Expressing the grave concern of Congress regarding the recent passage of the anti-secession law by the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China.
Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Mar 16, 2005
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the anti-secession law of the People's Republic of China (PRC) provides a legal justification for the use of force against Taiwan, altering the status quo in the region, and thus is of grave concern to the United States; (2) the President of the United States should direct all appropriate U.S. officials to reflect the grave concern with which the United States views the passage of China's anti-secession law in particular, and the growing Chinese military threats to Taiwan in general, to their counterpart officials in the Government of the PRC; and (3) the U.S. Government should reaffirm its policy that the future of Taiwan should be resolved by peaceful means and with the consent of the people of Taiwan, and continue to encourage dialogue between Taiwan and the PRC.
Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 424 - 4 (Roll no. 81). (text: CR H1527-1528)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 424 - 4 (Roll no. 81).(text: CR H1527-1528)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1546)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Con. Res. 98.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1527-1529)
Mr. Smith (NJ) moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.Con.Res.98 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.Con.Res.98 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.Con.Res.98 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.Con.Res.98 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.