[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 38 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H2342-H2347]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES SUPPORT OF TAIWAN

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 148) expressing the sense to the 
Congress that the United States is committed to the military stability 
of the Taiwan Straits and United States military forces should defend 
Taiwan in the event of invasion, missile attack, or blockade by the 
People's Republic of China, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 148

       Whereas the United States began its long, peaceful, and 
     friendly relationship with the Republic of China on Taiwan in 
     1949;
       Whereas since the enactment in 1979 of the Taiwan Relations 
     Act, the policy of the United States has been based on the 
     expectation that the future relationship between the People's 
     Republic of China and Taiwan will be determined by peaceful 
     means and by mutual agreement between the parties;
       Whereas the People's Republic of China's intense efforts to 
     intimidate Taiwan have reached a level that threatens to 
     undermine stability throughout the region;
       Whereas, since the beginning of 1996, the leaders of the 
     People's Republic of China have frequently threatened to use 
     military force against Taiwan;
       Whereas for the past year the People's Republic of China 
     has conducted military maneuvers designed to intimidate 
     Taiwan both during its democratic legislative elections in 
     1995 and during the period preceding democratic presidential 
     elections in March 1996;
       Whereas these military maneuvers and tests have included 
     the firing of 6 nuclear-capable missiles approximately 100 
     miles north of Taiwan in July 1995;
       Whereas the firing of missiles near Taiwan and the 
     interruption of international shipping and aviation lanes 
     threaten both Taiwan and the political, military, and 
     commercial interests of the United States and its allies;
       Whereas in the face of such action, Taiwan is entitled to 
     defend itself from military aggression, including through the 
     development of an anti-ballistic missile defense system;
       Whereas the United States and Taiwan have enjoyed a 
     longstanding and uninterrupted friendship, which has only 
     increased in light of the remarkable economic development and 
     political liberalization in Taiwan in recent years;
       Whereas Taiwan has achieved tremendous economic success in 
     becoming the 19th largest economy in the world;
       Whereas Taiwan has reached a historic turning point in the 
     development of Chinese democracy, as on March 23, 1996, it 
     will conduct the first competitive, free, fair, direct, and 
     popular election of a head of state in over 4,000 years of 
     recorded Chinese history;
       Whereas for the past century the United States has promoted 
     democracy and economic freedom around the world, and the 
     evolution of Taiwan is an outstanding example of the success 
     of that policy;
       Whereas the Taiwan Relations Act directs the President to 
     inform the Congress promptly of any threat to Taiwan's 
     security and provides that the President and the Congress 
     shall determine, in accordance with constitutional processes, 
     appropriate United States action in response; and
       Whereas the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 rests on the 
     premise that the United States will assist Taiwan should it 
     face any effort to determine its future by other than 
     peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes: Now, 
     therefore, be it;
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) the People's Republic of China should immediately live 
     up to its commitment to the United States to work for a 
     peaceful resolution of any disagreements with Taiwan, and 
     accordingly desist from military actions designed to 
     intimidate Taiwan;
       (2) the People's Republic of China should engage in 
     negotiations to discuss any outstanding points of 
     disagreement with Taiwan without any threat of military or 
     economic coercion against Taiwan;
       (3) Taiwan has stated and should adhere to its commitment 
     to negotiate its future relations with the People's Republic 
     of China by mutual decision, not unilateral action;
       (4) the United States should maintain its capacity to 
     resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that 
     would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic 
     system, of the people on Taiwan, consistent with its 
     undertakings in the Taiwan Relations Act;
       (5) the United States should maintain a naval presence 
     sufficient to keep open the sea lanes in and near the Taiwan 
     Strait;
       (6) in the face of the several overt military threats by 
     the People's Republic of China against Taiwan, and consistent 
     with the commitment of the United States under the Taiwan 
     Relations Act, the United States should supply Taiwan with 
     defensive weapons systems, including naval vessels, aircraft, 
     and air defense, all of which are crucial to the security of 
     Taiwan; and
       (7) the United States, in accordance with the Taiwan 
     Relations Act and the constitutional process of the United 
     States, and consistent with its friendship with and 
     commitment to the democratic government and people of Taiwan, 
     should assist in defending them against invasion, missile 
     attack, or blockade by the People's Republic of China.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] will 
each be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the Asia 
and Pacific Subcommittee, Mr. Bereuter, and the ranking minority 
member, Mr. Berman for bringing this important resolution before us.
  Mr. Speaker, the administration is fond of promoting the concept that 
its policy toward China is one of constructive engagement and that it 
would be folly to attempt to isolate or contain China. It is true that 
we must engage the dictators in Beijing. The trouble is that the 
administration mistakes appeasement for constructive engagement.
  Time and time again, the administration has ignored Beijing's 
violations of MOU's and international agreements on trade, human 
rights, and weapons proliferation. This is not constructive engagement. 
This is appeasement and it is directly responsible for the current 
crises that we face.

[[Page H2343]]

  The administration must stop sweeping aside China's violations of its 
many agreements with the United States by dismissing enforcement as an 
attempt to isolate or contain China.
  Accusations about isolation, containment, and political transition 
periods avoid hard questions of how to deal pragmatically and 
effectively with a totalitarian government with enormous resources to 
cause havoc.
  If China violates an agreement it must be held accountable. 
Accountability is constructive engagement. It is appeasement to make 
excuses when Beijing does not live up to its word.
  Beijing and its apologists claim that there is a so-called cloud over 
United States-Sino relations because the Congress insisted that 
President Lee of Taiwan be allowed into our country. But the storm 
began years ago when the Communists took control of China.
  This current so-called cloud is really a smoke ring designed to hide 
the root of the problem--Democracies and dictatorships are 
fundamentally different and will always clash.
  House Concurrent Resolution 148 is a fundamental first step in making 
it clear where the United States should stand on the vital issue of 
Communist China's threats against democratic Taiwan.
  If the administration remains incapable of constructively engaging 
China regarding other American interests such as nuclear weapons 
proliferation, human rights violations, and trade, then the Congress 
will step in again so that serious situations like the current one do 
not repeat themselves.
  In 1950, Secretary of State Dean Acheson was vague about our Nation's 
commitment to South Korea, which tempted the North to attack. The 
Korean war might not have occurred had the United States been more 
clear about its interests.
  We now face a similar problem and a similar solution.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent 
Resolution 148.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, while I have some doubts about the content and timing of 
this resolution, I do intend to vote for it.
  For 24 years, United States policy toward Taiwan has been governed by 
the one-China policy that has been enunciated and reaffirmed in three 
communiques. It is legally established in the Taiwan Relations Act.
  The essence of that policy is that the United States acknowledges 
that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Straits maintain there is 
but one China, and Taiwan is a part of China. We have chosen 
deliberately and consciously not to challenge that position. That means 
that the United States has chosen not to endorse the concept of an 
independent Taiwan or the concept of two Chinas. That policy has been 
followed by six Presidents, three Republican and three Democratic.
  This is policy that has helped for the past generation to secure 
peace and stability and promote remarkable economic growth in East 
Asia. It is a policy that has enabled Taiwan and China to flourish, and 
it has served United States interests well. The Taiwan Relations Act, 
which lays out the legal basis for our relationship with Taiwan, 
contains no commitment to come to Taiwan's assistance in case of 
military threats or attack by the PRC.
  Members should carefully note that there is today no commitment to 
send troops to defend Taiwan or otherwise to use armed force to repel 
an attack against Taiwan. The Taiwan Relations Act was carefully 
written to give the United States maximum flexibility in dealing with 
Chinese threats to Taiwan.
  The resolution before us today sends a somewhat different signal 
about U.S. policy. It may be only a sense-of-Congress resolution, it 
may not spell out what the United States must do to assist in defending 
Taiwan, it may stipulate United States actions to assist in defending 
Taiwan be in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act, but the 
resolution appears to push American policy further than it has ever 
gone before in a quarter of a century. It appears to increase the 
United States commitment to defend Taiwan, and many of the cosponsors 
make this claim for the resolution. It articulates policy in a 
different way than does the President. It could confuse the people in 
leadership of Taiwan, of China, and of our many friends in East Asia.
  My concern is that because its lack of reference to the one-China 
policy and because of its rephrasing of the United States commitment to 
Taiwan, the United States should assist in defending Taiwan. This 
resolution could be subject to misinterpretation.
  Now I also have some concerns about the resolution's timing. We are 
facing a very serious situation in East Asia. Missiles are flying, live 
ammunition is being fired, sea lanes and air corridors have been shut 
down. Our friends in Taiwan feel, with justification, that they are 
being bullied and coerced. Our relationship with China is strained. Our 
friends in Tokyo and elsewhere in Asia are alarmed by China's 
provocative actions, but they also worry about our reaction.

                              {time}  1515

  This, in short, is a time for restraint and negotiation. But, Mr. 
Speaker, a vote against this resolution sends the wrong message. A vote 
against this message misleads Beijing about congressional opposition to 
its recent outrageous actions in the Taiwan Strait. A no vote on this 
resolution leads the PRC leadership to the erroneous conclusion that 
the Congress is not united in its condemnation of China's bullying 
tactics, so I plan to vote for the resolution, but with the reservation 
I have stated.
  Let me also say a word to the administration. This resolution 
indicates that the administration and the Congress are drifting apart 
on China policy. This resolution illustrates that the administration 
has been too timid. I believe the President must now explain fully the 
administration's policy on China. Now is the time for a clear, 
authoritative statement from the President on what we expect of the 
United States-China relationship and what we see as China's role in the 
world. The administration should consider this resolution a wake-up 
call. The long-standing consensus on China between the Congress and the 
administration is eroding. The President and the Congress must reforge 
a consensus policy toward China.
  I would like to ask the principal author of the resolution what it 
means when it says the United States should assist in defending Taiwan? 
Is that a change in present policy? Does it mean, for example, that we 
are prepared to commit United States military forces to defend Taiwan 
under any and all circumstances? I wonder if the gentleman could give 
us some interpretation of the words ``should assist in defending 
Taiwan?''
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAMILTON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, while the initial sponsor is not on the 
floor at this time, I will attempt to answer the gentleman's inquiry. I 
believe what this infers is that while not necessarily sending military 
forces, it would mean trying to provide essential material and support 
to Taiwan in the event that they were being invaded.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, does the gentleman see 
in the resolution any extension of our obligation beyond the Taiwan 
Relations Act, or just a reaffirmation of it?
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I think 
it is intended to be a reaffirmation of what is set forth in the act.
  Mr. HAMILTON. I find the gentleman's response reassuring, and I 
commend the gentleman for that. I urge the adoption of the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letters for the Record:

         Committee on International Relations, House of 
           Representatives,
                                   Washington, DC, March 15, 1996.
     Hon. Warren M. Christopher,
     Secretary of State, Department of State, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: I am writing to express my concerns 
     about H. Con. Res. 148, relating to U.S. policy toward 
     Taiwan, which was adopted yesterday by the House Committee on 
     International Relations.
       In my judgment, this resolution changes in a substantive 
     and obvious way the articulation of a twenty-four year policy 
     supported by six presidents. The resolution appears to rachet 
     up our commitment to Taiwan and to

[[Page H2344]]

     promise a level of support for Taiwan that we have declined 
     to give for the past quarter century. It avoids any 
     reaffirmation of the one-China policy. As a consequence, it 
     appears to create a major difference between the Congress and 
     the executive branch.
       I am writing now to ask for more details about your views 
     on this resolution. A representative of the State Department 
     has testified that the administration does not support this 
     resolution.
       Why do you not support the resolution?
       Does this mean that you oppose it?
       What is the difference between not supporting, and 
     opposing?
       Is paragraph 7 of the resolved clause the only provision to 
     which the administration objects?
       What precisely is the nature of your concerns about this 
     paragraph?
       Will the resolution help U.S.-China relations, or act as a 
     hindrance?
       If the latter, how much damage will it do to U.S.-China 
     relations?
       I would appreciate an answer to this letter by Monday, 
     since there is a good chance the full House will be asked to 
     act upon this resolution early next week.
       With best regards,
           Sincerely,
                                                  Lee H. Hamilton,
     Ranking Democratic Member.
                                                                    ____



                                     U.S. Department of State,

                                   Washington, DC, March 19, 1996.
     Hon. Lee H. Hamilton,
     House of Representatives.
       Dear Mr. Hamilton: Thank you for your letter of March 15 
     asking for the Administration's position on H. Con. Res. 148 
     regarding the security of Taiwan.
       The Administration agrees with the objective of the 
     resolution's sponsors to make clear to the People's Republic 
     of China that a resort to force with respect to Taiwan would 
     directly involve American national interests and would carry 
     grave risks. We believe there should be no uncertainties 
     about this in Beijing, Taipei or anywhere else. It is 
     important that the Congress and Administration speak in a 
     unified fashion to make clear that the United States feels 
     strongly about the ability of the people of Taiwan to enjoy a 
     peaceful future.
       However, the Administration cannot support the resolution 
     as it is currently formulated. Paragraph 7 of the resolved 
     clause uses language that does not appear in the Taiwan 
     Relations Act (TRA). This passage, in stating that the United 
     States should ``assist in defending'' Taiwan against 
     invasion, missile attack or blockade by the PRC, could be 
     interpreted as expressing an opinion taking us beyond the 
     carefully formulated undertakings embodied in the TRA.
       Although the PRC military exercises have been provocative 
     and have raised tensions in the area, they have not 
     constituted a threat to the security or the social or 
     economic system of Taiwan. It is our understanding that the 
     Taiwan authorities agree with our assessment of the 
     situation. Should there be a threat to Taiwan's security, we 
     would promptly meet our obligation under the TRA to consult 
     with Congress on an appropriate response.
       We will continue to convey our deep concern to Beijing in 
     unmistakable fashion through our statements and our actions. 
     We support a similar resolution in the Senate which uses 
     formulations we believe would be more helpful to our common 
     efforts to restore stability and reduce tensions in the area.
       We hope this information is responsive to your concerns. 
     Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.
           Sincerely,

                                               Barbara Larkin,

                                       Acting Assistant Secretary,
                                              Legislative Affairs.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his 
supportive comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, who has been a staunch advocate of democracy in Taiwan and one 
of the major sponsors of this legislation.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you exactly what it means. But, 
first of all, let me say this: Why should the United States come to the 
rescue of a small island country halfway around the world? Let me tell 
you why: Because we are proud Americans and we pay our debts. For those 
that might not be able to remember, because the people of Taiwan, they 
came to our rescue. We, the United States of America, standing shoulder 
to shoulder against the Japanese imperialists that threatened our 
freedoms. Do you remember that in World War II? Shoulder to shoulder 
they stood with us when we were about to lose that war. Then standing 
shoulder to shoulder again, for 40 years, they were an integral link in 
the chain of defense against the spread of deadly, atheistic communism, 
that threatened the freedoms of every single American in this world. 
They stood as one of the strongest links in that chain of defense 
against the spread of that deadly communism.
  So, yes, we have a moral obligation to defend them against that same 
deadly, atheistic communism that now threatens their very freedoms, 
that democracy, that is similar to our own.
  But, beyond that, let me tell you something: We owe it to them 
because we have to abide by U.S. law. I helped write the Taiwan 
Relations Act in 1979, along with you two gentlemen. Let me tell you 
what it says. It says that we, the United States of America, will 
supply the country of Taiwan with qualitative and quantitative weaponry 
to help them defend themselves.
  Let me tell you more importantly what it says, and I will say this to 
my good friend, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], and the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. You read the Taiwan Relations 
Act. It says the United States will stand ready and will be prepared to 
help defend Taiwan, and this answers your question, Lee, against 
military attack, from whomever, or economic embargo affecting both sea 
and air lanes.
  Every Member of this Congress has an obligation to come over here and 
obey the U.S. law and vote for it, and then we ought to defend them 
against that attack. That is what the law says.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, America is now facing a potential 
military confrontation in the Straits of Taiwan, or the Taiwan Straits 
as they are called. We should all come together, and that is what this 
piece of legislation does, to make certain that the Communist regime on 
the mainland understands that we are united in our opposition to any 
use of force by the mainland on Taiwan, and that the United States will 
respond militarily, if necessary, if force is used against the Republic 
of China on Taiwan.
  But this situation was a long time in coming. It was a long time in 
the making. Mistakes have been made, and let us quit making those 
mistakes.
  The official policy of this administration has been strategic 
ambiguity with the Communist dictatorship on the mainland. Ambiguity 
with dictatorships does not work. If anything is a lesson we should 
have learned in the past, it is that. The Chinese communists have 
mistaken our ambiguity for weakness. When this administration decoupled 
all consideration of trade policy with our discussions with the 
Communist regime in China on human rights, they did not take that as a 
sign of good faith from us we needed to discuss human rights. They took 
that as a sign of weakness.
  This President proved himself the worst enemy of human rights to ever 
serve as President of the United States by decoupling any consideration 
of human rights with trade discussions with the largest and most 
heinous opponent and oppressor of people on this planet, the Communist 
dictatorship in China.
  What we have to do now is to reassert to those dictators on the 
mainland of China that we side with the democratic people of the world, 
especially in the Republic of China, and we will not tolerate their 
expansionism or their threats or any other activities that threaten 
their neighbors. We are a country that stands for human rights and 
peace. We must be strong. That is what Beijing needs to hear. That is 
what this resolution is all about.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to understand precisely the 
language of the United States commitment to Taiwan. The Taiwan 
Relations Act stipulates that it is United States policy to consider 
any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful 
means, including boycotts or embargoes, a matter of grave concern to 
the United States.
  The act also promises that the United States ``will make available to 
Taiwan such defense articles and defense services as may be necessary 
to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is our commitment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Rose].

[[Page H2345]]

  (Mr. ROSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Speaker, it is, in my opinion, a sad day that we have 
come to this. It is sad that we even have to pass this resolution, 148.
  I support it. I associate myself with the comments of my colleague, 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], and the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman], and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], and 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Rhorabacher], for what they have 
observed about the situation.
  Unfortunately, they are correct. I want to reflect just a moment on a 
few things that I think our dear friends on the mainland should 
consider, and that is the reason America was formed as a Nation. After 
the revolution, Lafayette went back home to France and said, ``Freedom 
has found a home, and it is America.'' The basic reason this country 
was formed was to give freedom and liberty a home in the world. To 
varying degrees, we have lived up to that heritage, some ways, very 
disappointing to me and many Americans, but basically that is our 
heritage. And when we give a gift like most-favored-nation treaty 
status to a country somewhere in the world, we have a right to demand 
that in return for that gift, that they respect the basic reasons for 
the founding of our country, the basic principles that America believes 
in, and it is freedom and liberty, and it is human rights.
  Unfortunately, the principles of Jefferson, Madison, and Washington 
go out the window when the dollar sign appears, and good old trade has 
clouded our eyes about holding people's feet to the fire on the 
principles for which this country was founded.
  I strongly support 148. I regret deeply its necessity. But I would 
urge all in this body to watch carefully at the final vote on 148, and 
you will get a clear picture of the depth of the feeling of this 
Congress, of the American people, as to how we feel about this very 
important, yet symbolic issue.
  Mr. Speaker, please support 148.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz].
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, in less than 96 hours, Taiwan will hold 
its first-ever direct Presidential election. The election is a 
culmination of Taiwanese transition from 50 years of authoritarian rule 
to full-fledged democracy. Freedom and democracy in Taiwan, however, 
are apparently unacceptable to the People's Republic of China.
  Resentful of Taiwan's growing free market economic prosperity, 
Beijing apparently fears that Taiwan will be seen as a model for 
political reform on the mainland, and in a blatant show of intimidation 
the PRC is today conducting yet another in a series of military 
exercises just miles from Taiwan's largest cities.
  House Concurrent Resolution 148 strongly, and in no uncertain terms, 
condemns China's efforts to intimidate Taiwan. It urges peaceful 
relations between Beijing and Taiwan and expresses the sense of 
Congress that the United States should help Taiwan defend itself.
  Mr. Speaker, what is at stake here is not just the viability of 
democracy in Taiwan, but the peace and security of the entire Asiatic 
region and the world. Beijing's act of aggression must not be allowed 
to stand. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Cox resolution today and 
commend the gentleman for his leadership in bringing this legislation 
to the floor and the chairman of the full committee for expeditiously 
getting this through committee. I think this is a very important 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been in serious disagreement with the Clinton 
administration on its China policy in relationship to trade, human 
rights, and proliferation, but I do think on the issue of Taiwan that 
the administration's actions have been prudent and appropriate. I think 
they have been completely consistent with Mr. Cox's resolution. I 
believe that we are voting for this resolution in support of the 
actions of the administration that calls for a peaceful resolution of 
the reunification issue between China and Taiwan, and that calls for a 
cessation of the intimidation of the political process and the economic 
progress on Taiwan.
  These missiles, armed missiles, that the Chinese are lobbing at 
Taiwan, are lobbed not only against Taiwan, but against democracy, and 
it is important for this body to stand firm in our support of democracy 
in Taiwan.
  I commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], distinguished subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I am concerned about what is taking 
place here in Taiwan. This is serious business. This week the people of 
Taiwan will go to the polls for the first free and open election in 
Taiwan's history. It is a terrible irony that at the very moment when 
democracy triumphs, Taiwan is facing the greatest threat in a 
generation.
  This resolution that we are going to vote on embodies a bedrock 
principle of American policy, that the United States will assist the 
democracies of the world in defending against tyranny and oppression. 
My only argument with the resolution I am going to vote for is I do not 
think it is explicit enough. I think when we send a message, we should 
send a real message, and I think that what we are doing is obfuscating 
too much with this resolution. Either we stand with Taiwan or we do 
not. If we stand with Taiwan, we should say it forthrightly. This is 
where we stand because China, the rulers in China do not like 
vacillation. They do not like weakness. Either we are with them or 
against them. I think they respect their friends, they respect their 
enemies. But I do not think that in between we send a strong message.
  Other than that, I think it is a great resolution. Again, the 
resolution embodies a bedrock principle.
  The leaders of Beijing should make no mistake about it. As far as I 
am concerned in voting on this, Congress is sending a clear message 
that the United States will continue to play a role and a very active 
role in the future of Taiwan and that we will stand behind our 
commitment. At the same time, I think Congress is sending a message to 
the Clinton administration that we need clear, consistent, and workable 
strategy in working with China.
  I commend, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues who have spoken here before on 
this issue because I think they have been right on target and focused 
on the issue.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for this resolution, 
but I am very troubled about it. What we are doing is sending a variety 
of messages. The situation is very, very tense. Last time we sent a 
signal to Taiwan that we should invite its President here, I voted for 
that. It caused irreparable damage to our foreign policy, especially 
our relationship with China.
  I know that we are all concerned about Chinese policy toward the 
United States, toward human rights, toward nonproliferation. I 
recognize that. But there are 2.25 billion people there, and we need to 
start getting along with them. I found the Chinese actions outrageous 
on a number of issues, but at the same time what we are doing here 
today is possibly exacerbating an already very tense situation.
  We are sending different signals about what U.S. policy is. We have 
got the executive branch policy and now we have a new policy that the 
House of Representatives is going to send. A key clause of this 
resolution says, in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act and the 
constitutional process of the United States, the United States

[[Page H2346]]

should assist in defending against invasion, missile attack, or 
blockade by the People's Republic of China.
  It may only be a sense of Congress resolution. It may not spell out 
what the United States must do in assisting and defending Taiwan. It 
might stipulate that United States actions to assist in defending 
Taiwan must be in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act. But this 
resolution appears to push American policy further than it has ever 
gone in a quarter century.
  President Nixon and Henry Kissinger with the Shanghai Communique, 
with the Taiwan Relations Act, spelled out these issues rather 
ambiguously and for a reason. It worked. The policy, the two-China 
policy over the years has worked.
  Where we are now is in a situation where I am very, very concerned 
that we are sending a mixed message. A vote against this resolution 
also sends a wrong message as well. A vote against this resolution 
misleads Beijing about congressional opposition to its totally 
outrageous action in the Taiwan Straits. A no vote on this resolution 
leads the leadership in China to the erroneous conclusion that the 
Congress is not united in its condemnation of China's bullying tactics.
  So for once I think the best kind of policy that we have toward this 
situation is to give the President flexibility, give the Secretary of 
Defense some flexibility in dealing with a potential contingency action 
but not go out there with a dramatic House of Representatives vote 
which may provoke China into doing something irrational, which may 
bring us to a situation which, instead of lessening the tension, we are 
tying the hands of the executive branch where we are perhaps misreading 
a situation with Taiwan.

  Yes, we should defend Taiwan. They are our friends. We have all been 
there many times. But why do we have to spell this out in such a 
dramatic way? Why can we not let the executive branch conduct foreign 
policy in a way that does not tie their hands?
  This legislation on Taiwan will create confusion in our policy toward 
Taiwan.
  The legislation never mentions the one-China policy. It says that the 
United States should assist in defending Taiwan against invasion, 
missile attack, or blockade by the People's Republic of China. What is 
different about this legislation than the Taiwan Relations Act?
  This bill, which is supposed to send a clear signal to the Chinese, 
actually muddles the signals that the Chinese will get. The Chinese 
will view this as new legislation, and may see it as unnecessarily 
provocative.
  Reluctantly, I will vote for this bill because the Congress should 
not appear split over policy toward China. A split in the Congress may 
indicate to the Chinese that they can do what they will in the region 
without a strong response from the United States.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the previous 
speaker, and I do respect him, I think he overstates the importance of 
the vote for President Li's visa. I believe the actions on the part of 
the Chinese Government would be the same with or without the vote that 
the Congress took at that time. I want the Record to show that.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], chairman of our 
Republican policy committee and the sponsor of this resolution.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of my 
colleagues, particularly on the Committee on International Relations, 
the chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne], 
chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lantos], and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], 
the Democratic and Republican cochairs respectively of the 
Congressional Human Rights Caucus and all of the Members, Democrat and 
Republican, who stand in support of the principles of freedom and 
democracy embodied in this resolution today.
  This is a strongly bipartisan resolution. It is in strong support of 
America's longstanding foreign policy vis-a-vis both Taiwan and the 
People's Republic of China since 1979.
  Specifically, we do and will continue to support the peaceful dialog 
between Taiwan and Communist China. We will support whatever 
arrangements they peaceably make between themselves. We shall not 
impose our own view as to their futures. But we expect the People's 
Republic of China and Taiwan to live up to their respective commitments 
to a peaceful process.
  In the Shanghai communique of 1982, the People's Republic of China 
pledged to the United States that they would pursue peaceful rather 
than violent means of settling the question of the future of Taiwan. 
Since that time, in fact since 1979, and the Taiwan Relations Act, this 
Congress and every President has supported democracy and its 
development on Taiwan. What we will see this Saturday is the full 
flowering of that successful policy.
  We will see following last year's free, open, fair, and democratic 
legislative elections on Taiwan, the first ever free, fair, open, and 
democratic election for the head of Government in Chinese history, in 
over 4,000 years of recorded Chinese history.
  Everyone in America and everyone in this Congress applauds that 
development. But the Communists who are jockeying for position and 
power in Beijing this moment feel threatened alone by that democracy 
and that freedom and, therefore, they are using this military campaign 
to influence the vote on Saturday, to intimidate Taiwanese democracy 
and to make it plain that they believe they have a right, not accorded 
them in law or nature, to seize Taiwan, its people, and its Government 
by military force. If that happens, there is no question what would be 
the United States response indeed what would be the response of the 
free world. We would be there to defend the free people and the open 
society and the democracy on Taiwan.
  Since that is the case, it is vitally important that we make that 
plain, diplomatically, privately, and publicly to the rulers in 
Beijing. They must not wage a campaign of assault and military 
aggression against Taiwan on the mistaken premise that the United 
States would not use force.
  Unfortunately, some in the administration made comments to this 
effect over the period of the last year and a half. Right now there is 
not much question. The United States military is present in the Taiwan 
Straits as we speak, and another carrier is steaming its way there from 
the Persian Gulf. The President needs to be supported in these 
communications with the P.R.C. There cannot be any doubt. The time for 
ambiguity is over and the time for clarity is upon us.
  Our friendship with the People's Republic of China and Taiwan, 
different in each case, based chiefly on mercantile and trade interests 
in the one and on our sharing of democratic values on the other, would 
only be disrupted by war in the Taiwan Straits. We have a strong 
interest in peace. The People's Republic of China is America's sixth-
largest trading partner. Taiwan is our seventh-largest trading partner.

  The P.R.C. runs, in fact, the largest trade deficit with America. It 
is true that Taiwan, in fact, buys more from the United States of 
America than does the People's Republic of China. We certainly have 
nothing to gain in a material sense from war in the Taiwan Straits.
  Likewise, we have nothing to gain from the loss of the gains of 
freedom and democracy on Taiwan over these last many years. Today we 
will send a strong message of support and encouragement for our foreign 
policy of so many administrations, so many years and decades, of 
friendship toward the democracy and free and open society on Taiwan and 
of support for continued peaceful discussions between the People's 
Republic of China and the Government on Taiwan about their future 
relationship.
  The free world will defend democracy, if it should come to that. But 
we wish to have peace through clarity and through strength rather than 
war through weak negotiation. Lest we be misjudged, we pass this 
resolution today. Again, I want to congratulate my Republican and 
Democratic cosponsors, including all of the House leadership behind 
this resolution today.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his very poignant 
and eloquent remarks in support of the resolution and want to commend 
him for his hard work.

[[Page H2347]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], chairman of our Subcommittee on Asia and the 
Pacific of our House Committee on International Relations.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 148 addresses 
the highly volatile situation in the Taiwan Strait as the P.R.C. has 
crudely sought to intimidate the people of Taiwan on the eve of 
national elections. China's missile tests, live-fire exercises, and 
huge amphibious force opposite Taiwan have been quite rightly labeled 
as ``acts of terrorism'' by Speaker Gingrich.
  This Member commends the distinguished member from California, Mr. 
Cox for his initiative in drafting House Concurrent Resolution 148 in 
consultation with this Member and others, and the distinguished 
chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Mr. Gilman for 
his successful effort to obtain quick committee action on the 
resolution unanimously reported from the subcommittee I chair. The 
resolution passed the committee by voice vote with overwhelming 
bipartisan support.
  At this precarious point, Mr. Speaker, miscalculation and 
recklessness by either party could lead to catastrophe. Many Members of 
this House--Republican and Democrat alike--were concerned that the 
administration's initial reaction of deliberate and calculated 
ambiguity did not convey an adequate expression of U.S. resolve. This 
Member and others believe it is necessary to send an unambiguous signal 
that the United States would not sit idly by were Taiwan to be 
attacked. The decision to send a second Navy aircraft carrier group to 
join the one already in the waters near Taiwan is an important 
demonstration of United States intent. House Concurrent Resolution 148 
seeks to add some clarity and consistency in our policy vis-a-vis 
Taiwan's security and Chinese threats.
  This Member would emphasize that it is not the intention of House 
Concurrent Resolution 148 to be anti-P.R.C. when it criticizes 
Beijing's coercive activities. Nor does the resolution offer 
unequivocal support of all Taiwanese policies or actions. The United 
States is not seeking to create new adversaries where none need exist, 
and we must not be stampeded into adopting policies that are contrary 
to the U.S. national interest. For example, while we enthusiastically 
support and congratulate Taiwan's economic success and democratic 
progress, the United States is not endorsing the efforts of some 
Taiwanese politicians to enhance Taiwan's position in the United 
Nations and other international organizations which require statehood. 
Taiwan's leaders have been--and should continue to be--very careful 
about such statements. Unilateral actions to establish an independent 
Taiwan--which Taiwan's leaders consistently claim they are not 
seeking--would be extremely dangerous, and would be inconsistent with 
the policies of five successive United States administrations from both 
political parties.
  The purpose of House Concurrent Resolution 148 is simply to make very 
clear to Beijing that the United States is committed--consistent with 
the Taiwan Relations Act--to assist in the defense of Taiwan in the 
event of an invasion, attack, or blockade. It is hoped that this 
resolution will have a salutary deterrent effect by sending a clear and 
unequivocal expression of support for peaceful resolution of Taiwan's 
future status--something both sides say they support--and reaffirming 
our rejection of any attempt to resolve the issue through the use of 
force.
  This Member urges all his colleagues to support House Concurrent 
Resolution 148 to send a clear signal to Beijing that the United States 
will not tolerate bullying of our friends in Taiwan.

                          ____________________