Declaring that it shall continue to be the policy of the United States, consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act, to make available to Taiwan such defense articles and services as may be necessary for Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.

Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of the ``Cover the Uninsured Week,'' and I rise to remind the Chamber of the worsening health care crisis that we face as a Nation, and propose a solution to one of the biggest challenges of the 21st Century facing us.

Lack of health insurance often denies necessary medical care. Forty seven million Americans are uninsured. This problem is not limited to the poor or the unemployed. Researchers have estimated that about four- fifths of the uninsured are either employed or members of a family with an employed adult.

As well, there are an additional 50 million Americans who are underinsured; that is, they have coverage that would not protect them from catastrophic medical expenses. Simply put, an increasing number of Americans lack adequate health insurance because they and their employers simply cannot afford it.

Despite the challenges of the war in Iraq and the slumping economy, we all agree that the uninsured need to be covered. Even the health insurance companies have their own plan for covering the uninsured. I'm glad that we're on the same page, after all these years.

The real question we face is, how do we go about covering the uninsured? And how do we ensure that every American has access to quality medical care when they need it?

I strongly believe in a single-payer national health insurance, an approach that has been too often marginalized in debates on this issue, even though it has been successfully employed in almost every industrial nation except our own.

Mr. Speaker, it's time for Congress to consider single-payer, not only as a viable option to cover the uninsured, but as the preferred solution to fix our broken health care system. And make no mistake about it, it is in very bad shape.

According to a January 2007 article in the Journal of Health Affairs, France, Japan and Australia rated best, and the United States worst in new rankings focusing on preventable deaths due to treatable conditions, in 19 leading industrialized nations.

The article revealed that if the United States health care system performed as well as those top three countries, there'd be 101,000 fewer deaths in the United States each year.

Equally disturbing, the Institute of Medicine reports that 20,000 Americans die each year as a direct result of having no health insurance. How can we, in the Congress, who receive fairly decent health care, tell 47 million uninsured Americans that they cannot have access to health care?

With the knowledge that 20,000 Americans die each year without health insurance, how can we, in Congress, who do have health insurance, not place universal health care as a front burner issue in this chamber?

This is a moral challenge that we all must pick up. And incrementalism will not work. Expanding a broken system or fixing parts of it will not work. We must approach the health care solution the same way a physician approaches the treatment of disease. Doctors do not employ treatments only because they are easy or feasible. They choose evidence-based solutions based upon peer-reviewed research in order to employ the most state-of-the-art care available. And so I propose we take the same approach to crafting a universal health care plan.

So today, I ask the following question: What further disaster must befall us before we face the crisis of the uninsured and the underinsured?

How many more people must die due to the inability to receive care in the world's healthiest Nation before we, in Congress, take action and create a truly universal health care system?

For those who believe that we are not ready to have a universal health care system, and must delay the formation of a comprehensive, national health insurance program, I ask you to consider the following evidence that demonstrates why we can ill afford delaying action on a universal health care system.

Health care horror stories are cases in which the result is so tragic that it shocks the conscience. We hear about them almost every day, in the newspapers, magazines, the Internet, television, radio, personal encounters with our friends and neighbors.

In the movie ``Sicko'' we, as a Nation, saw firsthand how even those with health insurance suffer under the current, for profit, employer- based private health insurance system.

In my office, I receive scores of health care horror stories each month, and have binders in my office of health care tragedies that we have collected over the last 8 years. In fact, when Michael Moore was doing research for ``Sicko'' he received 25,000 health care horror stories himself, after he made an appeal for those horror stories on his website.

I'd like to read a health care horror story sent to us by Adrienne Campbell from Michigan, a story, that, unfortunately, millions of Americans who are underinsured or uninsured can relate to. Here's her story.

My sister, who is 22 years old right now, was diagnosed with cervical cancer, the same cancer I had at the same age. She graduated from college back in December, so she is off my dad's insurance.

Jobs are hard to find here in Michigan, so she's working two part- time jobs, and neither of them provide insurance for part-time workers.

She has to go through what I did, but instead of actually being able to get medical treatment right away, then having to pay for it, she has to put off until she and the hospital can work out a payment plan. They told her the soonest they might be able to perform the surgery will be in April.

We've been calling around seeking other options. She's at Stage 4. I was at Stage 2, when I went through my ordeal, so she's in much worse condition than I was; which worries me.

This is unacceptable. It's like I am living my horror all over again, only this is my sister. This is why we have

to fight. We have to shake things up this election year.

There's nothing you can do for my sister at this point, except keep her in your prayers, and I hope that she can get surgery soon. But, for those women who may get cervical cancer down the road, let's fight for universal health care so they don't have to go through the money worries.

I love my sister, Victoria, or as my daughter calls her, Aunt Gickie, because she can't say Vickie.

Please, just keep her in your prayers and thoughts. Thanks for letting me vent. I love her too much to see this happen to her.

Mr. Speaker, we do not have a health care system in this country. What exists is a fragmented, nonsystem of health care. It's a wasteful and inefficient patchwork of different plans and schemes that allow too many people to fall between the cracks.

The complexity of this nonsystem is what makes it unsustainable. Private health insurers are in the business to make a profit. Make no mistake about it. In fact, the real problem is that insurance companies are not as much in the business to provide care as they are in the business to deny care. They keep profits up by avoiding high risk patients, limiting the coverage of those they do insure, and passing costs back to patients through copayments and deductibles.

They deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, including such costly diseases as athletes foot and yeast infections.

They employ an army of adjusters who go through mountains of paperwork, all mostly working to figure out a way to deny a claim. We have the story of insurance company whistleblower, Dr. Linda Pino, who tells us she was paid a bonus on how many claims that she could deny, and threatened with demotion if she authorized payment on more claims than her peers.

These practices are harmful. They're expensive. All those adjusters and paperwork cost a lot of money. Add to that insurance costs the insurance company's spending on advertising, huge executive salaries, and profits for shareholders, and the result is an average overhead of 15 cents on the dollar. Compare that with Medicare's overhead which is between 2 and 3 cents.

The complexity of this nonsystem not only leads to gaps in coverage and navigating nightmares, but it's underscored by the duplicity and waste created by the multitude of health insurance companies.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now to recognize the gentleman from Ohio, who's been on this plan for--several Congresses ago he was and is the original co-founder and original signer with me to this bill. He's worked relentlessly in the Congress and across the country in making it clear that we're working on a system that some day is going to bring so much joy and benefit to the millions of Americans in this country. He's a fearless, dedicated, articulate leader, and I would now yield to my colleague, Dennis Kucinich.

Mr. Speaker, may I say to my colleague that I am so flattered that he remembers the days when we started out with just a few Members. We're up somewhere about 90 now and growing every week, every month. More and more people are joining us. And in addition, there are growing numbers of medical professionals, doctors, researchers, health care experts, who are all recognizing how important what you have said is in terms of how we move out of the situation that we're in.

Your description of the pain and suffering of so many of our citizens because of the lack of health care leads to situations so horrible that they truly shock the conscious.

Thank you, Congressman Kucinich.

And as our numbers grow in the Congress, you know that the American people have already indicated in policy after policy that they want a universal health care plan. Many are willing to even pay more to get it, but they don't have to. And this is a labor of love which I am so proud that nearly 100 of our colleagues are now working with us.

And I yield again to the gentleman.

In addition, we are creating a system of preventive health care. We are creating a system in which people, when they initially get sick, can go to a doctor instead of being forced to go to emergency rooms where they get temporary treatment, and then they're back at home or on the streets again. We will make the country healthier. And national health care is an ambition that is very much related to national security. So I'm pleased that all of these things can occur with the consideration of House Resolution 676.

In the last 10 years, the cost of health care to businesses has increased 140 percent. We need an efficient universal health care system that protects American businesses from skyrocketing health care costs so that, as a Nation, we can remain competitive in the global marketplace.

The rising cost of health care in this country has played a significant role in the current economic climate, specifically with regard to the outsourcing of labor to foreign countries. Between 2000 and 2007, United States health premiums have risen 98 percent, while wages have only increased by 23 percent. The average family health insurance plan now costs more than the earnings of a full-time minimum wage worker.

Our fractured non-system of health care is crippling our economy. But don't take my word for it, just ask the United Automobile Workers and the AFL-CIO, or even the automobile makers themselves. Health care has become such a central issue for General Motors that Economists magazine only partly

in jest called the company a pension hedge fund wand health insurance business that happens to make cars.

Ford and General Motors pay nearly $1,500 in health care costs for each vehicle they produce, while BMW pays $450 in Germany, and Honda only $150 per vehicle in Japan.

A General Motors executive told former Senator Tom Daschle, a proponent of universal health care, that the high cost of health care is the single largest impediment to creating more jobs in the United States. An IBM executive, Senior Vice President for Human Resources Mr. J. Randall McDonald, recently predicted that 5 years from now this problem will have to be cured or the competitiveness of the United States will be drastically impacted.

Small business employees are one of the fastest growing segments of the uninsured and now comprise about one-fifth of the total uninsured population. Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius told the New York Times, ``Affordable coverage for small business owners and self-employed individuals is probably the biggest challenge that we have in Kansas and most states.''

Incredibly, one-fifth of working age Americans, both insured and uninsured, have medical debt that they are paying off over time. More than two-fifths of these people owe $2,000 or more. Medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States, accounting for half of the personal bankruptcies. If unpaid medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in this country, then how can we in good conscience delay any longer in Congress to create a truly universal health care system?

High deductibles in private health insurance plans are another barrier to consistent care. Eleven million people with health insurance have per-person deductibles of $1,000 or more. One recent study found that 44 percent of adults with deductibles of $1,000 or more did not fill a prescription, declined to see a specialist, skipped a recommended test or treatment, or didn't see a doctor when they had a serious medical problem.

There are additional sums spent by hospitals and doctor's offices to deal with each insurance company's rules, regulations, and forms to fill out. After a number of our satellite industries take a cut, we're looking at up to 50 cents on the dollar being spent on administration, marketing and profits. All this is money we could be spending on health care.

Drug prices in this country are about 60 percent higher than prices in Canada or Britain, and this is not because Big Pharma is doing so much research and development. In fact, data from the pharmaceutical companies' own annual reports show that they spend almost three times as much working on marketing and administrative costs as they do on research and development.

It is not because American companies are carrying the burden of doing research and development for the rest of the world. Drug companies in the European Union put out about the same number of new products each year that American companies do. And our drug industry's research and development gets huge taxpayer subsidies from government-supported research done by the National Institutes of Health and American universities. In fact, only a very small percentage of the new drugs produced in America are in fact innovative developments. Most are varieties of old drugs developed simply to extend patent protections so that they can keep on charging those high, excessive prices.

The reason drugs cost more in America than anywhere else boils down to a single factor: Profit. The drug companies have the highest profit margins of all American corporations. Their profits as a percent of sales run about 19 percent, compared to a median of about 5 percent for Fortune 500 companies.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are concerned about the direction in which our economy is heading. As we spiral headlong toward a recession, if we're not already in one, both large corporations and small businesses have to make difficult decisions to keep their business afloat. For most Americans, the loss of employment means the loss of health insurance.

The bottom line: If we can streamline the operations of the health care system by decreasing wasteful overhead and appropriately allocating funds, we can not only ensure the coverage of everybody in the United States, but we can provide for true health care. And that is an important point; coverage does not equal care.

My plan, H.R. 676, is simple. And its simplicity is the very thing that will allow it to succeed where others will fail. Many of the plans generally add an individual mandate and even more insurance options. Others suggest financial mechanisms like tax credits or savings accounts. These other plans will not guarantee coverage that is universal, affordable or comprehensive. They fail to do anything to decrease administrative costs or complexity, in fact, they add to it. They can't control costs, and so ultimately they will be unsustainable.

Now, I began from the premise that health care is a basic human right, not a privilege, a basic human right. This is the consensus opinion of the international community, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other documents.

I also believe that government has a fundamental role to play in guaranteeing this right to each and all of its citizens. This is the view of the other industrialized nations, all of which have single payer health care systems that cover all their people, cost far less than ours and, sadly, get more and better results in terms of health outcomes.

I believe that health care must not be a market commodity. The market dictates that one's ability to consume a particular product is constrained by one's ability to pay for it. This approach may be feasible when one is talking about buying hamburgers or tennis shoes, but it is unacceptable when it comes to health care. Our access to health services should be determined by only one thing, what our doctor thinks we need. Profit should not be a factor.

Let me clarify: I do not advocate socialized or government-run health care, such as the National Health Service in Great Britain. I propose a plan that is publicly financed, but privately delivered, like those in Germany or France or Taiwan.

The role of the government in the H.R. 676 proposal is limited to collecting revenues and disbursing payments to providers. Doctors, hospitals and clinics will continue to be run privately. I believe they will be required to operate as not-for-profit organizations.

In a single payer system, we could do just that. We will do just that. Revenues would flow into the system through an automatic payroll tax, very little paperwork required. Doctors would bill the government electronically and they would be reimbursed electronically, cutting out the middle man, and the savings would be tremendous.

Studies by the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office and consultancies such as the Lewin Group consistently find that the savings under a single payer plan would be more than enough to cover all of the uninsured. So, in fact, it's possible to cover all Americans under a comprehensive health plan without spending any more money than we do now. We would just be more efficient with it.

The two other major drivers of health inflation are the increasing use of expensive prescription drugs and the proliferation of new and expensive medical technologies. A single payer system would address both these costs.

By leveraging the buying power of the Federal Government, we can negotiate huge discounts both for drugs and for other major drivers of health inflation such as medical technology. We can bring down the cost of medical technology by allocating it more efficiently. As it is, we have no organizing structure to manage the distribution of health care resources. The result is that we have a glut of medical imaging machines, specialists, and other medical services which are seen as generating the most potential profit for their owners; hospital A has one MRI machine, hospital B then feels it must have two MRI machines, and so on. To end up with MRI machines all over town standing vacant while we continue to spend enormous sums on acquiring more is unwise and impractical and should be ended.

Under a single payer system, we can distribute resources more efficiently so

that we are buying MRI machines based on the need for them, not based on how much profit they can generate for a particular hospital.

A regional board could determine, with the input of doctors and other providers, what number of machines would be appropriate for the population based on demographics and other factors.

Allow an explanation of how a single-payer system under H.R. 676 would work. Existing public health care spending, including government spending for Medicare and Medicaid, would continue, but it would flow into a single trust fund. We would add a payroll tax of about 3.3 percent each to workers and employers. In addition to the 1.45 percent Medicare tax, the total health care tax would be 4.75 percent. This is cheaper than what the private health insurance companies charge; so families and businesses will be spending less than what they are spending now if they have insurance.

We also get revenue from other sources like one quarter of 1 percent tax on certain stock and bond transactions. All these revenue sources add up to more than enough to cover current spending. But just in case there are additional expenses in a particular year, we also authorize an annual appropriation.

Revenue flows from the Federal trust fund into the accounts of the currently existing Medicare regions. Reimbursement is then negotiated with doctors and other providers at the regional level, with current levels being the starting point. Doctors are paid on a fee-for-service basis, while hospitals and other large institutions are paid with monthly lump sums known as global budgets based on current expenditures. Global budgets are cost-control mechanisms that are very effective in other single-payer systems.

Every American would receive a national health insurance card at birth or would be able to apply for one at the post office or other government facility. The application form is limited to 2 pages. Everyone living in the United States would be eligible. All medical necessary services would be covered, including inpatient and outpatient care, mental health care, dental care, and prescription drugs. Patients can go to the doctor or health care provider of their choice.

Private insurance companies are prohibited from duplicating the coverage provided under the plan. They may still offer coverage for nonmedically necessary services, such as cosmetic surgery. They are not prohibited from being hired by the government to do billing services, but overhead costs would be strictly regulated.

This plan relies on the existing Medicare infrastructure for administration. There is no ``new government bureaucracy.'' In fact, there will be far less bureaucracy in health care after the role of the insurance companies has been limited.

Just to let you know, there are nationally recognized health economists and physicians who believe that if we spent more efficiently the money we are already currently spending on health care, then we would cover every American with quality and affordable health insurance right now through a privately delivered, public financed, single-payer system.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, I'm so grateful to have the opportunity to work with Mr. Conyers on this important bill. Years ago, when we were having those meetings where the legislation was being crafted, we both knew what an important moment it would be for the people of the United States to be able to have a health care system they could call their own. So I want to take this opportunity, as I begin my remarks, to salute the work of you, Chairman Conyers, and all that you have done and your dedication in working to make sure that the American people have a national health care system, a not-for-profit system. That's been your dedication. It has been an honor to work alongside of you in this endeavor.

As we speak today about covering the uninsured, we speak to the American people who are worried about whether loved ones are going to be able to get the care that they need. There is nothing that is more troubling to a family than to have a family member who is ill and yet cannot get the medical care that would be necessary to bring them back to health. There are 50 million Americans who are uninsured. This means that when they see others able to get the care they need, they recognize in their own families that they cannot sustain the health of loved ones or themselves.

Why is it that people are uninsured? Well, there are many reasons, but the principal reason is they simply cannot afford health insurance.

You know and I know, Mr. Chairman, that there are so many families that are called upon to spend $1,000 or more a month for health insurance. The price of gasoline going up to more than $4 a gallon, the cost of bread going up, milk, eggs, meat, all basic staples of an American diet, costs going up, up, up. People are finding that the costs of health insurance is becoming prohibitive. And so they simply can't afford it. So they remain uninsured, thereby leaving their entire family health open to a challenge.

How many of us would be able to survive financially being uninsured? Very few, because what happens is that if you're uninsured and you have health care bills, you're going to have to pay those bills. And you know that the greatest cause of bankruptcy in the United States relates to people not being able to pay their hospital or their doctor bills. That's a fact of life. There is no other issue which touches the American family and touches all of us so uniquely as this issue of health insurance. People can't afford it.

This is a tragic problem, and it's getting worse. About 22,000 people die every year because they're not insured; this, according to the updated Institute of Medicine Statistic. But we cannot talk about the uninsured without talking about the underinsured as well.

There are another 50 million Americans who are underinsured. Now think about it. 50 million uninsured, 50 million underinsured. 100 million Americans. One out of every three Americans is touched by this dilemma, and that means virtually every American family is either uninsured or underinsured. If you're underinsured, premiums are expensive, you may not be able to pay the premium to get the coverage you need, Co-pays and deductibles go higher and higher and higher. The American family is owned by the health insurance companies.

What kind of a country are we becoming where the people of this country can't get the care they need because almost $1 out of every $3 is taken off the top by the for-profit insurance companies for advertising, marketing, the cost of paperwork, corporate profits, stock options, executive salaries, all of those necessary things that Mr. Conyers has talked about in the past. $700 billion a year goes for expenses that are totally unrelated to the cost of health care. $700 billion a year. Meanwhile, you have 50 million uninsured and another 50 million underinsured. The insurance companies own us. We don't own our own health care system.

And the insurance industry is the reason for the underinsurance problem and all that goes with it. Half of all bankruptcies are tied to medical bills. And of those medical bankruptcies, listen to this, three-quarters of those had insurance before they got sick. So even with insurance, people are going bankrupt because they can't handle the co-pays and the deductibles.

Of all of the medical bankruptcies in the United States, three of every four people had some kind of insurance before they got sick. They fell victim to insurance companies whose only way to make money is to deny care. How do these insurance companies make so much money? They make money by not providing health care. They make money telling people, We're not going to pay that claim. You're not going to be covered. The more people they can exclude, the more money they will make. It is a racket. Health care is a racket. Health insurance, rather, is a racket.

It is time we took America in a new direction, which is what the Conyers' bill, that I am proud to be a co-author of, is all about. H.R. 676 is to provide for a universal, single payer, not-for-profit health care system. It finally puts health care back in the hands of the doctors and the patients. It eliminates the insurance companies as middle persons, middlemen, who are able to skim almost $1 out of $3 off the top while 50 million Americans are uninsured and another 50 are underinsured.

We need to make a clear distinction between ``health care'' and ``health insurance.'' The two are very different.

Doctors and nurses are not the same as health insurance CEOs. Doctors and nurses provide care. Insurance companies' CEOs, they deny it. There's a difference between health care and health insurance. If you have insurance, it doesn't mean you have health care. There are increasingly creative and complex ways to deny health care: co-pays, deductibles, premiums, limits on daily coverage, caps on annual amount spent, failing to cover certain medical conditions, failing to cover certain accidents, failing to cover certain drugs, failing to cover certain total spending amounts, like the privatized Medicare Part D donut hole, failing to cover hospital stays, or minimizing the coverage.

What has this hunt for profitability in health insurance cost us? Well, it's cost us a lot of money. It's driving up health care costs beyond the reach of most Americans. Listen to this statistic: between 1970 and 1998, the number of doctors and other clinical personnel increased by 2.5-fold. During the same time, the number of health administrators increased more than 24-fold. There's an explosion of the number of people in the health care system who do not provide care. They instead are told to deny care.

It boils down to this: The insurance industry is the problem. It is not the solution. The only way to truly cover everyone is to guarantee access, not to force working men and women to subsidize the insurance industry whose very presence forces people to pay out of pocket to keep the industry alive. We need health care run by doctors and their patients, not insurance companies. Health care is a basic human right.

So Mr. Conyers, I just want to express to you my appreciation for the work that you have done to bring this issue before the American people. To have had the opportunity over many of the last few Congresses to work with you on this has really been an honor.

And when we remember when we go back home, you to Detroit and me to Cleveland, and we see people who need care, our hearts break when we realize that they can't get it because insurance has just ended up being a big business and they don't care about people anymore. It's all about making money. All about profit.

So Mr. Conyers and I know that H.R. 676 stands alone in an increasingly crowded field of ideas that are going to provide health care for people. And this proposal addresses the accessibility problem.

Employer-based insurance requires people to continue to work in order to keep their insurance even if it worsens their health. Now, I know Mr. Conyers worked with the UAW for years and years before coming into Congress. What happens if you lose your job? People end up, after their COBRA benefits are gone, they lose their health insurance. Our proposal says if you lose your job, you're still insured. If you don't have money, you're still insured. If you have a pre-existing condition, you're still insured. This covers dental care, vision care, mental health, long-term care, prescription drugs. It's all covered.

Mr. Conyers, thank you. Thank you for your dedication to the American people. Thank you for your willingness to lead the way, and I'm just so grateful that I have the opportunity to work with you.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, you mentioned, Mr. Conyers, that many doctors support this. When I first ran for Congress in 1972, doctors generally opposed this idea. But there is a new survey that just came out published in the Annals of Internal Medicine that states that of the physicians that were contacted in this survey, thousands of them, 59 percent of the physicians now support a national health care plan, which is why I believe when you have the physicians supporting it, the patients support it, all we need is to keep adding to the numbers in the House of Representatives; and with Mr. Conyers' leadership, we're on our way to creating a national health care system.

Once again, I want to thank the gentleman for the opportunity to share some time with you here. And again, the people of the United States owe you a debt of gratitude for your relentlessness and your dedication on this, and I intend to keep working at your side as we move forward to create a universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care system. H.R. 676, the Conyers bill, is the way to go.

Thank you.

As the Chairman is always able to do, you bring up another point that I think would be helpful to amplify, and that is that people will say, Well, how are you going to pay for this? Well, guess what? We're already paying for a universal standard of care; we're just not getting it. $2.3 trillion a year goes for health care in the United States. $2.3 trillion.

And when you consider the fact that the for-profit insurance companies take almost $1 out of every $3 or almost $700 billion a year, you take that $700 billion--am I right, Mr. Chairman--you put that money into care and you suddenly have enough money to cover all Americans, the underinsured and the uninsured are covered. So how we pay for it is using the money that's already in the system, and that's how much profit is in health care insurance or health insurance these days.

Mr. Speaker, once again, thank you for bringing out that point about the fact that it is able to be covered without any current change in our system, although we have a funding formula that you've helped to develop that will guarantee that all Americans will be covered far into the future.

So again, Mr. Chairman, I'm grateful the people of Detroit are fortunate to have you representing them in the United States Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentlelady from Florida, our senior Ranking Member of this Committee for her authorship of H. Res. 676, just as I commend Chairman Lantos also and other Members of this Committee who are supporting this Resolution. Having said this, my question is, is it necessary?

I have serious concerns about H. Res. 676 which declares that is should continue to be the policy of the United States, consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act, to make available to Taiwan such defense articles and services as may be necessary for Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.

The Taiwan Relations Act of 1978 has always been the basis of how our country has defined its relationship with Taiwan, and there has been no change in the provisions of this Act. The Act allows for the sale of arms to assist Taiwan with its defense capabilities against its enemies which it considers to be the People's Republic of China (PRC).

Why then is H. Res. 676 necessary? I also question H. Res. 676 being put forward at a time when all of us know that the situation between Taiwan and China has been extremely tense for weeks and months. While I respect my colleagues' view on H. Res. 676, I disagree with this course of action. We all know that H. Res. 676 is a nonbinding resolution that does not oblige our Government to act but only serves to add fuel to the fire, or exacerbate already tense relations between Taiwan and Beijing. Again, I ask, is this Resolution necessary?

Some 15 times now, Taiwan has sought and failed to be formally recognized by the United Nations, and this has caused a heated exchange of responses even among Members of this body. I just returned from Taiwan where I met with Taiwan's President, and the opposition party. I also recently visited China where I met with the Vice President, and other government officials. When I say that relations are tense, I mean it. From both sides, the situation between Taiwan and Beijing is quickly becoming a confrontation which may lead to an outcome none of us wants.

I am certain that all of us are committed to a course of action which will avert a crisis, and bring about a peaceful solution in the Taiwan Straits. But I do not believe H. Res. 676 gets us where we want to go. H. Res. 676 is just a reminder that an arms deal is still pending and it is pending because the Administration is having difficulties persuading Taiwan not to seek membership with the UN. Obviously, Taiwan is not listening and does not care what this may mean for the United States and our important, strategic relationship with Beijing.

The fact is there is a difference of opinion among the people and leaders of Taiwan about what position Taiwan should take towards Beijing. One of the two major parties advocates peaceful coexistence with the PRC. The other major party and its leaders keep pushing the envelope to the point of forcing Beijing's hand which led to President Clinton having to send two naval battle groups to the Taiwan Straits and almost led to a nuclear confrontation with Beijing. I wonder if my colleagues want to go through this again.

Last time, Beijing backed off. But will Beijing back off again? With implications as serious as this, I am hopeful that we will not move forward with this resolution until we have had time to consider a more thoughtful approach, and until Taiwan has time to hold its elections next March.

For now, H. Res. 626 can potentially influence the outcome of those elections, as could the sell of F-16s. I suspect this is probably one of the reasons the Administration has been reluctant to proceed with the sale of F-16 fighter jets to Taiwan because the Administration also recognizes we should give the people of Taiwan time to determine their future status before acting in ways that could set off a chain reaction in this volatile region of the world.

All of us, including Taiwan, know that our United States foreign policy has always been to accept the One-China concept whereby Beijing and Taiwan are to work out their political differences through peaceful means. This said, Taiwan has made significant progress towards a pluralistic and democratic form of government. Taiwan enjoys a free market system and economy that ranks among the top fifteen economies in the world. Taiwan also enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world.

Currently, Taiwan conducts over $100 billion in unofficial trade with Beijing. Over the years, millions of Taiwanese have also been able to freely travel to Beijing to be reunited with their families and friends.

Beijing is also moving towards a more free market system. China has become one of the

top five economies in the world, despite its Socialist Marxist ideology that puts a limitation on greater freedom for its citizens and transparency in government. Beijing is doing its best to feed more than 1 billion people, and we must also credit Beijing for bringing North Korea to the negotiating table, thwarting North Korea's efforts to produce nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Speaker, do we want to build on the positive? Do we want to avert a crisis? Or, do we want to add fuel to the fire? I submit that H. Res. 626 tilts favorably towards Taiwan, and I suggest to my colleagues that we ought not to pursue this course of action anymore than we should adopt legislation or resolutions that favor China over Taiwan.

Having said this, I will not oppose this resolution but I will again ask if it is necessary and, in closing, I will suggest that it is not. I will also suggest that it is in our interest to work collectively and bilaterally with both Taiwan and China to prevent another standoff in the Taiwan Straits.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 676) declaring that it shall continue to be the policy of the United States, consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act, to make available to Taiwan such defense articles and services as may be necessary for Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I would like to thank my distinguished colleague, the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, for introducing this important resolution and Chairman Lantos, Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for moving this to the floor.

When it comes to military sales to Taiwan, U.S. policy is clear: We must ensure that the thriving democracy of Taiwan has the capacity necessary to defend itself from outside threats.

We in the United States provide defensive military equipment to Taiwan, not just because it is right to aid our democratic friends, but because it is the law of the land under the Taiwan Relations Act. The Taiwan Relations Act, which has been the core of our policy toward Taiwan for almost 3 decades, also states clearly that the United States should base its decision on whether to supply defensive military equipment to Taiwan solely on the basis of the security needs of the Taiwanese military, not on the basis of political concerns.

In the context of these guiding principles, the administration currently has before it a decision on whether to sell F-16C/D fighters to Taiwan, fighters which Taiwan has expressed a clear interest in purchasing and for whose purchase they have budgeted $488 million in their 2007 defense budget and another $764 million in their budget for 2008.

The answer of the United States should be obvious. We should agree to sell the fighters without delay. Yet the administration has dragged its feet and failed even to respond to our Taiwanese friends; and this, in spite of the fact that under Taiwanese laws the funds for the fighters will no longer be available after October 31 of this year. If we do not offer to sell the planes by that date, the rules governing Taiwanese defense spending require that these funds be deleted from their budget.

Some have argued that this delay is justified because in a tense political season in Taiwan, the United States does not want to be seen as taking sides in the upcoming Taiwanese election. This assertion is wrongheaded and shortsighted in the extreme. This resolution in no way indicates support for one political party or another.

Furthermore, under the Taiwan Relations Act, we are supposed to make our decision based upon the needs of the Taiwanese military, not based on some argument that we would be falsely seen as supporting one political party or another, which, of course, is hardly the case if we decide to follow our own law and provide the Taiwanese military with the planes they need for military security.

I support this resolution and the sale of the F-16C/Ds to Taiwan so that the people of Taiwan can protect their democracy and to advance our security interests in East Asia. My support does not in any way indicate support for any candidate in Taiwan for any elected office, nor would selling these planes or agreeing to sell them indicate the support of the United States Government for any particular political party or candidate.

There are still others who claim that the F-16 sale, and this resolution, will upset the balance of the Taiwan Strait. Taiwan already has F-16 aircraft, so these additional planes will hardly upset the balance between Taiwan and China.

Moreover, no one puts forward the idea that Taiwan is today going to invade the mainland. It is obvious that the weapons Taiwan acquires are for defense, not for offense, and so a country acquiring military weapons to defend itself is not upsetting the balance of power but, rather, preserving the military status quo, preserving stability and peace.

I would also point out that the Taiwan Relations Act and our arms sales under this act have been instrumental in maintaining peace and security across the Taiwan Straits and in East Asia for 30 years.

Under this peace, Taiwan developed from authoritarian rule into a robust and lively democracy. Taiwan has asked our assistance in defending itself, and it deserves from us the respect of a prompt response.

I strongly support this resolution and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada, a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and the Ways and Means Committee, the very distinguished and dapper Ms. Berkley.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of House Resolution 676, a resolution reiterating that it is the policy of the United States to make available to Taiwan such defense articles and services as may be necessary for its self- defense.

At the outset, I want to thank Chairman Lantos and the gentlewoman from Florida, the author of this resolution; Mr. Lantos being the cosponsor; as well as many other members from the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Taiwan Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very straightforward resolution. It simply says that the executive branch should follow the law, in this case the Taiwan Relations Act, TRA, of 1979, and make available to our friends in that vibrant democracy such defense articles as may be necessary for their self-defense.

While the Chinese Air Force and Navy continue to be upgraded with modern Russian-made combat aircraft, Taiwan's Air Force is literally falling from the sky. In fact, some 17 obsolete F-5 fighters have crashed in the last 10 years, including one this May which killed a number of Singaporean servicemen.

Yet despite Taiwan's clearly compelling needs and the fact that Taipei has not only increased defense spending but also has budgeted and appropriated for the F-16s, the United States is refusing to respond to Taiwan's entirely legitimate request for military sales. In so doing, the clear intent of Congress and the law of the land as articulated in the TRA is obviously being ignored.

In this regard, section 3(b) of TRA stipulates that both the President and the Congress shall determine the nature and quantity of such defense articles and services based solely upon their judgment of the needs of Taiwan.

In life there are times when you can outthink yourself by overanalyzing issues and events, hoping to find that perfect moment to make a major decision. This is one of those times. Given China's ongoing and notorious military buildup, as well as its ceaseless efforts to isolate and belittle Taiwan, there will never be an ideal time for the United States to make defense sales to this island. The ideal time, obviously, is when the time is right, which is now.

The reality is that any major U.S. sale at any time will be objected to by the Chinese Communist regime. Should that affect our commitment to the stability of the Taiwan Strait? Mr. Speaker, are we timid because of China? Likewise, should our defense commitment to Taiwan be held hostage to a clash of personalities, the political season in Taiwan, or Washington's desire to accommodate Beijing?

In conclusion, this commonsense resolution simply says that consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act, the TRA, the United States should make decisions about prospective arms sales to this island based upon Taiwan's legitimate self-defense needs and our assessment of the relative balance of power in the Western Pacific.

I urge the adoption of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.