[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 91 (Friday, July 10, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7915-S7919]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           AFFIRMING THE UNITED STATES COMMITMENTS TO TAIWAN

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Under the previous order, the 
Foreign Relations Committee is discharged from Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 107, and the Senate will now proceed to its consideration, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 107) affirming the 
     United States commitments to Taiwan.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is about to vote on 
S. Con. Res. 107, introduced by Senator Torricelli, myself and many 
others earlier this week. This resolution was necessary to address the 
uncertainty created by President Clinton's remarks in Shanghai on his 
recent trip to China.
  Our resolution reaffirms our commitments to Taiwan as spelled out in 
the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act. That act is the law of the land. 
Successive Presidents have reached bilateral agreements with the 
People's Republic of China, but they have never been submitted to the 
Senate for ratification. They are not binding on the United States. The 
Taiwan Relations Act is.
  It is unfortunate the President chose to lay out a new course on 
Taiwan--unfortunately it was done in Shanghai, unfortunately it was 
done without any consultation with Congress, and unfortunately it was 
done without consultation with the democratic government of Taiwan.
  It is also unfortunate the President did not apparently even seek to 
get China's leaders to renounce the use of force against Taiwan. 
Instead, he said exactly what Beijing wanted to hear.
  One likely effect of the President's statements is to strengthen the 
voices in Taiwan seeking full independence. While seeking to please 
Beijing, he has strengthened those in Taiwan who argue the United 
States cannot be trusted as an ally.
  President Clinton's statements have emboldened Beijing in its efforts 
to intimidate Taiwan. A Chinese official told Taiwan to ``face 
reality.'' The

[[Page S7916]]

Washington Post reports today the Beijing plans ``to use the remarks as 
a lever to force Taiwan into political talks on reunification.''
  The article also reports that the remarks ``underscore the important 
role the United States has played in forcing Taiwan to the bargaining 
table.''
  Chinese officials understand what Clinton officials deny: The 
President's remarks were a major victory for Beijing and major blow to 
democratic Taiwan.
  Passage of this resolution sends a powerful signal that the Senate is 
not accepting President Clinton's new policy. It is a strong statement 
coming so soon after his return to the United States.
  But passage of this resolution will not be the end of our efforts to 
try to understand the administration's new policy on Taiwan. 
Administration spokesmen have said they have not changed policy, when 
the opposite is obvious.
  We will explore whether the administration stands by its 1994 Taiwan 
Policy Review. That review pledged to upgrade relations with Taiwan. 
That review pledged to support Taiwan's participation in certain 
international organizations. Is this still administration policy?
  We also will try to determine whether the administration still 
adheres to the ``Six Assurances'' made to the Senate in 1982: No date 
for ending arms sales to Taiwan; no prior consultations with Beijing on 
arms sales to Taiwan; no U.S. mediation role between Taipei and 
Beijing; no agreement to alter the Taiwan Relations Act; no change in 
the United States position regarding Taiwan's sovereignty; and no 
pressure on Taiwan to enter into negotiations with Beijing.
  We will ask the administration if they still adhere to these 
assurances given to the Senate after the Third Communique was reached 
in 1982.
  This resolution is an important step and a timely step. But it is not 
the end of repairing the damage from the President's statements in 
China.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I rise this morning in support of the 
resolution on Taiwan.
  My expectations for the recent summit meeting in the PRC were, 
frankly, not high. Summit meetings such as the one in Beijing rarely 
provide the atmosphere for momentous policy breakthroughs. Rather, they 
are an important opportunity for leaders to exchange views and to 
discuss further avenues of bilateral cooperation. This summit then, 
viewed from that standpoint, met expectations.
  And I must say, that I was encouraged by the willingness of the PRC 
to broadcast both the Clinton-Jiang press conference and the 
President's speech from Beijing Daxue in Beijing. Clearly, that 
decision was an important step in the PRC's continuing--albeit slow--
progress toward further openness.
  But Mr. President, I was disturbed by the President's pronouncements 
on Taiwan and the ``three noes.'' The PRC-Taiwan-US relationship is a 
very complex one. While it certainly can be argued that the President's 
statement was simply a restatement of actual U.S. policy on Taiwan, in 
a culture, on both sides of the Taiwan Straits, where nuances are 
everything, I believe that the statement sent the worst possible 
signals to both sides.
  First, the statement was the first time that a President of the 
United States has publicly adopted the PRC policy of the ``three 
noes.'' While--as the President's national security adviser pointed out 
to me in a meeting yesterday--it is true that both he and Secretary 
Albright have made similar statements in the past, and it is true that 
in many ways the statement was simply a restatement of implicit U.S. 
policies, the fact that the pronouncement came directly from the 
President gives it a special gravity in Chinese eyes.
  Second, it occurred while the President was still in the PRC, during 
the first visit of an American President since 1989, and more ominously 
for the Taiwanese, in Shanghai, the site of what they regard as the 
infamous Shanghai Communique.
  Third, to me the statement bore all the markings of a quid pro quo. 
Any outside observer looking at the give-and-take of the summit would 
see that the PRC gave the U.S. four unprecedented opportunities for the 
President to make live statements on Chinese TV and radio. What did the 
PRC get in return in what for both sides is always supposed to be a 
zero-sum game, they might ask? Well, aside from the reception in 
Tiananmen Square, the only other concession to the PRC I can find is 
the Taiwan statement.
  And let there be no doubt, Mr. President, the statement was a useful 
concession to the PRC. Beijing officials have stated that they intend 
to use the President's remarks as a lever to force Taiwan into 
political talks on reunification. The Foreign Ministry stated yesterday 
that Clinton's statement has ``positive implications for the resolution 
of the Taiwan question.'' Tang Shubei, the Vice President of the PRC's 
Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) with whom I 
have discussed the Taiwan issue on several occasions, has said that the 
remarks helped the PRC: ``This has provided favorable conditions for 
the development of cross-strait relations.''
  It seems to me that the President could have simply said, when asked, 
``There has been no change in the policy of the United States on the 
Taiwan question'' or ``The United States' position on the Taiwan 
question remains the same'' or words to that effect. Instead, he made a 
conscious decision to explicitly adopt the PRC's ``three noes'' policy. 
Such a decision was hardly accidental, and so I must ask why that 
decision was made. And in the total absence of any other rational 
explanation from the White House, I and others can only conclude that 
the statement was some sort of quid pro quo.
  Fourth, and most disturbing to me, the President explicitly stated 
that the United States will not under any circumstances support the 
independence of Taiwan. While it could be said that this policy is 
implicit in the fact that the United States supports the ``one China'' 
policy and does not support ``two Chinas'' or ``one China one Taiwan,'' 
it is the first time in my knowledge that it has been publicly 
enunciated in this manner. In addition, it seems to me to completely 
rule out a bid for independence even if the PRC uses force to reunify 
with Taiwan--a course of action it has pointedly refused to rule out.
  So Mr. President, I think it only proper under these unfortunate 
circumstances that the Congress make clear its position on the status 
of Taiwan. For that reason, I support the resolution and urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is acting 
with swift resolve in passing this important resolution reaffirming our 
commitments and support to the people and government of Taiwan. This is 
an important statement, which I hope gives some sense of reassurance to 
our friends in Taiwan that the United States will not turn its back on 
the right of any people to choose the path of democracy and freedom. 
And that we will not waiver in our support simply for political 
expediency.
  Yesterday before the Senate Finance Committee, I asked our Secretary 
of State Madeleine Albright about the President's statements in China. 
Well, to no real surprise, the Secretary had to pretend that there has 
been no policy change on Taiwan since official relations were 
terminated with Taiwan in 1979. Mr. President, this is an indefensible 
line; the Administration clearly agreed to China's position on the 
Three No's''; possibly as early as when when President Jiang was here 
in Washington, D.C. last October, but most certainly reiterated by 
President Clinton himself while in China last month. Make no mistake 
about it, this is a policy change--and a dangerous one at that.
  The Washington Post this morning has reported that the People's 
Republic of China is already using President Clinton's statements for 
leverage to bring Taiwan to the bargaining table. While this 
Administration claims it would never force Taiwan to negotiate with 
Beijing, it has done so by slowly taking away all its negotiating cards 
in the middle of the night and without consultation. I ask unanimous 
consent that this article appear in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks.

[[Page S7917]]

  Mr. President, the United States is the greatest example for what 
democracy can accomplish; we are the greatest advocate for democracy 
and freedom in the history of mankind. But for some strange reason, the 
President of the United States chose to publicly handcuff the ability 
of the 21 million people in Taiwan to pursue the right of democracy. 
Will this deter others from summoning the courage to pursue the path of 
freedom? I hope not, but if the example is there that the United States 
will not support the quest; than I think it is remains more than a 
possibility.
  Indeed, this a dark day for democracy and freedom. While I am pleased 
that the Senate is making this important statement, I fear that the 
damage has been done.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

               [From the Washington Post, July 10, 1998]

    China Tells Taiwan to ``Face Reality'' Reunification Talks Urged

                           (By John Pomfret)

       Beijing, July 9--China urged Taiwan today to ``face 
     reality'' and agree to talks on eventual reunification with 
     China following comments by President Clinton that the United 
     States will not support an independent Taiwan.
       Taiwan, meanwhile, announced it had agreed to a visit by a 
     senior Beijing negotiator to prepare for resumption of high-
     level dialogue between the two rivals, separated by the 100-
     mile-wide Taiwan Strait.
       The developments indicate that after a three-year freeze, 
     talks could begin as early as this fall between the two 
     sides. They also underscore the important role the United 
     States has played in forcing Taiwan to the bargaining table. 
     Clinton's statement, during his recent nine-day trip to 
     China, was taken as a significant defeat in Taiwan even 
     though U.S. officials contended it was simply a reiteration 
     of U.S. policy.
       Clinton's June 30 remarks in Shanghai made clear the United 
     States would not support any formal independence bid by the 
     island of 21 million people, or a policy backing ``one China, 
     one Taiwan,'' or ``two Chinas.'' Clinton also said the United 
     States will oppose any Taiwanese bid to join international 
     bodies that accept only sovereign states as members.
       Although the policy was first enunciated in October, 
     Clinton himself had never said it publicly before. Thus, it 
     was taken as a major defeat in Taiwan, which relies on the 
     United States for most of its political support and weapons. 
     In Washington, Clinton's statement has drawn some criticism. 
     On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) 
     called Clinton's remarks counterproductive, and he threatened 
     unspecified congressional action.
       The Beijing government, which views Taiwan as a renegade 
     Chinese province, has said it is satisfied with Clinton's 
     remarks, even though it had tried to have Clinton commit them 
     to writing. Chinese officials have said they plan to use the 
     remarks as a lever to force Taiwan into political talks on 
     reunification. Taiwanese officials say they want to limit any 
     new talks to specific issues, such as immigration, cross-
     border crime, fishing rights and protection of investments. 
     China rejects this limited approach and insists a broader 
     discussion of reunification is necessary for improved ties.
       Taiwan and China ostensibly have been separated since 1895, 
     when Japan occupied the island following its victory over 
     Imperial China in the Sino-Japanese War. In 1949, Nationalist 
     Chinese leader Chiang Kai-shek fled to Taiwan from the 
     mainland after his forces lost a civil war to Chinese 
     Communist forces led by Mao Zedong. Since then, the two sides 
     have moved further away from each other--in both economic and 
     political development.
       In Beijing, Foreign Ministry spokesman Tang Guoqiang said 
     Clinton's statement has ``positive implications for the 
     resolution of the Taiwan question,'' and he added: ``We hope 
     that Taiwan authorities will get a clear understanding of the 
     situation, face reality and place importance on the national 
     interest.
       ``Similarly, the official China Daily quoted one of 
     Beijing's top negotiators with Taiwan as saying that 
     Clinton's remarks had helped China. ``This has provided 
     favorable conditions for the development of cross-strait 
     relations,'' said Tang Shubei, vice president of the 
     Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait. ``But 
     cross-strait issues will ultimately be solved by the Chinese 
     people.''Meanwhile, that group's Taiwanese counterpart, the 
     semi-official Straits Exchange Foundation, informed the 
     Chinese association that its deputy secretary general, Li 
     Yafei, could visit Taiwan July 24-31. Li's visit is to be 
     followed by a reciprocal trip to China by the leader of the 
     Taiwan foundation, Koo Chen-fu. In June, Beijing invited Koo 
     to visit China sometime in September or October, and Koo said 
     later he plans to go in mid-September.
       In 1993, Koo and Chinese association leader Wang Daohan met 
     in Singapore in a landmark gathering that signaled warming 
     ties between the old rivals. But after two years of improving 
     relations, the ties collapsed in 1995 when Taiwanese 
     President Lee Teng-hui obtained a visa to visit the United 
     States for the 25th reunion of his Cornell University class.
       China launched a series of military exercises off the 
     Taiwanese coast in 1995 and 1996, lobbing cruise missiles 
     into the area. In 1996, the United States dispatched two 
     aircraft carrier battle groups to the region as a warning to 
     China not to contemplate a military solution.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for 
the Majority Leader's resolution on Taiwan. This resolution will 
reassure the people of Taiwan that the United States will stand by its 
pledges, particularly those included in the Taiwan Relations Act of 
1979.
  It is unfortunate to say the least, Mr. President, that it has become 
necessary to pass this resolution. But President Clinton's statements 
while in the People's Republic of China make it imperative that we 
reiterate and reaffirm our commitment to Taiwan's democratic 
principles, to its right to maintain a viable, sufficient self-defense 
capability, and to a future for Taiwan that is determined by peaceful, 
democratic means.
  President Clinton's unwise and damaging statements during his visit 
to communist China have thrown in doubt our commitment to Taiwan. The 
President's three noes''--no independence for Taiwan, no recognition 
for a separate Taiwanese government, and no support for Taiwan's 
membership in international organizations--cast doubt on America's 
willingness to stand by its commitments and raise the prospect of 
future conflict in South Asia.
  Were the President's statements allowed to stand, they would 
constitute an abandonment of Taiwan to its fate at the hands of a 
communist regime that has shown itself willing to slaughter its own 
people and resort to force and intimidation whenever useful.
  This is unacceptable, Mr. President, and we must not let it stand. As 
the world's first free nation, and as the leader of the free world, we 
have a responsibility to stand up for nations like Taiwan which have 
moved toward democracy and free markets. We owe it to the people of 
Taiwan to renew our commitment to their democratic institutions and to 
their right to determine their own future on a democratic basis.
  It also is important to note, Mr. President, that the People's 
Republic of China has engaged in shows of force and attempted military 
intimidation toward Taiwan over the course of several decades. Only two 
years ago, in 1996, the United States found it necessary to send 
aircraft carriers to the area to let the Chinese communist government 
know that we would respond should they take military action against 
Taiwan.
  By explicitly stating that the United States would not support the 
Taiwanese people's right to determine their own future in a democratic 
manner, President Clinton sent a strong signal to the communist 
government in Beijing that we might stand idly by while it took control 
of Taiwan by force.
  Mr. President, it was precisely this kind of miscalculation that 
precipitated the war in Korea, a war in which American troops ended up 
facing the Chinese army and in which thousands of brave American 
soldiers lost their lives. It is imperative, in my view, that Congress 
act swiftly and surely to see to it that history does not repeat 
itself.
  The United States stands by the people of Taiwan in their 
determination to protect themselves and their democratic principles 
from any forceful reintegration into China. We must make our stance 
clear for the people of Taiwan, for the cause of freedom, and for the 
cause of peace.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to speak in strong support of Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 107, a resolution affirming the United States' 
continued commitment to Taiwan.
  During his recent visit to China, the President undermined long-
standing U.S. policy regarding Taiwan. President Clinton said,

       I had a chance to reiterate our Taiwan policy, which is 
     that we don't support independent for Taiwan, or two Chinas, 
     or one Taiwan-one China. And we don't believe that Taiwan 
     should be a member of any organization for which statehood is 
     a requirement.

  The President's statement, in fact, represents a long standing 
departure from U.S. policy. This statement represents an abandonment of 
a balanced policy that has allowed the United States to conduct 
important relations with both sides of the Taiwan Strait.

[[Page S7918]]

  The United States has not taken, and should not take, a policy 
position on the outcome of the dispute between China and Taiwan. 
Neither should we endorse or oppose Taiwan's independence or 
reunification. However, we must continue to insist that any eventual 
resolution of this dispute must come through peaceful means and with 
the approval of the people of Taiwan. The President's remarks are not 
consistent with that goal.
  Let us not forget that May 1998 marked the second anniversary of the 
first fully democratic Presidential election in the 5,000-year history 
of the Chinese people. That election occurred on the island of Taiwan. 
Taiwan has evolved into a modern, democratic society, a major economic 
power, and an active partner in world affairs. Taiwan's continued 
achievement should deepen the longstanding friendship between our two 
democracies. Should the President disregard that responsibility, the 
Congress must fill that void.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 
Con. Res. 107. This resolution is intended to repair the damage done by 
President Clinton's ill-considered comments on Taiwan during the recent 
U.S.-China summit. The Senate needs to make a clear statement in 
support of Taiwan. A failure to do so would be a greater disservice to 
the people of Taiwan and the credibility of the United States in East 
Asia.
  Mr. President, let us be clear, the President's statements undercut 
Taiwan in a way that past U.S. policy explicitly avoided. The 
Administration has tried to portray the President's regurgitation of 
Beijing's ``three noes'' as merely a restatement of U.S. policy. If 
this was merely a restatement of U.S. policy, however, why did the 
President have to make the comments at all?
  Far from being a restatement of U.S. policy, Bill Clinton's remarks 
were the first by a U.S. president formally opposing Taiwanese 
independence. In addition, the President's stated opposition to 
Taiwan's membership in international organizations directly undercuts 
Taiwan's efforts to share abroad its vision for a democratic, unified 
China. It is Taiwan's vision of China's future--a future of democratic 
pluralism and civil liberty--that the Administration should be 
supporting, not legitimizing the Chinese Communist Party with CNN 
summitry.
  As hard as the Administration might try to sanitize the President's 
comments, his statements already are being used by Beijing to pressure 
Taiwan on reunification. This morning's Washington Post reports that 
Beijing is telling Taiwan to ``face reality'' after the President's 
statement and agree to talks on reunification. One of Beijing's top 
negotiators with Taiwan said that the President's remarks strengthened 
China's hand and ``* * * provided favorable conditions for the 
development of cross-strait relations.''
  This Administration seems to have forgotten that China has conducted 
missile exercises off of Taiwan's major ports in two of the last four 
years. ``Favorable conditions'' for China mean one thing: more latitude 
from the United States to intimidate Taiwan. The Chinese military 
continues to acquire weapons systems to facilitate an invasion of the 
island, yet the Administration tries to distance itself from American 
obligations in the Taiwan Relations Act to help Taiwan ``maintain a 
sufficient self-defense capability.'' Incredibly, the Administration 
parroted the ``three noes'' policy for Beijing without even obtaining 
assurances from China that it will not use force to reunify with 
Taiwan.
  Adopting Beijing's formulation on Taiwan was an ill-advised move by 
the President that has the potential of doing great harm to the 21 
million Taiwanese who have built a vibrant democracy and free market. 
The Administration's position on Taiwan is not reassuring our 
democratic allies in East Asia.
  It is time for this Administration to choose which side it will 
support in the continuing struggle for civil liberty and democratic 
reform in East Asia. Blind engagement with Beijing's oppressive regime 
is not the way to ensure that democracy is preserved on Taiwan or 
advanced in China. It is time for the United States to stand again for 
freedom in East Asia and around the world.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3121

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3121.
       On page 2, line 8, strike ``with the consent of the people 
     of Taiwan,''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The Amendment (No. 3121) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to the Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 107, as amended. On this question, the yeas and 
nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Ashcroft), 
the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from Texas 
(Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from 
Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Nickles), and the 
Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Arizona (Mr. Kyl) and the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison) would 
each vote ``yes.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman) 
is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 196 Leg.]

                                YEAS--92

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Ashcroft
     Bingaman
     Domenici
     Hutchison
     Kyl
     McCain
     Nickles
     Smith (OR)
  The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 107), as amended, was agreed 
to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Under the previous order, the 
preamble to the resolution is agreed to and an amendment to the title 
is agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  The resolution, as amended, with its preamble, is as follows:

                            S. Con. Res. 107

       Whereas at no time since the establishment of the People's 
     Republic of China on October 1, 1949, has Taiwan been under 
     the control of the People's Republic of China;
       Whereas the United States began its long, peaceful, 
     friendly relationship with Taiwan in 1949;
       Whereas since the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act in 
     1979, 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 would be determined by peaceful 
     means;
       Whereas in March 1996, the People's Republic of China held 
     provocative military maneuvers, including missile launch 
     exercises in the Taiwan Strait, in an attempt to intimidate 
     the people of Taiwan during their historic, free and 
     democratic presidential election;
       Whereas officials of the People's Republic of China refuse 
     to renounce the use of force against democratic Taiwan;
       Whereas Taiwan has achieved significant political and 
     economic strength as one of the world's premier democracies 
     and as the nineteenth largest economy in the world;

[[Page S7919]]

       Whereas Taiwan is the seventh largest trading partner of 
     the United States and imports more than twice as much 
     annually from the United States as does the People's Republic 
     of China; and
       Whereas no treaties exist between the People's Republic of 
     China and Taiwan that determine the future status of Taiwan: 
     Now therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That Congress--
       (1) affirms its longstanding commitment to Taiwan and the 
     people of Taiwan in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act 
     (Public Law 96-8);
       (2) affirms its expectation, consistent with the Taiwan 
     Relations Act, that the future of Taiwan will be determined 
     by peaceful means, and considers any effort to determine the 
     future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means a threat to the 
     peace and security of the Western Pacific and of grave 
     concern to the United States;
       (3) affirms its commitment, consistent with the Taiwan 
     Relations Act, to make available to Taiwan such defense 
     articles and defense services in such quantities as may be 
     necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-
     defense capability;
       (4) affirms its commitment, consistent with the Taiwan 
     Relations Act, that only the President and Congress shall 
     determine the nature and quantity of defense articles and 
     services for Taiwan based solely upon their judgment of the 
     needs of Taiwan; and
       (5) urges the President of the United States to seek a 
     public renunciation by the People's Republic of China of any 
     use of force, or threat to use force, against democratic 
     Taiwan.

  The title was amended so as to read: ``Affirming U.S. Commitments 
Under the Taiwan Relations Act''.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate has no order at this time.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield so I can put us in morning 
business?
  Mr. DODD. I will be happy to.

                          ____________________