John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, the budget we have constructed for fiscal year 2000 will be the first budget of the millennium, and under the leadership of my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), we are building a better budget than the one we received last month from the President. We are locking more than the President, locking it away for Social Security and Medicare. For the first time ever, we are locking away Social Security money for Social Security and ending Washington's practice of raiding Social Security for other spending. We are also maintaining the spending discipline that brought us the balanced budget. Point of Order

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, our budget sticks to the spending caps signed into law by President Clinton in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997; while the President's budget exceeds those caps, as does the budget we are considering on the floor, the proposal, by our Blue Dog friends. That is the critical difference, Mr. Chairman, is that this distinguishes our budget from the President's and our budget from the one that is under consideration by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge). The spending caps are the heart of the balanced budget both parties have worked hard to achieve in recent years, but they are also the heart of our pledge to strengthen Social Security and Medicare. Our budget sticks to those caps and locks away 100 percent of the Social Security surplus for Social Security, off limits for new Washington spending. After locking away funds for Social Security and Medicare, and only after that, we return the rest of the surplus to the American people in the form of tax relief. Unfortunately, it seems our colleagues on the other side are not prepared to make that kind of a commitment. Now, do not get me wrong, Mr. Chairman. Our colleagues have every right to seek higher spending, but understand that for every dime that they spend beyond the caps is a dime that they could have locked away for Social Security and Medicare. By saying yes to higher spending, they are saying no to Social Security and Medicare. When we get right down to it, budgets are about choices. The choice here is not between Social Security and tax cuts. The choice is between Social Security and new Washington spending. We Republicans, we have already made our choice. We have said no to new Washington spending and we are locking away 100 percent of the Social Security surplus. We are locking away $100 billion more for Social Security and Medicare than the President, who cuts Medicare by $11.9 billion and spends a chunk of the Social Security surplus on new Washington spending. Mr. Chairman, given a choice between Social Security and new Washington spending, Republicans have chosen to support Social Security and Medicare. Now it is up to our colleagues which one they will decide to choose.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of our committee, for the excellent work he has done in bringing this resolution to the Floor for this Congress that really does bring about a continued effort for fairness for both parties as we try to do our legislative job. Mr. Speaker, speaking of fairness, there has been an awful lot of it talked about on the Floor tonight. I have been here in the Congress for 8 years. I have spent 6 years on this committee dealing with this issue. Thankfully, the last session of Congress and this session we are dealing with a 2-year budget cycle. We have to go through a lot of this rhetoric every year. It is always acrimonious, because when one is in the minority they always feel like they should have more. I think my friends on the other side of the aisle will acknowledge that we, the majority now, are treating the minority much more fairly than we were ever treated when we were in the minority. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and I had this discussion in the committee last week. When we took control after the 1994 there was a great debate, and there were some on my side in the majority who wanted to treat the Democrats the way they treated us when we were in the minority. Many of us argued that, no, we should treat the minority in the House the same way that we had asked to be treated. When we look at our efforts at trying to get committee funding for the minority up to the one-third goal, we have made a significant effort. So I think that as we now approach about 31 percent on average, with more than half of the committees at one-third or more, that we are making an honest effort and a good try toward the goal we set out. We should not forget what is really more I think at the base of the problem and the argument that we are having tonight. It goes back to 1994, when we promised the American people in the Contract With America that we would cut committee funding by one-third. In 1995, we did cut committee funding by one-third, cutting over $50 million out of the committees, reducing the number of slots. Even today, some 4\1/2\ years later, we are spending $40 million less this year than what was spent in 1994, the last year of the Democrat majority. So there is not as much money to go around. But I remember quite clearly on the opening day of this session of the Congress, when the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) offered the olive branch to the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), saying, I think, I am going to do everything I can to go halfway, and maybe even more so at times. I think what we are asking the entire House to do is to do more with less, to live within the constraints that we promised the American people we would do when we took the majority. The budgets are cut. We are trying to pinch our pennies. If we look at the budget over the next 2 years we will see that there is a 3 percent increase in total. That is 1\1/2\ percent per year, well below the rate of inflation. We made that commitment to the American people that Congress could do more with less. We are trying to make that commitment and keep that commitment, and also at a time while we are treating the minority with the fairness that we had asked for. Is it perfect? No, it is not. It was not perfect before and it will not be perfect even the next time. But our goal and our word to work towards that one-third goal is genuine, and I think that the minority understands as clearly as I do that we are doing much better in terms of the way we are treating them than the way we were being treated when we were in the minority.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letter from the International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of America. International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of America, Washington, DC, February 8, 1999. Hon. John Boehner, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of America (``IEMCA''), I am writing to support enactment of legislation to correct the tariff classification of 13-inch televisions and television products. This legislation is contained in

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, every Member of Congress takes an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution, and today we are challenged to do our duty under that oath. No person in this House is without fault or without sin, but the question before us is not whether the President has sinned. The question before us is whether the President has committed illegal acts, including perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power. Under the Constitution that we swore to defend, these are serious crimes, crimes that our constituents would go to prison for, and do we hold the President, the top-ranking law enforcement official in our country, to a lower standard? John Locke once wrote, ``Where the law ends, tyranny begins.'' Mr. Speaker, if we believe in our Constitution, then the law does not stop at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. In our constitutional democracy, no one, not even the President, is above the law. None of us sought the burden of impeachment when we ran for this office, but every one of us raised our right hand and swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Who are we to ignore that obligation by turning a blind eye to crimes by the leader of our government? I have no choice but to honor my oath of office. I have no choice but to impeach this President and send this matter to the Senate, as my oath of office requires me to do.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised today that the Members are not really at all interested in moving forward on this bill. Whether we are from a protectionist background or whether we believe in free and fair and open trade, everyone ought to be for this bill because what this bill says, very simply, is we are going to force the other countries in the world to live by an agreement that we all signed. The Congress of the United States signed onto the GATT agreement. We signed onto the World Trade Organization. What we are saying today is we want the rest of the world to live up to the agreements that they signed onto with us. We can talk about bananas. This fight has been going on for a long time. It is an issue that will probably continue. But the World Trade Organization needs to make a decision and needs to follow through on it. But I have found it rather interesting that Members that have come down here to support the interests of Caribbean farmers, small family farmers, let us not forget the other issue in this bill. The other issue here is for cattle producers in America who over the last several years have dealt with the lowest prices they have had. Why do they have low prices? Because we are unable to export our beef to some countries and some nations and areas of the world, including the European Union. The European Union has oversubsidized their farmers for years and flooded the markets and depressed prices for our farmers. We have heard earlier the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins), and I am sure we will hear from several of our other colleagues about what the European Union is doing in terms of blocking our ability to export beef grown by U.S. farmers, U.S. family farmers, to the European Union. What this bill does today is force the WTO to do what they should be doing, and that is to enforce GATT and to enforce an agreement that we all agreed to. This is about keeping your word. We want to keep our word in this deal, and we want to keep our word to U.S. farm producers and cattlemen who deserve this effort today.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate our good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) who has labored with this bill along with other Members over the course of this year. And although the gentleman from North Carolina has a worthy alternative, I think that the bill we have before us is an agreed-upon bill between the House and the Senate and the administration. It is time to move this issue forward. There are probably a lot of people in America who wonder why we have guest workers, why we would bring these special H-1B workers in. I think it is important to note that over the last 18 to 20 years, the American economy has grown to be the most competitive economy in the world. If Members will recall, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, we were losing quickly our ability to compete. What has happened over the last 18 to 20 years is America, because of the information age, because of the advent of new technology, has really become the most competitive Nation on the earth. The only problem is, our workers, a lot of them, we do not have enough to fill these very highly skilled positions. That is why we have this temporary guest worker program. While I support the program, I support what we are doing here, we also have to keep in mind that we need to do a better job of making sure that we have the educational resources and the options available for U.S. citizens to gain the skills and gain the education to fill these positions long-term. That is why in this bill there is some additional money for training and education. But I think it causes us to take a moment to think about the bigger picture of what has to happen in our country. Tomorrow, hopefully, we will have the Higher Education Reauthorization Act on the floor of the House that will, again, show the American people our commitment to broadening higher education and the availability of it for all Americans, because long-term we have the skills and the ability to fill these jobs ourselves if, in fact, we make that commitment to them. In the meantime, we need this to maintain our competitiveness. It is the right thing to do. The gentleman from Texas really does deserve a big pat on the back for laboring through a lot of slings and arrows from a lot of different directions over the course of this year.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the committee, for yielding me time on this very important amendment offered by our good friend from Hawaii. About four years ago I offered an amendment on this floor during the appropriations process to eliminate this $5 million program called the Native Hawaiian Education program, intended to provide some money to help in the education of native Hawaiian children. The reason for that is very simple. In Hawaii there is the Bishop estate left by the heir to King Kamehameha and this Bishop estate has a $10 billion endowment. That is $10 billion. Their sole purpose, their sole charter is to educate native Hawaiian children. This estate has squandered this money for a number of years to the point where the school that receives this funding of the amendment offered by my friend from Hawaii, this school is being investigated by the Attorney General in the State of Hawaii. The school is being audited, investigated by the Internal Revenue Service. The trustees of this Bishop estate are paid, in 1996, $843,109, $843,000 to each trustee, more than what most CEOs in America are paid. I think the Bishop estate has its own series of problems. The Clinton administration, in 1997, zero funded this same program because they said that the services provided by the special $5 million grant were already covered under other programs that these children would qualify for. This is nothing more than $5 million worth of extra pork intended to go to one State. It is unnecessary, and the amendment should absolutely be defeated.

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time, and I congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and the committee for bringing this bill forward. This is common sense reform, taking 31 programs of the Department of Education, consolidating them and block granting the money back to the States. They have made sure that we have held States harmless from losing funds, so every school in America will benefit as a result of this. But as I have listened to this debate this morning, it conjures up memories. Memories of the debate that we had over welfare reform in this House for years. The debate was never over money; the debate was always over who was going to reform welfare. Were we going to continue the Washington Knows Best mentality and try to reform it from Washington, or were we going to send these programs back to the 50 States, the 50 laboratories of democracy, and allow them to reform welfare, to meet the needs of the people in their States. We did it. The President signed the bill on the third try. What has happened? We have had a 50 percent, almost 50 percent reduction in case loads in welfare all around the country. We have got another opportunity here today to move power and influence away from Washington back home to States, local communities, and, in this case, most importantly, to parents of children who attend school. The question over how we are going to reform education and how we are going to ensure that our children get a better education is the essence of this bill. We have got one side of the aisle that wants Washington to continue to mandate on the States, mandate on local schools what should happen, make those decisions here. We on the Republican side say no. Let us trust parents. Let us trust the teachers and our local communities to make those decisions about our children's future at home where those decisions belong. This is a great piece of legislation. Let us support it.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H.Res. 515) and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration and adoption.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, the afternoon of Friday, July 24, seemed just like another busy Friday afternoon in our Nation's Capitol. The House had just concluded business for the week, Members were headed home, and my staff and I had huddled in the Capitol for a routine meeting to wrap things up for the week. What happened next was anything but routine; sad, tragic, heartbreaking. I do not think there is any description that quite does it justice. Capitol Police Officers J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson gave their lives stopping a deranged gunman who tried to blast his way into the people's Capitol. Working only a few dozen steps down the hall from Majority Whip Tom DeLay's office, my staff and I heard the shots. Like millions of others shaken by this tragic event, we feel we owe these two fallen heroes an almost unimaginable debt. Officers Chestnut and Gibson made the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation in keeping the Capitol safe and accessible for about 22,000 people who come to our Capitol every day to have an opportunity for direct contact with their legislators. That kind of openness is unheard of in societies that place a lesser value on human freedom. It is an important feature of American democracy that Officers Chestnut and Gibson gave their lives in its defense. Speaker Newt Gingrich spoke for all of us in recognizing their sacrifice and their grieving with the families when he said: ``These two gentleman are genuine heroes. They literally every day, knowingly and voluntarily, put their lives on the line. They understood that to be free, somebody had to be willing to take this risk.'' The tragedy was an awful reminder that freedom inevitably comes with a price, a price that these two officers were willing to pay. And as the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) said emotionally just minutes afterwards: Freedom is not free. There is always a cost, and today it cost the lives of two security officers sworn to protect the safety of the people's House. Officers Chestnut and Gibson's mission was to keep the Capitol open and accessible to citizens while guarding against those who would bring violence to its sacred halls. Nobly and courageously they succeeded, and we must honor what they fought for by keeping the Capitol open and accessible and preserving the freedom they died valiantly to defend. America will never forget the sacrifice that these two officers and other law enforcement personnel, what they do every day in protecting our Capitol and our society as a whole, and we pray that the grieving families of those two fallen heroes will find comfort in knowing that freedom will be their loved one's enduring legacy. They gave their lives to protect it for all of us, and we thank them from the bottom of our hearts, and may their souls rest in peace.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, in just 3 years this Congress has delivered the first balanced budget in a generation, the first tax cuts from Washington in 16 years, and real reforms that are improving the lives of many who are on welfare today as they are able to move from welfare to work. Today we are going to move in a bipartisan fashion to continue to add to our record of success and an opportunity to help the American people. As I travel around my district, I have had many conversations with my constituents who are concerned about access to good-quality health care. As much as they want access, they are also concerned about making sure that it is affordable. As I look at the two pieces of legislation that we are going to debate today, it is clear to me that the bill brought to us by the task force, headed by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dennis Hastert), is a bill that does that. It empowers consumers, not lawyers. It makes sure that health care continues to be affordable and accessible for all Americans. I think, in the end, that is what people want. They do not want to go to court. They want to be able to go to the doctor. They want to be able to get the treatments they need. And I think the empowerment that we see in our piece of legislation is exactly that. The other bill that we will be debating, the proposal by the gentleman from Michigan, in fact creates an awful lot of big government, an awful lot of access to lawsuits and to lawyers and to courts, driving up the cost of health care. My greatest concern about the proposal from the gentleman from Michigan is that, by opening up employers to the lawsuit abuse that could occur, many employers in America are going to say we are not going to be providing health care coverage to our employees anymore. I know myself, as a small employer, I would not continue to offer health care to my employees if I am subject to being sued by doctors, who may be on solid ground, maybe not. I am going to give them a voucher and let them go fight for their own. I do not think that is what the American people want. They want reasonable access, reasonable cost to good-quality care.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Chairman Bliley, Chairman Oxley, my friend Mr. White and Ms. Eshoo for their work on this fine piece of legislation, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. Nearly 3 years ago we passed the precursor to this bill. Before that, dozens of sue-first, ask-questions-later lawyers had made fortunes by organizing groups of shareholders to sue companies when their stock didn't live up to the shareholders' expectations. If the stock went down, even briefly, the trial lawyers sued the companies and harassed them into settlements. The real winners in these cases were the lawyers, who recovered fees that dwarfed the settlements their individual clients received. This especially hurt high-tech businesses which were easy targets because their stocks tended to fluctuate more than average. Because we wanted to keep America competitive in this vital market, in 1995 we passed the Securities Litigation Reform Act, overriding President Clinton's veto. That bill protected shareholders' legitimate interests but made it harder for the strike suit lawyers to coerce companies into unfair settlements. The problem was that in inventing a new mousetrap we had forgotten how smart the mouses were. The strike suit lawyers began filing their suits in state courts, where our bill had little effect. This bill realizes the intent of the 1995 bill by closing this loophole. Securities law is predominantly federal. This bill would prevent strike suit lawyers from abusing convenient state law by giving company defendants the opportunity to move strike suits filed in state courts to federal courts, where they would have the protection of the 1995 bill. Mr. Speaker, this superb piece of legislation will protect shareholders, it will protect our growing high-tech sector from needless harassment, and it will protect the high-paying, stable jobs that these industries will create now and in the future. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago, Congress delivered real welfare reform legislation for the first time in our Nation's history. Today those reforms are moving people from welfare to work in unprecedented numbers, reducing caseloads by 75 percent in some States. In my own county in Ohio, Butler County, we have reduced taxpayer costs for welfare 50 percent in 1 year alone. Today we are set to build on that success by taking the next step in welfare reform by passing legislation that transforms public housing from a way of life into a better life for low-income American families. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) truly represents a new era in Federal housing policy. America's Federal housing framework has been essentially unchanged since 1937, when Washington adopted the United States Housing Act, the basis for all Federal housing programs. The structure has remained relatively unchanged and in place for more than two generations. Unfortunately, it is not one of those things that gets better with age. It is time we acted responsibly to bring our Nation's housing laws into the 21st century. The amendment before us would replace our Nation's Depression-era housing laws with a new structure that empowers people, not government. It expands homeownership opportunities and gives residents a say in planning and management decisions that affect their quality of life. It reflects our strong belief that families deserve the opportunity to become homeowners and to make more decisions about where they live and, more importantly even, how they live. Current Federal housing policy results in warehousing of poor people. Decades of well-intentioned but flawed Washington policies have built a cold Federal wall between working Americans and our lowest-income Americans. It is, frankly, a national outrage. The measure that we have before us today helps put an end to this practice by providing broad flexibility. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the American people have entrusted the President of the United States with many exclusive privileges not available to the average person. Because of the travel demands that he bears as the leader of the free world, he has got the privilege of traveling across the world on Air Force One; because of his need for constant security as the leader of our government, he has the privilege of round-the- clock protection from the Secret Service, even after he leaves office; and because of the need for national security, he is entrusted with a special privilege, probably more sacred than any of these, and that is executive privilege. Let us be perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker. The President has the right to claim executive privilege in matters of national security. But no one has the privilege of being above the law; not Members of this House, not Members of the other body, not even the Chief Executive of the United States of America. But it seems that this important privilege is being used to block the people's right to know on a much broader range of issues. Mr. Speaker, I think there is a pattern developing in the Executive Branch. While reassuring the public that they are anxious to get to the truth, certain officials have consistently stood in the way of legitimate legal inquiries into activities of our government at the White House. Just yesterday, in fact, a White House spokesman bluntly claimed that the administration has fully cooperated with Congressional questions about these very troubling technology transfers to China. It was a reassuring thing to hear, but it just was not true. Congressional leaders from the Committee on National Security and from the Committee on International Relations have written the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State and the Director of the U.S. Arms Control Agency, and the chairman of the Committee on Intelligence wrote to the Secretary of Defense as well. Our Committee on Science, both Democrats and Republicans, have raised the issue of China with NASA. Even a letter sent to the President by the Speaker and the Majority Leader of the Senate has fallen on defense ears. To date, all of these requests have been met with either silence or reassurance. But all requests for information have been denied. Mr. Speaker, it is time for the stonewall tactics to end and the cooperating to begin. Whether it is stalling on basic requests for information or invoking executive privilege, the result is the same; the American people are denied the right to know what is going on inside their White House. In the end, Mr. Speaker, this is what this fight is about, the American people's right to know what happens in their government. This government does not belong to politicians in Washington D.C. This government belongs to the American people, and they have a right to know what happens in Washington, D.C. They have a right to know what is going on in their White House. I think the stonewalling should end, and the cooperating and the truth needs to be discovered.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, no one is alleging any specific act. There are questions, lots of questions that we are trying to get answers to. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler). (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the Majority Leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced House Resolution 440. This resolution expresses the sense of Congress that the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight should confer immunity to four witnesses who have direct knowledge about how the Chinese government made illegal campaign contributions in an apparent attempt to influence our foreign policy. This resolution is not about titillating gossip, nor is it about partisan politics. Simply put, this resolution is about determining whether American lives have been put at risk and whether Communist-controlled companies and Chinese officials were given access to sophisticated technology that jeopardizes our national security. To give my colleagues a sense as to why this resolution is so important, I would like to ask them to consider some disturbing revelations that have come to light about the connection between the Clinton administration and Communist China. Last week various news sources, including the New York Times, reported that the Clinton administration's decision to approve exports of satellite technology to China in 1996 may have been connected with campaign contributions to the Democrat Party. In short, it is alleged that the Clinton administration granted waivers to two companies in 1996, Loral Space and Communications and Hughes Electronic Corporation, that allowed them to export sophisticated satellite technology to Communist China. Loral's chairman, Bernard Schwartz, donated more than $600,000 to the Democrat Party. Last week the New York Times also reported that in March of 1996, the President overruled both the State Department and the Pentagon, which wanted to keep sharp limits on China's ability to launch American-made satellites using Chinese rockets, and turned oversight of granting such permission for these launches over to the Commerce Department, which was in favor of permitting them. At the time the Commerce Department was headed by the late Ron Brown, who was previously chairman of the Democratic National Committee. One of the beneficiaries of that decision, according to the Times, was China Aerospace, a military-run Chinese company that employed Liu Chaoying as an executive. The Times also reported that one-time Democratic fund-raiser Johnny Chung has told the Justice Department investigators that he funneled $100,000 in cash from Liu to the Democratic National Committee during the 1996 presidential campaign. Liu is a lieutenant colonel in the Chinese army and the daughter of a top Chinese military official. The Times' report is significant in that it represents the most solid evidence yet of a Chinese connection in the campaign finance scandal. More importantly, it opens the door to allegations that the Chinese government was able to jeopardize U.S. national security because of illegal campaign contributions. Mr. Speaker, one might logically ask, ``How does this affect America's national security?'' Well, I think the answer is quite obvious. Any technology transfer that benefits China's space program also benefits China's missile program. In fact, a little over 2 weeks ago it was reported in The Washington Times that Communist China had aimed 13 long-range strategic missiles at the United States. These missiles have a range of 8,000 miles and are capable of delivering nuclear warheads that can obliterate an entire city in a single blast. We have also learned that China is aggressively pursuing development and modernization of their entire missile program. Not only are they improving the accuracy of their short-range missiles which threaten their neighbors, they are also developing an entirely new class of missiles capable of bringing their nuclear weapons to American families. So, Mr. Speaker, we need to know why and if the President of the United States changed the policy in a way that gave sensitive and sophisticated missile technology to a Nation that now aims nuclear weapons at our sons and daughters. Mr. Speaker, I can only ask all of my colleagues to join with me as we try to ensure whether or not our children grow up in a safe world or in a world in the throes of another arms race, or even another Cold War. President Clinton is expected to travel to China next month where he is also expected to announce new space technology cooperation agreements. Before he leaves, the American people must know exactly if past cooperation with China has undermined our national security. Congress and the American people must have the answers to some very specific questions: Why did the President overrule the State Department and turn such important decisions over to the Commerce Department? How did this transfer of technology jeopardize our national security and American lives? No Member of this body should rest until we know the answers to these questions. Giving immunity to these four important witnesses is a first step in opening the door to the truth in these very important matters. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.