con-
cern for the future security and prosperity
of the people on Taiwan. These add an im-
portant element of reassurance to the series
of actions announced by the Administration
since December."
Mr. Richard A. Melville, President, and
Chief Executive Officer, Allied Bank Interna-
tional, New York, New York.
"I believe that normalization between the
U.S. and the People's Republic of China, the
country with the largest population on earth
and both countries situated, with long coast
lines on the periphery of the Pacific Ocean
(the U.S. with its 50th State and other pos-
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
March 13, 1979
sessions, such as Guam, Samoa, almost in
the middle of the Pacific) is essential for
the peaceful development within the Pacific
basin and this normalization has been held
off for too long.
"Only by being able to communicate di-
rectly with the Chinese government will we
'be able to influence China's movements and
developments of which perhaps hydrogen
power and weaponry may be the most im-
portant.
"China, I believe, is clearly afraid of now
being encircled by Russia also from the south,
in addition to their long mutual border in
the north. This may well be at least part
of their quick agreement to normalization
of their relations with the U.S.
"For this reason, I do not believe that they
would undertake any drastic measures to in-
corporate Taiwan politically and economically
into China anywhere in the near future. I be-
lieve militarily they could not handle it and
they know it would be a devastating blow to
their new relationship with the U.S. With
the history of thousands of years behind
them another few years are of little signif-
icance.
"With the new leadership in Peking, the
old traditional ideology of self-development
and self-reliance appears to have been put
aside for the time being and new develop-
ment plans seem to be surfacing almost
everyday. Within the next two or three dec-
ades, this huge country is to catch up with
the industrial world, and the old American
businessman's dream of eyeing the hundreds
of millions of Chinese as potential customers
may still become reality. From the technolo-
gical point of view, they need just about
everything, and with thhe United States
growing interest in expanding its exports it
is of the utmost Importance for us to estab-
lish as quickly as possible economic, politi-
cal and cultural relations to build up our
trade. If we do not act now, we will find that
we have lost this enormous market to ag-
gressive Japanese and European competition."
Dr. Shirley Sun, Executive Director, Chi-
nese Cultural Foundation, San Francisco,
California.
"As an Asian American and an Asian art
historian, I fully support President Carter's
enlightened and sensible policy in the nor-
malization of relations between the US and
the PRO.
"This policy, so late in coming, is finally
dealing with global reality. At the same time,
it will open up avenues of profitable ex-
change between the US and China that we
cannot afford to ignore-in the areas of sci-
ence, culture and trade that will greatly
benefit the lies of all Americans, not to
mention the importance it will bring to the
maintenance of world peace."
Dr. James C. Thomsen, Curator, Nieman
Foundation for Journalism, Harvard Univer-
sity, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
"The Carter Administration, with deft skill
and fine timing, has successfully concluded
the overdue process of normalization of rela-
tions between the United States and China
that Presidents Nixon and Ford made pos-
sible. It has done so in a way that assures the
security and well being of the people of Tai-
wan while averting the creation of a self-
styled second "China" whose status would be
constantly under threat. The people of Tai-
-wan will now be as well protected as before;
and Chinese-American relations can at last
proceed on a rational and peaceful basis
after nearly thirty years of largely unneces-
sary hostility."
Dr. Franklin J. Woo, China Program Direc-
tor, Division of Overseas Ministries, National
Council of Churches of Christ in the USA,
New York, N.Y.
"Generally speaking constituent members
of the National Council of the Churches of
O
CONG SSIONAL RECO
SIENA
Christ in the USA welcome the normalization
of diplomatic relations between the PRC and
USA. There does not seem to be objection to
the abrogation of the Mutual Defense Treaty
of 1954, which was based on cold war assump-
tions. Obligation is not to a treaty or to a
government which purports to be the sole
legitimate government for all of China, but
to the people of Taiwan, whose life and des-
tiny Is a concern of all people of good will.
The Churches of the National Council ate
concerned about the right of the people of
Taiwan to have a say in their life and
destiny."
League of Women Voters of the United
States.
"League of Women Voters President Ruth
J. Hinerfeld has heralded the establishment
of the U.S. diplomatic relations with the
People's Republic of China as a bold and
historic step. She disclaims any direct con-
nection between President Carter's dramatic
announcement on December 15 and her early
.December trip to the People's Republic of
China with a prestigious delegation of civic
and world affairs leaders. What is "right
on target", the League president readily
admits, is the credit frequently given the
LWV for its vanguard role over a decade
ago in paving the way for normalization of
U.S. relations with the PRC.
"In early 1969, three years before the
Shanghai Communique, the League's mem-
ber study culminated in a forward looking
position. In that position, the League called
for U.S. initiatives to facilitate PRC par-
ticipation in the world community and to
relax tensions between the U.S. and China.
The League recommended a range of policies
to encourage normalization of relations-
through travel, cultural exchanges and un-
restricted trade in nonstrategic goods. The
League also urged the U.S. to withdraw its
opposition to PRC -representation in the
UN and to move toward establishing dip-
lomatic relations with the PRC.
"Ms. Hinerfeld stresses that the League
was aware from the outset of the need for
political astuteness and careful timing, and
its actions during the late 60s and early
70s were carefully calculated to support
various Presidential and Congressional ini-
tiatives at the most propitious times. She
also emphasizes the pride League members
take in their role in helping to open the
diplomatic doors between the most populous
and the most powerful nations.
"The League stands ready to support such
legislative proposals as most-favored-nation
treatment of the PRC."
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I am
not aware of any other Senator who
wishes to offer an amendment.
Mr. JAVITS. Nor am I.
Mr. CHURCH. I believe the Senate is
prepared to move now to a final vote on
the bill. I make the following parlia-
mentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator will state it.
Mr. CHURCH. Under the unanimous-
consent agreement, was the vote to come
at or before 5 o'clock this afternoon?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No later
than 5 o'clock.
Mr. CHURCH. Is it in order, 'then, to
begin the vote at this time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do Sen-
ators yield back the remainder of their
time?
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll,
S 2597
The second assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, it,might
be appropriate at this time for me to
express my very deep appreciation to the
members of the staff of the Foreign Re-
lations Committee who worked so very
hard to organize the hearings and to
draft for the committee various amend-
ments that, in my judgment, greatly im-
proved this bill.
When the legislation first came to us
from the administration, it was inade-
quate. I said at that time that it was
woefully inadequate, and I do- not believe
that I overstated the case. But in the
course of the committee's deliberations
the bill was amended. It now gives fully
adequate protection to the property
holdings of the authorities on Taiwan
and the people of Taiwan, and to the
corporate entities in Taiwan that may
be located here in the United States. It
was also amended to give the people an
access to the courts of this country, and
to sue or to be sued.
The question of extending appropriate
privileges and immunities to those who
will represent Taiwan in the institution
which they are expected to establish was
dealt with through committee action. .
Finally, and most importantly, a very
strong unilateral statement was included
in the bill giving full recognition to the
continuing responsibility that the com-
mittee felt this country owed the people
on Taiwan by virtue of our long alliance
with them. Thus we removed any basis
for the charge that has previously been
made that the United States has walked
away from an old ally in order to do
business with mainland China.
The various weaknesses which were
apparent in the administration's bill
have been corrected, and I think the pos-
ture of the United States is honorable
and strong.
Throughout this debate I have said, as
have others. who support this legislation,
that we commend the President of the
United States for having at last faced up
to the realities in Asia, for having had
the political courage and conviction
necessary to consummate the opening of
mainland China that President Nixon
initiated in 1972.
Finally, Mr. President, we are on
course again in Asia. The old policy of
self-deception, which created for us a
posture of endemic weakness respecting
Asia, which contributed to our involve-
ment in two indecisive wars and cost us,
very dearly, is over. Even though we are
late coming to the recognition that it is
in our national interest to have direct
dealings with China, in a government
that exercises jurisdiction over one-
quarter of the human race, it has, in fact,
occurred at long last. For this I com-
mend the President of the United States.
Mr. President, the various changes in
this bill to which I have referred, made
by the committee and made by the Sen-
ate as a whole in the past few days in
the amendments that we have adopted,
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
S2598
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE March 13, 1979
present, when taken together, a good bill
in which we can take justifiable pride.
I want to pay my respects to those
members of the committee staff who as-
sisted us throughout our deliberations:
Mr. William Bader, the director of the
staff; Patrick Shea, and William Barnds,
who have been with me here on the floor
of the Senate throughout the debate; Mr.
Michael Glennon, our counsel; Mr. Peter
Lakeland, the special assistant to our
ranking member, Senator JAVITS, along
with Ray Werner and Hans Binnedijk,
who worked extensively on preparing the
briefing books for the hearings.
Mr. JAVITS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I am happy to yield.
Mr. JAVITS. I would like to add the
name of Fred Tipson, who has been work-
ing on this legislation.
Mr. CHURCH. Yes. He definitely
should be, included. I thank the Senator
for mentioning his name.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, may I say
that I consider this piece of legislation to
be statesmanlike, just, and well within
the compass of our implementation, with
every promise that it can work. What we
have done is to base the legislation on
what we are able to do and what we are
able to judge and perceive. We have, I
feel, avoided all of those amendments
which would have sought to substitute us
for the authorities on Taiwan. That is
why I think this can work and work ef-
fectively, giving deep assurance and safe-
guards to the people on Taiwan. Just as
we are having normal relations with the
People's Republic of China, so within the
limits of that policy we can have normal
relations and express the morality as
well as the practicality of our solicitude
for the security and, very importantly,
the social and economic system of the
people on Taiwan as they design it as
time goes on.
I thank my colleague for his coopera-
tion and for the magnificent work which
he has done in the management of this
bill.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, may I
say to the ranking minority member (Mr.
JAVITS) that had it not been for his own
initiatives it would never have been pos-
sible for the committee to finally reach
a unanimous vote on this bill, recom-
mending it favorably to the Senate, nor
would it have been possible to have
achieved so commanding. a majority in
connection with the language dealing
with the future security of the people on
Taiwan. To him I am especially indebted,
as well as to all the other members of
the committee who have participated so
actively in bringing this matter to a final
vote.
It was once predicted that this would
be extraordinarily divisive, that the com-
mittee itself would be unable to reach a
consensus, and that the Senate would be
deeply divided. I think all of those pit-
falls have been successfully avoided and
that the Senate will, in fact, endorse this
measure by an overwhelming vote.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I yield.
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I believe this request has been cleared on
the other side of the aisle:
I ask unanimous consent that when
H.R. 2479 is received from the House it
be considered as having been read twice,
that the Senate proceed to its immediate
consideration, and, without any interven-
ing debate or motion, that all after the
enacting clause be stricken, that the text'
of S. 245 as passed by the Senate, as we
expect it to be passed shortly, be substi-
tuted in lieu thereof, that without any
further amendment or intervening mo-
tion or debate the bill be read a third
time and passed, that that action be
deemed as having been reconsidered and
laid on the table, that the Senate insist
upon its amendments, request a confer-
ence with the House and that the Chair
be authorized to appoint the conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. McCLURE. Will the Senator from
Idaho yield to his colleague 1 minute on
the bill before the vote?
Mr. CHURCH. Yes, but before I do
that, may I express my thanks to the
majority leader for the extremely helpful
way in which he intervened on more
than one occasion in the course of this
debate to assist us when we needed his
help, and for the effectiveness with which
he did so. I appreciate it.
Mr. JAVITS. And my thanks, as well,
as the minority manager.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, as we con-
clude the debate on this difficult and im-
portant legislation which establishes the
foundation on which to build a new rela-
tionship with Taiwan, I would like to
take this opportunity to commend the
distinguished ranking member of the
Foreign Relations Committee for the role
that he has played in its passage. In both
the committee, and then on the floor, he
has managed to blend widely divergent
points-of-view, and he has protected well
the rights of those on this side of the
aisle who desired to contribute to this
legislation. It was a demanding responsi-
bility performed extraordinarily well, as I
am certain it will be performed during
the difficult issues ahead.
Mr.- ROBERT C. BXRD. Mr. President,
the establishment of full diplomatic rela-
tions with the People's Republic of China
is a step that is both realistic and in the
national interest of the United States. In
addition to meeting these basic criteria
for American foreign policy, this action-
opening official relations with the largest
and one of the most important nations in
the world-enhances U.S. credibility in
the international arena. Relations be-
tween the United States and China are
also an important counterbalance in the
triangular relationship involving our two
countries and the Soviet Union.
Normalization of relations was the log-
ical extension of a policy which was set
in motion by President Nixon during his
visit to China in 1971. That policy, ex-
pressed in the Shanghai Communique,
was subsequently carried forward by
President Ford and then by President
Carter, who reached agreement with the
Peking Government on normalization.
While I have strongly supported this
continuum in our foreign policy, I also
have been concerned about assuring the
continuing prosperity and security of the
people of Taiwan.
We want to maintain commercial, cul-
tural, and other relations with Taiwan,
and that is the purpose of the legislation
which has been before the Senate in re-
cent days. This bill, the Taiwan Enabling-
Act, provides the mechanism by which
those relations will be administered and.
carried out.
This mechanism, the American Insti-
tute in Taiwan, will, I believe, prove to
be a workable instrument for admin-
istering United States-Taiwan relations.
The Committee on Foreign Relations
added important provisions to. the leg-
islation in order to assure appropriate
congressional oversight of the institute.
In addition to our cultural and com-
mercial relations with Taiwan, the fu-
ture security of the people of Taiwan is
a matter of particular concern to us.
This was reflected in the extensive dis-
cussion within the Committee on For-
eign Relations as well as within the
Senate.
The committee's amendment to the
bill. submitted by the administration
makes absolutely clear to the People's
Republic that its new relationship with
the United States would be severely jeop-
ardized if there is any use of force or
other coercion against Taiwan.
The assurances provided by Vice-Pre-
mier Deng Xiaoping during his visit here
earlier this year considerably allayed my
concern for Taiwan's security. Deng said
Taiwan would retain its autonomy as a
governmental unit, its armed forces and
the management of those forces, and its
trade and commerce.
In my discussion with him, Deng said
that the People's Republic would not
impose leaders on Taiwan and that the
people living on Taiwan could select their
own leaders. The one point upon which
Deng insisted very strongly is that there
is one China, and that Taiwan is part
of China. This, of course, is something
the United States acknowledged in the
Shanghai Communique in 1972.
I believe that the leaders of the Peo-
ple's Republic recognize that any at-
tempt to resolve the reunification ques-
tion by other than peaceful means would
be both extremely costly and counter-
productive.
Mr. President, the amendment by the
Committee on Foreign Relations and
other Senate actions during our con-
sideration of this bill, have left no room
for doubt as to our continuing concern
about the well-being of the people of
Taiwan, notwithstanding our recogni:' "
tion of the People's Republic.
The committee,' under the leadership
of its chairman, Mr. Cxvxcrr, has made
a significant contribution to this legis-
lation. I want to commend the chair-
man, along with Senator JAVITS, the
ranking minority member, and Senator
GLENN, who helped manage this bill, for
their efforts. A number of other Senators
have taken active roles in the lengthy
debate which has occurred here. The
result is a bill which is deserving of our
support and which will serve U.S. foreign
policy interests.
Mr. CHURCH. I thank the Senator
very much. I yield to the Senator from
Idaho.
Mr. McCLURE.' Mr. President, I first
of all want to state my concern that the
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
March 13, 19 79 - CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
bill may not have accomplished what we
set out to accomplish. I think it is very
clear that if the United States is com-
mitted to resist economic pressure
against Taiwan, that that economic
pressure would not succeed. If, however,
we fall short of that commitment it is
only a question of time, and that may
only be a short period of time. That
? would be my concern and the reason
why I will not support the legislation. I
thank the managers of the bill for the
courtesy which they have extended to
me throughout the debate. I do not mean
to imply any personal criticism in my
criticism of the result.
ORDER FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. RESOLUTION 50
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that,
upon the disposition of S. 245 in accord-
ance with the order of the Senate, the
agreement that has just been entered
into, the Senate proceed to the consid-
eration of calendar order No. 39, Senate
Resolution 50.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection?
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, reserving
the right to object, what is it?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. It is a resolu-
tion disapproving the proposed deferral
of budget authority to promote and de-
velop fishery products and research per-
taining to American fisheries.
Mr. HELMS. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
a sufficient second? There is a sufficient
second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion before the Senate is on agreeing to
the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute, as amended.
Has the Senator from New York
'asked for a rollcall only on passage?
Mr. JAVITS. Only on passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
is open to further amendment. If there
be no further amendment to be pro-
posed, the question is on agreeing to the
committee amendment in the nature of
a substitute as amended.
The committee amendment in the na-
ture of a substitute, as amended, was
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading and was read the
third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
having been read the third time, the
? question is, Shall it pass?
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called
the roll.
Mr. CRANSTON. I announce that the
Senator from Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL) and
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. MATSU-
NAGA) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present
and voting, the Senator from Alaska
.(Mr. GRAVEL) would vote "yea."
Mr. STEVENS. I announce that the
Senator from California (Mr. HAYA-
KAWA) and the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. MATHIAS) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from California (Mr.
HAYAKAWA) would vote "yea."
. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
LEVIN). Are there any Senators wishing
to vote who have not voted?
The result was announced-yeas 90,
nays 6, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 17 Leg.]
-YEAS-90
Armstrong
Glenn
Percy
Baker
Hart
Pressler
Baucus
Hatch
Proxmire
Bayh
Hatfield
Pryor
Bellmon
Heflin
Randolph
Bentsen
Heinz
Ribicoff
Biden
Helms
Riegle
Boren
Hollings
Roth
Boschwitz
Huddleston
Sarbanes
Bradley
Inouye
Sasser
Bumpers
Jackson
Schmitt
Burdick
Javits
Schweiker
Byrd,
Jepsen
Simpson
Harry F., Jr.
Johnston
Stafford
Byrd, Robert C. Kassebaum
Stennis
Cannon
Kennedy
Stevens
Chafee
Leahy
Stevenson
Chiles
Levin
Stewart
Church
Long
Stone
Cochran
Lugar
Talmadge
Cohen
Magnuson
Thurmond
Cranston
McGovern
Tower
Culver
Melcher
Tsongas
Danforth
Metzenbaum
Wallop
Dole
Morgan
Warner
Domenic!
Moynihan
Weicker
Durenberger
Muskie
Williams
Durkin
Nelson
Young
Eagleton
Nunn
Zorinsky
Exon
Packwood
Ford
Fell
NAYS-6
DeConcini
Goldwater
Laxalt
Garn
Humphrey
McClure
NOT VOTING-4
Gravel
Mathias
Hayakawa
Matsunaga
So the bill (S. 245) was passed, as fol-
lows :
S. 245
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That this Act
may be cited as the "Taiwan Enabling Act".
TITLE I
SEC. 101. (a) Whenever any law, regula-
tion, or order of the United States refers or
relates to a foreign country, nation, state,
government, or similar entity, such terms
shall include, and such law, regulation, or
order shall apply with respect to, the people
on Taiwan.
(b) Except as provided in section 205(d)
of this Act, the term "people on Taiwan", as
used in this Act, shall mean and include the
.governing authority on Taiwan, recognized
by the United States prior to January 1, 1979,
as the Republic of China; its agencies, In-
strumentalities, and political subdivisions;
and the people governed by it or the- organi-
zations and other entities formed under the
law applied on Taiwan in the Islands of Tai-
wan and the Pescadores.
SEC. 102. (a) No requirement for mainte-
nance of diplomatic relations with . the
United States, or for recognition of a govern-
ment by the United States as a condition of
eligibility for participation in programs,
transactions, or other relations authorized
by or pursuant to United States law, shall
apply with respect to the people on Taiwan.
(b) The rights and obligations under the
laws of the United States of natural persons
on Taiwan and the Pecadores, and of the
S 2599
organizations and other entities formed un-
der the lw applied by the people on Taiwan,
shall not be affected by the absence of diplo-
matic relations between the people on Tai-
wan and the United States or by lack of
recognition of the United States. .
SEC. 103. The instrumentality referred to
in section 108 of this Act and the authorities
on Taiwan shall have access to the courts of
the United States: Provided, That the United
States and the American Institute in Taiwan
have access to the courts on Taiwan. In the
case of any action brought in any court of
the United States on behalf of or against 'the
people on Taiwan prior to the effective date
of this Act, the authorities on Taiwan shall
continue to represent the people on Taiwan.
SEC. 104. For all purposes, including actions
in all courts in the United States, the Con-
gress approves the continuation in force of
all treaties and other international agree-
ments entered into between the United
States and the Government recognized as the
Republic of China prior to January 1, 1979,
and in force until December 31, 1978, unless
and until terminated in accordance with law.
SEC. 105. Whenever authorized or required
by or pursuant to United States law to con-
duct or carry out programs, transactions, or
other relations with respect to a foreign
country, nation, state, government, or simi-
lar entity, the President or any department
or agency of the United States Government
is authorized to conduct and carry out such
programs, transactions, and other relations
with respect to the people of Taiwan, in-
cluding, but not limited to, the performance
of services for the United States through
contracts with commercial entities in Tai-
wan, in accordance with applicable laws of
the United States.
SEC. 108. (a) Programs, transactions, and
other relations conducted or carried out by
the President or any department or agency
of the United States Government with re-
spect to the people on Taiwan shall, in. the
manner and to the extent directed by the
President, be conducted and carried out by
or through the American Institute in Taiwan,
a nonprofit corporation incorporated under
the laws of the District of Columbia (here-
inafter "the Institute").
(b) To the extent that any law, rule, regu-
lation, or ordinance of the District of Co-
lumbia or of any State or political sub-
division thereof in which the Institute is in-
corporated or doing business impedes or
otherwise interferes with the performance of
the functions of the Institute pursuant to
this Act, such law, rule, regulation, or ordi-
nance shall be deemed to be preempted by
this Act.
(c) In carrying out its activities, the Insti-
tute shall take all appropriate steps to
strengthen and expand the ties between the
people of the United States and all the
people on Taiwan and to promote full human
rights for all the people of Taiwan, and to
provide adequate personnel and facilities to
accomplish the purposes of this section.
SEC. 107. Whenever the President or any
department or agency of the United States
Government is authorized or required by or
pursuant to United States law to enter into.,
perform, enforce, or have in force an agree-
ment or arrangement relative to the people of
Taiwan, such agreement or arrangement shall
be entered into, or performed and enforced,
in the manner and to the extent directed by
the President, by or though the Institute.
SEC. 108. Whenever the President or any
department or agency of the United States
Government is authorized or required by or
.pursuant to United States law to render or
provide to, or to receive or accept from,
the people of Taiwan, any performance,
communication, assurance, undertaking, or
other action, such action shall, in the man-
ner and to the extent directed by the Presi-
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 S 2600
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE March 13, 1979
dent, be rendered or provided to, or re-
ceived or accepted from, an instrumentality
established by the people on Taiwan.
SEC. 109. Whenever the application of a
rule of law of the United States depends
upon the law applied on Taiwan or compli-
ance therewith, thQ law applied by the peo-
ple on Taiwan shall be considered the appli-
cable law for that purpose.
SEC. 110. (a) For all purposes, including
actions in all courts in the United States,
recognition of the People's Republic of China
shall not affect the ownership of, or other
rights, or ,interests in, properties, tangible
and intangible, and other things of value,
owned, acquired by, or held on or prior to
December 31, 1978, or thereafter acquired or
earned by the people on Taiwan. For the
purposes of this section 110, the term "peo-
ple on Taiwan" includes organizations and
other entities formed under the law applied
on Taiwan.
(b) Any contract or property right or in-
terest, obligation or debt of, or with respect
to, the people on Taiwan heretofore or here-
after acquired by United States persons,
and the capacity of the people on Taiwan to
sue or be sued in courts in the United
States, shall not be abrogated, infringed,
modified, or denied because of the absence of
diplomatic relations between the people on
Taiwan and the United States or the lack
of recognition of a government by the United
States.
SEC. 111. (a) Notwithstanding the $1,000
per capita income restriction in clause (2)
of the second undesignated paragraph of
section 231 of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1981, the Overseas Private Investment Cor-
poration ("the Corporation") in determining
whether to provide any insurance, reinsur-
ance, loans or guaranties for a project, shall
'not restrict its activities with respect to in-
vestment projects in Taiwan.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (a)
of this section, in issuing insurance, rein-
surance, loans or guaranties with respect to
investment projects on Taiwan, the Corpo-
ration shall apply the same criteria as those
applicable in other parts of the world.
(c) Not later than five years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Presi-
dent shall report in writing to the Commit-
tee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and
the Speaker of the House of Representatives
concerning the desirability of continuing
this section in force in light of economic
conditions prevailing on Taiwan on the
date of such report.
SEC. 112. (a) The President is authorized
and requested, under such terms and condi-
tions as he determines, to extend to the
instrumentality established by the people
on Taiwan and the appropriate members
thereof, referred to in section 108, privileges
and immunities comparable to those pro-
vided to missions of foreign countries, upon
the condition that privileges and immuni-
ties are extended on a reciprocal basis to
the American Institute on Taiwan at not
less than the level authorized herein with
respect to the instrumentality referred to
in section 108.
(b) The President is authorized to extend
to the instrumentality established by the
people on Taiwan the same number of of-
flees and complement of personnel as pre-
viously operated in the United States by the
government recognized as the Republic of
China prior to January 1, 1979, upon the
condition that the American Institue in Tai-
wan is reciprocally allowed such offices and
personnel.
SEC. 113. (a) It is the policy of the United
States-
(1) to maintain extensive, close, and
friendly relations with the people on Tai-
wan;
(2) to make clear that the United States
decision to establish diplomatic relations
with the People's Republic of China rests on
the expectation that any resolution of the
Taiwan issue will be by peaceful means;
(3) to consider any effort to resolve the Tai-
wan issue by other than peaceful means,
including boycotts or embargoes, a threat to
the peace and security of the Western Pa-
cific area and of grave concern to the United
States; and
(4) to provide the people on Taiwan with
arms of a defensive character.
(b) In order to achieve the objectives of
this section-
(1) the- United States will maintain its
capacity to resist any resort to force or other
forms of coercion that would jeopardize the
security, or the social or economic system, of
the people on Taiwan;
(2) the United States will assist the people
on Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-
defense capability through the provison of
arms of a defensive character;
(3) the President is directed to inform the
Congress promptly of any threat to the se-
curity or the social or economic system of
Taiwan and any danger to the interests of
the United States arising therefrom; and
(4) the United States will act to meet any
danger described in paragraph (3) of this
subsection in accordance with constitutional
processes and procedures established by law.
SEC. 114. The President shall transmit to
the Speaker of the House of Representatives
and the chairman of the Committee on For-
eign Relations of the Senate on or before
November 15 of each year a report on the
status of arms sales of major defense equip-
ment of $7,000,000 or more or of any other
defense articles or defense services for $25,-
000,000 or more, which are considered eligible
for approval during the fiscal year beginning
on October 1 of such year and which are
proposed for or requested by the people on
Taiwan. -
SEC. 115. Nothing in this Act may be con-
strued'as a basis for supporting the exclusion
or expulsion of the people on Taiwan from
continued membership in any international
financial institution or any other interna-
tional organization.
SEC. 116. Nothing in this Act, nor the facts
of the President's action in extending diplo-
matic recognition to the People's Republic
of China, the absence of diplomatic rela-
tions between the people on Taiwan and the
United States or the lack of recognition by
the United States, and attendant circum-
stances thereto, shall be construed in any ad-
ministrative or judicial proceeding as a basis
for any United States Government agency,
commission or department to make a finding
of fact or determination of law under the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, to
deny an export license application or to re-
voke an existing export license or nuclear
exports to the people on Taiwan.
TITLE II
SEC. 201. Any department or agency of the
United States Government. is authorized to
sell, loan, or lease property, including in-
terests therein, to, and to perform admin-
istrative and technical support functions and
services for the operations of, the Institute
upon such terms and conditions as the Pres-
ident may direct. Reimbursements to depart-
ments and agencies under this section shall
be credited to the current applicable appro-
priation of the department or agency con-
cerned.
SEC. 202. Any department or agency of the
United States Government is authorized to
acquire and accept services from the In-
stitute upon such terms and conditions as
the President may direct. Whenever the Pres-
ident determines it to be in furtherance of
the purposes of this Act, the procurement
of services by such departments and agencies
from the Institute may be effected without
regard to such laws and regulations nor-
mally applicable to the acquisition of serv-
ices by such departments and agencies as
the President may specify by Executive order.
SEC. 203. Any department or agency of the
United States Government employing alien
personnel in Taiwan is authorized to trans-
fer such personnel, with accrued allowances,
benefits, and rights, to the Institute with-
out a break in service -for purposes of re-
tirement and other benefits, including con-
tinued participation in any system estab-
lished by law or regulation for the retire-
ment of employees, under which such per-
sonnel were covered prior to the transfer
to the Institute: Provided, That employee de-
ductions and employer contributions, as re-
quired, in payment for such participation for
the period of employment with the Institute,
shall be currently deposited in the system's
fund or depository.
SEC. 204. (a) Under such terms and con-
ditions as the President may direct, any de-
partment or agency of the United States
Government is authorized to separate from
Government service for a specified period any
officer or employee of that department or
agency who accepts employment with the
Institute.
(b) An officer or employee separated under
subsection (a) of this section shall be
eligible upon termination of such employ-
ment with the Institute to reemployment
or reinstatement in accordance with exist-
ing law with that department or agency or
a successor agency in an appropriate posi-
tion with attendant rights, privileges, and
benefits which the officer or employee would
have had or acquired had he or she not been
so separated, subject to such time period
and other conditions as the President may
prescribe. -
(c) An officer or employee eligible for re-
employment or reinstatement rights under
subsection (b) of this section shall, while
continuously employed by the Institute with
no break in continuity of service, continue
to be eligible to participate in any benefit
program in which such officer or employee
was covered prior to employment by the In-
stitute, including programs for compen?a-
tion for job-related death, injury or illness;.
for health and life insurance; for annual,
sick and other statutory leave; and for re-
tirement under any system established by
law or regulation: Provided, That employee
deductions and employer contributions, as
required, in payment for such participation
for the period of employment with the In-
stitute, shall be currently deposited in the
program's or system's fund or depository.
Death or retirement of any such officer or
employee during approved service with the
Institute and prior to reemployment or re-
instatement shall be considered a death in
service or retirement from the service for
the purposes of any employee or survivor
benefits acquired by reason of service with a
department or agency of the United States
Government.
(d) Any employee of a department or
agency of the United States Government who
entered into service with the Institute on
approved-leave of absence without pay prior
to the enactment of this Act shall receive
the benefits of this title for the period of
such service.
SEC. 205. (a) The Institute, its property,
and its income are exempt from all taxation
now or hereafter imposed by the United
States (except to the extent that section
204(c) of this Act requires the imposition
of taxes imposed under chapter 21 of the In-
ternal Revenue Code of 1954, relating to the
Federal Insurance Contributions Act) or by
any State or local taxing authority of the
United States.
(b) For purposes of the Internal Revenue
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
March 18, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -.SENATE
Code of 1954, the Institute shall be treated
as an organization described in sections 170
(b)(1)(A), 170(c), 2055(a), 2108(a)(2)(A),
2522(a), and 2522(b).
(c) (1) For purposes of sections 911 and 913
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954,
amounts paid by the Institute to its em-
ployees shall not be treated as earned in-
come. Amounts received by employees of the
Institute shall not be included in gross in-
come, and shall be exempt from taxation,
to the extent that they are equivalent to
amounts received by civilian officers and em-
ployees of the Government of the United
States as allowances and benefits which are
exempt from taxation under section 912 of
such Code.
(2) Except to the extent required by sec-
tion 204(c) of this Act, service performed in
the employ of the Institute shall not con
stitute employment for purposes of chapter
21 of such Code and title II of the Social
Security Act.
(d) For the purpose of applying section
102 of this Act to the Internal Revenue Code
of 1954, and to any regulation, ruling, de-
cision, or other determination under such
Code, the term "people on Taiwan" shall
mean the governing authority on Taiwan
recognized by the United States prior to Jan-
uary 1, 1979, as the Republic of China and
its agencies, instrumentalities, and political
subdivisions; except that when such term is
used in a geographical sense it shall mean
the islands of Taiwan and the Pescadores.
(e) The Institute shall not be an agency
or instrumentality of the United States. Em-
ployees of the Institute shall not be employ-
ees of the United States and, in representing
the Institute, shall be exempt from section
207 of title 18, United States Code.
SEC. 206. (a) The Institute may authorize
any of its employees in Taiwan-
(1) to administer to or take from any per-
son an oath, affirmation, affidavit, or depo-
sition, and to perform any notarial act which
any notary public is required or authorized
by law to perform within the United States;
(2) to act as provisional conservator of the
personal estates of deceased United States
citizens;
(3) to render assistance to American ves-
sels and seamen; and
(4) to perform any other duties in keep-
ing with the purposes of this Act and other-
wise authorized by law which assist or pro-
tect the persons and property of citizens or
entities of United States nationality.
(b) Acts performed by authorized em-
ployees of the Institute under this section
shall be valid, and of like force and effect
within the United States, as if performed by
any other person authorized to perform such
acts:
TITLE III
SEC. 301. In addition to funds otherwise
available for the provisions of this Act, there
are authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary of State for the fiscal year 1980
such funds as may be necessary to carry
out such provisions. Such funds are author-
?ized to remain available until expended.
SEC. 302. The Secretary of State is author-
ized to use funds made available to carry
out the provisions of this Act to further
the maintenance of commercial, cultural,
and other relations with the people on Tai-
wan on an unofficial basis. The Secretary
may provide such funds to the Institute
for expenses directly related to the provi-
sions of this Act, including-
(1) payment of salaries and benefits to
Institute employees;
(2) acquisition and maintenance of build-
ings and facilities necessary to the. conduct
of Institute business;
(3) maintenance of adequate security for
Institute employees and facilities; and
(4) such other expenses as may be neces-
sary for the effective functioning of the
Institute.
SEC. 303. Any department or agency of the
United States Government making funds
available to the Institute in accordance with
this Act shall make arrangements with the
Institute for the Comptroller General of the
United States to have access to the books and
records of the Institute and the opportunity
to audit the operations of the Institute.
SEC. 304. The President is authorized to
prescribe such rules and regulations as. he
may deem appropriate to carry out the pur-
poses of this Act. Such rules and regulations
shall be transmitted promptly to the Com-
mittee on Foreign Relations of the Senate
and the Speaker of the House of Representa-
tives. Such action shall not, however, relieve
the Institute of the responsibilities placed
upon it by this Act.
TITLE IV
SEC. 401. (a) The Secretary of State shall
transmit to the Congress the text of any
agreement to which the Institute is a party.
However, any such agreement the immediate
public disclosure of which would, in the
opinion of the President, be prejudical to
the national security of the United States
shall not be so transmitted to the Congress
but shall be transmitted to the Committee
on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives under an appropriate injunc-
tion of secrecy to be removed only upon due
notice from the President.
(b) For purposes of subsection (a), the
term "agreement" includes-
(1) any agreement entered into between
the Institute and the Taiwan authorities or
the instrumentality established by the Tai-
wan authorities; and
(2) any agreement entered into between
the Institute and departments and agencies
of the United States.
(c) Agreements and transactions made or
to be made by or through the Institute shall
be subject to the same congressional notifi-
cation, review, and approval requirements
and procedures as if such agreements were
made by or through the department or
agency of the United States on behalf of
which the Institute is acting.
SEC. 402. During the two-year period be-
ginning on the effective date of this Act,
the Secretary of State shall transmit to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate, every six months, a report describing
and reviewing economic relations between
the United States and the people on Taiwan,
noting any interference with normal com-
mercial relations.
SEC. 403. The President shall notify the
chairman of the Senate Committee on For-
eign Relations and the Speaker of the House
of Representatives thirty days prior to the
issuance to the People's Republic of China
of any license required under section 38 of
the Arms Export Control Act.
TITLE V-JOINT COMMISSION ON SECU-
RITY AND COOPERATION IN EAST ASIA
SEC. 501. (a) There is established a joint
congressional commission known as the Joint
Commission on Security and Cooperation in
East Asia (hereinafter in this title referred
to as the "Joint Commission") to exist for a
period of three years, which period shall
begin upon the date of enactment of this
Act.
(b) The Joint Commission shall monitor-
(1) the implementation of the provisions
of this Act;
(2) the operation and procedures of the
Institute;
(3) the legal and technical aspects of the
continuing relationship between the United
States and the people on Taiwan; and
(4) the implementation of the policies of
the United States concerning security and
cooperation in East Asia.
(c) (1) The Joint Commission shall be com-
52601
posed of twelve members. Of the members
provided for under the preceding sentence-
(A) six shall be Members of the House of
Representatives to be appointed by the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, four
of whom shall be selected from the majority'
party, and two of whom shall be selected,
upon the recommendation of the Minority
Leader of the House of Representatives, from
the minority party; and
(B) six shall be Members of the Senate to
be appointed by the President pro tempore of
the Senate, four of whom shall be selected.
upon the recommendation of the Majority
Leader of the Senate, from the majority
party, and two of whom shall be selected,
upon the recommendation of the Minority
Leader of the Senate, from the minority
party.
(2) In each odd-numbered Congress, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives shall
designate one of the Members of the House
of Representatives selected under paragraph
(1) (A) as Chairman of the Joint Commis-
sion, and the President pro tempore of the
Senate shall designate one of the Members
of the Senate selected under paragraph (1)
(B) as Vice Chairman of the Joint Commis-
sion. In each even-numbered Congress, the
President pro tempers of the Senate shall
designate one of the Members of the Senate'
selected under paragraph (1) (B) as Chair-
man of the Joint Commission, and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives
shall designate one of the Members of the
House of Representatives selected under
paragraph (1) (A) as Vice Chairman of the
Joint Commission.
(d) (1) Members of the Joint Commission
shall serve without compensation but shall
be entitled to reimbursement for travel, sub-
sistence, and other necessary expenses in-
curred by them in carrying out the duties
of the Joint Commission.
(2) The Joint Commission may appoint
and fix the pay of such staff personnel as it
deems desirable, without regard to the pro-
visions of title 5, United States Code, gov-
erning appointments in the competitive
service, and without regard to the provisions
of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter
53 of such title relating to classification and
general schedule pay rates.
(e) The Joint Commission may, in carry-
ing out Ito duties under this title, sit and
act at such times and places, hold such hear-
ings, take such testimony, and require, by
subpena or otherwise, the attendance and
testimony of such witnesses and the pro-
duction of such books, records, correspond-
ence, memoranda, papers, and documents as
it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued
over the signature of the Chairman of the
Joint Commission or any member designated
by him, and may be served by any person
designated by the Chairman or such mem-
ber. The Chairman of the Joint Commission,
or any member designated by him, may
administer oaths to any witness.
(f) (1) The Joint Commission shall pre-
pare and transmit a semiannual report to
the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the
House of Representatives, the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the
President on-
(A) the progress achieved by the United
States in maintaining full and unimpeded
cultural, commercial, and other relations
with the people on Taiwan, and
(B) the legal and technical problems aris-
ing from the maintenance of such relations,
together with recommendations for legisla-
tion to resolve such problems and recom-
mendations for strengthening such relations
and for carrying out the commitment of the
United States to human rights in East Asia.
(2) The Joint Commission shall provide
information to Members of the House of
Representatives and the Senate as requested.
(g) (1) There are authorized to be appro-
priated to the joint Commission for each
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
 S 2602
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD =- S)ENAT]E March 13, 1979
fiscal year and to remain available, until Mr. JAVITS. It will be prepared, I as-
expended, $550,000 to assist in. meeting the sume, in concert with us on the minority
expenses of the Joint Commission for the side.
purpose of carrying out the provisions of this CHURCH. Of course.
this title. Such appropriations shall be dis-
bursed by the Secretary of the Senate on
vouchers approved by the Chairman of the
Joint Commission, except that vouchers shall
not be required for the disbursement of
salaries of employees paid at an annual rate.
(2) For each fiscal year for which an appro-
priation is made the Joint Commission shall
submit to the Congress a report on its ex-
penditures under such appropriation.
(3) For purposes of section 502(b) of the
Mutual Security Act of 1954, the Joint Com-
mission shall be deemed to be a joint com-
mittee of the Congress and shall be entitled
to the use of funds in accordance with the
provisiong of such section.
TITLE VI
SEC. 601. This Act shall have taken effect
on January 1, 1979.
SEC. 602. If any provision of this Act or
the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held invalid, the remainder
of the Act and the application of such pro-
vision to any other person or circumstance
shall not be affected thereby.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I move
to reconsider the vote by which the bill
was passed.
Mr. JAVITS. I move to lay that motion
on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Secretary of
the Senate be authorized to make tech-
nical and clerical corrections in the en-
grossment of S. 245.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I 'ask
that the clerk report the amendment to
the title that was reported by the com-
mittee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Amend the title to read as follows:
A bill to promote the foreign policy of the
United States by authorizing the mainte-
nance of commercial, cultural, and other re-
lations with the people on Taiwan on an
unofficial basis, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the title is so amended.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that, consistent with
the previous order, the Chair be author-
ized to appoint conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The conferees will be appointed at the
appropriate time, after the House bill is
received.
Mr. CHURCH. I thank the Chair.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, would
it'be possible to have a succinct explana-
tion of the amendments that were made
during the consideration of the bill, to be
prepared by the staff?
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, in re-
sponse to the question of the distinguish-
ed minority whip, I will be glad to re-
quest that the staff prepare an explan-
ation
of the amendments adopted by the be released. This promotes and develops I understand the administration in-
Senate during the consideration of S. fishery products and research in the tends to abolish this fund for the next
245. As soon as that explanation is pre- United States, fiscal year. I hope with this unanimous
pared, I will see that it is included in I strongly recommend the adoption of vote in the Senate it will be a very clear
the RECORD. the resolution. indication of the strong sense of support
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator
from New York and the Senator from
Idaho.
ARRIVAL OF THE PRESIDENT AT
ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
buses will depart the Senate steps at
11:30 p.m. this evening to go to Andrews
Air Force Base. The President is sched-
uled to arrive at Andrews at 12:45 a.m.
tomorrow. Buses will depart Andrews im-
mediately after the President departs by
helicopter for the White House. The
buses will return to the Senate steps.
DISAPPROVAL OF PROPOSED
BUDGET DEFERRAL
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under
the previous order, the Senate will now
proceed to the consideration of Calendar
No. 39, Senate Resolution 50, which will
be stated by title:
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 50) disapproving the
proposed deferral of budget authority to pro-
mote and develop fishery products and re-
search pertaining to American fisheries.
The Senate proceeded to consider the
bill.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, may
we have order in the Senate? The Sen-
ate is not in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ate will be in order.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I ask
the majority leader if he has asked
unanimous consent that.the Senate pro-
ceed to the consideration of the bill.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. That has been
done, and the matter is before the Sen-
ate.
I ask the distinguished chairman of
the Appropriations Committee, for the
benefit of other Senators, if he antici-
pates any rollcall vote on this measure
tonight.
o Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in Oc-
tober 1978, OMB deferred $12,060,000
from the Saltonstall-Kennedy reserve
fund for fiscal year 1979. Presently, $6,-
579,000 of Saltonstall-Kennedy funds are
still being deferred. Approximately 21
fisheries development projects across the
nation are not being funded, because of
the deferral. These programs are de-
signed to help American fishermen de-
velop new techniques for harvesting and
processing, and to develop new and' un-
derutilized fisheries.
American fishermen need our assist-
ance if they are to compete effectively
with foreign fishermen in our 200-mile
fishing zone. As a cosponsor of Senate
Resolution 50, I urge the Senate to vote
favorably -on it.0
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I com-
mend the chairman, Mr. MAGNUSON, for
the strong support he gave to our resolu-
tion in the committee and for the strong
support we received from all the members
of the colfmmittee. I understand that
there was a unanimous vote in commit-
tee. I believe this was as a result of the
knowledge and understanding of the im-
portance of these limited, but very im-
portant resources, to the development of
our fisheries.
Even though it is a small amount of
money, it has had an enormous impact in
assisting fisheries in the East-in my own
State of Massachusetts as well as all of
New England-and on the west coast. it
relates to legislation that was originally
sponsored by then Senators John Ken-
nedy and Leverett Saltonstall.
It has been a small but vital resource
to help our fishing industry. I think the
results from these limited resources will
be benefits many times over in terms of
budget, in terms of tax revenues, and in
terms of supporting an extremely impor-
tant and vital industry.
I congratulate the Senator from Wash-
ington and thank him for the strong
leadership he has shown in this matter.
Mr. MAGNUSON. No, I do not. Mr. MAGNUSON. I point out to the
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Does anyone Senator from Massachusetts that these
else? are funds that are collected from custom
I see no indication of such, so I will duties on imported fishery products, and
state, . r indication
state, Mn they are supposed to be used for research
President, that there will be
l votes today. th - and development of the American fishing
' industry. I do not know why the admin-
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, Sen- istration made this deferral. I cannot un-
ate Resolution 50 deals with a deferral derstand it. These are funds that are
of the budget authority relating to NOAA, supposed to be expended. It has nothing
the National Oceanograhpic and Atmos- to do with taxation or the budget or
pheric Administration. things of that kind. The funds are sup-
The Appropriations Committee voted posed to be expended. The deferral of
unanimously to reject the deferral of this money has held up many important
Saltonstall-Kennedy funds for American development projects across the country,
fisheries- development research. This is including projects to utilize domestic
money that is collected under the Salton- species in Puget Sound and to develop
stal-Kennedy Act of 1954, which I believe underutilized species in Alaskan waters.
is familiar to most Senators. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would
Under the Budget Act, one House can like to address one brief inquiry to my
reject the deferral and add the money. friend and colleague from the State of
In this .case, it
m_..,.._ _ . ___ _ _
$12
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050008-4