UNITED STATES-TAIWAN RELATIONS ACT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 36
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 27, 2008
• Sequence Number: 12
• Publication Date: March 13, 1979
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

L. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
March 13, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE
^ 1220
THE TWO-STEP FISCAL POLICY
(Mrs. HOLT asked and was given per-
mission to address the House for 1 min-
ute and to revise and extend her re-
marks.)
Mrs. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, the balanced
budget caucus organized this morning
under the leadership of the-gentleman
from Missouri and the gentleman from
Indiana, and so the support for the con-
cept is mounting.
Mr. Speaker, we are nearing the stage
at which we will be considering the first
budget resolution for the 1980 fiscal year,
but the process for exercising this ex-
tremely important responsibility is woe-
fully deficient.
- We have a system which forces us to
debate and act on specific spending deci-
sions before we adopt aggregate fiscal
policy. We will be haggling over priorities
before we decide how much to spend in
total, and the effect will be to drive total
spending upward. The system we are us-
ing reinforces the normal political in-
stinct to accommodate everybody's spe-
cial interest.
Instead, we should be establishing fis-
cal policy first, and only then should we
proceed to debate our specific spending
priorities within that policy. It was under
this procedure that we were able to get
the large number of votes last year on the
Holt amendment which would have re-
duced the rate of growth of Government.
I have introduced H.R. 55, which would
force us to establish how much we can
afford to spend before we wrestle with
how much to spend on this program or
that. I hope you will join me in cospon-
soring this legislation.
THE DOLLAR MUST BE BACKED
WITH INTRINSIC VALUE
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given per-
mission to address the House for 1 minute
and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, "The first
panacea for a mismanaged nation," wrote
Ernest Hemingway, "is inflation of the
currency."
This has been true in civilizations an-
cient and modern. And it is true in the
United States today.
The dollar that bought 100 cents worth
of goods in 1967 buys only 49 cents worth
today. A year from now it will probably
purchase less than 44 cents worth.
The Government is considering killing
off the $1 bill, now that we will have an
appropriately small $1 coin. In the fu-
ture, will we carry $5 and $10 coins in-
stead of nickels and dimes?
Unless the Government stops its delib-
erate policy of inflating the money sup-
ply, in order to stimulate the economy
and pay for more spending, that is exact-
ly the way we will end up. Only a dollar
backed with something of intrinsic value,
instead of political promises, can stem
inflation once and for all.
CALL OF THE HOUSE
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, due to
the fact there obviously is not a quorum
present, I move a call of the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore '(Mr.
MURTHA). Without objection, a call of
the House is ordered.
There was no objection.
A call of the House was ordered.
The call was taken by electronic de-
vice, and the following Members failed
to respond:
[Roll No. 291
Addabbo
Diggs
McDonald
Albosta
Dingell
McKinney
Alexander
Dodd
Mathis
Ambro
Dornan
Moffett
Anderson, Ill.
Downey
Murphy, N.Y.
Andrews, N.C.
Drinan
Patterson
Archer
Eckhardt-
Pursell
Ashley
Fenwick
Ritter
Barnes
Flood
Rosenthal
Beard, Tenn.
Frenzel
Runnels
Bevill
Garcia
Simon
Broyhill
Goldwater
Smith, Iowa
Burton, John
Hall, Ohio
Steed
Cheney
Hance
Udall
Conyers
Harsha
Van Deerlin
Crane, Philip
Horton
Vento
Davis, S.C.
Hutto
Williams, Ohio
Deckard
Jeffries
Young, Alaska
Derrick
Kemp
Dicks
McCloskey
El 1240
The SPEAKER pro tempore. On this
rollcall 374 Members have recorded their
presence by electronic device, a quorum.
Under the rule, further proceedings
under the call are dispensed with.
UNITED STATES-TAIWAN
RELATIONS ACT
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Speaker, I move
at the House resolve itself into the
minittee of the Whole House on the
S to of the Union for the further con-
si ration of the bill (H.R. 2479) to help
maintain peace, security, and stability
in the Western Pacific and to promote
continued extensive, close, and friendly
relations between the people of the
United States and the people on Taiwan.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The ques-
tion is on the motion offered by the gen-
tleman from Wisconsin (Mr. ZABLOCKI).
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further
consideration of the bill I.R. 2479, with
Mr. DANIELSON in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Commit-
tee rose on Thursday, March 8, 1979, title
II had been considered as having been
read and open to amendment at any
point.
Are there further amendments to title
II?
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. SYMMS
Mr. SYMMS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Symms: Page
5, line 18, add the following immediately
after the period. "The President shall make
every effort to reach an agreement with Tai-
wan to assure that the facilities used by such
instrumentality to conduct its affairs in the
United States be at or near the locations of
the consular establishments of Taiwan in
the United States existing on December 31,
1978."
^ 1245
(Mr. SYMMS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
H 1255
Mr. SYMMS. Mr. Chairman, when
the administration broke diplomatic re-
lations with the Republic of China to
establish full diplomatic relations with
the People's Republic of China, the
President said that even though political
relationships between the United States
and the Republic of China had changed,
the trade and cultural ties would grow.
Now the administration is indicating
that they want to close the number of
consular offices by five so as to bring the
total down to eight. It makes no sense to
me to close the primary vehicles of trade
and cultural relations, the consular
offices, when we are attempting to ex-
pand those ties. I am particularly con-
cerned about closing the offices which
are close to agricultural trading zones
such as Portland, Oreg.; Kansas City,
Mo.; and others.
It seems to me that the President's
statements are contradictory concerning
our continued trade and cultural ties
with Taiwan, and I would urge support
of the Members for this amendment,
which will coincide with the promised
intent of the administration.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to
point out to the Members of the body
that for fiscal year 1978, ending Septem-
ber 30, 1978, the Republic of China on
Taiwan purchased $729 million worth of
agricultural products from the United
States. Out of that number, there was
$219 million for soybeans, $177 million
for. feed grains, $146 million for cotton,
and $77 million worth of wheat.
Mr. Chairman, I think that it is
worthy to mention that of the offices
which are now open, the following offices
will be closed: On American Samoa, the
office in Pago Pago; the office in Calex-
ico, Calif.; and the office in Agana,
Guam. I know the Delegate from Guam
is interested in this matter.
Also scheduled for closing, Mr. Chair-
man, is the office in Kansas City, Mo.,
which is in the heart of the grain belt;
and the Portland, Oreg., office, which
handles much of the white wheat which
goes to the Pacific Northwest; also I un-
derstand Boston, Mass., is closed.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think this
amendment should not be greeted with
anything but enthusiasm by most Mem-
bers of the body. -
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SYMMS. I am happy to yield to
the gentleman from California.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Last week I had the, occasion to meet
with the newly elected Governor of
American Samoa, Mr. Peter Coleman.
He expressed to me his very great inter-
est in and his concern about the ques-
tion of whether or not the Taiwan con-
sulate in Pago Pago will be continued.
He pointed out, for example, that there
are some 2,000 Taiwanese fishermen who
are based in American Samoa, who are
in and out. He said that the consulate
officer which the Taiwanese Government
has had there has been invaluable to
his government in solving problems
which those fishermen have from time
to time.
He expressed a very strong wish that
we would provide, in some way or other,
that that service be continued.
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 H 1256
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE March 13, 1979
Mr. Chairman, I very strongly support
the gentleman's amendment and hope it
will be adopted. -
Mr. SYMMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman from California (Mr.
LAGOMARSINO) very much.
Mr. Chairman, I would only ask again
for support for this amendment which
I believe will be helpful in continuing
the agricultural and other types of trade
and other relations with the government
on Taiwan which we have had in the
past.
Mrs. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in support of the amend-
ment.
(Mrs. SMITH of Nebraska asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend her remarks.)
Mrs. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by my good friend and colleague
from the great State of Idaho. In fiscal
1978 the Taiwanese purchased $729 mil-
lion worth of agricultural products from
the United States. The consular offices
that the President wants to eliminate
played an important role in facilitating
these purchases. These consular offices
are especially important to my State of
Nebraska. And let me add at this point
that I enthusiastically support this bill
as a whole.
I find it disappointing and saddening,
however, that we here in the Congress
must endeavor in this fashion to patch
up foreign-policy disasters caused by
the administration.
I say we should return to our tried
and true bipartisan system of making
American foreign policy. The tattered
and torn system, such as.we have now,
seems to be conducted either at a snail's
pace or with such impetuous speed as
to defy understanding. Impetuosity
marked the break with Taiwan.
Of course, there is no question but
that we are going to have full diplomatic
relations with the People's Republic of
China.
And, there is no question but that
Taiwan needs more protection than the
administration was willing to guarantee.
There is a real question, however,
about what our relationship with Tai-
wan will become. That is the work we
are today engaged in. Taiwan has a vi-
able government for its 17 million peo-
ple, with whom we have had full diplo-
matic relations for'30 years. Taiwan is
one of our top 10 trading partners.
Taiwan has been our ally in war and
in peace. We need all the allies we can
get in today's world. This bill will help
maintain and support our friends, the
people and the Government of Taiwan.
This is a simple forthright measure: It
clearly states that Taiwan's safety is
paramount and that any threat to it
would call forth appropriate action by
the President and the Congress, acting
through and within our constitutional
processes.
Mr. SYMMS' amendment opens up
avenues for trade and I urge my col-
leagues to support both his amendment
and the bill.
^ 1250
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment.
(Mr. ZABLOCKI asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.) .
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, this
may be a well-intentioned amendment,
but it is unnecessary.
Mr. Chairman, as many of my col-
leagues know, the establishment of con-
sulates on the part of a. foreign govern-
ment is within the discretion of that
foreign government, in cooperation and
in consultation with the host govern-
ment, in this case of Taiwan with the
United States. Many of us are concerned
? about the 14 consulates or more-that
the United States is closing throughout
all parts of the world. It is our decision
whether we want to open or close a con-
sulate, and we then negotiate with the
host government. ,
In this instance I think the gentle-
man's amendment is unnecessary be-
cause the Coordination Council for
North American Affairs has already been
created by the Government in Taiwan.
On March 1 that Coordination Coun-
cil for North American Affairs began
operations in Washington, D.C., and
eight other cities: New York, Chicago,
Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles,
Honolulu, Houston, and Atlanta.
This seems, Mr. Chairman, fully ade-
quate to conduct necessary business,- and
the choice of cities was made by them.
Under the legislation, if they choose
to keep an office in Guam or wherever,
it is their choice, in agreement with the
host government. I do not think that this
body, this committee, should advise the
Taiwan Government, as it is now called,
the Coordination Council for North
American Affairs, where they should'
establish consulates. ,
Mr. Chairman, I again repeat, the
legislation does not bar them from estab-
lishing offices throughout the United
States. If they decide to close them in
some of the cities that the gentleman
from Idaho (Mr. Symms) had men-
tioned, it is their decision. I do not think
we should resist. -
Mr. SYMMS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. I yield to the gentle-
man from Idaho.
Mr. SYMMS. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
I would have to say, Mr. Chairman,
that everything the chairman says I cer-
tainly agree with, and it is true, except
there is one more part of the equation
you are leaving out and that is that our
Government is putting pressure on them
to close the consulate offices-or the new
name that they have for them-to close
the number down from 14 to 8. So we are
finding out that the Taiwanese are being
pressured to close them out of their fear
of whether or not the United States will
support them in the future in other en-
deavors. They are sitting over there, a
small country of 16 million people, fac-
ing the Reds of 1 billion people, wonder-
ing what is going to happen. So the -
United States is in the position and we'
are putting pressure on them to close
them.
The reason that I think it is not only
unwise but foolish for us to put this
pressure on them, as I mentioned before,
is we sold nearly $1 billion worth of agri-
culture products through those quotas
with those consulate offices. Here we are
encouraging them to close one in Kansas
City, Mo., right in the heart of where
the breadbasket can be to export wheat
and grain; in Portland, Oreg., where all
the soft wheat of the Pacific Northwest
goes out, where there have been long and
lasting good relationships with our
friendly allies and our trusted friends
on Taiwan.
^ 1255
So why should it be a Government pol-
icy? All I am trying to do with thiL,.-
amendment is to say that the President
does what it was he said he was going
to do, so that we do not encourage them
to close their American offices. If they
choose to do it, that is fine; but if we
put this language in the bill, it says the
President shall make every effort to
reach an agreement with Taiwan to be
sure that the facilities used by such in-
strumentality to conduct its affairs in
the United States, be at or near the lo-
cations of the consular establishments
of Taiwan in the United States existing
on December 31.
So we are saying as our policy with
this resolution passing the Congress to-
day that we want to encourage them to
keep everything the way it was, instead
of saying we want to cut it down, because
we are going to start looking for a bigger
market over on the mainland. That is
what we are talking about here. That is
what I really think.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. If the gentleman
from Wisconsin, Mr. Chairman, can re-
trieve his time, I will merely state that
this is the very purpose of this bill, that
we can have continuing relations with
the people of Taiwan and their instru-
mentalities.
Now, these will not be consular offices.
The Government of Taiwan, the Repub-
lic of China, and the present Govern-
ment on Taiwan, has agreed to this.
Mr. SYMMS. Under duress.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. I mentioned to the
gentleman from Idaho, we have repeat-
edly heard there has been supposedly
pressure made allegedly on the part of
our Government on the Taiwan repre-
sentatives here as to their consulates.
Let me tell the gentleman, if the gen-
tleman from Wisconsin does, indeed, find
evidence of that type, we will certainly
correct that; but let me point out that
in some of our consulates that our Gov-
ernment is closing, for instance, one in
Austria, it is desired on the part of the
Government of Austria that we do not
close that particular consulate and some
of the other consulates; but it was our
decision, for whatever purposes, that we
close them.
I think in this instance, as far as the
Government of Taiwan is concerned,, it
should be within their determination
whether they want to retain offices for
the purpose of promoting consular-type
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 March 18, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
duties, and it is their decision to close
them.
I do not think we should in this
amendment tell them where to go.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Wisconsin has again ex-
pired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. ZABLOCKI
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional
minute.)
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, in the
final analysis, let me again reassure the
gentleman that the Government on Tai-
wan, if it so desires to have offices un-
der the coordination council, whether
-it is on Guam, Kansas, or in other places,
if they want to remain and keep them
open, this legislation does not preclude
them, or does not insist that they be
-closed, no way.
Therefore, I think it would be an in-
sult to Taiwan. The gentleman's amend-
ment, instead of being helpful as we try
to assure that there will be a continua-
tion of the relationships between the
United States and Taiwan, the gentle-
man risks insulting the Taiwanese in
telling them where they must keep their
offices for consular-type purposes.
Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. I am glad to yield
to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to ask the chairman of our
committee, for his comments on this
matter because I have mixed emotions
about this amendment. I just want to
get the gentleman's reaction to this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Wisconsin has again ex-
pired.
(At the request of Mr. BROOMFIELD, and
by unanimous consent, Mr. ZABLOCKI Was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional min-
ute.)
Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman, if
the gentleman will yield further. I am
deeply concerned about this matter. My
original feeling was that the amendment
was not necessary and then as I further
listened to the debate, which touched
upon the closing of Taiwanese consulates
in Kansas City and Portland as well
as other consulates which may be closed,
I now see some need for this amend-
ment. I have one question. What is the
gentleman's feeling with regard to our
State Department placing pressure on
the new council. In other words, the
closing or establishment of consulates
should be based on Taiwan's judgment.
Certainly it should not be the State De-
partment which dictates to the new co-
ordinating council as to what Taiwanese
consulates should be open in the United
States.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, if I
may be permitted to answer, let me as-
sure the gentleman it is my position,
furthermore, if we learned that the
State Department would be doing.that,
we would object.
^ 1300
Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman, in
view of the statements and the assur-
ances the chairman of the committee
has made, and since that is my under-
standing, I would say that the amend-
ment is not necessary. I would, there-
fore, ask for a no vote on the amend-
ment.
Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words. .
Mr. Chairman, I also had the same
feelings as the gentleman who preceded
me and spoke concerning the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Idaho
(Mr. Symms).
The chairman of the committee has to
a certain extent satisfied some of my ob-
jections, but I would like to make one
thing very emphatic. I would hope that
the distinguished committee chairman,
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
ZABLOCKI), would as emphatically state
to us here that the legislative intent in-
herent in this legislation is that there
shall be no pressure as to by what extent
we can control the administration or in-
strumentality oo the Government on
Taiwan in the United States of America
to reduce in any way their presence in
whatever that office might be called in
any part of the United States.
I say that because I would find it not
only disastrous but Insulting to this
House if we were to understand one thing
here and the administration, unbeknown
to us, would be exerting pressure to re-
duce their presence. The love, admiration
and respect which I have for all the
Chinese people, regardless of on which
side of the straits they might live, should
be passed on to the Government of
Taiwan, whatever instrumentality they
have to represent them in this country,
should not be abridged or in any way
pressured by the administration or any-
one else if they desire to have an office in
Houston or Dallas or wherever.
Would the distinguished gentleman
from Wisconsin agree that that basically
is the intent of this legislation?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. DE LA GARZA. I am happy to yield
to the committee chairman.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, that
is indeed within the intent of this
legislation.
On page 5 of the bill, section 202(a),
subparagraph (2) clearly states-
Dealings of Taiwan with the United States
Government shall be conducted by or
through such instrumentality e o
And in this case that would be the'Co-
ordination Council for North American
Affairs. And then it states that this in-
strumentality would be appropriate for
such dealings-
And which has the necessary authority un-
der the laws of Taiwan to provide assurances
and take other actions on behalf of Taiwan
with respect to the United States Govern-
ment.
It is the intent, with this legislation,
that if Taiwan wanted to retain any of-
fice it had-it would be a consular type
office in this instance-in any part of
the country, they should have that right
to retain them as they had them prior
to January 1, 1979, provided of course
H 1257
this is done with agreement of the host
government, which is the normal prac-
tice.
Mr. DE LA GARZA. And is the gentle-
man aware of any attempt to quote nuin -
bers to them, that is, how many they can
have in the United States of America?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. No, I am not aware
of that, and if I find out that is true, on
behalf of the concerned Members of Con-
gress, we will protest it. I have heard that
they were limited to eight, but I have no
such knowledge.
Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Chairman, with
that information and assurance from the
chairman of the committee, I also feel
that possibly the amendment might be
superfluous, as long as we have the clear
legislative intent as enunciated by the
committee chairman.
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. DE LA GARZA. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, I think a
clarification is necessary. The State De-
partment has requested that the number
of offices that the Taiwan entity,
The Coordinating Council for North
American Affairs can have here is limited
to eight. There have existed more than
that number, so, therefore, there is a
requirement that they close several of
their offices. I do not think that is the
intent of the Congress, however. The in-
tent of the Congress is to maintain the
relationship on the same basis that exists
today.
^ 1305
The number of offices can be'dependent
upon the Coordinating Council.
Mr. DE LA GARZA. If the gentleman
from New York is correct, then we are
back to where we need the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DE LA GARZA. I yield to the gentle-
man from Michigan.
Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
agree with the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DE LA GABZA)
has expired.
(On the request of Mr. BROOMFIELD
and by unanimous consent, Mr. DE LA
GARZA was allowed to proceed for.2 addi-
tional minutes.)
Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DE LA GARZA. I yield to the gentle-
man from Michigan.
Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
merely would like to add that the gen-
tleman is absolutely correct. If the gen-
tleman from New York says that the
State Department has given instructions
that the new Coordination Council can
only have eight councils, then I think
it is absolutely clear that the amend-
ment the gentleman is offering should
be considered favorably by us, because
that is certainly the intent of the mi-
nority side.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. DE LA GARZA. I yield to the gentle-
man from Wisconsin.
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
II 1258
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE March 13, 1979
Mr. ZABWCKI. I have just been in-
formed by the subcommittee chairman
that a witness from the State Depart-
ment did indeed give information con-
cerning this matter.
Mr. WOLF'F. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield: the information
was received from Mr. Harvey Feldman
of the State Department.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, we
accept the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. WON PAT. Mr. Chairman, several
days ago I rose to give my wholehearted
support for continued close ties between
this country and our friends in Taiwan
as proposed in H.R. 2479.
-1 wish to support an amendment to
this measure offered by the gentleman
from Idaho (Mr. SYMras), asking that
the President permit the Government of
Taiwan to retain its offices in Guam and
elsewhere in this country.
As many of my colleagues know, the
Carter administration has proposed that
Taiwan close some of its commercial of-
fices in this country. It has also imposed
an agreement that would limit the num-
ber of commercial offices to 8, as opposed
to the 14 commercial and consular offices
the Republic of China had in various
parts of the United States.
I believe that the restrictions we seek
to impose on Taiwan in this instance
would create significant hardships for
many American business firms and
thousands of former residents of Tai-
wan who now reside in the United States.
This is particularly true of my own
Congressional District of Guam, where
the residents of that island enjoy ex=
tremely close commercial and cultural
ties with Taiwan. 'Several weeks ago, the
official Taiwan office in Guam was closed.
This has created a tremendous problem
for the hundreds of individuals and
firms who want to continue their rela-
tions with Taiwan.
The Guam-Taiwan office was heavily
utilized. It was far more than a mere
outpost of the Government of Taiwan.
The President's proposal that Taiwan
restrict its U.S. offices to a few loca-
tions is detrimental to the best interest
of both this country and Taiwan. I am
confident that Taiwan would welcome
the opportunity to keep its Guam offices
intact.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the'amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Idaho (Mr. Symms).
The amendment was agreed to.
The. CHAIRMAN. Are there other.
amendments to title II?
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. DERWINSKI
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I of-
fer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by. Mr. DERwiNSKI:
Page 4, line 21, following "on December 31,
1978," add: "including multilateral conven-
tions to which both the United States and
Taiwan, known at the time as the Republic
of China, are contracting parties."
(Mr. DERWINSKI asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman,
after listening to the debate on the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from Idaho, I do not know whether I And the gentleman adds his language-
should quote the State Department in including multilateral conventions to which
favor or opposed to my amendment. both the United States and Taiwan, known
Actually this is a rather noncontrover- at the time as the Republic of China, are
sial amendment, as I see it. The purpose contracting parties, shall continue in force
frankly is this: There are fn existence between the United States and Taiwan un-
. les terminated in accordance with their
tions to which both the United States
and the Republic of China are contract-
ing parties. For example, the 1963
Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the
Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the
Treaty on Nonproliferation of Nuclear
Weapons, and soon.
It seems to me necessary and practical
and appropriate, in light of this legisla-
tion, that we make it clear that these
multilateral conventions would remain
in force between the United States and
Taiwan after January 1, 1979. I presume
that is the administration's intent. I pre-
sume that this would be consistent with
the President's statement that only the
Mutual Defense Treaty was abrogated
and, therefore, my amendment is in-
tended to specifically spell out what I be-
lieve is understood and would just fill
out a possible gap in the legislation be-
fore us.
I would hope that in that spirit the
amendment would be analyzed, and I
would hope it would be accepted.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. DERWINSKI. I yield to the gentle-
man from Wisconsin.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman's amendment deals with mul-
tilateral agreements.
Mr. DERWINSKI. That is right.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. The gentleman's
amendment, in the interpretation of the
gentleman from Wisconsin, is that the
amendment would, in a way, authorize
the United States to determine unilater-
ally whether multilateral agreements will
continue in force, and that will their
membership be. Is that a correct inter-
pretation?
Mr. DERWINSKI. No. It is the intent
of the amendment to state that the mul-
tilateral conventions to which both
United States and Taiwan, formerly
known as the Republic of China, which
were in force- at the time of the change
of status between the two countries, Jan-
uary 1, 1979, remain in effect as previ-
ously contracted, which was my under-
standing of the statement made-by the
President and further amplified by other
officers in the executive branch since that
time.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield further?
Mr. DERWINSKI. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I know
that the gentleman is an excellent legis-
lative draftsman, but in reading the gen-
tleman's amendment, and folding it into
the language of the bill, it would read as
follows :
^ 1310
On page 4, beginning on line 19, the bill
before us reads:
(c) All treaties and other international
agreements which were in force between the
United States and the Republic of China on
December 31, 1978-
I see no real harm in the gentleman's
amendment, but will the gentleman fur-
ther accept a suggestion. I am rather
sensitive about repeating "Republic of
China" twice in one sentence. That is not
serious, but I am sure the gentleman
from Illinois will agree that his language-
as I read it is kind of clumsy.
Mr. DERWINSKI. I admit that some-
times when one is motivated by purity of
heart, it does not necessarily follow that
his language structure is perfect, so in
that sense I accept the gentleman's con-
structive comments.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Illinois has expired.
(At the request of Mr. SOLARz and by
unanimous consent Mr. DERwINsKI was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. DERWINSKI. I weld to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Chairman, I do not
want to panic the gentleman or under-
mine the obviously broad-based support
for his amendment by letting him know
that I think he has a remarkably good
idea here, which I can comfortably sup-
port, but anytime DERWINSNI and SoLARz
can agree on an amendment, it is either
prima facie evidence that it is unassail-
able in its virtue or there is something
fishy going on. I would, however, like to
suggest to the gentleman one very small
grammatical correction in his amend-
ment which I think is necessary in order
to clarify its intent.
The gentleman proposes to insert his
amendment on page 4, line 21, following
the phrase, "On December 31, 1978."
But, at the end of his amendment,
after the word "parties" he has a period
rather than a comma. I think, in order
for the amendment to make grammatical
sense as part of the paragraph in which.
it is proposed to be included, that period
should be a comma.
So, I would ask unanimous consent,
without objection certainly from the
gentleman in the well, to amend the
Derwinski amendment by changing the
period after the word "parties" at the
end of his amendment to a comma. It
would then read:
All treaties and other international agree-
ments which were in force between the
United States and the Republic of China on
December 31, 1978-
And here we pick up the Derwinski
amendment-
including multilateral conventions to which
both the United States and Taiwan, known
at the time as the Republic of China, are
contracting parties-
And here the period becomes a comma,
and it goes on- .
shall continue in force-
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 March 13, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE
And so forth.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New York (Mr. SOLARZ) ?
There was no objection.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield further?
Mr. DERWINSKI. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, with
the perfections that have been accepted
by the gentleman from Illinois, the sense
of the amendment is nothing more than
the bill before us intends. We accept the
amendment on this side.
Mr. RUDD. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to speak in support of the amend-
ment proposed by my good friend from
Illinois (Mr. DERWINSKI).
I believe that it is important to protect
the status of the Republic of China in
all international organizations and in-
stitutions. It is wise that the Congress
exert its prerogatives and provide a de-
gree of international security for our
friends on Taiwan.
FREE CHINA AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
This amendment would require the
U.S. representative in such organizations
to use for Nation's voice and vote on
behalf of protecting the status of Taiwan
as a member of all international organi-
zations and institutions of which it was
a member as of December 31, 1978.
It would also require the United States
to support the status of Taiwan in all
international agreements to which Tai-
wan was a party at the end of 1978, and
to urge other nations to do likewise.
Similarly, it would require U.S. op-
position to any sanctions, especially in
the form of a trade boycott, which might
be attempted against the Republic of
China by the People's Republic of China.
The primary need for these protec-
tions, Mr. Speaker, is to insure that the
international rights and status of the
people and Government on Taiwan are
not endangered by the absence of full
diplomatic relations with the United
States.
We in the Congress should exert our
influence through this legislation to
make the best of what I consider a de-
plorable situation.
We should indicate forcefully our
si::cere desire to protect our friends on
Taiwan by strengthening this legislation.
In this way, Congress can demonstrate
its intention to avoid complicity in the
President's unilateral decision to recog-
nize the People's Republic of China at
the expense of our friend and long-time
ally, the Republic of China.
PROTECT FREE CHINA'S ECONOMIC SECURITY
The continuation of Taiwan's inter-
national economic relationships is cru-
cial to their continued prosperity, and,
indeed, to stability in that part of the
world.
Additionally, it should be remembered
that Taiwan's prosperity is not unrelated
to our own economic prosperity. Taiwan
is our eighth largest trading partner.
Difficulties for them would undoubtedly
have ripple effects which would disturb
the U.S. economy as well.
It is important that Taiwan's economic
security not be threatened, even indi-
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
rectly, by President Carter's unilateral
and unexpected move. Stability is cru-
cial, and this can be encouraged by U.S.
insistence that Taiwan remain a member
of the international organizations of
which she was a member prior to Janu-
ary 1, 1979, at which time the President's
recognition of the People's Republic of
China took effect.
The rumors have already begun that
the People's Republic will move to oust
Taiwan from the "China seat" in a num-
ber of international organizations. A suc-
cessful challenge in that direction might
also endanger the long-term loans which
Taiwan has previously secured, particu-
larly from some of the international fi-
nancial institutions of which she is pres-
ently a member in good standing.
The potential economic disruption
which would follow such loan cancella-
tions would be disastrous for the free
Chinese economy and for our economic
relations and trade with Taiwan.
This amendment will serve to protect
the economic interests of Taiwan and the
United States.
CONGRESSIONAL ROLE IGNORED
Mr. Chairman, the amendments which
we are working to incorporate into the
bill today are designed to overcome the
obvious shortcomings of the President's
shortsighted policymaking decisions.
Proper discussion would have allowed the
development of better United States-
Taiwan relations.
While it is true that, under our consti-
tutional processes, the President has pri-
mary responsibility for the conduct of
our foreign policy, the Constitution also
provides for full consultation with the
Congress.
No such consultation with the Con-
gress was attempted by the administra-
tion prior to the decision to derecognize
the Republic of China and to establish
full diplomatic ties with the People's
Republic of China.
It should be understood that any
clarification of U.S. relations with
Taiwan enacted by the Congress is aimed
at correcting this glaring omission, and
in establishing the kind of relationship
with the Republic of China which the
Congress would have urged upon the
President had he conferred with Con-
gress prior to his decision.
I have previously indicated my com-
plete disagreement with the President's
decision to end our relationship with the
Republic of China and the defense com-
mitments our Nation 'had with Taiwan.
I am pleased to have joined with my
distinguished colleague from Arizona,
Senator BARRY GOLDWATER, and other
past and present Members of Congress
who have entered suit to challenge the
President's single-handed abrogation of
this important commitment.
Needless to say, I would prefer a re-
turn to the situation with regard to the
Republic of China as it existed prior to
the President's December 15th an-
nouncement, regardless of whatever U.S.
relations we adopted with the Peking
Government.
I think that it is important for the
world to know the value which the Amer-
ican people, if not their President, place
111259
on our friendship and continued rela-
tionship with the people of Taiwan.
For this reason, it is absolutely im-
perative that the Representatives of the
American people here assembled ex-
press with a clear and unmistakable
voice that the people of the United States
earnestly desire to protect the interna-
tional economic security of the people of
Taiwan.
I urge the adoption of the Derwinski
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Illinois (Mr. DERWINSxX), as
modified.
The amendment, as modified, was
agreed to.
^ 1315
Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I visited Taiwan last
November and was impressed with their
realistic evaluation of the energy prob-
lem they face which, incidentally, is
similar to ours. Taiwan though, is doing
more to solve their energy problem than
we are to solve ours. They have faced the
reality that nuclear energy is the only
alternative they have toward a goal of
reasonable independence of petroleum.
They have, accordingly, proceeded
with a nuclear rowernlant construction
program which is dependent on our con-
tinued supply of enriched uranium fuel.
They are paying full costs for this fuel.
They have now reached the point where
an increase in the ceiling for our supply
of such fuel under their Agreement for
Cooperation with us is necessary. Pres-
ent legislation requires submission of a
request by the administration to the
Congress to increase this ceiling. As I
understand it, Taiwan is in need of an
increase in the ceiling for the supply of
enriched uranium from 7,500 megawatts
of electrical generating capacity to ap-
proximately 15,000 megawatts. I would
hope that the Foreign Affairs Committee
would encourage and support the ad-
ministration in increasing this ceiling
since it is so vital to the future welfare
and security of Taiwan. It would cer-
terest in the future of Taiwan. Support
of Taiwan in their efforts would also a,s-
tainly be a positive indication of our in-
sist other nations in contending with
their energy supply problems. An indi-
cation of the views of the chairman on
the support of such a change in the ceil-
ing for enriched uranium under our
Agreement for Cooperation with Taiwan
would provide an important Incentive
for such a change. Would the chairman
like to provide his views and intentions
on this matter?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE. I yield to the gentleman
from Wisconsin.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the committee under-
stands that conversations have already
begun dealing with the renegotiation of
the Taiwanese Nuclear Agreement- for
Cooperation, to which my friend and col-
league, Chairman PRICE has just re-
ferred. These negotiations, which are
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 H 1260
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
CONGRESSIONAL RIECORD -HOUSE . March 13, 1979
unrelated to the change in United
States-Taiwanese relations, aim at up-
dating and streamlining the agreement
under terms consistent with those set
forth in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Act. These negotiations further demon-
strate the willingness of both the United
States and the Taiwanese to continue to
expand and improve their cooperation in
the nuclear area; they also provide the ?
basis for renewing and perfecting the.
various assurances and guarantees nec-
essary for the effective safeguarding of
U.S. nuclear materials and technologies.
I understand that U.S. officials in-
volved in these talks have already indi-
cated their willingness to look favorably
upon an increase in the nuclear fuel
ceiling for Taiwan. I can assure the gen-
tleman that I, too, would favor such an
increase and would recommend support
for it once the agreement comes before
the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I am
confident these discussions will be con-
cluded in the relatively near future.
I hope these reassurances are helpful.
BACKGROUND NOTS
Tht current ceiling will not affect or
prevent the export of the two reactors
now pending before the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission; that is, units 5
and 6. Nor would it constrain the import
or fueling of a subsequent seventh unit.
Taiwan would not actually begin to
bump against the existing ceiling until
the late 1980's in connection with secur-
ing the last portion of fuel required for
their proposed reactor unit No. 8.
Taiwan is amenable to renegotiating
the agreement, is not nervous about the
current ceiling, and is satisfied to have-
it raised within the context of the on-
going negotiations.
Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the Chairman of the Committee on For-
eign Affairs for his comments, and I am
certainly in accord with the views he
has expressed.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE. I yield to the gentleman
from New York.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I cer-
tainly support both Chairman PRIGS and
Chairman ZABLOCKI in their expressed in-
tent to stand by our commitments to
Taiwan under our agreement for cooper-
ation in the peaceful uses of nuclear en-
ergy. In addition to contributing to the
welfare and security of Taiwan, the in-
creased ceiling of uranium fuel will fur-
ther our trade efforts with Taiwan by
opening up the option of additional
power-generating equipment from the
United States. Taiwan has, in the past,
relied heavily on the technology and
equipment of the United States for the
generation of electricity. At the present
time, when our purchases of nuclear pow-
er plants are depressed because of a vac-
illating national policy on the produc-
tion of energy, additional international
business will provide a vital contribution
to keeping our industrial capability
viable as I have reason to know will apply
in my own district, where an important
electrical industry is located. We then
will be able to move ahead with our own
meaningful energy program when our
national policy catches up with the facts
of the dilemma we face.
^ 1320
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ASHBROOK
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. AsHBROOK: Page
9, strike out lines 1 through 9 and insert in
lieu thereof the following:
"(c) Employees of the designated entity
shall be employees of the United States. Em-
ployees who are separated or transferred un-
der this section shall be subject to the same
laws of the United States relating to em-
ployees of the United States as they were im-
mediately prior to their separation or trans-
fer. Any other employees of the designated
entity shall be employees of an Executive
agency within the meaning of part Ill of title
5, United States Code."
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Chairman, if we
look at the bill, the current section (c)
has a very strong odor to it. We are told
that this is going to be a straightforward
dealing with our friends on Taiwan. We
are told that we want to continue in
normal ways and yet, for some reason or
other, mysteriously all these people deal-
ing with our friends in Taiwan are sup-
posed to be out there somewhere in
never-never land. They are not going to
be employees of the United States. Listen
to what the bill says:
(c) Employees of the designated entity
shall not be employees of the United States
and, in representing the designated entity,
shall be exempt from section 207 of title 18,
United States Code.
I would ask my friend, the chairman of
this committee, the gentleman from Wis-
consin (Mr. ZABLOCKI) to explain to the
House just what it means to be exempt
from section 207 of title 18, .United States
Code, and why the employees of this
agency, entity, designated entity or
whatever one wants to call it, are going
to be out there somewhere in an unof-
ficial never-never land, not being em-
ployees of the U.S. Government?
Are we so afraid of having any vestige
of government-to-government relations
that we are even going out of our way to
say these people will not be employees of
the United States?
I will ask my friend, the chairman, the
gentleman from Wisconsin, to respond to
that question and tell the committee just
what it means to be exempt from section
207 of title 18.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ASHBROOK. I certainly yield to
the gentleman.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
As I understand, the gentleman is try-
ing to clarify and confirm what my
understanding of section 207, title 18, of
the United States Code is. It is my under-
standing that section 207 of title 18 of the
United States Code prohibits for 2 years
any Government employees from appear-'
Ing before a Government agency, for
which he worked. This exemption is
necessary because it does not make sense
not to prohibit the people who were
formally in the U.S. Government who
would be now employed by the designated
entity from appearing before a Govern-
~ment agency in order to bring about the
relationship that would be continued
under the authorities of the entity. That
is all it does.
Mr. ASHBROOK. It seems as though
it is a rather strange pattern.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. It is necessary for the
entity to be workable.
Mr. ASHBROOK. Why is it necessary?
It is necessary because the gentleman is
trying to create a group of employees who
are Really in never-never land. They will
be former Government employees who
will be acting in the capacity of repre-
senting the Government, but they will
not be representing the Government; so
therefore, the gentleman has to exempt
them from the provisions that we apply
to those who used to work for the Gov-
ernment but who now represent private
agencies before the Government. It is a
rather complicated process. Would it not
be simpler to just say honestly, out-
right, and forthwith that this entity
shall be comprised of employees who
work for the U.S. Government? Are they
not in effect, if everything we have said
is true and heard up to now, working
for the U.S. Government? Why do we
need to create this section? Could my
colleague tell me that?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ASHBROOK. I certainly will yield
to the gentleman.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
I will attempt again to try to explain
it. We are faced with a fait accompli as to
a decision on the part of the President to
establish a nongovernmental agency
called the U.S. Institute in Taiwan. The
name we did not choose. We deleted it
in our legislation. We leave it up to the
President as to what he calls it and
what he wants it to be in consultation
with the authorities on Taiwan.
^ 1325
Furthermore, it is necessary to pro-
tect these former governmental em-
ployees, whether they are in the State
Department, foreign service, former Am-
bassadors or formerly with the Depart-
ment of Defense or the Department of
Energy. It is also essential that there be
authority to assign former governmental
personnel to work for this entity without
jeopardizing their long range employ-
ment, retirement and other rights.
What this legislation does, and I hope
the gentleman from Ohio will agree with
pie, is to protect these U.S. employees.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Ohio has expired.
(At the request of Mr. ZABLOCKI, and,
by unanimous consent, Mr. ASHBROOK
was allowed to proceed. for 3 additional
minutes.)
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield further, protect
some of the benefits that would be theirs
had they remained in government dur-
ing the period of their tenure with the
designated entity.
Mr. ASHBROOK. My mind goes back
and my memory goes back to the very
first year I was in Congress. I remember
the very first relationship I had with
the war. in Vietnam. A former service-
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
March 13, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RIECORD-HOUSE [ 1262
man from Ashland, Ohio, died. He was
killed in Vietnam. He had $60,000 worth
of insurance coming, because he really
was a serviceman in Vietnam who was
not a serviceman in Vietnam. We cre-
ated the fiction that he was no longer
working for the Government, but he was
over there as an adviser, as a civilian,
retaining all his military rights, all his
pensions and insurance.
All of a sudden, the minute he died,
he was again a serviceman, but while
he was over there he was not a service-
man. You know, the more we get into
this type of illusions, this type of fiction
the more cloudy our actions and inten-
tions become. The chairman has re-
ferred to them as U.S. Government em-
ployees three times, as I have heard in
the gentleman's response. Yet the gen-
tleman is saying in the bill they will no
longer be U.S. Government employees.
Here we go and we are on the same fic-
tion, creating the same shell game. Why
not flat out say they are Government
employees?
The gentleman also said something to
which I would take umbrage, too, that
we are dealing with a fait accompli. If
it is a fait accompli, we do not need this
bill. The fact we need this bill is the
best indication that it is not a fait ac-
compli, that the Congress does have
some say, we do have some imput.
I am saying to my chairman, to my
friend, in all fairness, here we go again,
creating a fiction,-and it is this type of
fiction that gets us into trouble across
the world, whether it is the CIA, the
double agent, the fiction we had in Viet-
nam, or the fiction we are now creating
that we are now going to have nongov-
ernment employees. I have in my hand
the articles of cooperation of the Ameri-
can Institute in Taiwan which were filed
here in the District of Columbia. As I
read that, I wish all Members had it, a
certificate of the Office of the Recorder
of Deeds, a fate accompli, it is kind of
like the guy who is so busy selling stock
that he forgot to go ahead and form the
company. They have incorporated. They
have gone ahead with all this. They have
the Institute of Taiwan already in place.
That is a part of the fact accompli; but
do we in the Congress have to under-
write everything that has been done
down there if we do not agree with it?
I say let us make them official Govern-
ment employees. Let us not create the
fiction. That is all my amendment would
do. I hope the gentleman from Wiscon-
sin will agree and I would hope we not
pull all the pieces apart that have been
put together; but again let's be honest
and adopt my amendment. Do we want
to live by a fiction in this House, or will
we once in a while deal with reality?
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ASHBROOK. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New York.
Mr. WOLFF. The gentleman keeps re-
ferring to fiction. Actually, what we are
talking about are facts. These are basi-
cally what the facts are. These are not
going to be Government employees at
this time. They are so specifically set up.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Ohio has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. AsH- sentatives there, in complete contradis-
BROOK was allowed to proceed for I tinction or contradiction to what the
additional minute.) President has so stated?
Mr. ASHBROOK. May I say, we are Mr. Chairman, let me ask, has not the
not dealing with a fact. They are not President the full right to recognize or
employees. They are nothing until this derecognize governments?
bill is passed. We are not dealing with Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, the
a fact. There is no legal entity in place gentleman is absolutely correct. Under ~
which we have to recognize here in Con- our Constitution it is the President who
gress. makes the decision.
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Speaker, will the Mr. SKELTON. So is this amendment
gentleman yield further? not in essence offered to try to get the
Mr. ASHBROOK. I yield to the gentle- so-called Quayle amendment through
man from New York. the backdoor or by subterfuge?
Mr. WOLFF. The entity is in place to- Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, the
day. The Taiwan Government has al- gentleman is correct. He has stated ex-
ready designated their entity. We have actly what I had intended to state later
designated our entity. What we are do- in my remarks, that indeed what this
ing here in this particular section is ~, nenciment would dO would not help
trying to protect the people of the.'=/'aiwati.
United States so that these people who- This amendment is similar to the
are serving their connection on a tempo-
rary basis will be subject to the same
rules and regulations as if they had
stayed in the employ of the United
States.
Mr. ASHBROOK. They are severed on
a temporary basis. That is not a fiction.
They are severing their relationship on
a temporary basis so they can join an
entity that is out there in never-never
land, and that is not a fiction. That is
a fact.
[1 1330
Mr. WOLFF. They are not in a never-
never land. They are in another office
set up to deal with the problems between
our Government and the people on Tai-
wan. That is all. We are trying to facili-
tate something that could not exist
under any other circumstances.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly must ad-
mire the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
ASHBROOK). He is not in a never-never
land, as far as his intentions are con-
cerned. The gentleman's amendment
would require that employees of the en-
tity be employees of the United States.
In one respect, because they will be
working for a governmentally-desig-
nated entity, they might be regarded in
a way as employees of the United States.
But where the gentleman really spells
out his true intent is when. he says that
they shall be employees of an executive
agency within the meaning of part 3 of
title V of the United States Code, which
means Government employees.
Now, it may be a never-never land or
whatever, but the President has normal-
ized relations with the PRC under cer-
tain conditions, and one of the conditions
was that our governmental relations with
Taiwan would have to be severed. We
indeed had derecognized, so to speak,
Taiwan on a formal basis. We have
closed the Embassy in Taipei.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Yes, I yield to the
gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, let me
ask the gentleman this question: If this
amendment were adopted, it would be
exactly the same'as if we were to estab-
lish a liaison office on Taiwan, because
would we not then be putting Govern-
ment employees or Government repre-
amendment that was defeated last
Thursday; that is the amendment to
establish a liaison office in Taipei.
If this amendment were adopted, it
would fly in the face of the agreement
made and negotiated with the PRC, and,
therefore, there would be no recourse or
there would be no relationship available
by the United States and no activities
with Taiwan.
There is not at the present time an
embassy there. We do not have any estab-
lished governmental relations. They
have been severed. But we do have this
nongovernmental entity, and we are in
this legislation providing for staffing the
personnel for this entity and giving it all
the protection the gentleman was con-
cerned about in our colloquy earlier.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. I yield to the gentle-
man from Texas.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to clairfy for the record the status of
this particular presence in Taiwan in the
event the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. AsEBROOK)
is not agreed to.
Let us suppose someone is at the entity
and should develop a tort claim. In other
words, under the present law, if there
were a government present, they would
have a tort claim against the U.S. Gov-
ernment. Now, how is that addressed in
this bill, under the present language of
the bill?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, under
section 201, subparagraph (b) (1), the
bill has specific provision to continue
unchanged the application of the United
States with respect to Taiwan. Both Tai-
wan and this country could sue and be
sued likewise.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield further, I am not
talking about that. I am talking about
American citizens. Could an American
citizen sue in the U.S. courts for an
action taken by a member of this entity
insofar as they are not government em-
ployees?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Yes, just as he was
in a position to sue prior to this time, it
is intended that it would be possible for
an injured party to sue the U.S. Govern-
ment under the Tort Claims Act for in-
juries resulting from actions of em-
ployees of- the designated entity.
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 H 1262
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --HOUSE March 13, 1979
. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Wisconsin (Mr. ZABLOCKI)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. ZABLOCKI
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield further?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. I yield to the gentle-
man from Texas.
^ 1335
Mr. WHITE. Where does it say this in
the bill or in the report?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. In the report on page
11, and in the bill on page 5, is language
pertaining to section 202, subparagraph
(b) (1), on line 17. If I may read, it:
(b) (1) The laws of the United States which
apply with respect to agencies of the United
States Government shall, to the extent the
President may specify, apply with respect to
the designated entity as if the designated
entity were an agency of the United States
Government.
Mr. WHITE. But suppose the President
does not specify the tort claim. It says:
. to the extent the President may spec-
ify...
Mr. ZABLOCKI. The legislation before
the committee provides:
(b) (1) The absence of such relations and
such recognition shall not affect the applica-
tion of the laws of the United States with
respect to Taiwan, and the laws'of the United
States (including laws relating to rights, ob-
ligations, standing to sue and be sued, legal
capacity, or eligibility to participate in pro-
grams and other activities under the laws
of the United States) shall apply with re-
spect to Taiwan in the manner that the laws
of the United States applied with respect
to Taiwan prior to January 1, 1979.
We provide, that whatever the situa-
tion was concerning the rights of Amer-
ican citizens in any country, particu-
larly, in this case, in Taiwan, prior to
January 1, 1979, shall continue.
Mr. WHITE. I want to say to the chair-
man that I merely want to point out that
in every instance the gentleman talked
about that I want to make sure we have
an understanding ' that this language
deals with Taiwan, and I want to make
sure that we are dealing with American
citizens and we are dealing with the in-
tent. I want to make sure the tort claim
would apply to those specified.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Wisconsin (Mr. ZABLOCKI)
has expired.
(On request of Mr. ASHBROOK and
by unanimous consent, Mr. ZABLOCKI was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional min-
utes.)
Mr. ZABLOCKI. In response to the
gentleman from Texas, the protection of
the American citizen is intended to be
as it is now under existing laws of the
United States.
Mr. WHITE. I know. But even though
the President does not specify?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. The President would
have to specify in some way so that the
rights of a citizen in tort cases would
continue as before.
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. I yield to the gentle-
man from Ohio.
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Chairman, are
not the operating words, in response to
the gentleman from Texas, the words "to
the extent the President may specify"?
it very clearly reads:
The laws of the United States which apply
with respect to agencies of the United States
Government shall, to the extent the Presi-
dent may specify ...
In any other area, this Congres would
be up on its heels about giving the Pres-
ident that much authority. We have
talked about the rights he has under the
Constitution. Here we are talking about
the laws that are passed by the Congress,
and we are letting the President waive
them as he might see fit.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. The gentleman from
Wisconsin would like to clarify or cor-
rect a prior response. In referring to
page 5, line 17, that 'was with respect to
the entity that was authorized.
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Chairman, if
my colleague will yield, we have the Gov-.
ernment's ability to decide whether the
Government should be sued or not sued.
That is something that is disputed. That
is not an automatic right of the citizen.
The President can specify that the Tort
Liability Act would not be applicable to
the new entity.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Again, I want to
make it very clear, and I hope this legis-
lative history will make it even more
clear, as to what the intent of Congress
is. Using section 201(b) (1) as that sec-
tion applies, the President has no waiver
authority. Under section 202(b) (1), he
has the authority to make laws appli-
cable to U.S. agencies apply to the desig-
nated entity to the extent necessary.for
efficient functioning of the entity in
carrying out its duties and for the pro-
tection of U.S. citizens.
^ 1340
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Wisconsin has again
expired.
(By unanimous consent Mr. ZABLOCKI
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional
minute.)
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Further as to the au-
thority that the President has on page 5,
section 202(b) (1), that is in reference
to the agencies of the U.S. Government.
In this case, it would also be the desig-
nated entity.
Mr. ASHBROOK. I thank my col-
league for his answer.
Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think that the gen-
tleman's amendment needs more discus-'
sion in areas really not addressed by him,
because I feel under the legislation before
us that the employee would be taken care
of nonetheless either under the bill, or as
the gentleman suggests.
My concern is to what I deem to be
inconsistencies in the legislation. This is
so important, Mr. Chairman, that we
must have legislative history because I
have not been privy, unfortunately, to
the hearings held by this prestigious
committee and by the gentleman from
Wisconsin: Last year, when I temporarily
was serving on this committee, I was
privy to no information at all, and I
heard on the television the great an-
nouncement of what we were about to do.
So, having not been consulted then, I
doubt that I will be consulted now or in
the future.
My question is, page 5, section 202(b)
(1) says that the President can make
anything he 'wants, specifying as if it
were an agency of the U.S. Government.
But, over here where we were talking
previously, it says, "All treaties and in-
ternational agreements ? ? ?" and so
forth, on page 4, "? * * or otherwise in
accordance with the laws of the United
States." That is at the bottom of page 4.
Now, on (b) (1), lines 17 to 21, page 5,
it seems that here we give the 'President
authority to go back and undo some of
what I read heretofore. Also, why have
we given the President the authority here
with regards to laws of the United States
related to agencies, why then do we
prohibit him on page 9 by saying that the
employee shall not be deemed the em-
ployee of the United States? Some peo-
ple are saying that this is a deal struck
with the PRC. Well, I was not privy to
that, and it may well be, but to what ex-
tent are we going to allow the PRC to
conduct the affairs of this House and of
this country?
Some of us need some satisfaction that
we. know or will have reasonable knowl-
edge of what is going to happen, because
as' I see it here, we let the President do
or undo whatever he wants as far as
specifying or not specifying.
Then, how do we handle this? This is
very important. How do we handle any
activity of the Secretary of State related
to the designated agency? How do we
handle any'activity on any given day by
the Assistant Secretary for Far Eastern
Affairs relating to the designated agency?
How do we handle any individual spend-
ing one minute of time related to the
designated agency? Does he for that 1
minute lose his employment with the U.S.
Government?
^ 1345
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. DE LA GARZA. Let me yield to the
chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs first, the gentleman from Wiscon-
sin (Mr. ZABLOCKI).
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding. How-
ever, -I would prefer that the gentleman
yield to the gentleman from New York
because I understand that this question
has been clarified in hearings. The
gentleman from New York (Mr. WOLFF),.
is in a better position to deal with this
matter since he chaired the Subcommit-
tee on Asian and Pacific Affairs.
Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Chairman; I
thank the distinguished gentleman of
the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and I
yield to my colleague, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. WOLFF)
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, first of all,
in response to 'the latter part of the
question, does the gentleman really be-
lieve that we have any control over the
Secretary of State now, regardless of
whatever place in the world he deals
with?
Mr. DE LA GARZA. We should have.
Mr. WOLFF. We should have, but, in
reality, we do not, so that actually there
is very little or nothing which we can do
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
March 11, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
to control the activities of the Secretary
of State.
We do have within the aegis of this
committee oversight responsibilities.
These oversight responsibilities are taken
up by the chairman of the Subcommittee
on International Operations.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Texas (Mr. DE LA GARZA)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent Mr. DE LA
GARZA was allowed to proceed for 2 addi-
tional minutes.)
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield further?
Mr. DE LA GARZA. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New York
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, only this
morning in a hearing before the Com-
,.mittee on International Operations, the
ranking member of the committee and
the chairman of that committee told
the full committee that they would ex-
ercise the oversight responsibility over
the American Institute on Taiwan. Really
what is happening here, with all due re-
spect to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DE LA GARZA), is a determination as to
whether or not we should have govern-
ment-to-government relations. That is
basically what is involved in this amend-
ment which the gentleman has just of-
fered, and it is basically what is involved
in most amendments and subsequent
ones which will be coming up.
Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate the gentleman's comments.
However, that is not my immediate
concern. I have great confidence in the
gentleman from Florida as far as over-
sight is concerned.
My immediate concern is, nonetheless,
that we go back and forth here; and I as
one Member of this House do not want
to yield 1 ounce of legislative jurisdic-
tion which we might have. I say again
that I am not clear as to what area or
what agreements were made with the
PRC. I do not know. I am dealing from
a very inadequate position.
What I would like to do is to affirm
here what our legislative intent is, if we
could.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. DE LA GARZA. I yield to the gentle-
man from Wisconsin.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I un-
derstand fully the gentleman's concern.
However, let me make it indelibly clear
that page 4, section 201, is a very impor-
tant section -which states that all U.S.
laws will continue to apply with respect
to Taiwan notwithstanding the with-
drawal of U.S. diplomatic relations.
The Presidential flexibility of waiver
which is included in section 202 does not
apply.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Texas (Mr. DE LA GARZA)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. DE LA
GARZA was allowed to proceed for 2 ad-
ditional minutes.)
Mr. ZABLOCKI. If the gentleman will
yield further, Mr. Chairman, the purpose
for the waiver of authority in section 202
(b) (1) is that the waiver of authority is
only given to the President to the extent
that it deals with the entity. The present
flexibility in section 202, as far as the
gentleman from Wisconsin is concerned
and as far as the sponsors of the legis-
lation, the Committee on Foreign Affairs,
are concerned, is to express the intent
that we allow the President to move
closer on a government-to-government
relations basis with the authorities on
Taiwan if he chooses, but it does not
mean that he must be limited. In other
words, he does not have to limit U.S.
dealings with Taiwan to those conducted
to the nongovernmental entity, although
he is given that authority to do so.
Mr. Chairman, I submit that this is
necessary to deal with this matter at this
time in a nongovernmental basis in order
to continue our activities and our rela-
tionships with Taiwan.
I would prefer to call this bill the Tai-
wan Protective Act because it is going to
protect the interests which we have and
the interests which Taiwan has in con-
tinuing relations with the United
States.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DE LA GARZA)
has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. DE LA
GARZA was allowed to proceed for 2 ad-
ditional minutes.)
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Chairman, will
my colleague, the gentleman from Texas,
yield?
Mr. DE LA GARZA. Let me just make
this statement, and then I will be happy
to yield.
Nonetheless, if I read English correct-
ly, we say in one section-and this lan-
guage is on page 4 of the bill-"otherwise
in accordance with laws of the United
States."
Then on page 5, section 202(b) (1) this
language appears:
The laws of the United States which apply
with respect to agencies of the United States
Government shall, to the extent the Presi-
dent may specify, apply with respect to the
designated entity as if the designated entity
were an agency of the United States Govern-
ment.
^ 1350
These are the sections of this bill
which shall apply to the entity, and as
I read them we revert to any action the
President takes.
My concern is let us say Taiwan is a
member of a fisheries agreement among
five countries. We say we do not abro-
gate that agreement. We cannot. That
is up to that entity to abrogate it. But,
nevertheless, who is going to participate
with the United States with the daily
activities of that agreement, or the an-
nual activities-the designated entity, or
the Secretary of State, or the Depart-
ment of Commerce? Who participates
in those matters?
Mr. Chairman, this deals with far too
important a matter to be here having
it dealt with a minute at a time: Some
of us need some assurances. Again re-
peating, not being a member of this
distinguished committee, I am asking
the chairman, the gentleman from Wis-
consin, for assurance.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. DE LA GARZA. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Wisconsin.
II 1263
Mr. ZABLOCKI. I thank the- gentle-
man for yielding.
I can give the gentleman that assur-
ance. Section 202(b) (1) says:
The laws of the United States which apply
with respect to agencies of the United States
Government shall, to the extent the Presi-
dent may specify, apply with respect to the
designated entity ... 11
The gentleman's concern is unwar-
ranted.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
(At the request of Mr. AsHBROOx, and
by unanimous consent, Mr. DE LA GARZA
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Chairman, will
my colleague yield?
Mr. DE LA GARZA. I yield to the gentle-
man from Ohio.
Mr. ASHBROOK. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
With all honesty, my good friend, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. ZA-
BLOCxI) cannot make an assurance of
that type. Read section 202. We are talk-
ing about the President of the United
States. In one section the gentleman says
"to the extent the President may specify,
? *.",That is the law. Later on the
section says, "upon such terms and con-
ditions as the President may direct."
Down at the bottom another operative
phrase says : "The President is author-
ized to extend ' such privileges and
immunities ? as may be necessary
for the effective performance of their
functions."
Add those three up. "To the extent
the President may specify," "such terms
and conditions as the President may
direct," and he can add "such privileges
and immunities" as he finds necessary.
No one can make assurances as to what
this President or a subsequent President
will do with that broad authority, which
now comes not under the Constitution,
not under the powers of dealing with
foreign nations, but under what we are
extending to him as a Congress, as a
governing part of law. So there is no way
my friend, the gentleman from Wiscon-
sin (Mr. ZABLOCKI) can make the assur-
ances he just made to my friend, the gen-
tleman from Texas (Mr. DE LA GARZA).
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in support of the
amendment.
(Mr.. DERWINSKI asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, this
has been a subject that could well have
provoked an emotional atmosphere. It
has not. I commend all the Members for
maintaining an objective, calm, practi-
cal-I would call it diplomatic-attitude
toward this measure. But I want the
Members on my side of the aisle to un-
derstand that it bothers me a bit when
they use any statement in debate to crit-
icize our President. I happen to have the
highest regard for our President not-
withstanding his tendency toward im-
perfection. I think that we should de-
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
H 1264 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE March 18, 1979
bate this bill without using. it as a vehicle
to criticize the President.
May I say to the Members on the ma-
jority side that, keeping in mind this
great respect I have for our President,
it pains me when I hear some of them
discuss the virtues of the senior Senator
from Massachusetts, or the Governor of
California. I do not think either of those
gentlemen could fill the shoes of our be-
loved President. Now having said that,
I am about to get to the point,of sup-
porting the gentleman's amendment.
0 1355
Mr. ASHBROOK. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. DERWINSKI. I yield to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. ASHBROOK).
Mr. ASHBROOK. Before we get too
far, I very carefully said: This President
or a subsequent President. I would add
that my response would be the same if
this whole charade had been in existence
during the administration of a previous
President. We are not talking about
any President who would have wide lati-
tude and authority.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I ac-
cept that as the gentleman's joining me
in the acceptance of our President's good
character.
The gentleman from Ohio in propos-
ing his amendment should have labeled
it "An amendment to end double talk."
I refer the gentleman to section 203,
page 7 of the bill. I call his attention to
the fact that subparagraph 3 reads:
(3) An officer or employee entitled to re-
instatement rights under paragraph (2) of
this subsection shall, while continuously
employed by the designated entity with no
break in continuity of service, continue to
participate in any benefit program in which
such officer or employee was participating
prior to employment.
This means as you read further a Fed-
eral employee will continue to receive
his health insurance, his retirement cov-
erage, his life insurance, all the benefits
of Federal employment. When he returns
from this entity, returns to employment
within the Federal structure, he keeps
all of his seniority, he transfers to what-
ever position he is entitled to or pro-
moted to and, here is the key point, that
while in the service of this entitly, if by
death or retirement his service is inter-
rupted, he shall be considered a Federal
employee. So all the gentleman from
Ohio is doing is saying the obvious, that
for everything but terminology, these
people will be Federal employees.
I predict to the gentleman that 6
months from now whoever heads this
entity will be affectionately known in
Taiwan as the Ambassador of the Unit-
ed States. That is a fact of life. It is
just as natural as night following day.
The gentleman from Ohio is just ask-
ing that our employees who will be Fed-
eral employees, who will not accept this
assignment unless they are told their
Federal employee rights will be guaran-
teed, that they shall in fact be designated
as Federal employees.
I think it is a good amendment, I think
it is a practical amendment, I think it
is in the interests of the employees. I also
suggest that you are setting a dangerous
precedent through this legislation if you
do not in fact acknowledge that a Fed-
eral employee is nothing but that. You
should want him to be known as a Fed-
eral employee and I would urge support
of the amendment.
Mr. BAUMAN. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. DERWINSKI. I yield to the gentle-
man from Maryland.
Mr. BADMAN. Is it not true this des-
ignated agency or entity or whatever
they finally call it in fact be using ap-
propriated funds which will come from
this Congress and if we do not adopt an
amendment of this nature it will not be
at all clear that we have control over
the taxpayers' money or the people that
are spending it?
it is virtually unprecedented that Con-
gress would hand out millions of dollars
of tax moneys to an entity to be spent
when it is not under our control.
Mr. DERWINSKI. We will be appro-
priating money from the taxpayers.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Ohio (Mr. AsHBROOK) .
The question was taken; and the
Chairman being in doubt, the committee
divided, and there were-ayes 28,
noes 37.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Chairman, I de-
mand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
vice, and there were-ayes 171, noes 239,
not voting 22, as follows:
(Roll No. 301
AYES-171
Abdnor
Evans, Ga.
Loeffler
Andrews,
Findley
Lott
N. Dak.
Fish
Lujan
Applegate
Forsythe,
Lungren
Archer
Fountain
McClory
Ashbrook
Frenzel
McDonald
Badham
Fuqua
McEwen
Befalls
Gaydos
Marlene
Bailey
Gilman
Marriott
Barnard
Gingrich
Mathis
Bauman
Goldwater
Mattox
Bereuter
Goodling
Michel
Bethune
Gradison
Miller, Ohio
Breaux
Gramm
Mitchell, N.Y.
Brinkley
Grassley
Montgomery
Broyhill
Grisham
Moore
Burgener
Guyer
Moorhead,
Butler
Hagedorn
Calif.
Byron
Hammer-
Mottl
Campbell
schmidt
Myers, Ind.
Carney
Hance
Nelson
Carter
Hansen
Nichols
Cheney
Harsha
O'Brien
Clausen
Hillis
Pashayan
Cleveland
Hinson
Paul
Clinger
Hollenbeck
Quayle
Coleman
Holt
Quillen
Collins, Tex.
Holtzman
Railsback
Conable
Hopkins
Regula
Conte
Horton
Rhodes
Corcoran
Hyde
Rinaldo
Coughlin
Ireland'
Ritter
Courter
Jeffries
Robinson
Crane, Daniel
Jenkins
Roe
Daniel, Dan
Kelly
Roth
Daniel, R. W.
Kemp
Rousselot
Dannemeyer
Kildee
Rudd
Davis, Mich.
Kindness
Runnels
Deckard
Kramer
Satterfield
Derwinski
Lagomarsino
Sawyer
Devine
Latta
Schulze
Dickinson
Leach, Iowa
Sebelius
Dougherty .
Leach, La.
Sensenbrenner
Duncan, Tenn.
Leath, Tex.
Shelby
Edwards; Okla.
Lee
Shumway
Emery
Lent
Shuster
Erdahl
Levitas
Smith, Nebr.
Erlenborn
Lewis
Snows
Evans, Del.
Livingston
Snyder
Solomon
Taylor
Whittaker
Spence
Thomas
Williams, Ohio
Stangeland
Treen
Wilson, Bob
Stanton
Trible
Winn
Stenholm
Vander Jagt
Wydler
Stockman
Walker
Wylie
Stump
Wampler
Yatron
Symms
Watkins
Young, Alaska
Tauke
White
Young, Fla.
NOES-239
Addabbo
Frost
Neal
Akaka
Gephardt
Nedzi
Albosta
Gialmo
Nolan
Anderson,
Gibbons
Nowak
Calif.
Ginn
Oakar
Andrews, N.C.
Glickman
Oberstar
Annunzio
Gonzalez _
Obey
Anthony
Gore
Ottinger
Aspin
Gray
Panetta
Atkinson
Green
Patten
AuCoin
Guarini
Patterson
Baldus
Gudger
Pease
Barnes
Hall, Ohio
Pepper
Beard, R.I.
Hall, Tex.
Perkins
Bedell
Hamilton
Peyser
Beilenson
Hanley
Pickle
Benjamin
Harkin
Prayer
Bennett -
Harris
Price
Biaggi
Hawkins
Pritchard
Bingham
Heckler .
Rahall
Blanchard
Hefner
Rangel
Boggs
Heftel
Ratchford
Boland
Hightower
Reuss
Bolling
Holland
Richmond
Boner
Howard
Roberts
Bonior
Hubbard
Rodino
Booker
Huckaby
Rose
Bouquard
Hughes
Rosenthal
Bowen
Ichord
Rostenkowski
Brademas
Jacobs
Roybal
Brodhead
Jeffords
Russo
Brooks
Jenrette
Sabo
Broomfield
Johnson, Calif.
Santini
Brown, Calif.
Johnson, Colo.
Scheuer
Buchanan
Jones,N.C.
Schroeder
Burlison
Jones, Okla.
Selberling
Burton, John
Jones, Tenn.
Shannon
Burton, Phillip Kastenmeier
Sharp
Carr
Kazen
Simon
Cavanaugh
Kogovsek
Skelton
Chappell
Kostmayer
Slack
Chisholm
LaFalce
Solarz
Clay
Lederer
Spellman
Coelho
Lehman
St Germain
Conyers
Leland
Stack
Corman
Lloyd
Staggers
Cotter
Long, La.
Stark
D'Amours
Long, Md.
Steed
Danielson
Lowry
Stewart
Daschle
Luken
Stokes
Davis, S.C.
Lundine
Stratton
de la Garza
McCormack
Studds
Dellums
McDade
Swift
Derrick
McHugh
Synar
Dingell
McKay
Thompson
Dixon
Madigan
Traxler
Donnelly
Maguire
Udall
Drinan
Markey
Ullman
Duncan, Oreg.
Marks
Van Deerlin
Early
Martin
Vanik
Eckhardt
Matsui
Vento
Edgar
Mavroules _
Volkmer
Edwards, Ala.
Mazzoli
Walgren
Edwards, Calif.
Mica
Waxman
English
Mikulski
Weaver
Ertel
Mikva
Weiss
Evans, Ind.
Miller, Calif.
Whitehurst
Fary
Mineta
Whitley
Fascell
Minish
Whitten
Fazio
Mitchell, Md.
Williams, Mont.
Fenwick
Moakley
Wilson, Tex.
Ferraro
Moffett
Wirth
Fisher
Mollohan
Wolff, N.Y.
Fithian
Moorhead, Pa.
Wolpe, Mich.
Flippo
Murphy, Ill.
Wright
Florio '
Murphy, N.Y.
Wyatt
Foley
Murphy, Pa.
Yates
Ford, Mich.
Murtha
Young, Mo.
Ford, Tenn.
Myers, Pa.
Zablocki
Fowler
Natcher
Zeferetti
NOT VOTING-22
Alexander
Crane, Philip
Hutto
Ambro
Dicks
McCloskey
Anderson, Dl.
Diggs
McKinney
Ashley
Dodd
Pursell
Beard, Tenn.
Dornan
Smith, Iowa
Bevill
Downey
Wilson, C. H.
Brown, Ohio,
Flood
Collins, 111.
Garcia
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
March 13, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSJE
^ 1415
Mr. DANIEL B. CRANE changed his
vote from "no" to "aye."
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other
amendments to title II?
AMENDMENT OFFERED HY MR. EDWARDS OF
OKLAHOMA
Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma. Mr.
Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. EDWARDS Of
Of Oklahoma: On page 10, line 12, strike out
""and the Pescadores" and insert In lieu
thereof "the Pescadores, Quemoy, and
Matsu".
(Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma asked
'and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma. Mr.
Chairman, the amendment which I have
offered Is very simple and uncomplicated.
It merely broadens the definition of the
term "Taiwan" to Include not only the
island of Taiwan and the islands of the
Pescadores chain, but also those two is-
lands which mean so much to the de-
fense of Taiwan, the islands of Quemoy
and Matsu.
On these two islands live 76,000 free
Chinese. Moreover, these two islands
contain a substantial of Taiwan's armed
forces.
^ 1420
Mr. Chairman, to exclude the two
islands of Quemoy and Matsu from this
act Is an open invitation to Peking to
attack these islands without so much as
a suggestion from us that it might be of
some concern to the United States.
Some people, knowing that this
amendment was going to be offered, have
argued that the Mutual Defense Treaty
of 1954 did not extend to. these islands,
and that to include them in this act goes
beyond what we were willing to do previ-
ously. But what was our previous com-
mitment? To furnish military equip-
ment. To furnish our Air Force, our Navy,
our fighting men and women, if neces-
sary, to defend the freedom of the Re-
public of China. But what are our re-
sponsibilities to Taiwan under this act
now before us? Only to express our grave
concern.
I must say that I do not know, Mr.
Chairman, whether having grave con-
cern Is more or less than to deplore or
to condemn, since rhetoric is relative.
But all this is a statement of concern.
Is the United States so afraid to be an
International power that it fears
extend- ing even its concern for the freedom and
safety of the 76,000 Chinese on Quemoy
and Matsu? Who here seriously believes
that this administration would be willing
to do anything more than to deplore a
Communist attack on these islands? But
if Peking sees that the Congress of the
United States is willing to extend its
concern at least to Quemoy and Matsu,
perhaps that would be some deterrent
to any attack on those islands.
In the last Congress we expressed our
outrage over the treatment of Jews in
the Soviet Union and blacks In South
Africa. Today will we extend that same
concern for the very freedom and safety
of the 76,000 Chinese on Quemoy and
Matsu? This act incorporates a new re-
lationship between the people on Taiwan
and the people of the United States. The
President has requested an end to the
government-to-government relationship.
We in the House now have the responsi-
bility to speak for the people of the
United States in this new relationship.
There is no precedent for this corporate-
to-corporate format, but the President,
constitutionally entrusted with the con-
duct of our foreign policy, has chosen
to have a corporation represent our in-
terests in Taiwan. I do not believe the
President can have it both ways, as some
of my colleagues have suggested. We in
the House must exercise our constitu-
tional responsibility to protect American
interests and to shape our future policy
toward the people of Taiwan.
Hermann Hesse, in his book, "Demi-
an," wrote that Europe had conquered
the whole world only to lose her own
soul. Mr. Chairman, a nation is like a
man. It must keep its soul. It must do
what is right. I submit that this amend-
ment-this amendment which does no
more than express our national concern
for the safety of the Chinese on Quemoy
and Matsu, and which recognizes the
danger to all of Taiwan if those islands
fall-will help this Nation, this great
Nation of ours, to do the right thing and
keep its soul.
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma. I yield
to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WOLFF. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Is the gentleman aware that there
are a number of other islands which are
under the control now of the present
Government on Taiwan? Those islands
would not be covered. In other words,
what we would do, then, is exclude those
islands. Or does the gentleman mean
that this resolution would apply to all
of the islands that are now under the
control of Taiwan.
Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma. This
amendment applies only to covering un-
der the definition of Taiwan the island
of Taiwan itself, the Pescadores chain,
Quemoy, and Matsu.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
(At the request of Mr. WOLFF, and by
unanimous consent, Mr. EDWARDS of
Oklahoma was allowed to proceed for
2 additional minutes.)
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma. I yield
to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WOLFF. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
On page 16 of the report we specifi-
cally refer to Quemoy and Matsu. The
indications are that the above defini-
tions are illustrative but not limiting the
term "laws of the United States" and
"Taiwan" are to be construed expansively
to carry out the purposes of this act.
"Thus, for example, the term `Taiwan'
may in some contexts appropriately en-
compass the islands of Quemoy and
Matsu, as well as other islands governed
H 1265
by authorities exercising government
control on Taiwan."
Basically, this issue was fought back
in 1954 when the Mutual Defense Treaty,
was passed and entered into by this
Government. At that time it was felt
that we should exclude both Quemoy and
Matsu from the agreement. In fact, the
Formosa Act was repealed In 1974 again
on that basis of Quemoy and Matsu.
Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma. If I
may reclaim my time to respond to the
gentleman, first of all I acknowledge
what is in the report. Unfortunately, we
will not be voting on the report. The
report is not what is before us. We are
voting on the bill, and the bill does not
Include Quemoy and Matsu in the defi-
nition.
^ 1425
Secondly, I will repeat the point I
made earlier that the decision that was
made in 1954 referred to a defense treaty
which called for the commitment of
American military force. What we have
before us here is merely an expression of
our "grave concern" and I would suggest
to the gentleman that It Is not asking
too much that this great body, represent-
ing this great and powerful country of
ours, be willing to say that we consider
that an attack on Taiwan, Quemoy, or
Matsu would be a threat to the peace and
stability of the Western area and of grave
concern to the United States. This is all
we are talking about.
Mr. WOLFF. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma. I yield to
the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WOLFF. It is the Spratly Islands
today.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Oklahoma has again ex-
pired.
(At the request of Mr. LAGOMARSINO,
and by unanimous consent, Mr. EDWARDS
of Oklahoma was allowed to proceed for
2 additional minutes.)
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Will the gentle-
man yield?
Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma. I yield
to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. I offered the
same amendment in committee and many
of the same arguments we are hearing
this afternon were used against it at that
time.
I think the gentleman made a good
point as to whether or not language in a
report would be helpful here. I submit
that we are partly in the problem that we
are in today because the President and
his administration not only does not par-
ticularly pay attention to language in
reports but sometimes language in legis-
lation itself does not get proper attention,
as with the language in the Security
Assistance Act of last year, which man-
dated the President to consult with Con-
gress before taking any action in this
field.
It seems to me the other point the gen-
tleman made; namely, that the reactions
that would occur should there be an at-
tack on or threat to Quemoy and Matsu
would be determined by the administra-
tion in consultation with Congress and
there are certainly no requirements that
that action would be the same as if the
Island of Taiwan itself were attacked. It
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 1266
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE March 13, :1979
is ambiguous now; to clear up that am-
biguity the amendment should not be
adopted.
Mr. WOLFF. Would the gentleman
yield further?
Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma. I yield
to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WOLFF. The point I was trying to
make before is the fact that while the
Spratly Islands are very highly contest-
ed islands, and very valuable resources
to Taiwan, you do not cover them. The
reason we did not cover specifically the
territories that Taiwan exercises control
over is to be all-encompassing so that
the areas that are now governed by the
present Government on Taiwan would
be all-inclusive in this bill.
Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma. May I
say to the gentleman that the difference
is the location of Quemoy and Matsu
and the fact that a very sizable portion
of the armed forces of Taiwan is lo-
cated on Quemoy and Matsu and that
therefore a threat or an attack against
Quemoy and Matsu would pose a grave
peril to the safety of Taiwan itself.
Mr. WOLFF. Will the gentleman yield
further?
Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma. I yield
to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WOLFF. However the territories
of Quemoy and Matsu are considered
part of this.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Oklahoma has again ex-
pired.
(At the request of Mr. SKELTON, . and
by unanimous consent, Mr. EDWARDS of
Oklahoma was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. SKELTON. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma. I yield
to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, actu-
ally talking about the Islands of Que-
moy and Matsu, as it was referred to by
the subcommittee chairman, the gentle-
man from New York (Mr. WOLF ) that
the battle was fought back in 1954. There
was a subsequent battle over these is-
lands-and I think it was debated all over
the Nation and decided at that time in
the elections of 1960 between the con-
tenders for the Presidency, President
Kennedy and then Vice President Nixon,
it was settled then. Does the gentleman
not agree?
Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma. If I may
respond to the gentleman, no, I do not
agree. That was the point I was making
to the gentleman from New York. In 1954
and then in 1960 were referring to a
defense treaty, we were talking about a
commitment by this' country to.provide
servicemen to defend these islands. Now
we are only talking about whether or
not we as a people would express our
"grave concern" in the case of an attack
against those islands. That is not hardly
the same point.
^ 1430.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment.
(Mr. ZABLOCKI asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I have
taken the well rather than speaking from
the mike at the table because I can hear
myself better here, and I do not get such
an overtone as I do at the mike at the
table.
Adoption of this amendment, Mr.
Chairman, would be unwise. The pro-
posed amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Oklahoma (Mr. EDWARDS) has,
indeed been, considered in the Foreign
Affairs Committee and rejected. As the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Asian
and Pacific Affairs has stated, in refer-
ring to the language on page 16 of the
report, the term, "Taiwan," may in some
context appropriately encompass the is-
lands of Quemoy and Matsu, as well as
other islands governed by authorities ex-
ercising government control on Taiwan.
Quemoy and Matsu, Mr. Chairman.
were deliberately left out of the mutual
defense treaty, and I' am sure my col-
leagues will agree with the members of
the committee that we should not be
expanding the U.S. security commitment
beyond what was in the treaty. Quemoy
and Matsu are considered by both Taipei
and by Peking to -be part of mainland
China. They are in the province of Fu-
kien. Quemoy is only 7 miles offshore,
and Matsu is 12 off the mainland coast.
They have been the repeated targets of
shellfire, including propaganda shelling.
Any shelling of the islands in the future
would be of grave concern to the United
States. We should consider this.
Does the United States want to regard
the shelling of the islands as of "grave
concern" to our country? In 1974 the
Congress repealed the Formosa resolu-
tion in part because it implied a possible
U.S. security commitment to these is-
lands.
As I stated earlier, the reference in
the committee report deals with a dif-
ferent context. It applies to a situation
in which there could be commercial, cul-
tural, and other exchange programs,
which already extends to the people on
these islands because they are under the
Taiwan Government's control and which
we want to continue to apply.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, it would be unwise
for this bill to specify that the offshore
islands of Quemoy and Matsu are within
the definition of "Taiwan." We should
recall, as I said earlier, that these is-
lands are on the outskirts of the main-
land. They are not a part of Taiwan
per se. They were not included in the
mutual security treaty, and both the ad-
ministration and Congress have recog-
nized the danger of any implication of a
U.S. security commitment to these is-
lands, and we, therefore, as I said, re-
pealed the Formosa regolution.
Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield to
me?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. I will yield in just a
few seconds.
Mr. Chairman, as far as the participa-
tion of people from Quemoy and Matsu
are concerned in commercial or exchange
programs, again I must point out the re-
port of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
makes it clear that no bar is intended.
and thus, as an example, the term "Tai-
wan," as'I said earlier, in our definition
and in the report may in some contexts
appropriately encompass the islands of
Quemoy and Matsu. And we might even
include certain other small islands which
the gentleman's amendment does not
include.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. ZA-
BLOCKI) has expired.
(On request of Mr. EDWARDS of Okla-
homa, and by unanimous consent, Mr.
ZABLOCKI was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. I yield to the gentle-
from Oklahoma.
man
Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma. Mr.
Chairman, I have asked the chairman of
the committee to yield only that I might,,
make two points.
The first point is this: The chairman
of the committee refers to .the fact that
the report states that in some contexts
Quemoy and Matsu might be included
in the definition of "Taiwan." But the
chairman of the committee cannot tell
us, and the report does not tell us, who
will determine in what context Quemoy
and Matsu will be included.
My second point is this, if I may re-
peat a point that I made earlier: This is
not a security commitment. The com-
mittee chairman referred to a security
commitment but this is merely a state-
ment that a threat to Quemoy and Matsu
would be of grave concern to us. I sub-
mit that to specifically exclude Quemoy
and Matsu from this. bill is to say in
effect to Peking that a threat to Quemoy
and Matsu would not be of concern to us.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
^ 1435
Mr. ZABLOCKI. As far as the ref-
erence in the committee report is con-
cerned, it does not extend our security
commitment in its referral to Quemoy
and Matsu.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Oklahoma (Mr. EDWARDS).
The question was taken; and on a di-
vision (demanded by Mr. EDWARDS of
Oklahoma) there were-ayes 30, noes 45.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma. Mr.
Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
vice, and there were-ayes 146, noes 256,
not voting 30, as follows:
[Roll No. 311
AYES-146
Abdnor
Chappell
Duncan. Tenn.
Andrews,
Clausen
Edwards, Okla.
N. Dak.
Cleveland
Evans, Del.
Applegate
Collins, Tex.
Evans, Ga.
Archer
Courter
Gaydos
Ashbrook
Crane, Daniel
Gilman
Badham '
D'Amours
Gingrich
Bafalis
Daniel, Dan
Goldwater
Bailey
Daniel, R. W.
Goodling
Barnard
Dannemeyer
Grassley
Bauman
Davis, Mich.
Grisham
Beard, R.I.
de Is Garza
Guyer
Bouquard
Deckard
Hagedoin
Breaux
Derwinski -
Hall, Tex.
Brinkley
Devine
Hammer-
Burgener
Dickinson
schmidt
Campbell
Donnelly
Hance
Carney
Dougherty
Hansen
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 March 13, 1979
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE H 1267
Harsha
Mathis
Shelby
Heckler
Mattox
Shumway
Hightower
Michel
Shuster
Hinson
Miller, Ohio
Snowe
Holt
Mitchell, N.Y.
Snyder
Hopkins
Montgomery
Solomon
Howard
Moore
Spence
Hubbard
Moorhead,
Stangeland
Huckaby
Calif.
Stenholm
Hyde
Mottl
Stockman
Jeffries
Murphy, Pa.
Stratton
Kelly
Murtha
Stump
Kemp
Myers, Ind.
Symms
Kindness
Myers, Pa.
Taylor
Kramer
Nelson
Thomas
Lagomarsino
Perkins
Treen
Latta
Quayle
Trible
Leach, La.
Quillen
Walker
Leath, Tex.
Regula
Wampler
Lent
Rhodes
Watkins
Livingston
Ritter
White
Loeffler
Robinson
Whittaker
Lott
Roe
Whitten
Lujan
Roth
Williams, Ohio
Lungren
Rousselot
Wilson, Bob
McClory
Rudd
Wilson, C. H.
McDade
Runnels
Winn
McDonald
Santini
Wyatt
McEwen
Satterfield
Wydier
Marlenee
Sawyer
Yatron
Marriott
Schulze
Young, Alaska
Martin
Sebelius
NOES-256
Addabbo
Emery
Levitas
Akaka
English
Lloyd
Albosta
Erdahl
Long, La.
Anderson,
Erlenborn
Long
Md.
Calif.
Ertel
,
Lowry
Andrews, N.C.
Evans, Ind.
Luken
Annunzio
Fary
Lundine
Anthony
Fasoell
McCormack
Ashley
Fazio
McHugh
Aspin
Fenwick
McKay
Atkinson
Ferraro
Maguire
AuCoin
Findley
Markey
Baldus
Fish
Marks
Barnes
Fisher
Matsui
Bedell
Fithian
Mavroules
Bellenson
Flippo
Mazzola
Benjamin
Florio
Mica
Bennett
Foley
Mikulski
Bereuter
Ford, Mich.
Mlkva
Bethune
Ford, Tenn.
Miller, Calif.
Biaggi
Forsythe
Mineta
Bingham
Fountain
Minish
Blanchard
Fowler
Mitchell, Md.
Boggs
Frenzel
Moakley
Boland
Frost
Moffett
Bolling
Fuqua
Mollohan
Boner
Gephardt
Moorhead, Ps,
Bonior
Giaimo
Murphy, 331.
Bowen
Gibbons
Murphy, N.Y.
Brademas
Ginn
Natcher
Brodhead
Glickman
Neal
Brooks
Gonzalez
Nedzi
Broomfield
Gore
Nichols
Broyhill
Gradison
Nolan
Buchanan
Gramm
Nowak
Burlison
Gray
O'Brien
Burton, John
Green
Oakar
Burton, Phillip Guarini
Oberstar
Butler
Gudger
Obey
Byron
Hall, Ohio
Ottinger
Carr
Hamilton
Panetta
Carter
Hanley
Pashayan
Cavanaugh
Harkin
Patten
Cheney
Harris
Patterson
Chisholm
Hawkins
Paul
Clay
Hefner
Pease
,Clinger
Heftel
Peyser
Coelho
Hillis
Pickle
Coleman
Holland
Prayer
Conable
Hoilenbeck
Price
Conte
Holtzman
Pritchard
Conyers
Horton
Raball
'Corcoran
Hughes
Rallsback
Corman
Ichord
Rangel
Cotter
Ireland
Ratchford
Coughlin
Jacobs
Reuss
Danielson
Jenkins
Richmond
Daschle
Johnson, Calif:
Rinaldo
Davis, S.C. '
Johnson, Colo.
Roberts
Dellums
Jones, N.C.
Rodino
Derrick
Jones, Okla.
Rose
Diggs
Jones, Tenn.
Rosenthal
Dingell
Kastenmeier
Rostenkowski
Dixon
Kazen
Roybal
Drinan
Kildee
Russo
Duncan, Oreg.
Kogovsek
Sabo
Early
Kostmayer
Schauer
Eckhardt
Leach, Iowa
Schroeder
Edgar
Lederer
Selberling
Edwards, Ala.
Lehman
Sensenbrenner
Edwards, Calif.
Leland
Shannon
Sharp
Studds
Whitehurst
Simon
Swift
Whitley
Skelton
Synar
Williams,
Slack
Tauke
Mont.
Smith, Nebr.
Thompson
Wilson, Tex.
Solarz
Traxler
Wirth
Spellman
Udall
Wolff, N.Y.
St Germain
Ullman
Wolpe, Mich.
Stack
Van Deerlin
Wright
Staggers
Vanik
Wylie
Stanton
Vento
Yates
Stark
Volkmer
Young, Fla.
Steed
Walgren
Young, Mo.
Stewart
Weaver
Zablocki
Stokes
Weiss
Zeferetti
NOT VOTING-30
Alexander
Dicks
Lee
Ambro
Dodd
Lewis
Anderson, Ill.
Dorman
McCloskey
Beard, Tenn.
Downey
McKinney
Bevill
Flood
Madigan
Bonker
Garcia
Pepper
Brown, Calif.
Hutto
Pursell
Brown, Ohio
Jeffords
Smith, Iowa.
Collins, 111.
Jenrette
Vander Jagt
Crane, Philip
LaFalce
Waxman
^ 1450
Mr. DERRICK changed his vote from
"aye" to "no."
Mr. STRATTON changed his vote from
"no" to "aye."
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
^ 1455
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further
amendments to title II?
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, it is very important, I
think, that we have the fullest possible
clarification of the language in this reso-
lution. In the light of some of the com-
ments made last week'in consideration
of this bill by the gentleman from New
York (Mr. STRATTON) I reexamined sec-
tion 101 and I would appreciate it if the
distinguished chairman of the House
Foreign Affairs Committee would help me
clarify the effect of section 101.
It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman,
that nothing in this legislation should be
construed or can properly be construed
as giving the President any authority or
direction in respect to the use of U.S. mil-
itary forces which he would not already
have in the absence of this legislation. Is
that the gentleman's interpretation of
the resolution?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. FINDLEY. I do yield.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding.
The gentleman has interpreted the in-
tent of this legislation very accurately. In
no way does this legislation give the
President any more authority in the use
of military forces employed in the areas
of combat than he already has, and the
provisions of the War Powers Act will
continue to apply.
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, may I
further ask the gentleman if he would
agree with this statement that it can-
not properly be construed, the resolution
cannot properly be construed as author-
izing or suggesting the use of U.S. mili-
tary forces in any particular circum-
stance or in response to any threat or
danger. Am I correct?
. Mr. ZABLOCKI. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. FINDLEY. Yes.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Yes, the gentleman is
correct.
Mr. STRATTON. Will the gentleman
yield to me since he mentioned my name?
Mr. FINDLEY. I will be glad to yield to
the gentleman from New York.
Mr. STRATTON. The gentleman said
his query of the chairman came from the
colloquy that I had on this floor last
week. Now, that colloquy simply went to
the point that the language in the reso-
lution which you have before you specifi-
cally spelled out precisely the same cap-
ability to do the things that the gentle-
man is referring to that were also con-
tained in the '114utual Defense Treaty;
namely, to take such 'action as was
deemed proper by the President and
Congress under our constitutional proce-
dures.
The gentleman's colloquy just now
with the gentleman from Wisconsin,
however, suggests that in some way this
particular section degrades the capabil-
ity of the United States to respond from
what it would have prevailed under the
still existing defense treaty.
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman would permit me to respond,
there were similarities in the language of
the Mutual Defense Treaty and section
101 of this resolution. It was not identical
language. In fact, my examination after
the gentleman very. thoughtfully called
my attention to dissimilarities led me to
conclude that the differences were sub-
stantial but in order to eliminate any
possible question as to the effect of this
legislation, in authorizing or not author-
izing the use of military forces, I wel-
comed the clarification by the gentleman
from Wisconsin, the chairman of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Mr. STRATTON. If the gentleman will
yield further, it is hard for me to see how
the gentleman can get that out of the
relatively minor differences in the lan-
guage unless we are beginning to inter-
pret English in some different way. No-
body suggested that under the treaty
that the President could go to war except
through appropriate procedures estab-
lished by the Congress. That is also pre-
cisely what the resolution at hand does.
I think that a simple statement by the
gentleman from Wisconsin is adequate to
support the conclusion that there are
profound differences in meaning between
the language of the resolution and the
language of the defense treaty. The gen-
tleman from Illinois ought to set forth
the reason for his belief rather than sim-
ply suggest that a statement by the gen-
tleman from Wisconsin, establishes a leg-
islative history when that interpretation
is not backed up by the words that are in
print. 1
Mr. FINDLEY. If the gentleman will
permit me to respond, the gentleman
from Wisconsin is the author of the leg-
islation, he presided over all the hear-
ings, directed a very intensive staff scru-
tiny and, in fact, the staff he directed
entered very heavily into the construc-
tion of the legislation itself.
^ 1550
So his word does, of course, add enor-
mous weight to legislative history. The
differences between the language in the
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 H 1268
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
CONGR]ESSIIONAL RECORD RECORD-HOUSE March 13, 1979
mutual defense treaty and the language
in section 101 are, of course, very impor-
tant, and the differences are substantial.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from New York (Mr. STRATTON)
has expired.
(On request of Mr. FINDLEY, and by
unanimous consent, Mr. STRATTON' Was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
Mr. FINDLEY. But to me, Mr. Chair-
man, the important thing is not the effect
of mutual defense treaty language but
the effect of the language now before us,
and I think the gentleman from Wiscon-
sin (Mr. ZABLOCKI) has rendered a great
service in helping to clarify the effect
and the parameters of this language.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, let
me ask the gentleman what are the dif-
ferences that the gentleman bases this
conclusion on, if he would be so good as
to spell them out?
Mr. FINDLEY. The differences be-
tween what and what?
Mr. STRATTON. Between the lan-
guage that is before us and the language
of the defense treaty.
Mr. FINDL,EY. If the gentleman could
supply me with the language of the
treaty. I could respond better. I do not,
frankly, happen to have it right before
me.
Mr. STRATTON. In other words, the
gentleman admits that he does, not know
what he is talking about.
Mr. FINDLEY. The gentleman from
New York (Mr. STRATTON) is, of course,
entitled to his own interpretation of my
position, but if he would examine the
language of the treaty and the language
of the legislation before us, he would see
very distinct differences.
In fact, any reasonable interpretation
of the treaty language would show that
it calls upon the President, of course,
through constitutional procedures, to act
to meet 'any danger. That is the critical
difference. I do not have the precise lan-
guage, but I think I may very wellhave
used the exact words in what I have just
stated.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman. I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I take this time in
response to the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. FINDLEY) and the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. ZABLOCKI)..During the
hearings before the Committee on Rules
on this legislation, I raised this same
question with the gentleman from Wis-
consin, because I read the provisions of
the legislation. I call the attention of the
committee to page 5., section 202(b) (1),
that reads:
The laws of the United States ... shall
... apply to the extent ~ the President may
And then section 202(b) (2) says:
Any agency of the United ,States Govern-
ment may sell, loan, or learn property ...
Taken together that language allows
the President to use this designated
agency as a conduit which could allow
defense materials and all sorts of weap-
ons to be transferred to the counterpart
entity on Taiwan.
It seems to me that a future President
who is not so sanguine in defending the
interests of Taiwan might decide the
War Powers Act should be waived. It
seems to me the language is plain here
that it gives him that authority. These
provisions point up the broad nature of
the authority contained in this legisla-
tion. I do not think any of my liberal
colleagues who were so concerned about
the actions of a Lyndon Johnson or
others in regard to the Vietnam war
should be so placid in their acceptance
of particular language.
There it is. It is right there before us.
All the legislative history the courts
have held is not worth a tinkers dam, as
opposed to what the law says as it is
written on the books.
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BAUMAN: I yield to the gentleman
from Illinois. '
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am
curious to know the gentleman's inter-
pretation as to the effect of section 101.
'I think it is the (b) section, the para-
graph that contains the word, "action."
Mr. BAUMAN. Yes, but the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. FnvDLEY) fully knows
the history of the Vietnam conflict. It
was not a declaration of war that got us
into the situation there, it was a piece-
meal approach.
Mr. FINDLEY. That is true.
Mr. BAUMAN. The problem came after
years and years of attrition by Presidents
of both parties, sending troops and send-
ing weapons, and so on. That was the
genisis of the problem.
Here in this bill there is the possibility
of the same kind of arrangement, but
sanctioned bylaw.
On the President's own authority, he
can waive the War Powers Act, and he
may specifically waive it with respect to
the designated entity and turn that en-
tity into a conduit for arms to be sent to
Taiwan. If the gentleman is concerned
about this as it regards one part of Asia,
it seems to me he should be consistent
and be concerned as it pertains to
Taiwan.
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, I won-
der if the gentleman would comment on
the effect of this sentence:
The President and the Congress shall de-
termine, in accordance with constitutional
processes, appropriate action by the United
States in response to any such danger.
0 1505
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, the con-
stitutional process requires an act of war
to have the approval of Congress. But
the history of the imperial Presidency
indicates an assumption of power short
of war can be the same as war.
Mr. FINDLEY. That is right.
Mr. BAUMAN. What I am pointing to
is that here lies the possibility of a Presi-
dent in the future, even this President,
if he should so desire, to escalate appre-
ciably the military situation as pertains
to Taiwan.
Mr. FINDLEY. Would the gentleman
read that sentence in a way that should
be construed as authorizing military ac-
tion by an adventuresome President in
the future.
Mr. BAUMAN. It is not up to the gen-
tleman from Maryland to judge what
might be an adventuresome President in
the future. Some think we have had too
many of them in the past.
Mr. FINDLEY. Of course, it is a pos-
sibility. But would the gentleman con-
strue it as giving the President that
power?
Mr. BAUMAN. I think the potential
proves exists, in the very broad drafts-
manship in this legislation. But the world
will little note, nor long remember what
we say here.
Mr. FINDLEY. The Gulf of Tonkin
resolution, which many of us-in fact, all
of us then in the House-very unwisely
supported in 1964 was often cited by
President Johnson as legitimative au
thority to carry on a very wide-scale mili-
tary operation in Vietnam. I think the
gentleman from Maryland was here in
another capacity at that time, and hg,
certainly has been an observer of the
American scene. I wonder if he would
interpret this language as having within
it the same mischief as was contained in
the Gulf of Tonkin resolution?
. Mr. BAUIVLAN. It is in the nature of a
blank check for any President, including
the incumbent or any future President,
to do as he pleases so far as using this .
entity, so far as transferring arms or
any military equipment, and that could
be an act short of war, but certainly one
that could have a great deal of con-
sequences.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further
amendments to title II?
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. SOLOMON
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. SOLOMON: On
page 5, strike out line 1 and all that follows
through line 16, and insert in lieu thereof
the following:
"ESTABLISHMENT OF CONSULAR RELATIONS
Section 202(a) Except as the President may
otherwise provide with respect to those types
of dealings which are not normally con-
ducted through diplomatic or other official
missions,
(1) dealings of the United States Govern-
ment with Taiwan shall be conducted
through a United States Consulate on Tai-
wan; and
(2) dealings of Taiwan with the United
States Government shall be conducted
through a Taiwan Consulate in the United
States.
(b) Upon the,granting to Taiwan of com-
parable privileges and immunities to the
United States Consulate on Taiwan and its
personnel, the President is authorized to ex-
tend to the Taiwan Consulate in the United
States, and its personnel, privileges and im-
munities (subject to corresponding condi-
tions and obligations) comparable to those
extended by the United States to other ac-
credited consular offices of foreign countries,
with which the United States does not main -r
tain diplomatic relations, and members of
such consulates."
On page 6, strike out line 18 and all that
follows through line 4 on page 10 and re-
designate sections 205, 206, and 207 as sec-
tions 203, 204 and 205 respectively.
(Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, out of
consideration of my colleagues, I would
just like to announce that ,the failure of
this by voice vote will draw out a request
from me to ask for the yeas and nays.
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
Al arch M), 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSIE H 126
I would also like t call the attention of
some of my colleagues from New York,
particularly those from New York City,
who have been voting consistently
against many of the amendments that
so many of us are concerned about, that
these Members, particularly those whose
names might appear on this bill before
us, that I detect a certain amount of re-
sentment among my colleagues from
around the country because of some of
these votes.
^ 1510
I would like to point out to them and
to myself that may have constituencies
-.that may be interestec: in Israel, that in
the not too distant future we may be
faced with legislation that is going to be
very similar to what we have here.
. Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to my colleague
from New York.
Mr. WOLFF. Does the gentleman
equate Israel and Taiwan? Is that what
he is saying?
Mr. SOLOMON. As far as our future
policy is concerned; yes, sir.
Mr. WOLF. In other words, the gen-
tleman now equates all the votes that
we are taking with vote that subse-
quently we will take on Israel? Is that
right? `
Mr. SOLOMON. No, I say to my col-
league from New York, I simply call this
to your attention because I am very much
concerned about It.
Mr. WOLFF. We thank the gentleman
very much, If the gentleman will yield
further, for calling our attention to it.
Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. Chairman, the reason I rise is to
offer this amendment which does estab-
lish consular relations with Taiwan sim-
ilar to those consular relations that we
now have with other countries which we
do not recognize diplomatically. The ba-
sic question throughout the debate over
the legislation dealing with Taiwan has
focused on what kind of relations we
should continue to have that deal with
both historical and political realities.
The contention is made that we cannot
have diplomatic relations with Taiwan
because this would interfere with nor-
malization of relations with the PRC.
Another argument raised against this
proposal was that liaison relations
meant, nonetheless, a two-China policy.
Thus, a proposal to have liaison rela-
tions-which is a form of diplomatic re-
lations-was narrowly voted down in the
House last Thursday. Those were some of
the votes I referred to.
Having said all that, it is also true
that if there are no established relations
with the people on Taiwan, there is a
failure to recognize the reality of Tai-
wan's existence as a political entity with
"international personality", as that term
is used by Victor Li in his testimony be-
fore the Senate committee. I have a copy
of that testimony which I would like to
insert at this point in the RECORD.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR VICTOR Li
I am delighted that normalization of rela-
tions with the People's Republic of China has
finally taken place. But normalization still
leaves many political and legal problems to
be resolved, including the status of Taiwan.
After January 1, 1979, we know what Tai-
wan is note it is not the de jure government
of the state of China. Much less clear, how-
ever, is the question of what Taiwan is.
We also know that U.S.-Republic of China
(ROC) treaties do not automatically lapse
upon withdrawal of recognition. The Mutual
Defense Treaty continues In effect for one
more year. In a December 30, 1978 memoran-
dum for all departments and agencies, Presi-
dent Carter declared:
Existing international agreements and ar-
rangements in force between the united
States and Taiwan shall continue in force
and shall be performed and enforced by de-
partments and their agencies beginning Jan-
uary 1, 1979, in accordance with their terms?
But the United States has not explained the
legal rationale for preserving treaties and
maintaining commercial, cultural, and other
relations with an unrecognized entity.
1. TWO POSSIBLE CHOICES
1. Successor Government
One possible rationale is that the United
States has treaty and other relations with the
state of China. Prior to January 1, that state
was represented by the ROC government.
After the switch of recognition, the United
States regards the People's Republic of China
(PRC) as the successor government to the
ROC. As such, the PRC assumes the rights
and obligations of its predecessor.
The successor government theory is well
known. For example, in 1971, the PRO was
recognized by the United Nations as the only
legitimate representative of China, and took
over the seat belonging to that state. .
Applying the above theory to the present
situation, the PRC has succeeded to the Mu-
tual Defense Treaty and other agreements
with the United States. These treaties re-
main in force because the PRO has agreed, in
an implied manner, that they should con=
tinue to serve as the bases of American rela-
tions with the Chinese territory of Taiwan.
In addition, since the PRC is the govern-
ment of all of China including Taiwan, the
United States can have no direct relations
with the authorities on Taiwan, unless the
PRC consents. Taiwan would have no capac-
ity to conduct foreign affairs, except insofar
as the PRC consents, even if only in an
implied manner.
2. De facto entity with international
personality
A second possible description of the legal
status of Taiwan after withdrawal of recog-
nition is that it is a "de facto entity with in-
ternational personality." That is, while no
longer regarded by the United States as a de
jure government or state, nevertheless Tai-
wan continues to control a population and
territory and to carry out the usual func-
tions of government. Sec. 4 of the Restate-
ment, Second, Foreign Relations Law of the
United States (hereafter Restatement) pro-
vides:
Except as otherwise indicated, "state" as
used in the Restatement of this Subject
means an entity that has a defined territory
and population under the control of a gov-
ernment and that engages in foreign rela-
tions.
Similarly, the Convention on Rights and
Duties of States, 49 Stat. 3097, T.S. 881 (1933)
says:
Art. 1. The state as a person of interna-
tional law should possess the following
qualifications: (a) a permanent population;
(b) a defined territory; (c) government; and
(d) capacity to enter into relations with the
other states.
In other words, whether Taiwan is re-
garded as a "state" or juridical person in
international law depends on whether it car-
ries out the usual functions of a state, and
not whether it is recognized de lure by other
states.
If Taiwan is a de facto entity with inter-
national personality, it may carry out the
full range of foreign relations, including
entering into international agreements and
sending and receiving of official missions.
With respect to pre-existing treaties and
agreements, international law does not re-
quire that traties entered into with a once
recognized government, the terms of which
are limited to the territory actually con-
trolled by that government, must lapse after
that government loses de lure recognition
while still exerting de facto control.0 In such
an unprecedented situation, the United
States could make a political decision to
maintain these treaties on the ground that it
may continue to deal with the authorities
in actual control of Taiwan.
II. THE UNITED STATES POSITION
The PRC obviously views the switch of
recognition as a successor government situa-
tion. The position of the United States is not
clear. In the Joint Communique of Decem-
ber 15, 1978, the United States "acknowl-
edges the Chinese position that there is but
one China and Taiwan is part of China," and
''recognizes the People's Republic of China
as the sole legal Government of China. With-
in this context, the people of the United
States will maintain cultural, commercial,
and other unofficial relations with the people
of Taiwan."
One possible interpretation of these state-
ments is that the PRC is the successor gov-
ernment to the ROC: there is one state of
China which includes Taiwan, and the PRC
is the sole legal government of this state.
Moreover, since the United States can deal
with Taiwan only "within this context," the
United States acknowledges the PRO's ulti-
mate legal authority over Taiwan, including
the right to approve future U.S.-Taiwan
relations.
A second interpretation is that acknowl-
edgement of the Chinese position is not
tantamount to agreeing with it. Thus the
status of Taiwan remains "undetermined."
Moreover, the United States also has said
that:
Whenever any law, regulation, or order of
the United States refers to a foreign coun-
try, nation, state, government, or similar
entity, departments and agencies shall con-
strue those terms and apply those laws.
regulations, or orders to include Taiwan.'
This statement might be read as an indi-
cation that Taiwan is a de facto entity hav-
ing the attributes of a state or government.
In selecting between the successor govern-
ment theory and the de facto entity theory.
I believe that the former is not workable and
does not serve American Interests. First, the
need to obtain the PRC's consent, even if
only implied, for continued dealings with
Taiwan constantly places the United States
on the defensive. Serious difficulties would
arise if, at a later time, the PRC objects to
some aspect of U.S.-Taiwan relations.
Secondly, the successor government theory
lends to problems in areas other than treaties
or official relations. For example, the ROC
has deposited in American banks over 84
billion of its foreign exchange reserves. If
the PRC is the successor government, it
could assert that this money belongs to the
"state of China" and should be handed over
to the proper representative of that state,
the PRC. The transfer of such a vast sum
would undercut any policy to ensure that the
people of Taiwan "face a peaceful and pros-
perous future."
Finally, one of the reasons for moving
ahead with normalization is to bring Ameri-
can policy into accord with reality, a laud-
able goal. Structuring our dealings with Tai-
wan as though it were a subordinate unit of
the PRC would be a departure from reality.
I believe that the United States should
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 H 1270
W1Nk7RhbbJLU1NAL KLWK0-11uu5J March 13, 1979
make clear that it regards Taiwan as a de
facto entity with international personality.
Such a stand accurately reflects reality: de-
recognition has not affected the manner in
which the authorities and 17 million inhabi-
tants 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 Vice-Premier
Teng's recent indication that Taiwan may re-
tain its own political and economic systems
as well as maintain separate armed forces
acknowledges 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 PRC, 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.
One of the first possible cases is likely to
involve the ownership of the former ROC
embassy at Twin Oaks. The PRC may con-
sider the obtaining of the state of China's
diplomatic property an important political
and symbolic act. If the Executive or the
courts transfer the property to the PRC as
the successor government, then other ROC
assets, such as the several billion dollars in
bank denosits may also be jeopardized. Allow-
ing the PRO to succeed only to property ac-
quired before 1949 removes many of the diffi-
culties, but still leaves unresolved problems
such as the $550 million contribution made to
the International Monetary Fund by the ROC
In 1947.
III. ATTRIBUTION OF A DE FACTO ENTITY WITH
INTERNATIONAL PERSONALITY
This section discusses the capabilities and
disabilities of a de facto entity, comparing
them with the attributes of a de lure recog-
nized state. It should be pointed out at the
outset that the de facto entity concept is
not new or unfamiliar. Prior to January 1,
1979, the United States dealt with the PRC
on exactly such a basis. Although we did not
extend de lure recognition, official missions
were exchanged, agreements were reached,
American presidents visited the PRC, and a
considerable amount of trade and travel was
carried out. No one seriously questioned the
capacity of the PRC to engage in such rela-
tions.
1. International law perspective
A de facto entity has the capacity to have
treaty and other foreign relations, even with
countries not extending it de lure recogni-
tion. Sec. 107 of the Restatement provides:
An entity not recognized as a state but
meeting the requirements for recognition [of
controlling a territory and population and
engaging in foreign affairs], or an entity
recognized as a state whose regime is not rec-
ognized as its government, has the rights
of a state under international law in rela-
tions to a non-recognizing .state, although it
can be precluded from exercising such a right
if:
(a) The right is of such a nature that it
can only be exercised by the government of
a state, and
(b) The non-recognizing state refuses to
treat the purported exercise of the right as
action taken by the government of the other
state.
In recent years, the United States has en-
tered into agreements regarding a wide vari-
ety of subjects with de facto entities such
as the Democratic People's Republic of Viet-
nam, the German Democratic Republic, and
the PRC.
The American decision to conduct future
relations with Taiwan through a quasi-gov-
ernmental corporation rather than through
formal official channels does not affect the
status of Taiwan in international law. This
decision reflects political factors in U.S:
PRC-Taiwan relations, and is not the result
of some inherent disability of de facto en-
tities.
2. Existing legislation
There are very few provisions in American
legislation which provide that de lure and
de facto entities should be treated different-
ly.T In general, the legislative approach has
been to treat them similarly, unless there
is a specific provison to the contrary. Some
semantic confusion exists, since terms such
as "foreign country" or "foreign government"
are often used in an undefined and even
inconsistent manner. President Carter's mem-
orandum of December 30, cited earlier, and
the proposed legislation resolve this confu-
sion by making all such terms applicable to
Taiwan.
The proposed legislation resolves most the
legal problems which may arise after with-
drawal of recognition. However, two potential
difficulties remain. A number of statutes
place various restrictions on dealings with
"Communist countries."
For example, the Export-Import Bank may
not take part in transactions involving sales
to or products from "a Communist country,"
unless the President determines that the
transaction is in the national interest. The
Foreign Assistance Act bars assistance to
countries that are "dominated or controlled
by the international Communist movement,"
as well as to "any Communist country" un-
less the President finds that such assistance
is "vital to the security of the United
States." 9 Similarly, Communist countries are
not eligible for purchase of surplus agricul-
tural products on credit or for foreign cur-
rencies,'0 cannot be designated a beneficiary
developing country for purposes of the gen-
eralized system of preference,u and are
charged a higher tariff rater
As discussed earlier, the December 15 Com-
munique states that the United States "ac-
knowledges the Chinese position that there
Is but one China and Taiwan is part of
China." This sentence might be read to mean
that Taiwan is part of a Communist country,
the PRC. Such an interpretation appears to
be contrary to the President's position, but
neither earlier official statements nor the
proposed legislation directly addresses this
problem.
In addition, other statutory programs are
applicable only to "friendly countries." These
include military sales and assistance= the
Overseas Private Investment Corporation,14
sale of American agricultural surplus on
credit terms or for foreign currency by the
Commodity Credit Corporation,zs loans to
small farmers of predominantely rural coun-
tries,16 and expenditures of funds received
pursuant to the Agricultural Trade Develop-
ment and Assistance Act of 195417 Interest-
ingly, nowhere in these statutes is the term
"friendly" defined.
The proposed legislation does not explicitly
affirm Taiwan's "friendly" status, although
testimony by Administration officials makes
clear that the intention of the legislation is
to leave unchanged Taiwan's eligibility for
the above mentioned programs.
3. Judicially developed rules
Even without the proposed legislation,
judicially developed rules impose few serious
disabilities on de facto entities. They are
entitled to claim sovereign immunity to the
same extent as de lure recognized states. In
Wolfson v. Russian Socialist Federated So-
viet Republic, 23 N.Y. 372, 138 N.E. 24 (1923)
the R.S.F.S.R. was "an existing government
sovereign within its own territory," but un-
recognized by the United States. Immunity
was granted on the ground that a foreign
sovereign, even if unrecognized, cannot be
sued in an American court without his con-
sent. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
of 1976, 90 Stat 2891, makes no explicit
mention of unrecognized entities, but in-
stead refers generally to "foreign states". The
absence of a specific provision implies that
pre-existing rules established by case law
remain valid. Moreover, President Carter's
directive of December 30 and the proposed
legislation directing that laws regarding
"foreign states" should apply to Taiwan also
would support the granting of Immunity.
The act of state doctrine provides:
Every sovereign state is bound to respect
the independence of every other sovereign
state, and the courts of one country will
not sit in judgment on the acts of the gov-,,
ernment of another, done within its own ter-
ritory. Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250,
18 S. Ct. 83 (1897).
In Salminoff & Co. v. Standard Oil Co. of
New York, 262 N.Y. 220 186 N.E. 679 (1933)
(refusal to examine the validity of a law
confiscating property located in the Soviet
Union), the court applied this doctrine to
acts of the Soviet government, which was
unrecognized but in actual control.
The "constitutional underpinning" for
the act of state doctrine is the separation of
powers. The Judiciary is reluctant to inter-
fere with the conduct of foreign affairs by
the Executive. Banco National de Cuba v.
Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 84 S. Ct. 923 (1964).
Applying this rationale to the politically deli-
cate situation in United States-PRC-Taiwan
relations, courts should be especially wary of
making pronouncements about the validity
or invalidity of Taiwanese governmental ac-
tions. The act of state doctrine should be
applied, leaving such determinations to the
Executive.
The only disability Imposed by the courts
on de facto entities is that they may not
have standing to bring suit in an American
court. In Russian Socialist Federated Soviet
Republic v. Cibrario, 25 N.Y. 255, 139 N.E.
259 (1923), the court held that allowing an
unrecognized government to sue would un-
dermine the Executive decision not to ex-
tend de lure recognition.
Yet even this position has eroded sub-
stantially over time. A Soviet-owned cor-
poration organized under the laws of New
York was allowed to bring suit. Amtorg Trad-
ing Corp. v. United States, 71 F. 2d 324 (1934).
In Upright v. Mercury Business Machines, 13
A.D. 2d 36, 213 N.Y.S. 2d 417 (1961) an
American assignee of a corporation controlled
by the unrecognized German Democratic Re-
public also was permitted to sue.
More recently, in Federal Republic of Ger-
many v. Elicofon, 358 F. Supp. 747 (E.D.N.Y.)
(1972), aff'd, 478 F. 2d 231, 415 U.S. 1931
(1974), reh denied, 416 U.S. 952 (1974), the
court did not allow the Weimer Art Collec-
tion, an East German museum which was an
arm of the East German government, to
bring suit. However, the court added In a
footnote:
It Is unclear whether this reasoning sup-
ports a rule invariably denying standing to
unrecognized governments. There may be
special circumstances In which action by the
President can be interpreted as creating an
exception to the rule. For example, it may
be argued that the act of the Executive In
permitting American nationals to engage in
commercial relations with unrecognized gov-
ernments or their instrumentalities carries
with it a grant to those governments or in-
strumentalities of standing to litigate claims
arising out of those transactions in United
States courts.
The same reasoning could be applied to
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
March 13, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 111271
the Taiwan situation where the United States
is allowing, and indeed encouraging, con-
tinued economic, cultural, and other rela-
tions.
The Upright case actually deals with both
the act of state doctrine and the question
of standing to sue. The starting point for
the court is that a "foreign government, al-
though not recognized by the political arm
of the United States government, may never-
theless have de facto existence which is jur-
ldicially cognizable." The court looked to
"the realities of life" and noted that an un-
recognized government carriers on many rou-
tine activities and that trade between the
two countries is not forbidden. The legal
consequences of non-recognition should be
narrowly construed, unless they "can be
properly related as inflnical to the aims and
purposes of our public and national policy."
Assuring the continued prosperity of Taiwan
appears to be part of the American national
policy. This policy would be hindered by
denying Taiwan the standing to bring suit
in American courts.
Thus, judicial doctrine may be evolving to
a position where unrecognized entities have
standing to sue, at least in cases involving
economic and cultural relations. Be that as
It may, the proposed legislation removes
whatever. legal disabilities may exist be-
cause of a' lack of recognition.
In summary, pre-existing legislation does
not make major distinctions between de jure
and de facto entities. Judicial practice also
imposes few, if any, additional disabilities.
The proposed legislation would remove the
remaining obstacles to continuing all eco-
nomic and cultural relations with Taiwan.
However, the inclusion of an affirmation of
Taiwan's "friendly" status, and a reference
to the fact that Taiwan is not part of a
Communist country would add to clarity.
It should be noted that the act of extend-
ing de lure recognition to the PRC, in and
of itself, grants the PRC few rights and
privileges. At this point, we should at least
ask why we continue to use the concept of
recognition, If the extending or withdraw-
ing of recognition indeed produces few or
no legal consequences of importance. Could
it be that this concept, which has so shaped
the United States-China relations debate, has
only symbolic content? If so, perhaps we
should consider whether it would be simpler
and better for countries to merely "deal"
with each other, without being tied to the
ritual of recognition.
IV. A PERSPECTIVE ON TAIWAN
The formulation "de facto entity with in-
ternational personality" is awkward, both
semantically and substantively. But since
both the PRC and Taiwan agree on the prin-
ciple of one China, it is hardly appropriate
for the United States, as an outsider, to
propose any other question. Having to oper-
ate within this principle, the United States
must use the de facto entity concept if it is
--to maintain economic, cultural, and other
ties with Taiwan into the indefinite future.
While we may hope that Taiwan will adopt
a more flexible stance in due course, the
central authorities there must resolve some
fundamental difficulties before any major
policy shifts can occur. Despite the slogans
and political speeches, I believe that few re-
sponsible people on Taiwan think that they
will recover the Mainland from the Com-
munists, or that they rule anything more
than the territory of Taiwan. At the same
time, over 1,500 persons in the National As-
sembly and Legislative Yuan hold office by
virtue of elections held on the Mainland in
1947. If Taiwan forsakes its claim to the
government of all of China, then the legal
basis for these 1,500 persons as well as others
retaining their positions also would vanish.
Moreover, considerable political debate must
take place. some of which may be acrimoni-
ous, to decide the form and personnel of the
new government. -
In making a national decision about the
future of Taiwan, the views of all of the
people of Taiwan should be considered. In
recent years, the electoral process was begin-
ning to bring new people representing a
broad range of views into the political sys-
tem. Although Taiwan is essentially a single
party state, "non-party" (i.e., opposition)
candidates won 38% of the popular vote in
the 1977 election for local offices. In the 1978
national elections, since only 38 seats (out
of 400) in the Legislative Yuan and 56 seats
(out of about 1,200) in the National As-
sembly were up for election, the makeup of
these bodies would hardly change even if
opposition candidates won a sizeable num-
ber of contests. Nevertheless, the elections
provided the public an opportunity to ex-
press its views. More importantly, the
winners, who would likely have included a
number of opposition leaders, would have
obtained legitimate standing to participate
in the national debate about the future of
Taiwan.
The normalization announcement was
made in the middle of the Taiwan elections,
and led to their indefinite suspension. Op-
position candidates cannot use their cam-
paign speeches and literature as means of
voicing their opinions. Censorship and re=
strictions on political activity limit the
means by which other persons may express
dissenting views. Decision making falls back
into the exclusive hands of the Nationalist
party. I am concerned that the lack of a
legitimate and adequate forum for national
debate may lead to internal problems on
Taiwan.
Finally, I want to make some comments
about American normal obligations to Tai-
wan. Over twenty-five years ago, in a world
that was very different, the United States
provided massive military and other as-
sistance to Taiwan when such assistance was
sorely needed. In subsequent years, the
United States contributed greatly to the
remarkable growth of that island.
At some point, the original American com-
mitments to Taiwan for military protection
and economic assistance would have been
fulfilled. Taiwan is not the 51st state which
must be defended and assisted under any
circumstances and for all time. In the course
of helping to build a new society on Taiwan,
however, I believe the United States has in-
curred new obligations to give that society
an opportunity to survive and grow.
Taiwan is going through a transition from
being the Republic of China representing all
of China to some new and still undefined
status. What that new status should be must
be decided by the people on Taiwan. They
must consider the offers being tendered by
the PRC. If they feel the offers to be unsatis-
factory, they must seek better terms or
search for new solutions.
I believe the responsibility of the United
States is to give the people on Taiwan a fair
opportunity to make decisions about its own
future. The use of the de facto entity ap-
proach which I have urged provides the
smoothest means of making a transition. It
is time for Taiwan to take its own problems
in hand. If it wishes to continue the fiction
of being all of China, then it has had ample
notice that it must stand alone and face
the consequences. If it wishes to reunify
with the PRC or adopt some other status,
then it must begin the process.
Thank you very much.
FOOTNOTES
"Memorandum on Relations with the
People of Taiwan," Federal Register, vol. 44,
no. 3, p. 1075 (January 4, 1979).
' For a more detailed explanation of this
position, see Victor H. Li and John W. Lewis,
"Resolving the China Dilema: Advancing
Normalization, Preserving Security," Inter-
national Security, vol. 2 no. 1, p. 11 (Sum-
er 1977) : statement of Victor H. Li in Sub-
committee on Asian and Pacific Affairs of the
Subcommittee on International 'Relations,
House of Representatives, Normalization of
Relations with the People's Republic of
China: Practical Implications (1977), p. 87.
3 There is a potentially serious linguistic
discrepancy between the English and Chinese
texts. The Chinese text uses ch'eng-jen for
"acknowledges." In this context, the Chinese
term carries a strong connotation of accept-
ance or agreement. Moreover, the Shanghai
Communique states: "The United States
acknowledges that Chinese on both sides of
the Strait agree that there is but one China
and Taiwan is part of China. We do not chal-
lenge this position." The Chinese text uses a
correct equivalent, jen-shih, for acknowl-
edges. Reading the Chinese texts of the' two
communiques together, the United States
has increased the degree of its acquiescence
in the Chinese position from Yen-shih (ac-
knowledges to takes note) to ch'eng-jen
(recognizes or accepts).
4 "Memorandum on Relations with the
People of Taiwan."
9 The ROC attempted to "sell" the property
to a group of persons prior to January 1,
reportedly for a token amount. This transac-
tion would not appear to be legally effective.
8 See also sec. 108 of the Restatement which
discusses the obligations of an unrecognized
entity. Similarly, art. 6 of the Vienna Con-
vention on the Law of Treaties says: "Every
state possesses capacity to conclude treaties."
However, the Convention does not define
"state."
7 For a detailed discussion of the legal ef-
fects on U.S.-Taiwan relations if the United
States withdraws de lure recognition. al-
though the Taiwan authorities continue to
maintain de facto control, see Victor H. Li.
De recognizing Taiwan: The Legal Problems
(Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace, 1977).
812 U.S.C. 635(b) (2).
022 U.S.C. 2370(b), (f). For purposes of
sec. (f), the PRO is specifically listed as a
"Communist country."
107 U.S.C. 1703(d) -excludes Communist
countries from being "friendly," but does
not define which non-Communist countries
are friendly.
u 19 U.S.C. 2462 (b) .
1219 U.S.C. 1202(e).
u 22 U.S.C. 2311, 2751.
11 22 U.S.C. 2191.
16 7 U.S.C. 1701. Up until the mid-1960s,
Taiwan had received considerable economic
aid under this and related programs. Such
aid has since ceased.
10 22 U.S.C. 2175.
17 22 U.S.C. 1922. Other examples are: 22
U.S.C. 2102 (health research and training);
22 U.S.C. 2219 (family planning); 50 U.S.C.
App. 1878(e) (loan of military vessels); 10
U.S.C. 7227, 31 US.C. 529(j) (routine dis-
bursement of funds and services to military
forces of a friendly country); 39 U.S.C. 401
(postal agreements).
In order to accommodate both the
problems of the so-called two-China
dilemma and the reality of Taiwan, we
should set up consulate offices with Tai-
wan, and we should do it in this legis-
lation. This would mean contact with
Taiwan without at the same time taking
any position on the basic question of the
international legal status of Taiwan.
Nor would it constitute diplomatic rec-
ognition of Taiwan by the United States,
which is what the President seems to
want.
We currently have consulate rela-
tions-and I wish the Members would
listen to this, because I think this is the
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 H 1272
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9 4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE March 13, 1979
most important part of the entire argu-
ment on this amendment-we currently
have consulate relations, not diplomatic
relations, with, other international po-
litical entities, as is Taiwan, such as
Estonia, Monaco, Lithuania, Latvia,
many of which are beyond the Iron Cur-
tain, and in many of which we do have
consulate offices even though we recog-
nize Russia and not these countries dip-
lomatically. We also have the same kind
of arrangement with Jerusalem, of all
places.
With other countries we have diplo-
matic relations with embassies in the
capital city and consulate offices in other
cities. We have the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. ERDAHL), who is former
Secretary of State of Minnesota, which
has consulate offices from foreign coun-
tries in his State; yet, that foreign coun-
try does not recognize the State of
Minnesota as a national sovereignty.
In the situation of China, we can
easily have an embassy in Peking that
represents formal diplomatic relations
in China, and our consulate in Taiwan
as well.
^ 1515
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from New York (Mr. SOLOMON)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. SOLOMON
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
Mr. SOLOMON. To continue, Mr.
Chairman, such an arrangement is per-
fectly logical because both Taipei and
Peking insist that there is a province of
China, both countries do. The reality is
that the Government of Taipei controls
and governs that particular part of
China. Thus, without prejudicing any
further the position of the PRC or of
Taiwan, we will continue to have a pres-
ence with the people of Taiwan, under
this amendment, through the establish-
ment of a consulate office in Taipei as
the mode of continued contact. By this
action we make it clear that we are sim-
ply dealing in the reality of who runs
Taiwan.
Mr. Chairman, I ask, Who does run
Taiwan? A consular relationship with
Taiwan will not jeopardize a peaceful
settlement of the Taiwan-PRC dispute,
and it will not interfere with the normal-
ization of relations between the United
States and the PRC.
A consulate does not mean formal dip-
lomatic relations with a country, accord-
ing to the Geneva Convention revisions
which this country and this body have
recognized.
I would like to quote from "Law Among
Nations"-and perhaps some of the older
Members have read-it-but I would ask
all Members to read it. I have a copy of it
here. It is very interesting. It says the
following:
. a severance of diplomatic relations
does not, ipso facto, mean a breaking off of
consular relations. It is also possible to estab-
lish consular relations between states that
do not have diplomatic relations with one
another. In this sitaution, the consular rela-
tions represent the only official relations of
permanent character between the states in
question.
Thus, just because we have begun dip-
lomatic relations with Taiwan does not
mean that we cannot have consular rela-
tions. By all standards, consular rela-
tions are lower relations than a formal
status. Actually, there is just mean con-
tact between the two international politi-
cal entities.
In this case, Mr. Chairman, we can
make it clear that the unusual situation
with China makes creation of these kinds
of relations absolutely necessary.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from New York (Mr. SOLOMON)
has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. SOLOMON
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional
minute.)
To continue, Mr. Chairman, we must
deal with Taiwan because it does exist.
It is a reality at present around the
world.
Many of our State governments have
what can be termed consulate offices in
foreign countries, and that does not
mean a compromise of the relations be-
tween Washington and that foreign
capital or that the foreign government
recognizes the State's government as a
separate foreign nation, as I referred to
when I mentioned the gentleman from
Minnesota, (Mr. ERDARL).
If anything, it reinforces the notion-
and I think the Members should listen
to this-that both Peking and Taipei
have what they want, that Taiwan is a
part of China and that this is the only
way in which we can have contact with
the people of the province of China. Any
other method of dealing with the prob-
lem short of diplomatic recognition
evades the basic reality and cannot work,
in the long run.
Mr. Chairman, the bill says over and
over again that Taiwan exists and that
we must recognize that reality by having
contact with the authorities in Taipei.
In substance, Mr. Chairman, this
amendment simply establishes a consu-
late office in Taiwan identical to those
which exist in other foreign countries
with which we do not have diplomatic
relations today, again, such as Latvia,
Lithuania, Estonia, Monaco, San Marino,
and even Jerusalem.
In allowing the President of the United
States to establish to whatever degree,
greater or lesser, as he may choose, a
consulate office, he does have a respon-
sibility to establish just what authority
that consulate would have.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we should
adopt this amendment today.
^ 1520
It would uncloud all of the problems
that the gentleman and I and everyone
else have as far as international law and
the Vienna Convention-all the problems
that we have.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
(At the request of Mr. SKELTON, and by
unanimous consent, Mr. SOLOMON was al-
lowed to proceed for 2 additional min-
utes.)
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
As I understand it, the gentleman
wants to establish a consulate office, is
that not correct, in Taiwan?
Mr. SOLOMON. That is absolutely
correct. That is what the amendment
says.
Mr. SKELTON. And the consulate of-
flee is, of course, under the Department
of State; is that not correct?
Mr. SOLOMON. Either fortunately or
unfortunately, yes.
Mr. SKELTON. The answer is, yes, is
that right?
Mr. SOLOMON. I believe it is, yes.
Mr. SKELTON. And the Department of
State is part of the executive branch; Is
that correct?
Mr. SOLOMON. Yes, it is.
Mr. SKELTON. And the executive
branch is controlled by the President of
the United States; is that right?
Mr. SOLOMON. Yes.
Mr. SKELTON. As the gentleman
knows, according to the Constitution the
President has two exclusive powers that
no one, especially Congress, may invade.
One is the right of pardon, and the other
is the power to receive ambassadors,
which includes the right of recognition
and derecognition. Does the gentleman
understand that? If we were to pass this
amendment and subsequently ? pass this
bill, does the gentleman not agree it
would be invading the prerogative of the
President and the sole and exclusive
rights afforded to him by the Constitu-
tion?
Mr. SOLOMON. I do not agree with
that because this is not a body that comes
under diplomatic relations. We do not
have diplomatic relations with Estonia
right now.
Mr. SKELTON. If the gentleman will
excuse me, I thought the gentleman said
this was done by the Department of
State.
Mr. SOLOMON. It Is.
Mr. SKELTON. Is the gentleman say-
ing that the Department of State does
not deal in foreign relations? It does not
act under the President? Does not ex-
tending ourselves into another country
by establishing a consulate there consti-
tute an extension of the executive branch
into a foreign country, whether we do it
by liaison office or by consulate or any
other way? That is the truth of the
matter. The gentleman is invading the'
prerogative of the President.
I would have done it differently, but I
am not the President. We are not the
President, but we have to go by what is in
the Constitution; do we not?
Mr. SOLOMON. Let me answer the
gentleman's question. It seems to me the
gentleman voted for Public Law 95-393
on September 3, 1978, which gave the au- '
thority to extend most favorable or less
favorable treatment to foreign countries.
That is exactly what we are doing here.
We put the power in the hands of the
President.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
(At the request of Mr. LAGOMARSINO,
and by unanimous consent, Mr. SOLOMON
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
Mr. SOLOMON. As I read that favored
nation treatment that the gentleman
from Missouri voted for, it seems to me
that we had invaded at that time both
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
March 13, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE H 1273
the Department of State and the Presi-
dency. That is exactly what I am say-
ing here. I will read to the gentleman
from the Vienna Convention revising the
authority of a consulate, and it talks
about nine items here which I will be glad
to give to the gentleman. It talks about
protecting in the receiving state the
interests of exports and imports. It talks
about promoting trade, which is what we
are interested in in this country. It talks
about issuing passports, which we are
interested in in this country; about act-
ing as notary and civil registrar, and
representing nationals of the sending
state in cases of succession in the terri-
tory of the receiving state. It talks about
representing nationals of the sending
state before the courts; serving judicial
documents or executing commissions;
And exercising rights of supervision and
inspection, et cetera, et cetera.
It lets the President to a greater or
lesser degree decide what he wants to do.
I think the President would accept this.
I recall the honorable majority leader
on this floor saying that the free Chinese
government on Taiwan had agreed to
this legislation because, and I quote the
majority leader, "We are blackmailing
them into accepting this bill." I call
assure you that the President would
accept this because it gives him the
power, but it does away with the laun-
dering of money which the gentleman
from Maryland, (Mr. BAUMAN) or who-
ever it was a few minutes ago who was
talking about it said, whether govern-
ment employees are legal or illegal. It
does solve all those problems. It does
exactly what we want. We ought to adopt
this amendment and end this debate
and pass the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words,
and I rise in opposition to the amend-
ment.
(Mr. BINGHAM asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, this is
just another effort to upset the arrange-
ment that has been so carefully worked
out by making the relationships be-
tween the United States and Taiwan
official relationships.
We have now had two votes in which
the Members resoundingly defeated
other such efforts. This is a similar
effort.
I asked for the floor because I wanted
to discuss the examples that the gentle-
man from New York mentioned where
there have been consulates without
diplomatic relations. I was interested in
his statement that there were such
cases, and then I listened carefully to
his examples. The examples were first,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Ob-
viously, the consulates that we retain in
those areas are there with the consent of
the Soviet Govgrnment. Does the gentle-
man think for one moment that we could
maintain consulates in those areas if we
did not have the consent of the govern-
ment in Moscow?
^ 1525
Mr. SOLOMON. Will the gentleman
from New York yield?
Mr. BINGHAM. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman asked
if I thought for a moment if we had a
strong President; sir, yes, they would
yield.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman wanted to add to his amend-
ment that the consulate would be estab-
lished when and if the government in
Peking agreed to it, that would be one
thing, but that is certainly not the case
now.
Two other examples he mentioned
were Monaco and San Marino. Obvious-
ly the reason is those are such small
territories they do not want to have the
expense of maintaining embassies or ex-
changing full relations with the United
States. The situation is clearly not
comparable.
The final example the gentleman
mentioned is truly an extraordinary
one. He mentioned the consulate in
Jerusalem. Jerusalem is clearly a part
of the State of Israel. We maintain a
consulate there not only with the con-
sent of the Government of Israel, but
because the Government of Israel is
located in Jerusalem. Many of us feel
that we should have moved our Embassy
from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem long ago, but
the fact of the matter is that the ad-
ministration is content now merely to
have a consulate in Jerusalem. So there
is not even a remote parallel in that
case.
So the examples mentioned, I would
submit to the members of the committee,
are not parallels at all. There is no case
where a consulate has been established
without diplomatic relations except for
these unusual circumstances.
I would ask the gentleman, would he
favor establishing a consulate in South
Vietnam or in North Korea or in Cuba,
countries with whom we have no dip-
lomatic relations? I am sure he would
not.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE MAJORITY LEADER
Mr. Chairman, I take this time to make
an announcement in the nature of an
invitation, and also to say a few words
with respect to the amendment now
pending.
First the announcement and invita-
tion:
All Members are invited to join in
greeting President Carter upon his ar-
rival at Andrews Air Force Base this
evening as a gesture of respect for his
courage and his persistent personal en-
deavors in seeking peace in the Middle
East.
The President will be arriving at ap-
proximately 12:45 a.m. Members should
arrive at Andrews at midnight and those
desiring bus transportation from the
Capitol should call the Sergeant at Arms
office at extension 52456. Wives are in-
vited to accompany their husbands.
Mr. Chairman, let me say something
now with regard to the amendment pres-
ently before us. I think it suffers two
deficiencies.
First, it is unnecessary. It would ac-
complish nothing beyond what is ac-
complished in the bill. Secondly, it prob-
ably would subject the bill to a veto on
the grounds of an unwarranted invasion
of Executive power.
Let me point out to those who have not
focused carefully upon the strong lan-
guage already contained in this legisla-
tion. First, looking to section 204 as it
appears at page 9 of the bill, we see that
the designated entity is fully empowered
to perform those services normally per-
formed by a consulate of the United
States.
Let me attract our attention next to
the language,appearing on page 5 begin-
ning on line 17. This is language which
would be stricken from the bill by adop-
tion of the amendment.
The laws of the United States which apply
with respect to agencies of the United States
Government shall, to the extent the Presi-
dent may specify, apply with respect to the
designated entity as if the designated entity
were an agency of the United States Gov-
ernment.
Finally on page 10 in definitions of
-what is meant in our reference to the
laws of the United States, we find the
definition :
(1) the term "laws of the United States"
includes any statute, rule, regulation, ordi-
nance, order, or judicial rule of decision of
the United States or any political subdivi-
sion thereof:
The definition could hardly be broad-
er.
^ 1530
So what we have for all practical in-
tents and purposes is a consulate. It
serves every conceivable purpose a con-
sulate could serve. We have arranged a
unique entity in the exercise of the con-
gressional prerogative. The bill creates
a continuing relationship with our
friends in Taiwan. We are empowered
to deal with them, for every practical,
purpose precisely as we have dealt with
them in the past.
Now, the language which is contained
in this bill is strong language. It as-
serts the emphatic desire of the United
States to protect our friendship with
Taiwan. It asserts that the future of
Taiwan must be determined through
peaceful means without prejudice to the
well-being of the people on Taiwan.
It declares that any armed attack
against Taiwan or any use of force.
boycott, or embargo to prevent Taiwan
from engaging in trade with other na-
tions would be a threat to the peace and
stability of the Western Pacific area
and of grave concern to the United
States.
It declares that the United States
will make available to Taiwan defense
articles and defense services for its de-
fense against armed attack.
I do not know what more the gentle-
man wishes. Those representatives of
the Government of Taiwan who have
discussed the matter with me have
declared that they desire for this bill
to be passed, for this entity to be created,
and for it to be done as soon as pos-
sible. That purpose, I think, will not
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 H 1274
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE March 13, 1979
be served by creating a direct conflict
which would provoke a confrontation
with the executive branch of Govern-
ment, invite a veto, and delay and leave
further in limbo the important rela-
tions which we as a people desire to
maintain with the people of Taiwan.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Texas (Mr. WRIGHT) has
expired.
(On request of Mr. MCDONALD, and by
unanimous consent, Mr. WRIGHT was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional
minute.)
Mr. McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WRIGHT. I yield to the gentleman
from Georgia.
Mr. McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, the
distinguished majority leader In his pre-
sentation just now stated that he was re-
ferring to the Republic of Taiwan and
the island of Taiwan. Is it the distin-
guished majority leader's view that in-
deed the Government of the Republic of
China is an independent republic or just
simply an island area?
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, as the
gentleman from Georgia fully knows, the
Idea of a two-China policy has been re-
jected by both the people of Taiwan and
the people of mainland China. Many of
us instinctively think of them as two
separate entities, but this is satisfactory
to neither of them. For 30 years both of
them have rejected that concept, and' it
goes to the roots of their heritage. Both
those on Taiwan and those on the main-
land prefer to contend that it is one na-
tion, and their argument has been over
who is entitled to run the government.
We could bring up a similar quarrel
with respect to what is Hong Kong. Much
of the world maintains that it is a British
Crown Colony. Those in Hong Kong itself
hold to that position. The government in
Peking maintains that it is a part of Chi-
na. Now, that semantic disagreement as
to just wiat it is has gone on for a long
time. Yet it has not provoked any armed
conflict nor disrupted the affairs, com-
mercially or otherwise, that are con-
ducted in Hong Kong and by Hong Kong
with other nations of the world.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. WRIGHT)
has again expired.
(On request of Mr. McDoNALD, and by
unanimous consent, Mr. WRIGHT was al-
lowed to proceed for 3 additional
minutes.)
Mr. McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield further and con-
tinuing on that point, is the majority
leader saying that the people on Taiwan
believe they are part of the mainland
Chinese Government, or that they them-
selves are an independent republic?
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I will
let the gentleman define for himself what
he believes the people may conceive to
be their case. The people on Taiwan for
30 years have maintained that theirs
was and should be the proper govern-
ment for all of China, including main-
land China. Those on mainland China
have maintained that theirs was and of
right ought to be the government for all
of China, including Taiwan.
Now, the only way we can break apart
from these two separate interpretations
would be to establish a two-China policy.
Both Taiwan and mainland China have
rejected that conclusion.
^ 1535
It is not an option available to us. So
whatever the gentleman desires to use
by way of reference may be his. We in
the Congress, and members on the com-
mittee on Foreign Affairs, have very
carefully drafted language which permits
us to do those things which we desire to
do as a nation: To maintain our rather
special relationship with Taiwan and its
people. The gentleman may call them
what he wishes.
Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON of Cali-
fornia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. WRIGHT. I yield to the gentle-
man from California.
Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON of Cali-
fornia. I thank the gentleman for yield-
ing.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman men-
tioned, in his discussions with those rep-
resentatives from the Republic of China
about this legislation, that they were in
agreement with the legislation. Would
it be appropriate for the gentleman to
mention the names of those people from
the Republic of China with whom he has
discussed this?
Mr. WRIGHT. I would be happy to do
so were I certain of my memory. I am
sorry to say that I am not just sure that
I can recall. The names are available
in my office. I would prefer not to make
an effort and give an inaccurate or only
partially accurate response. I hope the
gentleman will not insist on an answer
at this time. I will supply it for the
RECORD.
Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON of Cali-
fornia. No. I understand this completely.
Mr. WRIGHT. I have not the ability.
to recall with sufficient confidence in my
memory at the moment.
Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON of Cali-
fornia. Did the gentleman, by chance,
discuss this with Minister S. K. Hu, who
is now replacing Ambassador Chen who
is representing the Republic of China
here? Does the gentleman recall any dis-
cussions with Minister Hu on this sub-
ject?
Mr. WRIGHT. I do not believe that he
was one of those with whom I talked. I
would appreciate it very much if the
gentleman would not further contribute
to my temporary embarrassment over
my inability to recall with clarity the
names of those with whom I discussed
this matter. Two of them came to my
office a month or 6 weeks ago, and we
had .a rather lengthy discussion. I shall
supply their names later today.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Texas (Mr. WRIGHT) has
expired.
(On request of Mr. HANSEN and by
unanimous consent, Mr. WRIGHT was al-
lowed to proceed for 1 additional min-
ute.)
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the
distinguished majority leader yield for
a question?
Mr. WRIGHT. I yield to my friend, th
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. HANSEN).
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, it seems
that there has been some information
that passes through here, and I notice
it was used in the dialog a moment ago,
about the fact that there is not a two-
China policy, there has not been a two-
China policy, and I guess I am wonder-
ing what we had for 7 years when we had
a consulate office in the People's Republic
of China and an Embassy in Taipei. It
seems to me that there was, in actuality,
a two-China policy for 7 years, until our
current President decided to abdicate
that One entity, the People's Republic of
China, and sever relations with the Re`-
public of China.
How can the gentleman say there has
not been a two-China policy when it was
there, in reality?
Mr. WRIGHT. The gentleman is en-
titled to his own interpretation. I think
perhaps it amounted to something less
than a two-China policy. The people,
both in Peking and in Taipei, reject of-
ficially the concept of a two-China policy.
Mr. HANSEN. Would the gentleman
concede that perhaps there was a One
and one-half China, policy? There is
more than a one-China policy, with the
recognition of the two nations.
Mr. WRIGHT. If that were the case
in the past, it may be so described by
some in the future, in the bill which the
committee has drafted. The gentleman
is entitled to his interpretation. I merely
suggest to the committee that this is a
strong bill. This is not a bill dictated by
the President. it is a bill created by the
Congress to express our intense desire to
maintain our friendly relations with Tai-
wan and to assert our continued interest
in the safety and security of Taiwan. I
believe the committee wisely has gone as
far as it can go and should go. I believe
this is the most that we can successfully
enact into law. I would appeal on that
ground with my friend to support this
legislation rather than find fault with it.
^ 1540
Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I join the distinguished
majority leader in applauding the efforts
of the President in the Middle East, but
I want to make plain, as one proponent
of this legislation produced with some
reluctance and with considerable
thought by the Committee on Foreign
Affairs, that I do not endorse the Presi=dent's China policy, nor do I feel that we
should not have a two-China policy. It
is the only rational policy to have. Had
I personally been the President of the
United States-God forbid-but had I
been, we neither would have negotiated
the Panama Canal treaties as they are,
nor would we have come to this agree-
ment with China.
Now, what we are setting up may ap-
pear to be a very phony operation, but it
is the only means under the agreement
the President has made by which we can
restore and sustain vital relationships
between the United States and Taiwan.
I believe the President had the consti-
tutional authority and the prerogatives
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
March 13, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE
to do what he did, although I disagree
with him. I am quite certain the major-
ity leader is right, that if we in this bill
in any way include provisions that pro-
vide for government-to-government re-
lations, the President will proclaim that
to be an invasion of his constitutional
prerogatives. He will veto the bill, and
we will not be helping the people on Tai-
wan or the Republic of China which, yes,
does exist and is an entity and, yes, is
in control of Taiwan-and in my judg-
ment ought to be.
Now, I believe the only thing we can
do here is either decide by voting for one
.of these series of amendments that we
will, yes, have a confrontation with the
President, go through the exercise of
a veto, and then come back on another
.,day to try to pass legislation to restore
and sustain those vital relationships, or
decide to pass it now. The fact is that,
however much I may disagree with what
the President has done, however dif-
ferent what I would have done would
have been, he has done it. I believe it is
within his constitutional prerogative to
do so. Under these circumstances, I see
no alternative but to pass the strongest
legislation we can pass other than one
which includes elements pertaining to
government-to-government relations be-
tween the United States and Taiwan.
I personally hope and pray and shall
work for the day when what ought to
happen does happen, and that is that
Taiwan declares itself to be an independ-
ent entity from the mainland, declares
its independence, exercises its self-deter-
mination, and the day in which the
United States recognizes as the Govern-
ment of Taiwan with full diplomatic
relations that government which the
Taiwanese themselves shall choose.
Let me say one further thing on that
subject. Long ago, Taiwan should have
declared its independence and we should
have had a two-China policy. I hope and
pray we-
Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON of Cali-
fornia. Mr.- Chairman, will the gentle-
man yield?
Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes.
Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON of Cali-
fornia. Mr. Chairman, I am disturbed
when the gentleman says he would not
have done what the President did, but
we have no choice but to follow what
the President has decided that we should
do. Now, we have several important
issues coming up here that I hope that
this philosophy is not going to prevail.
We are going to have some very impor-
tant votes on implementation of the
Panama Canal treaties, and I hope we
.are not going to be told, "Well, the treaty
is law and we have to pass it; we have
no choice."
Mr. BUCHANAN. Our only choice, I
believe, I say to the gentleman, is action
by the Congress. Otherwise it is Taiwan
that suffers-it is Taiwan that suffers-
not the People's Republic of China, not
the government I would not have
recognized.
We must restore the relationship to
Taiwan, because the diplomatic recogni-
tion has been transferred, but I am say-
ing that this committee, the House For-
eign Affairs Committee, and this Com-
mittee of the Whole House sooner or
later must act to restore our relations to
Taiwan on whatever'basis we can.
I am not saying we have no choice. If
we want to have a confrontation with
the President, we can. If we want to have
a veto, we can. If we want to string this
out for a period in which we do not re-
store the relationship, we do not change
the law so that we can continue to have
those vital relations with Taiwan, we
can string it out forever.
^ 1545
Certainly, that is our prerogative, but
we cannot change the basic situation
which the President has created by' the
exercise, I believe unwisely, of constitu-
tional prerogatives which he does, in
fact, have.
The fact of the matter is that through
the provisions of this legislation, we are
maintaining relations-trade relations,
cultural relations, and defense commit-
ments to the people on Taiwan. However,
were we to adopt sonfe of these provi-
sions which would establish more formal
relations, we would be likely to end these
relations, because the President would,
first, veto the legislation, or second, re-
fuse to acknowledge the formal repre-
sentatives of the Republic of China. In
either instance we would have no vehicle
through which to maintain our relation-
ships with the Republic of China, the
Government of Taiwan. While I do have
serious reservations with regard to our
relations with the People's Republic of
China, I feel it is more important to
maintain our relationship with the
people of Taiwan than, to try to do what
we do not have the power to do, and that
is to unrecognize the People's Republic.
The President has made his decision.
It is up to us to frame the strongest ties
with people on Taiwan possible without
risking the total halt to those ties.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment
not identical but similar to three others
which the committee has defeated. We
defeated similar amendments last week,
and three of them today.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask unan-
imous consent that all debate on this
amendment and all amendments thereto
conclude in 5 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Members standing
at the time the unanimous-consent re-
quest was agreed to will be recognized for
30 seconds each.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. BROOMFIELD).
Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment.
I just want to associate myself with
the remarks of the chairman of our com-
mittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. ZABLOCKI).
We have had numerous amendments
which affect the government-to-govern-
ment relationship.
In my judgment, if this amendment
passes, all we are going to do is to jeop-
ardize the legislation. We are going to
H 1275
have to have new legislation again. The
President has indicated that he is op-
posed to this kind of arrangement be-
cause of the agreement he has made with
the PRC.
I therefore oppose the amendment,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield to me briefly?
Mr. BROOMFIELD. Yes, I am happy to
yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding. I should like
to respond now to the question asked
earlier by the gentleman from California
(Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON).
He asked for the names of the two Tai-
wanese who came to visit me. On Feb-
ruary 2 I was visited by C. T. Chang and
H. K. Yang. The latter is represented to
me to be the official designee handling
the transition for the Government on
Taiwan.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. HOPKINS
and Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma yielded
their time to Mr. SOLOMON.)
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. MARKS).
Mr. MARKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to this amendment.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. MARKS
yielded his time to Mr. SKELTON.)
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from California
(Mr. LAGOMARSINO).
(Mr. LAGOMARSINO asked and was
given permission to revise and extend'
his 'remarks. )
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
the gentleman from New York (Mr.
BINGHAM) mentioned Cuba in his re-
marks.
I would point out that Cuba is not
recognized by the United States. How-
ever, we do have an official interest sec-
tion in Havana, staffed by official State
Department personnel. There are only 4
million people there; we take the position
that that government is an enemy. Yet
there are 17 million people on Taiwan
who are and have been our friends for
over the last 30 years.
It seems to me that inasmuch as estab-
lishing a consular office does not con-
stitute diplomatic recognition; it would
not hurt the basic purposes of this act
to adopt this amendment. If the Presi-
dent feels it would, then, of course, he
will have to do what he feels it is his
duty to do, just as we have to do what we
feel it is our duty to do.
^ 1550
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
BAUMAN).
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, the ma-
jority leader just said he was visited by
two Taiwanese officials on February 2
and that they endorsed this legislation.
This legislation did not exist on Febru-
ary 2. It was not written or reported until
February 28. The implication in his re-
marks is that officials of the Republic of
China want no change in the bill, that
they will swallow anything under duress.
I think this statement deserves some
clarification. I doubt that the free Chi-
nese would endorse this legislation. I
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 H 1276
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE March 13, 1979
think they would support this consular
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
SKELTON).
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, we
have before us a legal issue that I think
we should face up to and discuss very
briefly. I would like to refer, Mr. Chair-
man, to the Supreme Court case of ex
parte Garland which deals with one of
the two exclusive powers of the President
regarding the power of pardon, stating
that the power of the Presidential par-
don is unlimited and that this power
is not subject to legislative control, in a
very comparable situation; and also the
Supreme Court case of the United States
against Curtis-Wright Corp., which says
the President is the sole organ of the
Nation in its external relations, and it
is the sole representative with foreign
nations.
Thus, this decision not to have a diplo-
matic office of any kind in Taiwan is
one that can, under our Constitution, be
made by the Chief Executive alone. It
is constitutionally his sole decision.
Thus, I think we have no choice but to
defeat this amendment under the terms
of the U.S. Constitution.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from New York (Mr. SOLOMON).
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I
would just like to point out to the hon-
orable majority leader that my prede-
cessor once removed, the Honorable
Carleton J. King, who I know was a good
friend of his, always spoke very flatter-
ingly of the majority leader. During my
tenure here, I have come to accept that
flattery as truth.
I would just like to say this, that
when the majority leader started off by
saying that my -amendment was not
necessary because it was really already
contained in the bill, and then went on
to tear this amendment apart bit by bit,
he totally confused me and many Mem-
bers of this House. Many Members of this
House today are completely confused
about this whole issue, as is the Depart-
ment of State of this country.
In my conversations with them, I got
the distinct impression that they were
afraid that this amendment will work.
They really, I believe, in their own
hearts, as I believe truly the majority
leader believes, believe that this is what
we really need-a consulate office in Tai-
wan. I believe if we are going to pass this
amendment and send it on to the confer-
ence with the Senate, because of all the
other amendments that we have to have
considered by this joint body, I believe
that we ought to do it in order to clarify
all of these serious issues that many of
us have brought up over the last 2 days
in the debate on this most important
issue.
I would really urge the passage of this
amendment so that we can go to the
conference to see if it passes there.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from New York (Mr. WOLFF).
Mr. WOL1P. Mr. Chairman, the au-
thor of this amendment says he is con-
fused, and I guess' that is a very true
statement. There are some people in this
body who would like to be more Taiwan-
ese than the Taiwanese themselves. I
have a letter here from former President
Nixon which clearly delineates the posi-
tion we find ourselves today. I quote:.
Any one of us might have handled this
situation differently, but now that the de-
cision has been made, we should look to the
future and to the past.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-,
tleman has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. ZABLOCKI), the
chairman of the committee, to close the
debate.
(Mr. ZABLOCKI asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, this
amendment, as I pointed out earlier, is
similar to amendments that would pro-
vide for government-to-government re-
lations that the committee has defeated
resoundingly several times today. I might
say to' my colleague and a member of
the committee, my good friend, the gen-
tleman from California (Mr. LAGOMAR-
snvo), that the creation or establishment
of consular relations is certainly, as the
gentleman knows, a government-to-gov-
ernment act. The consulate is the busi-
ness arm of the Embassy; the Embassy
is the arm of the President. Mr. Chair-
man, I hope the amendment will be de-
feated.
^ 1555
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. SOLOMON).
The question was taken; and on a di-
vision (demanded by Mr. SOLOMON)
there was-ayes 25, noes 49.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I de-
mand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count.
One hundread and thirteen Members are
present, a quorum.
RECORDED VOTE
The CHAIRMAN. The pending busi-
ness is the demand of the gentleman
from New York (Mr. SOLOMON) for a
recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
vice, and there were-ayes 179, noes 225,
not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 321
AYES-179
Abdnor
Butler
Dannemeyer
Andrews,
Byron
Dascble
N. Dak.
. Campbell
Davis. Mich.
Applegate
Carney
Deckard
Archer
Carter
Derwinski
Ashbrook
Chappell
Devine
Badham
Cheney
Dickinson
Bafalis
Clausen
Dougherty
Bailey
Cleveland
Duncan, Tenn.
Bauman
Clinger
Edwards, Okla.
Beard, R.I.
Coleman
Emery
Bereuter
Collins, Tex.
Erdahl
Bethune
Corcoran
Evans, Del.
Breaux
Coughlin
Evans, Ga.
Brinkley
Courter
Fish
Brown, Ohio
Crane, Daniel
Flippo
Broyhill
Daniel, Dan
Fountain
Burgener
Daniel, It. W.
Frenzel
Frost
Lent
Robinson
Fuqua
Lewis
Roe
Gaydos
Livingston
Roth
Gilman
Loeffler
Rousselot
Gingrich
Long, End.
Rudd
Glickman
LOU
Runnels
Goldwater
Lujan
Santini
Goodling
Lungren
Satterfield
Gradison
McClory
Sawyer
Gramm
McDade
Schulze
Grassley
McDonald
Sebelius
Grisham
McEwen
Sensenbrenner
Guyer
McKay
Shelby
Hagedorn
Marlenee
Shumway
Hall, Tex.
Marriott
Shuster
Hammer-
Martin
Smith, Nebr.
schmidt
Mathis
Snows
Hance
Mattox
Snyder
Hansen
Michel
Solomon
Harsha
Miller, Ohio
Spence
Hightower
Mitchell, N.Y.
Stangeland
Hillis
Montgomery
Stenholm
Hinson
Moore
Stump
Hollenbeck
Moorhead,
Tauke
Holt
Calif.
Taylor
Hopkins
Mottl
Thomas
Howard
Murphy, N.Y.
Treen
Hubbard
Murphy, Pa.
Trible
Hyde
Myers, Ind. .
Vander Jagt
Jacobs
Myers, Pa.
Walker
Jeffries
Nelson
Watkins
Kazen
Nichols
White
Kelly
O'Brien
Whittaker
Kemp
Oakar
Whitten
Kildee
Panetta
Wilson, Bob
Kindness
Pashayan
Wilson, C. H.
Kramer
Paul
Winn
Lagomarsino
Quayle
Wyatt
Latta
Quillen
Wydler
Leach, Iowa
Railsback
Wylie
Leach, La.
Rinaldo
Yatron
Leath, Tea.
Ritter
Young, Fla.
Lee
Roberts
NOES-225
Addabbo
Duncan, Oreg.
Lederer
Akaka
Early
Lehman
Albosta
Eckhardt
Leland
Anderson,
Edgar
Levitas
Calif.
' Edwards, Ala.
Lloyd
Andrews, N.C.
Edwards, Calif.
Long, La.
Annunzio '
English
Lowry
Anthony
Erlenborn
Luken
Ashley
Ertel
Lundine
Aspin
Evans, Ind.
McCormack
Atkinson
Fary
McHugh
AuCoin
Fascell
Madigan
Baldus
Fazio
Maguire
Barnard
Fenwick
Markey
Barnes
Ferraro'
Marks
Bedell
Findley
Matsui
Beilenson
Fisher
Mavroules
Benjamin
Fithian
Mazzoli
Bennett
Florio
Mica
Biaggi
Foley
Mikulski
Bingham
Ford, Mich.
Mikva
Blanchard
Ford, Tenn.
Miller, Calif.
Boggs
Forsythe
Mineta
Boland
Fowler
Minish
Bolling
Gephardt
Mitchell, Md.
Boner
Giaimo
Moakley
Bonior
Gibbons
Moffett
Bonker
Ginn
Moorhead, Pa.
Bouquard
Gonzalez
Murphy. Ill.
Bowen
Gore
Murtha
Brademas
Gray
Natcher
Brodhead
Green
Neal
Brooks
Guarini
Nedzi
Broomfield
Gudger
Nowak
Brown, Calif.
Hall, Ohio
Oberstar
Buchanan
Hamilton
Obey
Burlison
Hanley
Ottinger
Burton, John
Harkin
Patten
Burton, Phillip Harris
Patterson
Carr
Hawkins
Pease
Cavanaugh
Heckler
Pepper
Chisholm
Hefner
Perkins
Clay
Heftel
Peyser
Coelho
Holland
Pickle
Conable
Holtzman
Prayer
Conte
Horton
Price
Conyers
Huckaby
Pritchard
Corman
Hughes
Rahall
Cotter
Ichord
hangel
D'Amours
Jenkins
Ratchford
Danielson
Jenrette
Regula
Davis, S.C.
Johnson, Calif.
Reuss
de la Garza
Johnson, Colo.
Rhodes
Dellums
Jones, N.C.
Richmond
Derrick
Jones, Okla.
Rodin
Diggs
Jones, Tenn.
Rose
Dingell
Kastenmeier
Rosenthal
Dixon
Kogovsek
Rostenkowski
Drinan
Kostmayer
Roybal
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
March 13, 1079 CONGRESSIONAL RIECORD -HOUSE IAI 1277
Russo
Steed
Weaver
Sabo
Stewart
Weiss
Schauer
Stokes
Whitehurst
Schroeder
Stratton
Whitley
Seiberling
Studds
Williams, Wont.
Shannon
Swift
Wilson, Tex.
Sharp
Synar
Wirth
Simon
Thompson
Wolff, N.Y.
Skelton
Traxler
Woipe, Mich.
Slack
Udall
Wright
Solarz
Ullman
Yates
Spellman
Van Deerlin
Young, Alaska
St Germain
Vanik
Young, Mo.
Stack
Vento
Zablocki
Staggers
Volkmer
Zeferetti
Stanton
Walgren
Stark
Waxman
Alexander
Dornan
Mollohan
?.mbro
Downey
Nolan
,Anderson, M.
Flood
Pursell
Beard, Tenn.
Garcia
Smith, Iowa
Bevill
Hutto
Stockman
Collins, nl.
Ireland
Symms
Crone, Philip
Jeffords
Wampler
Dicks
LaFalce
Williams, Ohio
Dodd
McCloskey
Donnelly
McKinney
^ 1610
So the amendment was rejected.
The results of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further
amendments to title II?
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. DANNEMEYER
Mr. DANNEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. DANNERIEYER:
On page 5, strike out lines 1 through 5 and
insert in lieu thereof the following: "deal-
ings of the United States Government with
Taiwan shall be conducted through a quasi-
governmental entity, to be designated "The
United States Commission in Taiwan" (here-
inafter referred to as the "designated en-
tity".) ".
^ 1615
Mr. DANNEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, I
supported early amendments calling for
more direct relations between the United
States and Taiwan. However, the House
has not approved those. Therefore, I am
offering an amendment which, because of
its ambiguity, allows the United States
to continue more direct relations with
the government and people of Taiwan,
while still allowing the administration
and the State Department latitude in our
relations with the People's Republic of
China.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment offers
at least a minimum of recognition of
reality to 17 million people and their
government, while not directly granting
full government-to-government rela-
tions.
I urge the Members to support this
amendment in the interest of fair play
and in the interest of recognizing reality.
? Mr. Chairman, there is an old saying
which goes: "When you get to the end
of a rope, you tie a knot and hold on."
I think that is where we are to keep
from falling off. We should understand
that this bill, if it is adopted in the form
in which it is before us, will, in effect,
create a monster for any American busi-
nessman wanting to do business. in Tai-
wan. Those o: us who have been involved
in business know that it is tough enough
when one has to deal through two gov-
ernments to get where he wants to go.
However, now, in our wisdom, we are pre-
paring to add an entity in the United
States and an entity in Taiwan, saying,
in effect, that if a businessman in the
United States wants to do business with
a company in Taiwan, he has to go
through four offices to get something
done.
Mr. Chairman, that judgment of the
House, I think, is where we are; and I
do not seek to change that, although the
last amendment did. This amendment,
however, accepts the concept of the pri-
vate entity.
Mr. Chairman, if the Members will
read the language on page 5 of the pro-
posed bill, they will see that we seek by
legislation to create a new entity. In the
bill before us it is called a "nongovern-
mental entity."
All this amendment does is to change
the word "nongovernmental" to "quasi-
governmental."
Immediately someone may ask, "Why
in the world are you trying to do that?"
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
ZABLOCKI), the learned chairman of the
committee, several times in the debate
today made reference himself to the fact
that this entity is a quasi-governmental
entity.
Since I am one who tries to deal in
reality and since I always pursue that
purpose in legislation, it strikes me that
it is only appropriate that the legisla-
tion which we adopt reflect what we are
doing; and if we are, in fact, establish-
ing quasi-governmental relations, why
do we not say it in this bill?
That is what this amendment is all
about. Let us make no mistake about it,
some day an appelate court someplace
is going to decide what we are doing with
this new entity. I submit that if we have
the courage to say that this entity has
the status of a quasi-governmental en-
tity, we are giving it a leg up in terms
of its respectability and an enhanced
chance of some businessman having his
rights protected.
^ 1620
That is what this is all about. I think
it will give some encouragement to our
friends on Taiwan that we are con-
cerned about their continued viability
as an economic unit. I ask for the Mem-
bers' support.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DANNEMEYER. I yield to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. I thank the gen-
tleman for yielding.
I want to compliment the gentleman
on his amendment. As he knows, I sup-
ported the other amendments that spoke
to this same section of the law that at-
tempted to create something more of-
ficial, but I think that with the amend-
ment the gentleman is proposing what
we are really doing is calling it what it
is. Throughout the discussion today and
last week, numerous speakers have re-
ferred to the entity that is created in the
bill as it came out of the committee in
terms such as quasi-governmental. It
really is quasi-governmental. It is paid
by the Government. It is under the di-
rection of the Department of State. I
do not think there is anybody on this
floor who thinks for a moment that if
the President or the Department of State
directs those gentlemen in that partic-
ular entity to do something that they
would not do it.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment. This is
another amendment attempting by the
side door or back door to try to establish
a government-to-government relation-
ship. The gentleman has stated that the
gentleman from Wisconsin referred to
the entity as a quasigovernmental insti-
tution, and that is very true.
Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact
that we have had this repetitious array
of amendments that have been intro-
duced by Members-and I am basically
very patient-time is really of the es-
sence. I think we have had an oppor-
tunity to discuss this legislation and the
amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that debate on all amendments
pending and all amendments thereto
end at 4:45 o'clock.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
Mr. BAUMAN. Reserving the right to
object, could the Chair tell us how many
amendments are at the desk?
The. CHAIRMAN. There are eight
amendments at the desk.
Mr. BAUMAN. Further reserving the
right' to object, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. ASHBROOK) has two amend-
ments that he has been waiting to offer
since last Thursday. I am sure they are
superior, knowing the quality of his
amendments. It seems to me that that is
a somewhat arbitrary restriction on the
time. The President is not arriving at
Andrews until 12:45 tomorrow morning.
The gentleman can still make it to the
airport in plenty of time.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BAUMAN. I yield to the gentleman
from Wisconsin.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
As far as the gentleman from Wiscon-
sin is concerned, I am willing to stay
here until midnight, and I asked the
gentleman from Maryland if he would
stay with me on the floor, and he failed
to respond.
Mr. BAUMAN. I will not only stay with
the gentleman, but I.will hold his hand
if he begins to feel faint.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. And right from here
we could go to Andrews Air Base.
Mr. BAUMAN. No. I will not go that
far.
Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
? Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I move
that debate on all amendments pending
and all amendments thereto end at 5
o'clock.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. ZABLOCKI).
^ 1625
The question was taken; and on a divi-
sion (demanded by Mr. ASHBROOK) there
were-ayes 53, noes 40.
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Chairman, I
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 H 1278
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE March 13, 1979
.
demand a recorded vote, and pending
that, I make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will
count. One hundred and thirteen Mem-
bers are present, a quorum.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Chairman, I
renew my demand for a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
vice, and there were-ayes 204, noes 193,
not voting 35, as follows:
[Ro11 No. 331
AYES-204
Addabbo
Fowler
Nowak
Akaka
Frost
Oakar
Albosta
Fuqua
Oberstar
Annunzio
Gaydos
Obey
Anthony
Gephardt
Ottinger
Ashley
Gibbons
Patten
Aspin
Ginn
Patterson
Atkinson
Gore
Pease
AuCoin
Gray
Pepper
Baldus
Guarini
Perkins
Barnard
Gudger
Peyser
Barnes
Hall, Ohio
Preyer
Beard. R.I.
Hamilton
Price
Beilenson
Hance
Quillen
Benjamin
Harkin
Rahall
Bennett
Harris
Rangel
Bingham
Harsha
Ratchford
Blanchard
Hawkins
Reuss
Boggs
Hefner
Roberts
Boland
Heftel
Rodino
Boner
Holland
Roe
Bonior
Hollenbeck
Rose
Booker
Holtzman
Rosenthal
Bouquard
Horton
Rostenkowski
Bowen
Ichord
Runnels .
Brademas
Jenkins
Russo
Brinkley
Jenrette
Sabo
Brodhead
Johnson, Calif.
Santini
Brooks
Jones, N.C.
Sawyer
Broomfield
Jones, Okla.
Scheuer
Burlison
Jones, Tenn.
Schroeder
Burton, Phillip Kastenmeier
Seiberling
Byron
Kogovsek
Shannon
Carr
Lehman
Sharp
Carter
Leland
Shelby
Cavanaugh
Long, La.
Simon
Chappell
Long, Md.
Skelton
Chisholm
Lowry
Slack
Clay
Luken
Solarz
Coelho
Lundine
Spellman
Conyers
McCormack
St Germain
Corman
McDade
Stack
Cotter
McHugh
Staggers
Courter
McKay
Stark
Danielson
Maguire
Steed
Daschle
Markey
Stewart
Davis, S.C.
Matsui
Stokes
Derrick
Mavroules
Stratton
Dixon
Mica
Swift
Drinan
Mikuiski
Synar
Duncan, Tenn.
Mikva
Thompson
Eckhardt
Mineta
Udall
Edwards, Ala.
? Minish
Ullman
English
Mitchell, Md.
Vanik
Erlenborn
Moakley
Vento
Ertel
Moffett
Weaver
Fary
Montgomery
Whitley
Fascell
Moorhead, Pa.
Wilson, Tex.
Fazio
Mottl
Wirth
Fenwick
Murphy, 131.
Wolff, N.Y.
Ferraro
Murphy, N.Y.
Wolpe, Mich.
Findley
Murphy, Pa.
Wright
Fithian
Murtha
Wyatt
Flippo
Myers, Pa.
Yates
Florio
Natcher
Yatron
Foley
Nedzi
Young, Mo.
Ford, Mich.
Nichols
Zablocki
Fountain
Nolan
Zeferetti
NOES-193
Abdnor
Bedell
Cheney
Anderson,
Bereuter
Clausen
Calif.
Bethune
Cleveland
Andrews,
Biaggi
Clinger
N. Dak.
Bolling
Coleman
Applegate
Breaux
Collins, Tex.
Archer
Brown, Ohio
Conable
Ashbrook
Broyhill
Conte
Badham
Buchanan
Cocoran
Bafalis
Burgener
Coughlin
Bailey
Butler
Crane, Daniel
Bauman
Campbell
D'Amours
Beard, Tenn.
Carney
Daniel, Dan
Daniel, R. W. Jacobs
Dannemeyer Jeffries
Davis, Mich. Johnson, Colo.
de la Garza Kazen
Deckard Kelly
Dellums Kemp
Derwinski Kildee
Devine Kindness
Dickinson Kostmayer
Donnelly Kramer
Dougherty Lagomarsino
Early Latta
Edgar Leach, Iowa
Edwards, Calif. Leach, La.
Edwards, Okla.
Leath, Tex.
Emery
Lederer
Smith, Nebr.
Erdahl
Lent
Snows
Evans, Del.
Levitas
Snyder
Evans. 0a.
Lewis
Solomon
Evans, Ind.
Livingston
Spence
Fish
Lloyd
Stangeland
Fisher
Loeffler
Stanton
Forsythe
Lott
Stenholm
Gialmo
Lujan
Stockman
Gilman
Lungren
Studds
Gingrich
McClory
Stump
Glickman
McDonald
Symms
Goldwater
McEwen
Tauke
Gonzalez
Madigan
Taylor
Goodling
Marlenee
Thomas
Gradison
Marriott
Treen
Gramm
Martin
Trible
Grassley
Mattox
Van Deerlin
Green
Mazzoli
Vander Jagt
Grisham
Michel
Volkmer
Guyer
Miller, Calif.
Walgren
Hagedorn
Miller, Ohio
Walker
Hall, Tex.-
Mitchell, N.Y.
Wampler
Hammer-
Moore
Watkins
schmidt
Moorhead,
Weiss
Hanley
Calif.
White
Hansen
Myers, Ind.
Whitehurst
Heckler
Neal
Whittaker
Hightower
Nelson
Whitten
Hillis
O'Brien
William Mont.
Hinson
Panetta
Wilson, Bob
Holt
Pashayan
Wilson, C. H.
Hopkins
Paul
Winn
Howard
Pickle
Wydier
Hubbard
Pritchard
Wylie
Huckaby
Quayle
Young, Alaska
Hughes
Railsback
Young, Fla.
Hyde
Regula
Alexander
Dodd
Lee
Ambro
Dornan
McCloskey
Anderson, Ill.
Downey
McKinney
Andrews, N.C.
Duncan, Oreg.
Marks
Bevill
Flood
Mathis
Brown, Calif.
Ford, Tenn.
Mollohan
Burton, John
Frenzel
Pursell
Collins, nl.
Garcia
Smith, Iowa
Crane, Philip
Hutto
Traxler
Dicks
Ireland
Waxman
Diggs
Jeffords
Williams, Ohio
Dingell
LaFalce
^ 1640
Messrs. JACOBS, DICKINSON, FISH,
WHITE, GONZALEZ, and WHITE-
HURST changed their vote. from "aye"
to "no."
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Accordingly, all de-
bate on this bill and all amendments to
the bill will cease at 5 p.m.
^ 1645
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BAUMAN
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer
a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. BAUMAN moves that the Committee
do now rise and report the bill back to the
House with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, I regret
that I have to take the time of the com-
mittee by this parliamentary device. But
this is the only way to obtain the time to
discuss this bill in what I assume are its
final moments before the House. How-
teristic of the gentleman, who has served
with great distinction as chairman of
this committee, to try to limit the rights
of Members. There are eight amend-
ments pending at the desk and other
amendments still to be offered from the
floor. It is not even 5 p.m. I do not know
of any major cocktail party or any lobby-
ing groups holding dinners tonight. Thq
President will not be back from Israel
until tomorrow morning. Yet we are told
that we have to condense the future of
18 million free Taiwanese and Chinese
into 10 minutes' debate. That is a shame-
ful situation.
Mr. Chairman, this situation is not to
the credit of this great body or the com-
mittee which presented this legislation
to the House.
I can only say, Mr. Chairman, that as
one Member of the House who has read
this legislation, unparalleled as it is in
our history, I would urge the Members
to vote against it. There is no validity to
the argument that this legislation helps
the Taiwanese. It is, as I suggested the
other day, rendering the same service
as the corpse receives from the grave-
digger.
This bill eventually is going to nail
shut the coffin of a free Taiwan, I hope
that everyone will oppose it.
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BAUMAN. I yield to the gentle-
man from Ohio (Mr. AsHeRooK), who
was precluded by the motion of the gen-
tleman from Wisconsin from offering his
amendments.
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Chairman, I
thank my colleague for yielding.
I hope the American people develop
some understanding of just what is hap-
pening here. We are getting into the
middle of March. This body has done
next to nothing. We have had little legis-
lative output. We have had token ses-
sions, and now when the first major bill
of any importance comes up, the ma-
jority has gagged* the minority.
^ 1650
Let me repeat that. The majority on a
rollcall vote has gagged the minority.
Not necessarily a party majority, I might.
add. It is going to be a long session, and
it will ill behoove anyone who wants co-
operation later in the session to preclude
those of us who have serious amend-
ments from offering them at this time
in this forum. This House has not done
itself a service, and those of us in the
philosophical minority who wanted open
debate ought to realize precisely what is
being done to us. There will come a time
and place when they want some coopera-
'tion. We will serve notice right now that
we will return it in kind.
Mr. BAUMAN. The gentleman is cor-
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
Rhodes ever it seems to me that we, as a repre-
Richmond
Rinaldo sentative body sent here by the American
Ritter people, at least have the right on a
Robinson foreign policy matter of this magnitude
Roth to discuss at length, if necessary, the pro-
Rousselot
Roybal visions of this legislation, which is un-
Rudd paralleled in our history.
Satterfield Mr. Chairman, I frankly do not under-
Schulze
Sebelius stand the need for the motion of the
Sensenbrenner gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. ZA-
Shumway BLOCKI) to cut off debate
.
It is uncharac-
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
March 13, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
rect. I will add it saddens me to know
that some of the votes that produced the
gag rule in this House were provided by
our side of the aisle, the minority side.
That does not speak very well, I think,
for the manner in which the House is to
conduct its business. I would suggest if
the motion now pending before the House
is adopted and the enacting clause is
stricken, we might very well come back
with legislation that is better in its final
form than this is. It would not take much
to be better than this legislation.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
. Mr. BAUMAN. I yield to the gentleman
from Texas.
Mr. GONZALEZ. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
the gentleman said awhile ago that
the majority throttles the minority. I
want to point out that some of us on
the majority are with the minorit ' in
this case, and we voted against throttling
anybody.
Mr. BAUMAN. The gentleman from
Texas deserves the thanks of the com-
mittee for making that statement. I just
wish there were more like him.
Mr. DICKINSON. Mr. Chairman, the
people of the United States and the 17
million free people of the Republic of
China (ROC) who live on Taiwan have
been friends for a long time. We are
similar peoples in many ways. We both
believe in human freedom and demo-
cratic, representative government; we
both believe in and practice the free
enterprise economic system; we both be-
lieve in and practice freedom of religion
(millions on Taiwan practice some of
the same faiths that millions of Ameri-
cans practice) ; and for years we have
been partners in resisting the spread of
Communism in Asia. I' go to Taiwan to
take a message from the American peo-
ple that the great majority of Americans
are very much concerned with the con-
tinued security of Taiwan as a nation.
Now the people of Taiwan and the
millions of Americans who disagree with
it are faced with an ill-founded policy
by the Carter administration that vio-
lates our longstanding commitment to
the freedom of the ROC. This new policy,
which betrays the ROC, is unacceptable
to me, and I believe to the great major-
ity of Americans. We have always served
the role of "Freedom's" guardian in the
world. Certainly we would never have
dealt away, directly or indirectly, the
liberty of another 'free people. And yet
that will be the result of administration
plans to abrogate the ROC-U.S. Mutual
Defense Treaty. I have no objections to
developing our relations with Red China,
but not at the expense of Taiwan's free-
dom.
United States security relationships
with Taiwan have not been a one-way
street. The ROC has served as a valuable
outpost of freedom and an ally to the
United States through both the Korean
and Vietnam wars, while the Red Chi-
nese provided manpower, weapons, and
money to kill Americans and to thwart
U.S. efforts to help free nations in that
part of the world. And I believe there can
be future requirements for a United
States-Taiwan military relationship.
How can we be assured the Red Chinese
will always want to be our friends? We
should not make that assumption.
The admiinistration "hints' that it has
private understandings that Red China
will not destroy free China. Who can be-
lieve such "dreams" when the mainland
leadership asserts publicly that they "will
not wait long for reunification," and that
it will be brought about by "force if nec-
essary."
Actually, the mainland Red Chinese
may be able to legally destroy Taiwan
without firing a shot. The President's
statement that there is only "one China"
and that Taiwan is a part of the main-
land establishes the PRC's legal claim
under international law to all land, sea,
and air territorial rights presently exer-
cised by Taiwan.
In the future, after Jimmy Carter is
gone from the scene, what will the United
States and other nations do when the
PRC blockades Taiwan and announces to
the world that all sea and air traffic to
the island is forbidden? In such an event
the free people of Taiwan will be cut off
from the world and at the mercy of Red
China. Would the United States use force
of arms to keep the air and sea lanes to
Taiwan open? When the Red Chinese an-
nounce in the U.N. that this is an "inter-
nal matter and of no concern to the
United States, the U.N., or the outside
world," what can the free world say then?
The thing that bothers me most about
the President's new China policy-and
our so-called diplomats at the White
House and the State Department who
concocted it-is that they act like they
are playing some impersonal game like
chess. But we are talking about the free-
dom and lives of real "flesh and blood"
people-millions of innocent children,
women, and men who live on Taiwan. We
are not playing with plastic toys.
I hope that our Nation, acting through
this great deliberative body, will act re-
sponsibly and morally and give the free
people on Taiwan the security guarantees
that the administrations' "sham" pro-
posal will not do. We should, at least, give
Taiwan the same diplomatic status that
we have given the People's Republic of
China for the last several years. We have
recognized two Chinas with an embassy
on Taiwan and a liaison mission in Pe-
king. We should do at least the same
thing for.Taiwan-that is, establish offi-
cial diplomatic contacts between Taiwan
and Washington with a liaison mission.
I hope this body will not formalize the
administration's action of "abandoning"
the people of Taiwan.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the preferential motion.
It is not the intent of the gentleman
from Wisconsin to cut off debate without
due consideration of the amendments
that were pending and the amendments
that were offered. We have debated this
10-page bill for 2 days. Many of the
amendments that were offered were
similar. At one point we had four simi-
lar amendments, and it appeared to the
gentleman from Wisconsin that some
Members in this body were resorting to
? 111279
dilatory tactics. I think everybody under-
stands what this bill is intended to do.
I see no reason to debate it any further.
There are some who just do not intend
to listen to the explanations of the pur-
poses of this legislation.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. I yield to the gentle-
man from Texas.
Mr. GONZALEZ. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
During this debate I have been in-
trigued by reference to the various en-
tities here discussed, and I have here a
copy of a Department of State memo-
randum to all assistant secretaries and
office heads. It says:
With the recognition of the People's Re-
public of China as the sole legitimate gov-
ernment of China and with the severance of
diplomatic relations with the authorities on
Taiwan, guidelines are necessary to insure
that all U.S. Government official statements
and publications concerning Taiwan conform
to our policy.
It goes on and says,
things-
The adjectival form is "Taiwan," not
"Taiwanese." People should be referred to as
"from Taiwan," "on Taiwan," "of Taiwan,"
etc., rather than as Taiwanese.
I just think we ought to be informed
on this.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. I am happy that the
gentleman from Texas has informed the
others. I do not necessarily agree with
the Department of State's definitions or
interpretations or orders.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. I yield to the gentle-
man from Maryland.
Mr. BAUMAN. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Did I hear the gentleman say that in
connection with this legislation he did
not agree with the Department of State
on some aspect of this bill?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Not in all aspects.
That is very clear.
Mr. BAUMAN. I thought I heard that.
Amazing.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. As I advised the gen-
tleman from Maryland time and time
again, if he had only seen the legislation
the executive branch. had sent to the
Congress, he would fully realize to what
extent we perfected it and brought forth
legislation that I think is worthy of sup-
port.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the re-
mainder of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the preferential motion offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. BAU-
MAN).
^ 1655
The question was taken; and on as
division (demanded by Mr. ASHBROOK)
there were-ayes 53, noes 134.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Chairman, I
demand a recorded vote-
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
vice, and there were-ayes 110, noes 205,
not voting 27, as follows:
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 H 1280
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE March 13, 1979
[Roll No. 841
Minish Ratchford
Stewart
Hubbard
Mitchell, N.Y.
Shelby
Mitchell
Md
Reuss
Stokes
Hyde
Montgomery
Shumway
AYES-110
,
.
Moakley Rhodes
Stratton
Ichord
Moore
Shuster
Abdnor
Guyer
O'Brien
Moffett Richmond
Studds
Jacobs
Moorhead,
Smith, Nebr.
Applegate
Hammer-
Pashayan
Montgomery Rinaldo
Swift
Jeffries
Calif.
Snowe
Archer
Schmidt
Paul
Moorhead, Pa. Roberts
Synar
Kazen
Matti
Snyder
Ashbrook
Hansen
Quayle
Matti Rodino
Thompson
Kelly
Murphy, Pa.
Solomon
Badham
Hinson
Regula
Murphy, 111. Roe
Traxler
Kemp
Myers, Ind.
Spence
Befalls
Holt
Ritter
Murphy, N.Y. Rose
Udall
Kildee
Nelson
Stangeland
Bailey
Hopkins
Robinson
Murtha Rosenthal
Ullman
Kindness
Nichols
Stanton
Bauman
Hubbard
Roth
Myers, Pa. Rostenkowski
Van Deerlin
Kramer
Nowak
Stenholm
Bereuter
Hyde
Rousselot
Natcher Roybal
Vander Jagt
Lagomarsino
O'Brien
Stockman
Bethune
Jeffries
Rudd
Neal Runnels
Vanik
Latta
Oakar
Stump
Brown, Ohio
Kelly
Schulze
Nedzi Russo
Vento
Leach, Iowa
Pashayan
Symms
Burgener
Kemp
Sensenbrenner
Nelson Sabo
Volkmer
Leach, La.
Paul
Tauke
Campbell
Kindness
Shumway
Nichols Santini
Walgren
Leath, Tex.
Perkins
Taylor
Carney
Kramer
Shuster
Nolan ' Satterfield
Wampler
Lee
Pickle
Thomas
Carter
Lagomarsino
Smith, Nebr.
Nowak Sawyer
Weaver
Lent
Quayle
Treen
Clinger
Leach, La.
Snows
Oakar Scheuer
Weiss
Lewis
Quillen
Trible
Coleman
Lee
Snyder
Oberstar Schroeder
White
Livingston
Railsback
Vander Jagt
Collins, Tex.
Lent
Solomon
Obey Sebelius
Whitehurst
Loeffler
Regula
Walker
Courter
Lewis
Spence
Ottinger Seiberling
Whitley
Long, La.
Rhodes
Wampler
Crane, Daniel
Livingston
Stangeland
Panetta Shannon
Whitten
Lott
Rinaldo
Watkins
Daniel, Dan
Loeffler
Stockman
Patten Sharp
Williams, Mont.
Lujan
Ritter
White
Daniel, R. W.
Long, La.
Stump
Patterson Shelby
Williams, Ohio
Lungren
Robinson
Whittaker
Dannemeyer
Lott
Symms
Pease Simon
Wilson, Tex.
McClory
Roth
Williams, Chip
Davis, Mich.
Lungren
Tauke
Pepper Skelton
Winn
McDonald
Rousselot
Wilson, Bob
Derwinski
McClory
Taylor
Perkins Slack
Wirth
McEwen
Rudd
Wilson, C. H.
Devine
McDonald
Thomas
Peyser Solarz
Wolff, N.Y.
McKay
Runnels
Winn
Dickinson
McEwen
Treen
Pickle Spellman
Wolpe, Mich.
Marlenee
Santini
Wydler
Dougherty
Marlenee
Trible
Preyer St Germain
Wright
Marriott
Satterfield
Wylie
Edwards, Okla.
Marriott
Walker
Price Stack
Wyatt
Martin
Sawyer'
Yatron
Erdahl
Martin
Watkins
Pritchard Staggers
Wydler
Mattox
Schulze
Young, Alaska
Evans, Del.
Michel
Whittaker
Quillen Stanton.
Yates
Michel
Sebelius
Young, Fla.
Evans, Ga.
Miller, Ohio
Wilson, Bob
Rahall Stark
Yatron
Miller, Ohio
Sensenbrenner
Gilman
Mitchell, N.Y.
Wilson, C. H.
Rallsback Steed
Young, Mo.
Gingrich
Moore
Wylie
Rangel Stenholm
Zablocki
NOES-221
Goldwater
Goodling
Moorhead,
Calif.
Young, Alaska
Young, Fla.
NOT VOTING-27
Addabbo
Akaka
Findley
Fisher
Mikulski
Mikva
Grassley
Murphy, Pa.
Alexander Crane, Philip LaFalce
Anderson,
Fithian
Miller, Calif.
Grisham
Myers, Ind.
Ambro Dicks McCloskey
Calif.
Flippo
Mineta
NOES-295
Anderson, Ill. Dodd McKinney
Annunzio
Florio
Minish
Andrews, N.C. Dornan Mathis
Anthony
Foley
Mitchell, Md.
Addabbo
Daschle
Hanley
Bevill Downey Mollohan
Ashley
Fond, Mich.
Moakley
Akaka
Davis, S.C.
Harkin
Breaux Flood Pursell
Aspin
Ford, Tenn.
Moffett
Albosta
de Is Garza
Harris
Burton, John Garcia Smith, Iowa
Abkinson
Forsythe
Moorhead, Pa.
Anderson,
Deckard
Harsha
Clausen Hutto Waxman
AuCoin
Fowler
Murphy, Ill.
Calif.
Dellums
Hawkins
Collins, nl. Jeffords Zeferetti
Baldus
Fuqua
Murphy, N.Y.
Andrews,
Derrick
Heckler
Barnes
Gephardt
Murtha
N. Dak.
Diggs
Hefner
^ 1710
Beard, R.I.
Giaimo
Myers, Pa.
Annunzio
Anthon
Dingell
Dixon
Heftdl
Hightower
So the preferential motion was
Bedell
Beitenson
Gibbons
Ginn
Natcher
Ne
l
y
Ashley
Donnelly
HUBS
rejected.
Benjamin
Gonzalez
a
Nedzi
Aspin
Drinan
Holland
The result of the vote was announced
Bennett
Gore
Nolan
Atkinson
AuCoin
Duncan, Oreg.
Duncan. Tenn.
Hollenbeck
Holtzman
as above recorded.
Biaggi
Bingham
Gray
Green
Oberstar
Obey
Baldus
Early
Horton
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
Blanchard
Guarint
Ottinger
.Barnard
Eckhardt
Howard
the amendment offered by the gentle-
Boggs
Gudger
Panetta
Barnes
Edgar
Ed
l
Huckaby
H
h
man from California (Mr. DANNEMEYER).
Boland
Hall, Ohio
Patten
Beard, R.I.
Beard
Tenn.
wards, A
a.
Edwards, Calif.
ug
es
Ichord
The question was taken; and on a
Bolling
Boner
Hamilton
Hanley
Patterson
Pease
,
Bedell
Emery
Ireland
division (demanded by Mr. DANNE-
Bonior
Harkin
Peyser
Beilenson
nj
min
B
English
Erlenborn
Jacobs
Jenkins
MEYER) there were-ayes 68, noes 153.
Bouquard
Bowen
Harris
Hawkin
Preyer
Price
e
a
Bennett
Ertel
Jenrette
^ 1715
Brademas
s
Heckler
Pritchard
Biaggi
Bi
h
Evans, Ind.
Far
Johnson, Calif.
Johnson
C
l
RECORDED VOTE
Brodhead
B
k
Hefner
H
ft
l
Rahall
Ran
l
ng
am
Blanchard
y
Fascell
,
o
o.
Jones, N.C.
Mr. DANNEMEYER. Mr. Chairman,
roo
s
Broomfield
e
e
Holland
ge
Ratchford
Boggs
Fazio
Jones, Okla.
I demand a recorded vote.
Brown, Calif.
Holtzman
Reuss
Boland
Bolling
Fenwick
Ferraro
Jones, Tenn.
Kastenmeier
A recorded vote was ordered.
Buchanan
Burlison
Horton
Howard
Richmond
Roberts
Boner
Findley
Kazen
The vote was taken by electronic de-
Burton, Phillip Huckaby
Rodino
Bonior
Fish
Kildee
vice, and there were-ayes 182, noes 221,
Carr Hughes
Roe
Banker
Bouquard
Fisher
Fithian
Kogovsek
Kostmayer
not voting 29, as follows:
Cavanaugh Ireland
Chappell Jenkins
Rose
Rosenthal
Bowen
Flippo
Latta
[Roll No. 351
Chisholm Jenrette
Rostenkowski
Brademas
Florio
Leach, Iowa
Clay Johnson
Calif
Roybal
Brinkley
Foley
Leath, Tex.
AYES-182
,
.
Coelho Johnson, Colo.
Russo
Brodhead-
Ford, Mich.
Lederer
Abdnor Clinger Fish
Conyers Jones, N.C.
Sabo
Brooks
Ford, Tenn.
Lehman
Andrews, Coleman Frenzel
Corman Jones, Okla.
Scheuer
Broomfield
Forsythe
Leland
N. Dak. Collins, Tex. Frost
Cotter Jones, Tenn.
Schroeder
Brown, Calif.
Fountain
Levitas
Applegate Conable Gaydos
D'Amours Kastenmeier
Seiberling
Broyhill
Fowler
Lloyd
Archer Conte Gilman
Danielson Kogovsek
Shannon
Buchanan
Frenzel
Long, Md.
Ashbrook Corcoran Gingrich
Dellums Kostmayer
Sharp
Burlison
Frost
Lowry
Badham Coughlin Glickman
Derrick Lederer
Simon
Burton, Phillip Fuqua
Lujan
Bafalis Courter Goldwater
Diggs Lehman
Skelton
Butler
Gaydos
Luken
Bailey Crane, Daniel Goodling
Dingell Leland
Slack
Byron
Gephardt
Lundine
Barnard Daniel, Dan Gradison
Dixon Levitas
Solarz
Carr
Gialmo
McCormack
Bauman Daniel, R. W. Gramm
Drinan Lloyd
Spellman
Cavanaugh
Gibbons
McDade
Beard, Tenn. Dannemeyef Grassley
Duncan, Oreg. Long, Md.
St Germain
Chappell
Ginn
McHugh
Bereuter Daschle Grisham
Early Lowry
Stack
Cheney
Glickman
McKay
Bethune Davis, Mich. Guyer
Eckhardt Luken
Staggers
Chisholm
Gonzalez
Madigan
Breaux de Is Garza Hagedorn
Edgar Lundine
Stark
Clay
Gore
Maguire
Brinkley Deckard Hall, Tex.
Edwards, Ala. McCormack
Steed
Cleveland
Gradison
Markey
Brown, Ohio Derwinski Hammer-
Edwards, Calif. McDade.
Stewart
Coelho
Gramm
Marks
Broyhill Devine Schmidt
English McHugh
Stokes
Conable
Gray
Matsui
Burgener Dickinson Hance
Erlenborn Madigan
Stratton
Conte
Green
Mattox
Butler Donnelly Hansen
Ertel Maguire
Studds
Conyers .
Guarini
Mavroules
Byron Dougherty Harsha
Evans, Ind. Markey
Swift
Corcoran
Gudger
Mazzoli
Campbell Duncan, Tenn. Hightower
Fary Marks
Synar
Carman
Cotter
Hagedorn
Hall, Ohio
Mica
Mikulski
Carney Edwards, Okla. Hillis
Carter Emery Hinson,
Fascell Matsui
Thompson
Coughlin
Hall, Tex.
Mikva
Cheney Erdahl Hollenbeck
Fazio Mavroules
Traxler
D'Amours
Hamilton
Miller, Calif.
Clausen Evans, Del. Holt
Fenwick Mazzoli
Udall
Danielson
Hance
Mineta
Cleveland Evans, Ga. Hopkins
Ferraro Mica
Ullman
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 March 13, 1979 ' ' WN(KESS1ONAL REWRLI-HOUS. H 1281
Van Deerlin
Weiss
Wolff, N.Y.
Vanik
Whitehttrst
Wolpe, Mich.
Vento
Whitley
Wright
Volkmer
Whitten
Wyatt
Walgren
Williams, Mont. Yates
Waxman
Wilson, Tex.
Young, Mo.
Weaver
Wirth
Zablocki
NOT VOTING-29
Albosta
Davis, S.C.
LaFalce
Alexander
Dicks
McCloskey
Ambro
Dodd
McKinney
Anderson, 111.
Dornan
Mathis
Andrews, N.C.
Downey
Mollohan
Bevill
Flood
Pepper
Bonker
Fountain
Pursell
Burton, John
Garcia
Smith, Iowa
Collins, Ill.
Hutto
Zeferetti
Crane, Philip
Jeffords
^ 1730
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
-AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. LAGOMARSINO
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr.. LAGOMARSINO:
Page 10, immediately after line 23, Insert the
following new title:
TITLE III-JOINT COMMISSION ON SE-
CURITY AND COOPERATION IN EAST
ASIA
SEC. 301. (a) There is established a joint
congressional commission to be known as
the Joint Commission on Security and Co-
operation in East Asia (hereafter in' this title
referred to as the "Joint Commission") to
exist for a period of four years, beginning on
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
designated entity;
(3) the legal and technical aspects of the
continuing relationship between the United
States and 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
composed of twelve members. Of the mem-
bers provided for under the preceding sen-
tence-
(A) six shall be Members of the House of
Representatives 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
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 par-
ty and two of whom shall be selected, upon
the recommendation of the Minority Leader
of the Senate, from the minority party.
Of the members appointed under subpara-
graph (A), three shall be selected from
among members of the Committee on For-
eign Affairs of the House of Representatives,
and of the members appointed under sub-
paragraph (B), three shall be selected from
among members of the Committee on For-
eign Relations of the Senate.
(2) For the Ninety-sixth Congress, the
President pro tempore 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 par-
agraph (1) (A) as Vice Chairman of the
Joint Commission. For the Ninety-seventh
Congress, the Speaker of the House of Rep-
resentatives shall designate one of the Mem-
bers of the House of Representatives selected
under paragraph (1) (A) as Chairman of the
Joint Commission, 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 Commission.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO (during the read-
ing). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be con-
sidered as read and printed in the REC-
ORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there. objection to
the request of the gentleman from Cali-
fornia?
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Chairman, re-
serving the right to object, it is my posi-
tion that we cannot understand the
amendment unless we hear it read. We
at least ought to hear what it says.
Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will read.
(The Clerk concluded the reading of
the amendment.)
(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 its duties under this title, sit and act
at such times and places, hold such hearings,
take such testimony, and require, by subpena
or otherwise, the attendance and testimony
of such witnesses and the production of such
books, records, correspondence, 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 Chair-
man or such member. The Chairman of the
Joint Commission, or any member designated
by him, may administer oaths to any witness.
(f) (1) The Joint Commission shall prepare
and transmit a semiannual report to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House
of Representatives, the Committee on For-
eign Relations of the Senate, and the Presi-
dent on-
(A) the progress achieved by the United
States in maintaining full and unimpeded
cultural, commercial, and other relations
with 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.
out the provisions of this title. Such appro-
priations shall be disbursed 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 ap-
propriation is made, the Joint Commission
shall submit to the Congress a report on its
expenditures 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
provisions of such section.
^ 1740
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chairman,
this amendment would establish a joint
congressional commission which would
monitor implementation of this act, and
U.S. policy concerning security and co-
operation in East Asia.
The commission would also oversee
the operation of the U.S. entity which
was approved earlier today. It Is spe-
cifically charged with seeing that free
cultural, economic, and other exchanges
with Taiwan are maintained. In addi-
tion, it would review the human rights
of the Chinese on Taiwan.
The commission would have a 4-year
lifespan, and would be composed of six
Members from each Chamber. The House
Foreign Affairs Committee and the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
would each have three Members serving
on the committee.
The need for an oversight commission
is obvious to those who have followed
the course of this legislation. The need
was also obvious to the U.S. Senate,
which has already agreed to a similar
amendment. The need stems from the
inability of the administration's pro-
posed "institution" to guard the freedom
of the people on Taiwan.
This commission would supplement the
fine work already being done by the
chairman of the Foreign Affairs Com-
mittee. Besides requiring that three
members from the Foreign Affairs Com-
mittee serve on the commission, the
amendment requires consultation be-
tween the commission and the com-
mittee.
These provisions are not .included in
the amendment adopted by the other
body.
I would expect that the commission
also will work closely with the chairman
and the ranking member of the Subcom-
mittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs.
Let me briefly summarize the need for
such a commission that will be estab-
lished by this amendment.
First, the new relationship with Tai-
wan is unprecedented. The only distant
connection would be the oversight com-
(2) The Joint Commission shall from time mission which was established for the
to time consult with and provide informa- Helsinki agreements. I doubt if any of
tion to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of my colleagues question the value of that
the House of Representatives and the Com- 'commission. Similarly, an oversight com-
mittee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, mission to monitor the events in East
and the Joint Commission shall provide in- Asia would have the same effect. It would
formation to Members of the House of Rep-
resentatives of and the Senate as requested.
(g) (1) There are authorized to be appro- Taiwan in a dramatic fashion. If human
priated to the Joint Commission for each rights is the cornerstone of our foreign
fiscal year and to remain available until ex- policy, as the administration claims,
pended, $550,000 to assist in meeting the ex- such a commission is an absolute re-
penses of the Joint Commission in carrying quirement.
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 H 1282
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE March 13,. 1979
Second, the new relationship with
China is untested. Who is going to guar-
antee the freedom of Taiwan in the ab-
sence of the security treaty? Peking has
publicly stated that it has not changed
its "reunification" plans. With this com-
mission Congress will have a formal
instrument which could closely monitor
these possible developments. It seems to
me that this is the least the Congress
could do to demonstrate its concern for
our ally of 30 years.
Third, we have $7.2 billion of trade
with Taiwan; she is our. ninth largest
trading partner. Peking could easily
strangulate this vital economic link-
through blockade, embargo, or some
other form of economic squeeze. The pro-
posed "institute" would be unable to
prevent such actions, any more than it
would be able to promote our trade with
Taiwan in a normal pattern. A congres-
sional body, as proposed in this amend-
ment will have the authority and intent
of purpose to monitor this important
aspect of our relations with Taiwan.
I think that my colleagues would wel-
come this commission in light of the
ambiguity which funs throughout this
legislation.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the over-
sight commission is needed for several
reasons: It dramatically shows that Tai-
wan has not been forgotten by Congress;
that an official body of ongoing contact
has been set up, that we will formally
monitor and report on the continuing
status and freedom of Taiwan, and that
this process will formally involve the
Congress of the United States in the
oversight function.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BROOMFIELD AS
A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE AMENDMENT OFFERED
BY MR. LAGOMARSINO
Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment as a substitute for
the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. BROOMFIELD as
a substitute for the amendment offered by
Mr. LAGOMARSINO: Page 10, immediately after
line 23, insert the following new title:
TITLE III-CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT
MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
SEC. 301. (a) The Committee on Foreign
Affairs of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Foreign Relations of, the
Senate shall monitor-
(1) the implementation of the provisions
of this Act;
(2) the operation and procedures of the
designated entity;
(3) the legal and technical aspects of the
continuing relationship between the United
States and Taiwan; and
(4) the implementation of the policies of
the United States concerning security and
cooperation in East Asia.
(b) Such Committees shall report, as ap-
propriate, to their respective Houses on the
results of their monitoring.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise
to advise the committee that we have
had an opportunity on this side to review
the substitute amendment, and we ac-
cept the substitute amendment offered
by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
BROOMFIELD).
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. BROOMFIELD) as a
substitute for the amendment offered by
the gentleman from California (Mr.
LAGOMARSINO).
The amendment offered as a substitute
for the amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. LAGOMARSINO), as
amended.
The amendment, as amended, was
agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other
amendments to title II?
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. EDWARDS OF
OKLAHOMA
Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma. Mr.
Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. EDWARDS of
Oklahoma: On page 10, after Section 206,
insert the following Section and renumber
all subsequent Sections accordingly:
"SEC. 207. "No notice of intention to termi-
nate any treaty or other international agree-
ment in force between the United States and
the Republic of China on December 31, 1978,
shall be given by the United States directly
or through the designated entity without the
approval of both Houses of Congress."
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. EDWARDS).
The question was taken; and on a divi-
sion (demanded by Mr. EDWARns of Okla-
homa) there were-ayes 66, noes 147.
01745
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma. Mr.
Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
vice, and there were-ayes 141, noes 264,
not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 36]
AYES-141
Abdnor
Evans, Del.
McDade .
Andrews,
Evans, Ga.
McDonald
N.Dak.
Fountain
McEwen
Applegate
Gilman
Marlenee
Archer
Goldwater
Marriott
Ashbrook
Goodling
Martin
Ashley
Gradison
Mattox
Badham
Gramm
Mica
Bafalis
Grassley
Michel
Bailey
Grisham
Miller, Ohio
Bauman
Guyer
Mitchell, N.Y.
Bereuter
Hagedorn
Moore
Bethune
Hammer-
Moorhead,
Breaux
schmidt
Calif.
Broyhill
Hance
Mottl
Burgener
Hansen
Myers, Ind.
Byron
Harsha
Nelson
Campbell
Hillis
Quayle
Carney
Hinson
Quillen
Carter
Holt
Regula
Cheney
Hopkins
Rhodes
Clausen
Hyde
Ritter
Coleman
Ireland
Robinson
Collins, Tex.
Jeffries
Roth
Conable
Kelly
Rousselot
Corcoran
Kemp
Rudd
Coughlin
Kindness
Satterfield
Courter
Kramer
Sawyer
Crane, Daniel
Lagomarsino
Schulze
Daniel, Dan
Latta
Sebelius
Daniel, R. W.
Leach, Iowa
Sensenbrenner
Dannemeyer
Leach, La.
Shelby
Davis, Mich.
Leath, Tex.
Shumway
Deckard
Lee
Shuster
Derwinski
Lent
Smith, Nebr.
Devine
Lewis
Snowe
Dickinson
Livingston
Snyder
Dougherty ..
Loeffler
Solomon
.
Duncan, Tenn.
Lott
Spence
Edwards, Okla.
Lujan
Stangeland
Emery
Lungren
Stanton
Erdabl
McClory
Stockman
Stratton
Trible
Williams, Ohio
Stump
Vander Jagt
Wilson, Bob
Symms
Walker
Winn
Taylor
Wampler
Wydler
Thomas
Watkins
Wylie
Treen
Whittaker
Young, Alaska
NOES-264
Addabbo
Forsythe
Nolan
Akaka
Fowler
Nowak
Albosta
Frenzel
O'Brien
Anderson,
Frost
Oakar
Calif.
Fuqua
Oberstar
Andrews, N.C.
Gaydos
Obey
Annunzio
Gephardt
Ottinger
Anthony
Gibbons
Panetta
Aspin
Gingrich
Pashayan
Atkinson
Ginn
Patten
AuCol.n
Glickman
Patterson
Baldus
Gonzalez
Paul
Barnard
Gore
Pease
Barnes
Gray
Perkins
Beard, R.I.
Green
Peyser
Beard, Tenn.
Guarini
Pickle
Bedell
Gudger
Preyer
Beilenson
Hall, Ohio
Price
Benjamin
Hall, Tex.
Pritchard'
Bennett
Hamilton
Rahall
Biaggi
Hanley
Railsback
Bingham
Harkin
Rangel
Blanchard
Harris
Ratchford
Boggs
Hawkins ?
Reuss
Boland
Heckler
Richmond
Bolling
Hefner
Rinaldo
Boner
Heftel
Roberts
Bonior
Hightower
Rodino
Bonker
Holland
Roe
Bouquard
Hollenbeck
Rose
Bowen
Holtzman
Rosenthal
Brademas
Horton
Rostenkowski
Brinkley
Howard
Roybal
Brodhead
Hubbard
Runnels
Brooks
Huckaby
Russo
Broomfield
Hughes
Sabo
Brown, Calif.
Ichord
Santini
Brown, Ohio
Jacobs
Scheuer
Buchanan
Jenkins
Schroeder
Burlison
Jenrette
Seiberling
Burton, Phillip Johnson, Calif. Shannon
Butler
Johnson, Colo.
Sharp
Carr
Jones, N.C.
Simon
Cavanaugh
Jones, Okla.
Skelton
Chappell
Jones, Tenn.
Slack
Chisholm
Kastenmeier
Solarz
Clay
Kazan
Spellman
Cleveland
Kildee
St Germain
Clinger
Kogovsek
Stack
Coelho
Kostmayer
Staggers
Conte
Lederer
Stark
Conyers
Lehman
Steed
Corman
Leland
Stenholm
Cotter
Levitas
Stewart
D'Amours
Lloyd
Stokes
Danielson
Long, La.
Studds
Daschle
Long, Md.
Swift
de Is Garza
Lowry
Synar
Dellums
Luken
Tauke
Derrick
Lundine
Thompson
Diggs
McCormack
Traxler
Dingell
McHugh
Udall
Dixon
McKay
Ullman
Donnelly
Madigan
VanDeerlin
Drinan
Maguire
Vanik
Duncan, Oreg.
Markey
Vento
Early
Marks
Volkmer
Eckhardt
Matsui
Walgren
Edgar
Mavroules
Waxman
Edwards, Ala.
Mazzola
Weaver
Edwards, Calif.
Mikulski
Weiss
English
Mikva
White
Erlenborn
Miller, Calif.
Whitehurst
Ertel
Mineta
Whitley
Evans, Ind.
Minish
Whitten
Fary
Mitchell, Md.
Wilson, C. H.
Fascell
Moakley
Wilson, Tex.
Fazio
Moffett .
Wirth y
Fenwick
Montgomery
Wolff, N.Y.
Ferraro
Moorhead, Pa.
Wolpe, Mich.
Findley
Murphy, Ill.
Wright
Fish
Murphy, N.Y.
Wyatt
Fisher
Murphy, Pa.
Yates
Fithian ..
Murtha
Yatron
Flippo .
Myers, Pa.
Young, Fla.
Florio
Natcher
Young, Mo.
Foley
Neal
Zablocki
Ford, Mich.
Nedzi
Ford, Tenn.
Nichols
NOT VOTING-27
Alexander
Collins, Ill.
Dornan
Ambro
Crane, Philip
Downey
Anderson, Ill.
Davis, S.C.
Flood
Bevill
Dicks
Garcia
Burton, John
Dodd
Giaimo
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
March 13, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE
Hutto McKinney Pursell
Jeffords Mathis Smith, Iowa
LaFalce Mollohan Williams, Mont.
McCloskey Pepper Zeferetti
^ 1800
Mr. BROWN of Ohio changed his vote
from "aye" to "no."
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose
does the gentleman from New York (Mr.
PEYSER) rise?
Mr. PEYSER. Mr. Chairman, due to
the fact that all time for debate on the
amendments at the desk has expired, I
-ask unanimous consent that these
amendments be considered and voted
on in 5 minutes instead of 15 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
York?
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, reserv-
ing the right to object, do I understand
the gentleman's request is to reduce the
voting time?
Mr. PEYSER. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield, I am asking unani-
mous consent that the voting time be
reduced to 5 minutes, and the amend-
ments can be voted on in that order.
There is no debate on these amendments.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, when
we start fooling around with the rules of
the House, I must object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Are there other amendments to title
II?
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ASHBROOK
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. AsHBROOK:
Page 10, strike out lines 11 through 17 and
insert in lieu thereof the following:
(2) the term "Taiwan" includes, as the
context may require, the Government of the
Republic of China (including its agencies
and instrumentalities thereof), the islands
of Taiwan and the Pescadores, the inhabi-
tants of those islands, and corporations and
other entities and associations created or
organized under the laws of the Republic of
China.
^ 1805
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Ohio (Mr. AsHBROOK).
The amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ASHBROOK
Mr. ASHBR,OOK. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. AsHBROOK:
Page 6, immediately after line 9, insert the
following new paragraph:
(4) No agency of the United States, Gov-
ernment may pay or otherwise make avail-
able to the designated entity, by contract or
otherwise, any funds unless the Congress
has expressly authorized and appropriated
those funds to be made available to and
used by the designated entity.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered Ly the gentle-
man from Ohio (Mr. ASHBROOK)
The question was taken; and on a
division (demanded by Mr. ASHBROOK)
there were-ayes 58, noes 109.
H 1283
RECORDED VOTE
Cotter Kogovsek
Reuss
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Chairman, I
Danielson Kostmayer
Dellums Lehman
Richmond
Roberts
demand a recorded vote.
Derrick Leland
Rodino
A recorded vote was ordered.
Diggs Lloyd
Roe
The vote was taken by electronic de-
Dingell Long, La.
Dixon Lowry
.Rose
Rosenthal
vice, and there were-ayes 226, noes 174,
Drinan Lundine
Rostenkowski
not voting 32, as follows:
Duncan, Oreg. McCormack
Roybal
Eckhardt McHugh
Russo
[Roll No. 37]
Edgar Maguire
Sabo
AYES-226
Edwards, Calif. Markey
Schauer
Abdnor
Frost
Michel
Evans, Ind. Matsui
Fary Mavroules
Schroeder
Seiberling
Albosta
Fuqua
Miller, Ohio
Fascell Mazzola
Shannon
Anderson,
Gephardt
Minish
Fazio Mica
Sharp
Calif.
Gialmo
Mitchell, N.Y.
Fenwick Mikulski
Simon
Andrews,
Gilman
Montgomery
Ferraro Mlkva
Solarz
N. Dak.
Gingrich
Moore
Findley Miller, Calif.
St Germain
Anthony
Ginn
Moorhead,
Fisher Mineta
Stack
Applegate
Glickman
Calif.
Fithian Mitchell, Md.
Staggers
Archer
Goldwater
Mottl
Florio Moakley
Stark
Ashbrook
Gonzalez
Myers, Ind.
Foley Moffett
Stewart
Badham
Goodling
Natcher
Ford, Mich. Moorhead
Pa.
Stokes
Bafelis
Gradison
Nichols
,
Ford, Tenn. Murphy
Ill.
Stratton
Bailey
Gramm
O'Brien
,
Gaydos Murphy
N.Y.
Studds
Barnard
Grassley
Pashayan
,
Gibbons Murphy
Pa.
Swift
Bauman
Green
Paul
,
Gore Murtha
Thompson
Beard, R.I.
Grisham
Perkins
Gray Myers
Pa,
Traxler
Beard, Tenn.
Gudger
Pickle
,
Guarlni Neal
Udall
Benjamin
Guyer
Quayle
Hall, Ohio Nedzi
Ullman
Bennett
Hagedorn
Quillen
Hamilton Nelson
Van Deerlin
Bereuter
Hall. Tex.
Railaback
Hanley Nolan
Vanik
Bethune
Hammer-
Regula
Harkin Nowak
Vento
Biaggi
schmidt
Rhodes
Harris Oakar
Volkmer
Boggs
Hance
Rinaldo
Hawkins Oberstar
Walgren
Breaux
Hansen
Ritter
Hefner Obey
Waxman
Brinkley
Harsha
Robinson
Holland Ottinger
Weaver
Broomfield
Heckler
Roth
Holtzman Panetta
Weiss
Brown, Ohio
Heftel
Rousselot
Whitehurst
Broyhill
Hightower
Rudd
Huckaby Pease
Whitley
Buchanan
Hillis
Runnels
Johnson, Calif. Peyser
Williams
Mont
Burgener
Hinson
Santini.
Jones, N.C. Preyer
,
.
Wirth
Butler
Hollenbeck
Satterfield
Jones, Okla. Price
Wolpe
Mich
Byron
Holt
Sawyer
Jones, Tenn. Pritchard
,
.
Wright
Campbell
Hopkins
Schulze
Kastenmeier Rebell
Yates
Carney
Carter
Horton
Hubbard
Sebelius
Sensenbrenner
Kildee Ratchford
Zablocki
Chappell
Hughes
Shelby
NOT VOTING-32
Cheney
Hyde
Shumway
Alexander
Dornan Mollohan
Clausen
Ichord
Shuster
Ambro
Downey Patterson
Cleveland
Ireland
Skelton
Anderson
Ill.
Evans
Pepper
Del
Clinger
Jacobs
Slack
,
,
Bevill
.
,
Flood Pursell
Coleman
Jeffries
Smith, Nebr.
Burton
John
Garcia Rangel
Collins, Tex.
Jenkins
Snowe
,
Collins, Ill.
Hutto Smith
Iowa
Conable
Jenrette
Snyder
Conyers
,
Jeffords Steed
Conte
Johnson, Colo.
Solomon
Crane
Philip
.
LaFalce Whitten
Corcoran
Karen
Spellman
,
Davis, S.C.
McCloskey Williams
Ohio
Coughlin
Kelly
Spence
Dicks
,
McKinney Zeferetti
Courier
Kemp
Stangeland
Dodd
Mathis
Crane, Daniel
Kindness
Stanton
D'Amours
Daniel
Dan
Kramer
Lagomarsino
Stenholm
Stockman
^ 1825
,
Daniel, R. W.
Latta
Stump
Messrs. SYNAR, LONG of Maryland,
Dannemeyer
Leach, Iowa
Symms
and GIAIMO changed their vote from
Daschle
Leach, La.
Synar
"no" to "aye
"
Davis, Mich.
de Is Garza
Leath, Tex.
Lederer
Tauke
Taylor
,
So the amendment was agreed to.
Deckard
Lee
Thomas
The result of the vote was announced
Derwinski
Devine
Lent
Levitas
Treen
T
ibl
as above recorded.
Dickinson
Lewis
r
e
Vander Jagt
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other
Donnelly
Livingston
Walker .
amendments to title II?
Dougherty
Duncan, Tenn.
Loeffler
Long
Md.
Wampler
Watkins
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HANSEN
Early
,
Lott
White
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer
Edwards, Ala.
Lujan
Whittaker
an amendment
Edwards, Okla.
Emery
Luken
Lungren
Wilson, Bob
Wilson, C. H.
.
The Clerk read as follows:
English
McClory
Wilson, Tex.
Amendment offered by Mr. HANSEN: Page 5,
Erdahl
McDade
Winn
line 6, strike nongovernmental.
Erlenborn
McDonald
Wolff, N.Y.
Ertel
McEwen
Wyatt
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
Evans, Ga.
Fish
McKay
Madigan
Wydler
Wylie
the amendment offered by the gentleman
Flippo
Marks
Yatron
from Idaho (Mr. HANSEN).
Forsythe
Marlene
Young, Alaska
The question was taken; and on a divi-
Fountain
Fowler
Marriott
Martin
Young, Fla.
Young, Mo.
sion (demanded by Mr. HANSEN) there
Frenzel
Mattox
were-ayes 37, noes 106.
NOES-174
So the amendment was rejected.
? Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Chairman
I
Addabbo
Akaka
Beilenson
Bingham
Brodhead
Brooks
,
feel, as do so many of my colleagues,
Andrews, N.C.
Blanchard
Brown, Calif.
that this bill is much like being placed
Annunzio
Boland
Burlison
between a rock and a hard place. It has
Ashley
Aspin
Bolling
Boner
Burton, Phillip
Carr
been described-accurately I think-as a
Atkinson
Bonior
Cavanaugh
congressional effort to "pick up the
AuCoin
Bonker
Chisholm
pieces."
Baldus
Bouquard
Clay
Barnes
Bowen
Coelho
I am far from being satisfied with this
Bedell
Brademas
Gorman
piece of legislation, and I am deeply dis-
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 1284
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE March 13, 1979
appointed that the House chose to go
along with the administration and thus,
the Red Chinese, on several amendments
which would have materially strength-
ened U.S. support for the Republic of
China. Included in those amendments
were one which reaffirmed the U.S. posi-
tion of 30 years and was contained in
the Mutual Defense Treaty which re-
quires the United States to act in accord-
ance with constitutional processes to
meet the danger of an armed attack
against the Republic of China; an
amendment which sought to require the
President to consider the possibility of
withdrawing diplomatic recognition of
Red China in the event of a threat to
the security of the Republic of China;
and an amendment that sought to re-
quire that relations between the United
States and the Republic of China be con-
ducted through a liaison office rather
than the so-called "nongovernmental,
independent entity."
Regardless of the foregoing, I would-
like to state for the record that I found
Mr. Carter's actions toward the Republic
of China so incredible that they defy
description by socially acceptable exple-
tives. If December 8, 1941 was a "day of
infamy" then December 15, 1978 ranks
right up there in international betrayal.
In this regard, I know that in some
quarters it is simply not polite to remem-
ber or mention the extermination of be-
tween 32 and 61 million people in Red
China, but ignoring history has never
erased the facts.
In pragmatic terms, I do not agree
that recognition of Red China is a "sim-
ple reality" when that reality is achieved
by discounting the simple reality of 18
million people in the Republic of China
and the simple reality of the President
unilaterally abrogating a Mutual De-
fense Treaty. A two-China policy would
have been the obvious goal and the one
most reasonable persons would agree on.
Why then did the United States come
out of the negotiations with nothing and
the People's Republic of China with ev-
erything? There has not been such a
"shutout" since the Giants beat the
Redskins 52 to 0.
Red China wanted us to remove our
troops-they got it. They wanted us to
break diplomatic ties-they got it. They
wanted us to break the 1954 Defense
Treaty-they got it. What did we get?
They promised not to "object" to con-
tinued interest in the future of Taiwan.
(By the way, what does that mean exact-
ly? Does that mean they promise not to
send us a nasty telegram or not to de-
clare war?) They allowed us to uphold
the stipulation in the Defense Treaty
that said the signators had to give 1
year's notification to break the treaty.
Now, I consider that a mighty big con-
cession-allowing us to uphold the terms
of a contract.
Finally, they "tacitly" agreed not to
object to arms sales to the Republic of
China. I take that to mean that this is a
gentleman's agreement, and I certainly
do not want to muddy the waters by
questioning the gentlexnanliness of the
boys in Taipei.
It is rather like saying that we all had
a chicken dinner. We got the wings and
the feathers; they got the rest. of the
bird-but we all got chicken. This deal
will certainly go down in history as a
diplomatic coup-for Red China, that is.
The pathetic thing about this whole
mess, however, is that it is typical of this
administration's conduct of foreign af-
fairs, which could be kindly described as
being riddled by ineptitude and hypoc-
risy. We have had to watch a U.S. Presi-
dent receive a tongue lashing from the
President of Mexico while our President
fumbles around with an embarrassing
joke of questionable taste. We have had
to put up with a U.S. Ambassador to the
U.N. who is about as diplomatic as a bull
in a china shop and even though he
insults with impunity our strongest and
closest allies, he is still on the job. We
have had to watch a revolution in Iran,
for which we were. totally unprepared
and to which we had no official warning.
And, finally, we have had to watch the
one bright spot in, the administration's
foreign policy, the Camp David accords,
turn into yet another dismal failure.
I am not going to go so far as to ques-
tion the administration's sanity, but I do
seriously question its commonsense and
the credibility of its much-flaunted hu-
man rights policy.
In closing, I would like to reiterate
that I am not pleased with this bill or
the betrayal which forces its passage. It
is rather like taking bitter medicine for
the treatment of a terminal illness, and
at this point, my, greatest hope is that
Mr. Carter's stamp on America's foreign
policy does not become so irrevocable
that we cannot recoup some of the fail-
ures after 1980.0
0 Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Chairman, the
December 15th announcement by Presi-
dent Carter that the United States and
the People's Republic of China . had
reached an agreement to "normalize"
relations conditional upon : One, break-
ing diplomatic relations with the Re-
public of China on Taiwan; twp, the
termination of the U.S.-Taiwan Mutual
Defense Treaty; and three, the with-
drawal of U.S. troops from Taiwan, is a
disgrace to U.S. foreign policy. This ac-
tion, taken alone by President Carter,
has injured the virtue of the United
States of America and has placed Amer-
ica in the wretched situation of broken
trust with the free Chinese on Taiwan.
What free nation will again put confi-
dence in a government that abrogates
its treaties?
The bill that this House is consider-
ing today reaches new plateaus in politi-
cal rhetoric. H.R. 2479 is written in
dramatic language to profess friendship
between the "people of the United
States" and the "people of Taiwan" and
it purports to "help maintain peace,
security, and stability in the Western
Pacific and to promote extensive and
close relations" with Taiwan, but the
members of the committee who are pre-
senting this bill today are not playing
the flip side of the record which, in fact,
carries the explicit message that the
United States intends to terminate its
Defense Treaty and diplomatic ties with
the Republic of China-a drastic change
from the intention of the United States-
Taiwan Mutual Defense Treaty. A gov-
ernment-to-government treaty is a far
stronger document than a people-to-
people agreement.
It is understandable that the adminis-
tration wishes to "enhance consultative
relations on matters of common interna-
tional concern and expand bilateral re-
lations" with the People's Republic of
China. Improving relations has positive
advantages for America, but certainly
this could have been achieved without
such a radical change in the U.S. policy
toward the Republic of China on Taiwan.
President Carter agreed to the terms
of the People's Republic- of China in the
agreement to establish full diplomatic re-
lations and in so doing he blatantly ig'-
nored congressional legislation that re-
quired advance consultation with Con-
gress gress prior to abrogation of any of the
Mutual Defense Treaties with the Re-
public of China. May I remind this House
that in July of 1978 the Senate unani-
mously (94 to 0) adopted an amendment
offered to the International Security As-
sistance Act by Senators STONE and DOLE
which called on the President to consult
with the Senate before making any pol-
icy changes affecting the continuation of
the United States-Republic of China Mu-
tual Security Treaty. The amendment
was later approved in a House-Senate
conference, making it a resolution of the
full Congress. Further, the United States
(via President Carter) agreed to a mora-
torium on new U.S. arms sales to the Re-
public of China on Taiwan during 1979 in
return for an "implied" commitment
from the People's Republic of China not
to threaten the security of the Chinese
people on Taiwan. Who is kidding whom?
To "imply".is not to make a direct state-
rrient regarding rights and obligations.
Can this administration be so naive as
to conclude that the smooth, ingratiat-
ingly tactful, and well-mannered utter-
ances of Communist diplomats could be
relied on as a commitment? When Vice
Premier Teng visited our country, Presi-
dent Carter, it is said, was supposed to
obtain a firm commitment on Taiwan's
security, but this subject was not dis-
cussed and agreement was never reached,
probably because President Carter knew
Teng's position and that it was firm.
What have we gained from normaliza-
tion of relations with the People's Repub-
lic of China? Have we not endangered
the economic stability of Korea and Ja-
pan who will find it very difficult to re-
sist Peiping's pressure? The World Anti-
Communist League, China chapter has
stated that to effect the economic isola-
tion of the Republic of China:
The combined political, economic and mili-
tary pressure exercised by Communist China
around Taiwan will increase armament
buildup and cause other destabilizing
changes in all countries in the area.
In the Philippines, Papua-New Guinea,
Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, Thai-
land, and in the Mideast there is in-
creasing anxiety over weakening U.S. re-
lations. '
What have we gained from normaliza-
tion of relations with the People's Re-
public of China? The loss of a friend. In
February 1972, when Richard M. Nixon
and Chou En-lai issued their Joint com-
munique in Shanghai, I voiced an objec-
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 cinch 13, 197, Approved For Release 2008/10/27: C A-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
tion. The meaning of the communique
was ambiguous but the United States
certainly made no commitment to sever
diplomatic relations with the Republic of
and to abrogate the mutual defense
treaty. The Republic of China has faith-
fully fulfilled its obligations under the
treaty and the treaty is essential to the
security of the Republic of China. Nul-
lifying this treaty will surely encourage
the Chinese Communists to improve
their armed forces to challenge the Re-
public of China. They will surely use
political pressure to isolate Taiwan
economically.
It is with shame and disgust that I
'lsten to the Members of this House seri-
ously consider passage of H.R. 2479 with-
out the amendment offered by Mr.
QUAY]L13 to provide that the dealings of
the United States with Taiwan be con-
ducted through an official U.S. liaison
office on Taiwan and that a similar Tai-
wanese liaison office be established in the
United States thus granting privileges
and immunities similar to those
extended to diplomatic missions and
personnel of accredited foreign govern-
ments. And without accepting Mr.
QuaYI.z's amendment to the declaration
of principles stating that any armed
attack or use of force, boycott, or em-
bargo to prevent Taiwan from engag-
ing in trade with other nations would be
a threat to the peace and stability of the
Western Pacific and to the security
Interest of the United States-and with-
out accepting Mr. DERWINSBI's amend-
ment that the United States shall use its
voice and vote in international institu-
tions and organizations to protect the
status of Taiwan as ' a member of all
international organizations and institu-
tions of which it was a member as of
December 31, 1978 and all international
agreements to which it was a party as
of the same date, and to oppose any
sanctions, especially a trade boycott by
the People's Republic of China against
Taiwan and to procure privileges and
immunities for U.S. personnel on Taiwan
an a reciprocal basis to those enjoyed by
Taiwanese personnel in the United
States.
What have we gained from normaliza-
tion of relations with the People's
Republic of China? A loss of prestige and
credibility in the free world. The United
States has hastily agreed to normalize
relations with the People's Republic of
China without considering the full con-
-sequences this will have on our relations
with Taiwan and without proving that
there will be real benefits to offset the
feeling that we have deserted a loyal
e:1ly.O
0 Mr. DUNCAN of Oregon. Mr. Chair-
man, on December 15, at the time the
relationship of this country with the
Republic of China was changed, I issued
a statement in which I said :
I believe myself to be a pragmatic poli-
tician, but I am not a cynic.
I believe political abandonment of Taiwan
can be justified only for geopolitical consid-
cratlons of the highest magnitude. While I
have not been briefed, I see no such.
Certainly increased trade with China
would come without this step because China
seeds trade and if not, I would not sell my
loyalty to cur tr2mvz and allies ?2 many
years-rallies who wem fighting fascism In
Asia years before Pearl Harbor for a mess of
pottage.
I believe recognition on these terms could
have been achieved long ago. I see no express
protection against the use of force by China
against Taiwan. I see only the termination
of the U.S. Taiwanese treaty. What did we get
out of the deal that our present relation-
ship doesn't give us?
To say we can't ignore the presence of
the most populous nation on earth is be-
side the point. We don't. We haven't. We
couldn't. We couldn't ignore the civil war
they fought during the war against Japan.
We couldn't ignore their armies attacking
us in Korea and the threat they posed to our
forces in Vietnam. While Taiwan was sup-
porting the United States and steadily mov-
ing their people to greater political freedom
and participation, expanding their economy
and raising their standard of living and
human rights of their people, the People's
Republic has swung violently through re-
pression and banishment and only now is
permitting or encouraging questioning post-
ers which come and go as if on command.
While there may be greater human rights
than those of individuals involved here, it
is not apparent to me what those are. They
may be to those more cynical, or pragmatic
than I.
It isn't formal recognition that I object to,
but the high price we are forced to pay.
Nothing has occurred in the interim
to subs a tially change my initial reac-
tion ;,o this policy decision. It is true that
the Vice Premier has visited this country.
It is also true that the Chinese army in
vaded Vietnam immediately upon his
return.
On December 15, my reaction was one
of dismay. It was, and is, my belief that
the controversy which has ensued over
the President's decision arises not so
much because of the extension of full
diplomatic relations to Peking, but from
the manner and the terms on which the
decision was made-that is, the failure
to advise and consult with the Congress
and the failure to adequately provide for
a continued American commitment to
the people on Taiwan.
I have reservations concerning the
"rationality" and "realism" said to un-
lie the President's action. Honor, credi-
bility, and morality (unfashionable
words these days) may be intangible
qualities, but they have real effects in
the real world. Granted the basic ra-
tionality of having regular diplomatic
relations with a nation comprising one-
quarter of the human race, there is no
certainty that Chinese-American friend-
ship is here to stay. In accepting Peking's
three prime conditions, the normaliza-
tion of relations was acknowledgement,
said President Carter, of "simple reality."
Yet the past history of Chinese-Ameri-
can relations has been far from simple,
and it is my hope that the present
euphoria which persists after Teng
Tsiaoping's visit will not keep us from
seeing some of the problems which lie
ahead.
It is true, furthermore, that treaty-
breaking carried to extremes can de-
stroy the legal basis upon which sover-
eign states must deal with each other.
Many have raised the critical concern
that this decision has eroded and under-
mined our credibility with the people of
1285
Taiwan and amongst our allies in other
parts of the globe.
But the question here today is not
what should have been done. We must
cope with the world as it exists-with
the fact of a dramatic change in our
relations in the Western Pacific which
has already occurred. Our job is to sal-
vage what we can of our relationship
with Taiwan and to do so without creat-
ing other and more dangerous problems
in the process-and to pass a bill which
will not be vetoed.
Under these circumstances I think the
committee has done a workmanlike job.
It would be better to have retained diplo-
matic relations. It would have been bet-
ter to have a liaison office, but not at
the expense of further compounding our
problems. I, therefore, support and will
vote for the bill.
I must say, however, that I do not
understand the administration's initial
handling of even this low-grade unof-
ficial relationship with Taiwan. Prior to
the President's action, the Republic of
China had 13 consulates. They were use-
ful, not just to Taiwan but to this coun-
try and our citizens. The administration
has imposed a limit of eight offices of
the Coordinating Committee for North
American Affairs-the unofficial entity
through which we will deal with Taiwan.
I believe this to be arbitrary and unwise.
Taiwan represents one of the most
advanced economies in Asia, and an im-
portant trading partner for the United
States. Fortunately, Taiwan's leaders
have already demonstrated the ability
to sustain and restructure the island's
economic, cultural, and educational rela-
tions with many nations, notably Japan,
in the absence of formal diplomatic ties.
Much of the necessary liaison work
and documentation which makes this
trade possible has been' carried on
through consular offices. The mainte-
ndnce of consulates is now impossible,
but I cannot accept the administration's
position of objecting to the reestablish-
ment of an equal number of nongovern-
ment bodies-including an important
one in Portland. It is my belief that we
should encourage the people on Taiwan
to promote, rather than curtail their
trading with the United States, and I
will continue to seek a replacement for
the office in Portland.
One of every nine employment 0p-.
portunities in the State of Oregon is di-
rectly or indirectly the result of our
trade. Oregon is one of the few States
in this Nation which can boast an ex-
port surplus. Traditionally, Taiwan has
been one of Oregon's top 10 trading
partners. The trade between us in wheat,
electronics, electrical switching gear,
and a host of other merchandise was
facilitated by the existence of a consular
office in the city of Portland.
Therefore, the loss of this office would
present more than just an inconveni-
ence to Oregon business. Trade Pat-
terns-both within this country and in
international markets-tends to follow
the path of least resistance. It seems to
me that the existing patterns are fragile
enough without unilaterally taking an
action which would endanger this rela-
tionship. I see no reason for any
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA RDP855--00003R000100050012-91 arch 13, 1979
limitation on the number of offices which
should be maintained on this unofficial
basis.
Therefore, I was pleased to support
the amendment offered by my colleagues
from Idaho, Mr. SYMMs, which directed
the President to reach an agreement
with Taiwan to assure that the facili-
ties used to conduct its affairs in the
United States be at or near the loca-
tions of the consular establishments of
Taiwan existing prior to December 31,
1978. This amendment, while it does not
guarantee that the Taiwanese will re-
open the Portland office, does give them-
and us-that opportunity. I hope the
conference retains this provision.
? Mr. DANNEMEYER. Mr. Chairman,
very soon the Members of this House
will be voting on final passage of a bill
which will establish a new framework
for relations between the United States
and Taiwan. In so doing, we will bear a
tremendous responsibility for the con-
tinued freedom and well-being of a na-
tion which over many years has been
tied to the United States by bonds of
friendship, commerce, and philosophy.
It is disturbing to me, and to many
other Members of this body, that our
Government should have conceded so
much to the government in Peking, and
yet has received so little in return. It is
disturbing that we should have recog-
nized the "reality" of Communist rule
on mainland China, but now totally re-
fuse to recognize the reality of an ef-
ficient, productive, and well-ruled state
which has existed on Taiwan for over
30 years. It is even more disturbing that
we have chosen, in a flight of wishful
thinking, to unquestioningly assume that
Peking will not use force or coercion
against Taiwan in the future, when even
Peking's leadership insists that force re-
mains an option. The current Chinese
invasion of Vietnam should give us all
pause in this respect. It now appears
clear that Peking wished to have the
United States at its back before launch-
ing its Vietnam adventure. And now that
we have developed such a close relation-
ship with Peking, what influence have
we gained with our new quasi-allies? If
China's Vietnam gambit is any indica-
tion, the answer clearly is none. In any
event, the Chinese invasion of Vietnam,
coming as it does so closely on the heels
of normalization, must raise doubts
among serious observers about the wis-
dom of blindly assuming the People's
Republic's peaceful intentions toward
Taiwan. This suggests to me the need for
a strong security commitment to Taiwan
in our pending bill on China.
A recent article in the Washington
Post by a distinguished scholar and prac-
titioner of U.S. China policy, Eugene K.
Lawson, helps to clarify many of the
outstanding issues regarding Taiwan,
our negotiations with the People's Re-
public, and our future responsibilities in
the area of China. I urge it to the Mem-
bers' attention, and include it in the
RECORD:
TAIWAN: WE FORGOT WHO HELD THE TRUMP
CARDS
(By Eugene K. Lawson)
1979 is the year of the Ram, and Taiwan
just got gored-needlessly.
It didn't have to be that way. It has been the door open on its ultimate status, in the
six years. since the Shanghai communique same way Japan, Canada, the United King-
was drafted, which laid the basis 4pr an dom and others have done.
agreement on normalization of ties with the The rest of the story is well known. Water-
People's Republic of China, with the details gate drove Richard Nixon from office, and
to be worked out. On the Issue of Taiwan, the Ronald Reagan's challenge to Gerald Ford
United States gave nothing away. The opera- prevented the latter from normalizing rela-
tive language said we acknowledge that "all
Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait
maintain there Is but one China .and that
Taiwan is a part of China. The U.S. govern-
ment does not challenge that position." The
statement, written by weary U.S. negotiators
in the middle of the night in Shanghai, was
not bad. It was sufficiently ambiguous to sat-
isfy the U.S. desire to keep the ultimate reso-
lution of Taiwan's status still open, and it
satisfied Peking's need for a face-saving ges-
ture from us on that issue.
But the key passages in the Shanghai com-
munique were the anti-hegemony clauses
aimed at the Soviet, Peking was willing to lay
aside Taiwan with almost no concession by
us in return for our help against Moscow.
Peking saw Taiwan as a minor irritant com-
pared with the Soviet danger. Subsequently,
U.S.-P.R.C. ties developed quickly despite the
Taiwan Issue. Taiwan was the "Panama
Canal" of Chinese policies, "forgotten except
as a banner with which to rally the factional
faithful during leadership contests." A year
later the lessening importance of Taiwan was
underscored when Peking agreed to open a
liaison office a few blocks from the Republic
of China's embassy.
In retrospect, our China policy after 1973
was probably flawed. We were so sure that we
could make a deal with Peking that would
preserve Taiwan's security that we began to
cover our domestic flank from a right-wing
attack by strengthening our ties with Tai-
wan, thus making it more agonizing than
necessary when the inevitable break came.
We increased the number of Taipei's con-
sulates, sold more sophisticated weaponry
than ever before, appointed a senior diplomat
as ambassador and promised prior consulta-
tion before making any future major moves.
Instead, we should have smoothed the road
to normalization by systematically reducing
our ties to Taiwan and giving it time to
adjust. We should have reduced our embassy
to the charge level, withdrawn all our troops
(this would have psychologically prepared
Taiwan better than anything else we could
have done) and discussed with the Congress
the most effective means of replacing the
mutual defense treaty.
. The defense treaty was, of course, the bot-
tom line, and of Peking's three demands
(break diplomatic relations with Taiwan,
withdraw our military and end the treaty),
that is the one we should have worked on.
And, in fact, the Nixon administration did
have a package of minimum conditions in
its mind to implement.
The most important element in the Nixon
plan included the ways and means to find a
plausible substitute for the treaty. First, the
United States would cite only those People's
Republic statements that spoke of resolving
the situation peacefully and ignore the more
belligerent ones. Second, the president would
issue with the Congress a statement after
normalization with Peking was achieved that
any use of force by anyone in the Taiwan
Straits would cause the United States to
consider whatever military actions appeared
necessary to preserve peace.
Moreover, we would continue to ensure
that the international waters existing be-
tween the mainland and Taiwan would be
open to all countries, and, finally, we would
continue to sell defensive equipment to Tai-
wan. Our assumption was that we were in
the driver's seat, and Peking needed us more
than we needed it. While Peking had its
conditions for normalization, we had ours.
As for the future of Taiwan, we would fol-
low the Shanghai communique by keeping
tions. Then the proponents of a born-again
foreign policy came in. The first policy ac-
tions about East Asia and China were not
reassuring: a proposed rapid withdrawal
from South Korea, a plan to give up' U.S.
bases in the Philippines, a disastrous visit to
Peking by the secretary of state, which was
denounced immediately after by Vice Premier
Teng Hsiao-ping. The lack of effective con-
sultation with Congress was apparent early
on, and a new harder line by Peking began.
Instead of limiting itself to Its original
three conditions, Peking sensed the weak-
ness in our leadership and very shrewdly
began to escalate its demands. First, Teng
would tell visiting congressmen that PekiI g
could not accept a unilateral U.S. declaration
about Taiwan's security. Next, Chairman
Hua Kuo-feng would inform a U.S; trade
delegation that continued U.S. arms sales to
Taiwan after normalization would not be
allowed.
Somehow, somewhere, the corporate mem-
ory about our China policy failed. We forgot
that we held most of the trump cards and
that we could obtain both the kind of agree-
ment needed to preserve Taiwan's security
and yet proceed in a more important rela-
tionship with Peking. When we overcome one
of Peking's new demands (that we end arms
sales to Taiwan), we took that for a great
concession, again forgetting that Peking at
first had only three conditions. In spite of
the fact that we enjoy more leverage and
influence over Peking now than in 1972, we
obtaind no concessions from Peking and gave
Taiwan precious little security. The presi-
dent's statement that the United States con-
tinues to have an interest in the peaceful
resolution of the Taiwan issue" is woefully
inadequate. The failure to consult with key
members of Congress about the conditions of
normalization leaves that body of individuals
in a rebellious mood when both branches
should be united in their views. Failure to
give early warning to Taiwan and the Con-
gress leaves us scurrying around to find a
solution to (among many others) our nuclear
sharing agreement with Taipei.
And most unaccountably of all, the ad-
ministration tried hard to close the door on
Taiwan's ultimate status by stating that
Taiwan is part of China. The enormous dif-
ference between President Carter's statement
and the language contained in the Shanghai
communique seems lost to National Security
Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. In his press
backgrounders, he cited the Shanghai com-
munique as the foundation for this agree-
ment. He simply has misread it. None of our
major allies had to make that concession.
Taiwan is obviously not under the de facto
control of the mainland, and to say that it,
is part- of China, de jure or otherwise, is a
gratuitous concession to Peking, and deprives'
us of leverage we might need later.
The statement by Secretary of State Cyrus
Vance that it "doesn't make any sense" for
the People's Republic to opt for a violent so-
lution is, unfortunately, just an opinion.
This group of leaders in Peking may put Tai-
wan on the back burner, but a different group
might not. The leadership coalition is hardly
stable (Teng is 74), and the costs of a West-
ern style modernization to China may create
a domestic, xenophobic backlash, as it has so
often in the past, and produce a more reac-
tionary leadership. We obviously cannot rely
on good sense in Peking for Taiwan's security.
As happened so often in the past two years,
the professionals are yet again picking up the
pieces. Taiwan will no doubt forgive us our
clumsiness and inexcusable speed If we
quickly get Congress to maintain some 59
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
March 13, 1979 - CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE - H 1287
treaties we have with the island and issue
a strong statement about its security. But
the whole exercise is depressing. Once again,
this administration has proved itself inept,
taking a problem already mostly solved and
turning a small success into a small fiasco.?
0 Mr. ANDERSON of California. Mr.
Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2479,
a bill assuring the continuation of U.S.
relations with Taiwan. New relations
with the People's Republic of China
have already been established. This leg-
islation we are considering today does
not address that. For really, there is lit-
tle this body is empowered to do with
respect to the Executive actions revising
'United States-China policy.
What we must do now, those of us
concerned with the future of Taiwan,
is act to guarantee the viability of an
Independent people there. H.R. 2479 does
assure that this viability will be main-
tained.
The legislation states that continued
close and friendly relations between the
people of the United States and Tai-
wan must be assured. And it recognizes
the fact that an armed attack against
Taiwan would constitute a threat to
the peace and stability of the Western
Pacific. This continued peace and sta-
bility, according to logic and H.R. 2479,,
is in the political, security, and economic
interests of the United States.
The legislation before us today states
clearly that the United States will make
available to Taiwan articles and serv-
ices necessary for its defense against
armed attack.
H.R. 2479 assures that all agreements
entered into between the nations of Tai-
wan and the United States will be con-
tinued as if the derecognition had not
occurred. Taiwan will still be a most-
favored-nation for trade purposes, and
will continue to be eligible for Export-
Import Bank loans and other U.S. Gov-
ernment programs and forms of aid.
Finally, this legislation allows the es-
tablishment of a nongovernmental en-
tity for the continuation of relations
with Taiwan in the future.
Clearly; the primary theme of H.R.
2479 can be seen as one of continuity
in a time. of change. It was Executive
policy that altered the structure of our
past relationships. The House today
must act to minimize any negative ef-
fect these new relationships might have
on the longstanding friendship that ex-
ists between the United States and Tai-
wan. The mutual interests of the people
of these two lands have not been changed
'by derecognition. It is these mutual in-
terests that must serve as the basis of
our continued friendship: The passage
of H.R. 2479 will help assure the main-
tenance of commercial, cultural, and
touristic relations between us. With
these continued relations, and with the
sfle of defense weapons, we can work
to see that the basic situation in Taiwan
will go unchanged. This situation is one
of freedom for the people who live
there, and the security of American in-
terests in the Western Pacific.o
vents $37 Million in proposed cuts in
esential health education programs.
Offered by Mr. STAGGERS-the chair-
man of the committee responsible for
atuhorizations for these programs-the
amendment restores $17,046,000 for ad-
vanced nurse training programs and $20
million for the capitation grant program
which provides financial support for
medical, dental, and osteopathic schools.
The severe funding slash represented
by H.R. 2439 is unconscionable in the
middle of the fiscal year. Both the af-
fected programs were originally slated
for modest extensions. Both programs
were funded at a reasonable level by the
previous Congress.
The Nurse Training Act was passed by
a vote last year in the House of 393-12,
but it was pocket-vetoed by the Presi-
dent. The President then agreed; how-
ever, to support a continuing resolution
which preserved this vital program.
Over 50 national health organizations
and related groups have spoken out in
opposition to the proposed rescission.
Among these groups are the Association
of New York Neighborhood Health Cen-
ters, the Mental Health Association, and
Planned Parenthood Federation of
America.
The chairman of the Health Subcom-
mittee, Mr. WAxMAN, has noted that this
budget rescission would result in the
abrupt termination of 33 research proj-
ects and scholarships for 3,500.nursing
students, most of whom are from low-in-
come families.
I would like to point out to those of
my colleagues. who support the budget
rescission as a step toward balancing the
budget that this $37 million cut would
in fact be an illusory savings. Decent
health care for Americans, which these
programs help insure, will save the Gov-
ernment and taxpayers money in the
long run. We should not seek to econo-
mize at the expense of our constituents'
health.
Health education institutions and pro-
gram administrators have already
planned for fiscal 1979 on the assumption
that the funding level approved and
promised them by both the President and
Congress would in fact be delivered. They
have rightly assumed that our commit-
ments would be honored. We cannot now
turn. away from this pledge.e
^ 1830
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other
amendments to title II?
There being none, under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. DANIELSON, Chairman of the Com-
mittee of the Whole on the State of the
Union, reported that that Committee
having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 2479) to help maintain peace, se-
curity, and stability in the western Pa-
cific and to promote continued extensive,
close, and friendly relations between the
people of the United States and the peo-
ple on Taiwan, pursuant to House Reso-
lution 148, he reported the bill back to
the House with sundry amendments
adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the
previous question is ordered.
o Mr. WEISS. Mr. Chairman, I support
the amendment to the first Budget Re-
scission of 1979-H.R. 2439-which pre-
Is a separate vote demanded on any
amendment? If not, the Chair will put
them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the engrossment and third reading of
the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, and was read the
third time.
MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY
MR. DERWINSHI
Mr. DERWINSKL Mr. Speaker, I offer
a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman op-
pose to the bill?
Mr. DERWINSKI. I am, in its present
form, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. DERwrNsxI moves to recommit the bill,
H.R. 2479, to the Committee on Foreign Af-
fairs with instructions to report the bill back
to the House forthwith with the following
amendment: On page 10, immediately after
line 4. Insert the following new section, and
redesignate the succeeding sections accord-
ingly:
"REAFFIRM TION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
"SEC. 205. Nothing contained in this Act
shall contravene the President's stated pol-
icies and positive interest in human rights,
especially with respect to those human rights
of the approximately 18 million inhabitants
of Taiwan. The preservation of the human
rights of the people of Taiwan is hereby re-
affirmed as a commitment of the United
States."
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. DERwINSKT) is recognized
for 5 minutes in support of his motion
to recommit.
(Mr. DERWINSKI asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, due to
the lateness of the hour, I will not take
5 minutes; I hope to confine my remarks
to 1 minute.
I will point out, Mr. Speaker, that at
least since the era just preceding World
War II, bipartisanship has been a great
American factor in the conduct of for-
eign affairs. I, for one, have great re-
spect for the President's emphasis on
human rights. I sometimes wonder if the
advice he receives from subordinates in
the executive branch is as sound and ac-
curate as it should be, but the President
himself is a man of great character and
strength, and his human rights policy
comes from the heart.
It is in support of that, recognizing
that it is the fundamental conviction of
the American people that nothing con-
tained in our readjusted China policy
should deprive the people on Taiwan of
their human rights, that I offer this mo-
tion to recommit, realizing it is a re-
affirmation of public policy and govern-
mental policy, as well as the strong con-
victions of the Members of this body.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance
of my time.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. ZABLOCKI) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise
not in opposition to the motion to re-
commit with instructions, but I do want
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100050012-9
 H 1288
^NNI vvcu I J1 I ~cicuac cWwwl i v,c, vim i wi v ' vvvvvi wvv i vvv 'vv i c v
liV1V v~JJ1VI #LL. N.