[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 48 (Thursday, April 28, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
      THE TAIWAN RELATIONS ACT AND THOUGHTS ON HEALTH CARE REFORM

  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity.
  I am going to have a two-part special order this evening. One will 
deal with the Taiwan Relations Act and the 15th anniversary of that 
act. The other will talk about health care and my observations and what 
I believe needs to be done.
  First, Madam Speaker, this month marks the 15th anniversary of the 
enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act, one of the most important and 
one of the most innovative pieces of legislation ever to become law. We 
have a lot of new Members in this body in the last 2 years, last 4 
years, that do not realize just how important that act was.
  The Taiwan Relations Act is important because it sets forth the terms 
of the relationship between the United States of America and a friendly 
former allied country.
  Indeed, the Republic of China on Taiwan was a treaty ally which 
suffered the unprecedented experience of having its diplomatic 
relations with our country severed by a unilateral action by the 
President of the United States, at that time, Jimmy Carter, without 
provocation and in a time of peace.
  The Taiwan Relations Act is innovative because it represents a 
constructive response by Congress to the unusual circumstances caused 
by the diplomatic derecognition of the Republic of China on Taiwan.
  Madam Speaker, I was a representative-elect 16 years ago, concerned 
with moving to Washington with my five children, which I never moved 
them here incidentally and they stayed, thank goodness, in my home town 
and where I have commuted back and forth all these years.
  But I was concerned at that time with moving to Washington and 
putting an office staff together, when the news came that President 
Carter had decided unilaterally to abrogate the treaty of alliance with 
the Republic of China, to sever diplomatic relations with them, and to 
make a diplomatic about face and to recognize the Communist government 
of mainland China instead.
  That news was shocking but it was not surprising. It was not 
surprising because the drift of events had been clearly evident for 
quite some time. There was little doubt that President Carter was 
preparing to yield to Communist mainland China's political demands. Let 
me repeat that, yield to Communist mainland China's political demands 
and meet the conditions that the Communist government established as 
the price the Chinese Government would have to pay in order for them to 
accept United States recognition.

                              {time}  1830

  What was shocking, however, Madam Speaker, was the timing of 
President Carter's announcement.
  The man who promised never to mislead the American people had given 
solemn assurances to Congress that any kind of major change in United 
States policy toward China would not be made at a time when Congress 
was out of session.
  But, in fact, Congress had been out of session for 2 months--the 95th 
Congress had already adjourned sine die--when President Carter made his 
announcement.
  When I arrived in Washington in January 1979 to be sworn in as a 
Member of the 96th Congress, one of my chief concerns was the question 
of how the United States relationship with our long-time ally, the 
Republic of China, could be set right.
  Madam Speaker, only 2 weeks after taking office, I joined a group of 
Members led by Congressman John Ashbrook of Ohio, and went to Taiwan, 
in order to assure both the Government and the Chinese people there, 
that they had not heard the last word from Washington.
  In the name of the U.S. Congress, we thanked them for the steadfast 
support they had given the United States as a treaty ally of ours for 
over 40 years.
  They fought alongside us in World War II, and they stood with us 
throughout the cold war, as one of our staunchest friends in resisting 
the spread of communism throughout the world.
  As one of the strongest links in a chain of democracies formed to 
stop the spread of that deadly, atheistic philosophy, the 21 million 
free people on Taiwan--who live just minutes away from Communist 
mainland China--stood bravely on the front line, helping the United 
States deter the scourge of communism, this inhumane form of government 
that has no respect for human rights--indeed, it has no respect for 
human life itself.
  Madam Speaker, the deplorable treatment of Chinese citizens by the 
Communist regime continues even today throughout all of mainland China. 
And America, through the actions of President Carter, literally pulled 
the rug out from under the valiant, brave, loyal free Chinese allies of 
ours.
  That is why we went to Taiwan, and assured them that Congress would 
act--and act decisively--if the Carter administration's proposed 
legislation on the future of United States-Taiwan relations proved to 
be inadequate.
  Indeed, the administration's original draft did prove to be grossly 
inadequate--almost laughable on its face had the issue not been so 
important--and Congress was compelled to act.
  Madam Speaker, in working with other Members of Congress to draft a 
bill that would pay proper respect to the historic relationship our 
country maintained with the Republic of China on Taiwan, we focused on 
the implications that derecognition had for the future security of 
Taiwan.
  This was a totally bipartisan effort, including all Republicans and a 
great many conservative Democrats. And there were quite a lot of 
conservative Democrats back then when their party had a more 
conservative face.
  Among the conservative Democrats who helped so much in developing the 
Taiwan Relations Act was Clem Zablocki, a great man and the respected 
chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and to name just a few of 
many others, there were Sam Stratton of New York, Bill Nichols of 
Alabama, Richard Shelby of Alabama, Charles Bennett of Florida, Andy 
Ireland of Florida, Larry McDonald of Georgia, Sonny Montgomery of 
Mississippi, Richard Ichord of Missouri, Sam Hall of Texas, and Dan 
Daniel of Virginia.
  Madam Speaker, I am particularly proud of having had a role in 
writing section 3(a) of the Taiwan Relations Act, which reads:

       The United States will make available to Taiwan such 
     defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may 
     be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-
     defense capability.

  And of course, this has always meant that the United States is 
committed to giving Taiwan the quantitative and qualitative means to 
defend itself against Communist China.
  We were also successful in adding a section to the Taiwan Relations 
Act that clearly established the policy of the United States Government 
to ``resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would 
jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the 
people on Taiwan.''
  Indeed, the act went on to say that the ``Preservation and 
enhancement of the human rights of all the people on Taiwan are hereby 
reaffirmed as objectives of the United States.''
  Madam Speaker, all of these declarations, as part of the Taiwan 
Relations Act, are today the law of the United States. And that law 
states without question that our country must help defend the people of 
Taiwan against any attack from mainland Communist China.
  Madam Speaker, the Taiwan Relations Act has worked for the mutual 
benefit of both Taiwan and the United States exactly as those of us who 
drafted it 15 years ago hoped and believed it would.
  In all spheres--politically, economically, and socially--the Republic 
of China on Taiwan has moved into the highest rank of the newly 
developed, industrialized nations.
  Madam Speaker, Taiwan still faces many challenges. But if the 
experience of the past 15 years is any guide the future is bright.
  The political, economic, and social progress made on Taiwan is a 
shining example of what freedom-loving people can accomplish when they 
are not shackled by the chains of communism and socialism.
  On this 15th anniversary of the enactment of the Taiwan Relations 
Act, which without firing a shot or losing a life literally saved that 
threatened democracy, let us all salute the wonderful people of Taiwan.
  And let us reaffirm our pledge to work together to achieve freedom 
and human rights for all people throughout the world, especially those 
who still suffer under communism.
  Madam Speaker, that concludes my special order on the 15th 
anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act.
  I would like to take a minute, because my good friend, the gentleman 
from Michigan [David Bonior], and others had recently spoken of a 
single-payer plan that they are pushing to reform health care in 
America. I would like to talk briefly about a town meeting that I had 
in Saratoga Springs the other night.
  The town meeting was sponsored by United We Stand, and they are a 
group of people, as we all know, that is somewhat connected with Ross 
Perot, but they are made up of Republicans and Democrats and 
Independents, conservatives and liberals, and this is what I told them 
the other night. I attempted to bring them up to date on the health 
care issue as it stands here in Washington, because it is so confusing 
today.

                              {time}  1840

  I told them that would be easy because there are no less than 18 
plans, including the President's and they all change almost hourly, as 
you and I know because we see it every day.
  Nevertheless, I showed them the latest chart comparing what is 
considered to be the most serious plans, although Democrat Senate 
Majority Leader George Mitchell just unveiled I think that same day I 
was making my speech three more plans, the details of which were not 
available then, and I do not think they are available even yet. The 
eight plans on the chart that I showed them consisted of three Democrat 
bills including the President's. There were four Republican plans 
including the official Republican conference plan, and there was one 
bipartisan plan called the Bilirakis-Rowland plan, named after a 
Republican Congressman from Florida and a Democrat Congressman from 
Georgia.
  These eight plans, plus the other half dozen or so, ranged from the 
most liberal socialized medicine concepts to the most conservative free 
enterprise plans that limit Government bureaucratic interference.
  They all attempt to fix a system, and I think this is important to 
note, a system that we all know has abuses, has ripoffs, has 
bureaucratic delays, and certainly excessive costs, in my opinion.
  But the fact remains that the medical care delivery system in America 
provides by far the best quality of medicine in the entire world. Every 
other country in the world depends on our United States medical system 
for research and development, for advanced technology. And people from 
all over the world come to America to take advantage of our quality of 
medicine when illness threatens their lives or the lives of their 
family.
  Therefore, the most important question in this entire health care 
debate is, in my opinion, do we want to replace the entire system with 
a government-run bureaucracy that will make your health care decisions 
for you, and that is what I believe my good friends, the gentlemen from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior] and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
McDermott], who is the main sponsor of this single payer plan, what 
that would do, it would be a Government-run bureaucracy that would make 
your health care decisions for you, just to repeat, and that is not 
just me saying it. That is what they say about their system.
  I think when we look at that we ought to ask ourselves the other side 
of that question: Should we attempt to preserve what is good about the 
system that gives us the best quality medicine in the world and then to 
fix those areas that will allow anyone who is ill access to the system 
at an affordable cost? I think that is the other question we have to 
ask.
  More specifically, we need to keep asking ourselves this question: Do 
each of us want to control our own health care decisions? Do each of us 
want to control our own health care decisions or should we trust the 
Federal and State governments to do that for us?
  In that respect, I believe we should take a close look at the 
experience of people, particularly senior citizens in Canada, in Great 
Britain and Germany and consider what kind of health care we here in 
America could expect under a similar government-run system here in our 
country. To help evaluate those systems, I refer Members to a recent 
article in the March issue of ``Reader Digest,'' which is the world's 
most widely read magazine, for its unbiased analysis of the issue.
  The title of the article is ``Your Risk Under the Clinton Plan,'' and 
that article is subtitled, ``It Promises Health Care for Everyone, But 
What Kind of Health Care and at What Price?'' And those, Madam Speaker, 
are profound questions that I think we all have to ask ourselves.
  The article dwells at length on the serious flaws in the government-
run Canadian health care plan, and it illustrates how health rationing 
global budgets and bureaucratic decision making forces many Canadians 
to come to America for treatment. As a matter of fact, flying here on 
the plane coming back to work day before yesterday, I was reading the 
prestigious ``New England Journal of Medicine'' which just completed a 
study pointing out that one-third of all Canadian doctors sent patients 
outside the country for treatment during the past 5 years, one-third of 
all doctors in Canada had to send their patients outside the country to 
get timely treatment.
  The raises the most serious question of all. Where will Americans go 
if health rationing prevents them from receiving timely medical 
treatment and surgery for illnesses such as cancer, heart ailments, 
cataracts, hip replacements, and it goes on and on? I for one am not 
willing to gamble on a government-run bureaucracy that in my opinion 
limits choice and guarantees that those who are covered now will have 
to pay more for less, including seniors on Medicare who are cut 
substantially under the Clinton plan. That to me is not acceptable.

  I do not however believe that there is much that can be done to 
improve universal access to medical care at more affordable cost, and 
certainly those of us who are opposed to the Clinton plan or the single 
payer plan ought to have our alternatives.
  This is mine: To require insurance companies to make group insurance 
policies available to everyone at substantial savings. And believe me, 
if you are talking about paying a premium now of $4,000, if you had 
group insurance policies available to every small business in America 
we could reduce the individual cost of that policy by as much as 20 
percent. That is almost $1,000 off the cost of that policy.
  No. 2, require portability because employees who are laid off or are 
changing jobs can carry medical coverage with them. That is doable.
  Require insurance policies to cover people with preexisting 
conditions. That is doable.
  Here is one of the most important things of all, to allow 100 percent 
tax deductions for insurance premiums and out-of-pocket uncovered 
medical expenses. This will dramatically reduce the out-of-pocket cost 
of insurance for every working American.
  Right now, we all know when we sit down and keep track of all of our 
medical bills and insurance premiums and drug bills and go to 
accumulate all of those, and figure our taxes, when we get all done we 
do not save a dime under the existing system. And individuals cannot 
write off hardly anything. If we allow 100 percent tax deduction for 
insurance premiums and out-of-pocket uncovered medical expenses, that 
for all individuals and small business self-employed people, but their 
employees as well, we are going to reduce that premium out of pocket by 
almost another $800. If you are in a 33-percent tax bracket, and if you 
are paying a premium out of your pocket of $4,500, you are going to 
save $1,500. The Federal Government is going to give you back $1,500. 
That comes off the cost of your insurance premiums.
  No. 5, require meaningful tort reform that would limit attorney fees 
and limit exorbitant court awards for such things as pain and suffering 
that the rest of us have to pay for through increased insurance 
premiums. This will also drive the cost of insurance premiums down.
  Let me just tell you something. You know, if you are an American and 
you are working hard, and you have a potential lifetime earning total 
of $1 million, let us say, then why should you be able to get a 
settlement of $30 million? Anything above that $1 million is going to 
be paid for by you and me and the other insurance premium payers 
throughout America. So we ought to limit those recoveries for pain and 
suffering and those punitive damages to $500,000 or $750,000. This 
would reduce premiums another 15 percent or more. And by the time we 
end up with it, we have saved about 40 percent off the total cost of 
that insurance premium with just those three recommendations that I 
just made, considering reducing insurance costs.
  Next, retain absolute choice of doctors and medical facilities, and 
that should be every American's prerogative.
  Guarantee the preservation of Medicare for the elderly with no 
expansion to cover younger people in that Medicare plan. Right now 
there are plans to include welfare recipients and kids working part 
time in the Medicare Program.

                             {time}   1850

  And that is just the beginning of what will happen. That is what 
happened to Social Security, Madam Speaker.
  No employer mandate that would result in lost jobs: I have here in my 
briefcase a Baruch College study predicting a loss of 2 million jobs if 
the health care plan of President Clinton or the single payer goes 
through, 2 million jobs. You know, if you lose 1 million jobs, that 
drives up the unemployment rate by 1 percent, and it increases 
Government deficit spending for all social programs caused by the 1 
million by $40 billion.
  Well, 2 million unemployed means an $80 billion expenditure. Where 
are you going to get the money to pay for that?
  No. 9. To provide long-term care for the elderly both at home and 
institutionally, and I think that is affordable and can be done.
  No. 10. To provide prescription drug coverage for the elderly who 
live on fixed incomes, and that means means-testing it, because I do 
not think people with $200,000 incomes, even though they are on 
Medicare and they are entitled to it because they paid for it all those 
years, I do not think they ought to be entitled to have their 
prescription bills paid for. But I think people on fixed incomes 
should.
  And, No. 11, and perhaps most importantly, to provide catastrophic-
illness coverage for all so that families of surviving spouses are not 
wiped out after a prolonged catastrophic illness.
  There is nothing so sad to see as a man who loses his wife after a 
prolonged 20-year illness, having driven up medical bills of gosh knows 
how much, $75,000, $100,000, and then he, the surviving spouse, is left 
penniless and a ward of the State. That is wrong. We can afford to take 
care of that.
  Our Republican conference plan does.
  Those, ladies and gentlemen, are my recommendations. There are 11 of 
them, and I think that those are critical changes. I believe they are 
necessary to correct what is wrong with the system while still 
retaining the good in the system that earns us the respect of having 
the best-quality medicine in the world.
  Along with the extensive comparison chart that I showed to them and 
are available in my office, you should also have in front of you a one-
page chart listing my 11 priorities and how each is covered under those 
eight programs, under the three Democrat, the four Republican, the one 
bipartisan.
  As the health care debate heats up in the months ahead, I hope we can 
ultimately pass something along these lines, a bill that brings about 
real meaningful reform but does not threaten the quality of care or the 
level of consumer choice that has traditionally made our medical 
standards the envy of the rest of the world, and incidentally demanded 
by the American people.
  Madam Speaker, those are my thoughts on the health care issue, and at 
some time I would be glad to engage those that might support other 
plans in a debate on this issue.

                          ____________________