•HCON 98 IH 
Whereas the National People’s Congress of the People’s Re-
public of China passed its anti-secession law on March 
14, 2005, which constitutes a unilateral change to the 
status quo in the Taiwan Strait; 
Whereas the passage of China’s anti-secession law escalates 
tensions between Taiwan and the People’s Republic of 
China and is an impediment to cross-strait dialogue; 
Whereas the purpose of China’s anti-secession law is to cre-
ate a legal framework for possible use of force against 
Taiwan and mandates Chinese military action under cer-
tain circumstances, including when ‘‘possibilities for a 
peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted’’; 
Whereas the Department of Defense’s Report on the Military 
Power of the People’s Republic of China for Fiscal Year 
2004 documents that, as of 2003, the Government of the 
People’s Republic of China had deployed approximately 
500 short-range ballistic missiles against Taiwan; 
Whereas the escalating arms buildup of missiles and other of-
fensive weapons by the People’s Republic of China in 
areas adjacent to the Taiwan Strait is a threat to the 
peace and security of the Western Pacific area; 
Whereas given the recent positive developments in cross-strait 
relations, including the Lunar New Year charter flights 
and new proposals for cross-strait exchanges, it is par-
ticularly unfortunate that the National People’s Congress 
adopted this legislation; 
Whereas since its enactment in 1979, the Taiwan Relations 
Act (22 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.), which codified in law the 
basis for continued commercial, cultural, and other rela-
tions between the people of the United States and the
•HCON 98 IH 
people of Taiwan, has been instrumental in maintaining 
peace, security, and stability in the Taiwan Strait; 
Whereas section 2(b)(2) of the Taiwan Relations Act declares 
that ‘‘peace and stability in the area are in the political, 
security, and economic interests of the United States, 
and are matters of international concern’’; 
Whereas, at the time the Taiwan Relations Act was enacted 
into law, section 2(b)(3) of such Act made clear that the 
United States decision to establish diplomatic relations 
with the People’s Republic of China rested upon the ex-
pectation that the future of Taiwan would be determined 
by peaceful means; 
Whereas section 2(b)(4) of the Taiwan Relations Act declares 
it the policy of the United States ‘‘to consider any effort 
to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful 
means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to 
the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and 
of grave concern to the United States’’; 
Whereas section 2(b)(6) of the Taiwan Relations Act declares 
it the policy of the United States ‘‘to maintain the capac-
ity of the United States to resist any resort to force or 
other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the secu-
rity, or the social or economic system, of the people on 
Taiwan’’; and 
Whereas any attempt to determine Taiwan’s future by other 
than peaceful means and other than with the express 
consent of the people of Taiwan would be considered of 
grave concern to the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—