On the recordMarch 28, 1996
For example, if the threat to Taiwan is increasing, defensive arm sales should go up. They should not be arbitrarily limited by the bucket. Prior administrations have followed this principle in practice, such as selling F-16's to Taiwan, even though they were outside the dollar limits of the bucket. It was a matter of convenience. We wanted to do it, so we found a way to do it. I do not see why the administration is objecting to this provision, because it is consistent with current practice. I would also remind my colleagues that the identical language passed out of the Foreign Relations Committee in 1994 on a 20-0 vote when I was a member of that committee. Mr. President, I again find it incredible that the administration would issue this veto threat over a provision that was intended merely to restate reality: The law of the land takes precedence over a statement of policy. I do not think you could find one constitutional scholar who would disagree with that proposition. Secretary of State Christopher, in correspondence with me in 1994, acknowledged that it was the administration's position, as it was of previous administrations, that the Taiwan Relations Act as a public law takes legal precedence over the 1982 joint United States-China communique, an Executive communication that was never, as I said, ratified by Congress. Mr. President, I have that letter from Secretary of State Christopher.…
Source
govinfo.gov




