Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, today we remember the life of Henry Hyde. Henry Hyde was no doubt one of the greatest Members ever to serve in this Chamber. He was certainly one of the most articulate. Let me note right off the beginning, Henry Hyde was a personal hero of mine long before I arrived here in this body in 1989. And unlike heroes who I have met over my lifetime, quite often I have been disappointed in the heroes that I have met, Henry Hyde remained a person I admired, a hero that I admired, even after I got to work with him and got to know him personally. Henry Hyde was, yes, a great orator, and he had a personal presence. Anyone who has ever worked or been around Henry Hyde could tell you that. Yet, these were not the qualities that made his greatness. Henry used his talents and his influence to further fundamental principles and values that reflected Henry's character and his commitment to higher ideals. He rose above politics. What is it that Henry believed in? What were these higher ideals? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life. Yes, that is the first, that is the first of Henry's values. Yes, Henry was one of the greatest voices in the defense of the unborn on this planet. It was not the popular stand to take, and it still is not necessarily the popular stand to take. It was a moral imperative, however, a moral imperative that Henry felt very deeply about. When someone believes that the issue of abortion is not an issue that concerns tissue being extracted from a woman's body, but is instead an issue that deals with the ending of a human life, the principle is clear. But the courage to advocate such a moral and principled position may not match the importance of the issue itself. Henry spoke with such eloquence on so many issues, but on this issue, one could not help but admire him and know that it was something that was coming from his heart, and a heart that was filled with love. He was a national force in the battle to protect the unborn. This is part of his legacy and something we should not forget and we should always remember him for, because it took courage for him to lead this battle. Henry made this issue a crusade, and he did much himself to create the movement that now I think has brought public opinion and at least the public consciousness more to what the issue is on this issue of abortion. Yes, life was Henry's number one priority. Liberty. Henry fought for liberty as a young naval officer in the Philippines during the Second World War. I was very honored to have gone with Henry to the Philippines where he was issued a medal for his service as a young man in the Second World War. He then after the war returned home and fought the battle for liberty in both the State legislature in Illinois, and, yes, here in the halls of Congress. Henry's war was a war for liberty and justice for all. Henry was chairman of the Judiciary Committee. And, yes, we should not forget another controversial thing about Henry. He led that Judiciary Committee at a time of an impeachment procedure against President Bill Clinton. With the sexual implications of the charges against the former President, that endeavor could have turned into a lurid political circus. Instead, Henry Hyde insisted on maintaining standards and maintaining that the issue was perjury, and that was the only issue to be approached and discussed, and he insisted on maintaining the decorum of this House under these most trying of circumstances. After serving as chairman the Judiciary Committee, he moved on to serve as chairman of the International Relations Committee. I was honored to serve with him on that august committee, and I watched firsthand as he stepped up and he maintained his commitment not only to American security, but to human liberty. These were the paramount issues for Henry Hyde, whether our country was safe and whether human liberty was being furthered. Yes, Henry Hyde was the chairman of the International Relations Committee and led us after 9/11, led us at a time when we went into war with radical Islam, a war in which we are currently engaged. And Henry, his courage, his strength, his character, did very much to ensure the American people that, yes, we will prevail over this monstrous evil enemy that we face. Well, finally let me note the pursuit of happiness. All of us who knew Henry know that he was a man who enjoyed his life. He exemplified that happiness comes from more than just acquiring material wealth. Henry was a happy man because he was doing what he thought was right and was making a difference. When he left us last year, he had dedicated his whole life to the service of our country and to those higher ideals I have just mentioned. He had every reason to be proud of the wonderful and exemplary life that he had lived. So, tonight we remember Henry. He will be buried later on this week, but he will remain a force in this body and will remain a force in American politics for years to come, along with the Henry Clays and the Daniel Websters and the other great orators and great men of principle who have served here in Washington in the People's House and in this great Congress.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. On the issue, first, I'd like to compliment the gentleman on obviously his vast knowledge and research that he had done on these energy issues. I am very impressed with the presentation tonight. Let me note that in California I worked very closely with Governor Schwarzenegger on a number of these energy issues. One of the new technologies that has emerged is the actual production of hydrogen on a portable basis. There is an inventor in California that has come up with an attachment that can go on any internal combustion engine that actually attaches to the alternator of the engine and creates electricity that goes into a liquid into the small container, which then, as we know, electricity through liquid produces hydrogen and oxygen gas, which is then put into the air intake of the engine. The Governor, when I described this to him, and we had a lot of trouble with private companies unwilling to actually test this product out, the Governor put it on his Hummer. He said, Dana, I am giving you my Hummer. Put it on the car and I will pay for the test. The Governor actually reached out. This type of creativity and what you're discussing tonight and a broad array of approaches to our energy challenge, I think, will carry us through. I want to compliment the gentleman on his great presentation tonight.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me note that I agree with the excitement and the energy that I have seen here today, and I think that there is every reason for optimism that many of the challenges that we face can be overcome by the very forces that we are talking about. I believe there are more market-driven forces, because as the price has gone up, we have unleashed a whole new exciting effort that could be profit-making and also make changes. But, as we are discussing this, there is just one thing that has concerned me on this side of the aisle. And I certainly agree with trying to increase our development of sources of energy, as Mr. Miller was just talking about, you know, this is the type of investment we can make that will permit these entrepreneurs who respond to the market. I certainly agree that, but, as you were talking about it, we know that electricity is going to be a major factor in the success of the technologies that you are talking about, because each and every one of these we now bring electricity into play where we had internal combustion engines before. But why is it that we, when we face an energy bill like the one coming up, that we have basically written off nuclear energy as a role that it could play in providing that energy and providing us the self-sufficiency that we need in the future?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman yield for one moment?

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, ``Be prepared'' is the motto of the Boy Scouts of America. Unfortunately, for those Californians now in harm's way, the leadership of the U.S. Forest Service doesn't have the same commitment. Three years ago, the fleet of airplanes with firefighting capabilities available to the Forest Service declined dramatically, due to both attrition and accidents. I contacted the head of the Forest Service and aggressively suggested that steps be taken to ensure a surge capability in firefighting aircraft should a major conflagration erupt. Much to my chagrin, the leadership at the National Forest Service was not responsive and our fire fighting aviation assets were permitted to dwindle. I continued to push the case for preparedness, focusing on the certification of specially designed Russian firefighting airplanes, so that water bombers would be available if our own depleted air assets were insufficient to handle an emergency. The availability of large American aircraft, like the DC-10, converted for firefighting purposes, was also suggested as a possible backup should the current number of firefighting aircraft prove inadequate. The bureaucratic response from the U.S. Forest Service was disheartening, which is an understatement. The leadership did everything they could not to do anything. They bent over backwards to justify not taking steps to be prepared for the worst scenario. It appeared to be ``good ol' boyism'' and bureaucratic obstructionism with a vengeance. After all my pleas and demands, the Forest Service refused to take the steps necessary to be prepared for the worst. That intransigence was the order of the day at the Forest Service as late as December of last year, 2006. The people of California are now suffering. It was only the intervention of Gov. Schwarzenegger that kept the privately developed fire fighting DC-10 available for the awe-inspiring part it is now playing in the current battle against the flames that have engulfed huge chunks of California. That DC-10, however, as well as the Russian waterbombers, is still not permitted to fight fires on the Federal lands in California, or elsewhere. When the fire is extinguished and an-evaluation is done, one thing that must be determined is whether or not a lack of aviation fire- fighting capacity undercut the courageous efforts of those confronting this enormous blazing inferno. Did people lose their homes because the waterbombers weren't there to save the day? One way or the other, those who made the decision to do nothing at the U.S. Forest Service will be held accountable. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, September 29, 2005. Mr. Dale Bosworth, Chief, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington,

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering on behalf of myself and my colleague from California (Ms. Richardson) provides authorization for the rails of the next generation. As this Congress looks at ways to curb pollution, new technologies such as electric conveyor systems are key in reducing our impact on the environment, while getting the job done more efficiently, thus promoting the economic prosperity and, of course, the well-being of the American people. Currently, logjams occur as offloaded freight is bottlenecked at our ports waiting for trucks to take containers to interior rail and trucking hubs. Electric conveyor systems, on a set rail, can streamline this process, reducing costs to the American consumer as well as eliminating pollution that would otherwise come from these container hauling trucks. It is also an issue of safety. American ports are found in coastal metropolitan areas. As the Minnesota bridge disaster reminds us, it is fitting that we look at the safety of our current infrastructure. But we should also look towards the future and the systems that will be in place in the years ahead. Electric conveyor systems have already proven to be extremely safe and efficient, but we would be remiss if we do not offer these systems the same funds for safety that we offer our current rail lines, and that is what this amendment seeks to accomplish. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would yield myself 1 minute and I would just suggest that that is the kind of opposition that I like. I thank you very much. The vision Mr. Oberstar has just laid out is exactly what we are trying to do. Mr. Oberstar, of course, is responsible for today, but he is also, by working together with us, we are trying to make sure that we are building a better tomorrow based on the technology of tomorrow that will overcome some of the problems of today. And let us note for the record, this is probably the first legislative step toward the direction of fulfilling the vision that Mr. Oberstar just outlined for us of what the potential of this is. So if they go back in history and 5, 10 years from now we have an incredible working system that takes tens of thousands of trucks off the road and it helps our environment, we can look back to this vote and this floor discussion as the first step. I appreciate that very much and look forward to working with you. I think this is the perfect bipartisan effort where all of us can come together of any project that I know of. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. How much time do I have left?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield myself the balance of my time. Again, I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar for his support and partnership in this. I would hope that we start with a demonstration at the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach, whereas it would take tens of thousands of trucks off the road just there, but something that would be a model for the rest of the country. And let me also suggest that, as we have discussed, this is a project that could well pay for itself and be done with having people who are using the system pay back what the cost of the system is. So it is something that we can work on and mold together in a way that will really serve the environment and make our country more efficient. Let me note that Juanita Millender-McDonald, who was the Representative from Long Beach as well as myself, was a great supporter of this concept. We talked many times on this. Maybe we will name it after her in her memory. We miss her today. But Ms. Richardson who took her place is very supportive of this as well, so we are working on this as a team. I deeply appreciate this positive spirit on both sides of the aisle, and ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Lampson and Mr. Feeney for their hard work they have been doing here, not just on this legislation but overseeing America's space program. You certainly have my respect and my support, and I'm happy today for their support for this legislation. This bill takes note and honors America's historic aeronautic accomplishments on the 60th anniversary of one of our great aviation milestones, that of achieving mach 1, better known as breaking the sound barrier. It also honors those American scientists and technologists who conceived and designed the Bell XS-1, as well as the courage of the hero who flew the plane, General Chuck Yeager of West Virginia. The leadership of Larry Bell of Bell Aircraft and John Stack of NACA, which is the predecessor of NASA, are also recognized and applauded here today. The sound barrier was not called a barrier for nothing. As an aircraft approaches the sound barrier, many of the subsonic rules of aerodynamics change radically. Conventional airplanes that had flown close to mach 1 before that, and they had done this mainly when they were diving, were known to have shaken violently and quite often lost control. On that morning of October 14, 1947, the principles of supersonic flight were still not proven. It was unknown whether an airplane could surpass the speed of sound and survive. The XS-1 was pushing the envelope and it was dangerous. Behind the plane, it was really a rocket, as described, a rocket with wings, which is sort of like the plane I have here. Behind that lay the hard work and dedication of pioneering American scientists and engineers who were to write the book on supersonic design, beginning with the XS-1 project. The XS-1, a bullet with wings, as they say, was the first high-speed aircraft built purely for aviation research purposes, and the XS-1 project was destined to demonstrate that controlled, sustained flight was possible at supersonic speeds. In addition, this bill honors Chuck Yeager of West Virginia and all that he represents in America's experimental aeronautics programs. Besides not knowing whether the aircraft would break the sound barrier without breaking apart, no one knew whether the human body could survive the kinds of forces Yeager was about to undergo. He was one of the best and the bravest, and he was, as Tom Wolfe described him, an individual with the right stuff. Not only did he reach mach 1 on that October morning at Edwards Air Force Base, but he has repeated that on many occasions since, including October 1997 on the 50th anniversary of his flight. His life has been an inspiration to generations of young Americans and, yes, to young people throughout the world. And so on that October morning, American expertise in aeronautic science and technology, and its human skills and experience in flight, were put to the test and came together to tear down the sound barrier wall and lead the way to a new era of aviation and to the space age beyond. To continue that tradition and the tradition of these pioneers, I will be introducing an aeronautics and space prize scholarship bill this week. This legislation will create a National Endowment for Space and Aeronautical Technology Development, and it will include a scholarship program, but its primary mission is to provide prizes for those who break technology barriers and enable the further exploration and utilization of space. Certainly, Chuck Yeager would have won one of these prizes. So I would ask my colleges to join Bart Gordon, Ralph Hall, Bud Cramer and others who are in this in bipartisan support for creating the National Endowment for Space and Aeronautics Technology Development. I would also ask my colleagues to join me tonight in supporting H. Res. 736, honoring the 60th anniversary of this great milestone in aeronautics and space technology development.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Speaker of the House Pelosi. Over the years we have worked, along with Chairman Lantos, on many human rights issues, and it has always been the people of Burma that were the most inspiring of those people that we sought to stand with over the years in these human rights causes that have unified us and Congressman Smith and so many others in this body. Chairman Lantos again, of course, has provided such leadership. His life, of course, is exemplary of a person who holds such values as human rights and democracy and that we hold dear and affirm today. Today, the Congress of the United States speaks with one voice. The people of Burma, we are on your side. Be courageous. You are not alone. To the gangsters in uniform who have held the people of Burma in bondage for decades, you will be held accountable. Now is the time to join with the people of Burma. If, instead of joining them and trying to build a new Burma, that you bloody your hands even more, you will be held accountable. Your bank accounts will be frozen and you will be arrested for crimes against humanity if you leave your country. And I can promise that those of us who hold dear human rights in this Congress will not rest until those actions are taken against you as individuals if you are committing these crimes against the people of Burma. We call on those in the Burmese military, who take orders from the gangster regime that runs that country, we call on them to change sides. Now is the time for the Burmese military to join the people of Burma in creating a democratic and free society. The military clique that gives orders to the military of Burma has no lawful authority. They are criminals. They are the criminals who have made deals with the government in China to steal Burma's natural resources and to impoverish the people of Burma in the process. Let us not overlook the role of China in this crime. China has provided the military junta in Burma with over a billion and a half dollars of military aid over the last few years. It is the government of China that has enabled this monstrous dictatorship to hold 50 million people in bondage. It is China which has blocked the actions of the United Nations to stop the junta slaughter of Burmese monks and other peaceful demonstrators who, right as we speak, are losing their lives in the cause of human freedom. I ask my colleagues to support my efforts and others' efforts who have come here. We have several people who have already cosponsored a resolution to hold China accountable for what they are doing in Burma. This is only a taste of what we're going to experience around the world as China becomes a monstrous power in this planet. We have built up their economy. We have not only permitted them to become a powerful force in the world; we have subsidized the growth of power of this Chinese monster that now not only supports Burma, but is involved with the genocide in Darfur. The United States should not be participating in an Olympics that is being hosted by a regime that commits genocide in Darfur and Burma. Finally, let us today remember Aung San Suu Kyi. She represents not just the people of Burma, but she is the one who represents the higher aspirations and the higher ideals of humanity. She has suffered for many long decades peacefully in her home. Now, she has been taken from house arrest and sent to a prison. We do not know what fate she is suffering. We know that she is in the hands of murderers. We know she is in the hands of people who torture and would slaughter peaceful monks in the streets. So our hearts go out to her, and we keep her in our prayers, but we also suggest that if anything happens to Aung San Suu Kyi, the rise of anger will be heard not only from Washington but from around the world, for every decent and freedom-loving person will rise up. So those criminals who now slaughter the monks on the streets of Rangoon should understand that we are watching and the whole world is watching, and we speak with one voice.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, tonight I'd like to share a few thoughts about national security and about American foreign policy. We have many challenges that confront us today, and we live in perplexing times, but we also live in a time when there are great challenges as well as great opportunities, as long as we, the American people, have the courage to live up to our potential as a country that could lead the world into a better way than we have known throughout the history of humankind. We are indeed in a new millennium, and this new millennium, coupled with the technological capabilities that we have and the vast wealth that is available to the free societies of the world today make it possible that we can build a better world than any human being has ever known. But, again, a lot of this has to fall back on the United States of America and our willingness as Americans to live up to the responsibility that we've been handed. Ronald Reagan used to say that America has a very special role to play in this world. He used to say that because we Americans are a very special kind of people. We are not of one race. We're not of one religion nor one ethnic group, but instead, we are made up of people who come from every part of this planet and every racial background and worship God in every way that you can imagine. And in fact, there are many atheists who don't worship God at all and have that right, but we've come here to live in freedom and to show the world and to lead the world as a country that's made up of people from all over, that lead the world toward that direction which will enable it to overcome those trials and tribulations, those hatreds, ancient hatreds that have plagued mankind for so long. And yes, today, the United States is the great superpower, thanks of course a lot to Ronald Reagan who I just talked about. The fact that during the Cold War he was willing to act responsibly to make tough decisions, in a way that ended the Cold War in a very real sense, he oversaw the demise of communism in the Soviet Union. It was Ronald Reagan who everyone knows brought down the Berlin Wall and not George Herbert Walker Bush, George W. Bush's father. But as the Berlin Wall came down because of the policies of Ronald Reagan, we too must make the right decisions to ensure that the challenges that we face today are overcome in time for the next generation to enjoy greater freedom and to free themselves from the threats of fear that we face today. This will not happen unless we act responsibly, unless we act with courage, but, most importantly, unless we stand up and proclaim that, yes, we are from every nation of the world and every race and every religion, and we are the ones who will promote freedom and liberty on this planet. It is that alliance that we can have with those people in every country, that we have are, as I say, those people within our own society who can reach out to every country with that message, that we are allied with those good and decent people throughout the world who would stand with us to create a world where human freedom and liberty and justice and treating people with respect is something that is commonplace rather than the exception. Sometimes it's a little difficult to think of a world becoming free, and the expansion of liberty and justice in this world, when we hear the reports that we heard today coming out of Burma. Burma, for these last 4 decades, has lived under tyranny, a horrible, horrible tyranny. It has been a closed society. Burma is a country that is so rich in natural resources that after the Second World War it was thought that Burma would be the breadbasket of Asia, that Burma would indeed be one of the richest countries of Asia. Instead, Burma has sunk year after year, suffering from tyranny but, as a result of that tyranny, its people have lived in deprivation and in hunger and in want that was never ever thought would happen. No one ever thought that would happen after the Second World War. But if we have learned anything from Burma and from the other countries that are poor today, it is that poverty is not created by too big a population. Poverty is not created by even a scarcity of resources, natural resources. Poverty is created because of tyranny. Tyranny and dictatorship bring corruption and bring about a strangling of those creative impulses within any society and those productive people within every society that will build, that will create the wealth necessary to uplift the people of any society. Instead, tyranny drags them down, no matter how prosperous the country could be in terms of its natural resources. The report today is that Burma had its chance, or perhaps it still does, but that the ruling regime, the gangsters that have run that country for decades, have now unleashed their firepower upon the Buddhist monks and the other people in that society who are calling for a liberalization of the Burmese regime. Apparently, thousands of people have been slaughtered. In fact, an intelligence officer for the Burmese military has defected, and he now is reporting to Western newspapers that it was his orders, by his commanding officers, to round up hundreds, if not thousands of monks, and put them in trucks and take them into the deep jungle and murder them and dump their bodies in the jungle. He could not do that, and so he defected. He grabbed his child and ran for the border. It is time for the other military officers in Burma and the police not just to take their children and run because they can't obey an order, but to realize that the orders they are being given by their generals, their so-called generals, are not lawful orders. It is time for the army of Burma to side with the people of Burma. Any military leaders in Burma today who side with the people will become national heroes and will be renowned and remembered by their people for generations to come. They will receive the gratitude not only of the people of Burma, but to all the good and decent people of the world. The soldiers in Burma and the police in Burma should turn their guns on their generals. They should side with the people of Burma, their fathers, their mothers, their brothers and sisters who want honest government and clean government. They should not be slaughtering their fellow family members who want nothing more than clean, honest, Democratic government. The regime, as I say, is headed by what they call generals, but these are not generals. These are gangsters who have put on military uniforms. No Burmese soldier owes them any allegiance. These generals, these gangsters, have sold out their country and their countrymen to foreign interests, namely, the Chinese. Yes, the dictatorship in Beijing is treating the government, which means the generals, in Burma as if Burma was a vassal state of China. In exchange for the $1.5 billion worth of military equipment that China has given Burma, the Burmese gangsters who run that country are permitted, the government in Beijing and the Chinese, to rape the natural resources of the people of Burma, the teakwood, the gems, the uranium, the rich minerals that Burma has are being taken away. They are being eliminated from the future of the people of that country in order to pay for the weapons that repress the people of that country. The Chinese have demanded of the Burmese Government a facility on their ocean so that they can be in a position to outflank India and to interfere with the trade, ocean trade in that part of the world. All of this is being given away by those leaders, so-called leaders in Burma. They are giving away the rightful legacy of the people of Burma to Chinese outsiders, gangsters in China now in league with gangsters of Burma. This is the type of relationship that China will have with other countries if we permit them. And it is clear, for those of us who are looking, that the military troops that are now shooting down those who seek democracy in Burma would not be doing so if the Chinese would have objected and sent any message to their Burmese stooges not to shoot and not to commit violence against those who are peacefully advocating change, democratic change in Burma. Yes, they have a regime. But unlike in other countries, like we faced in another issue which I will talk about in Iraq, in Burma, there is an alternative. There is an alternative to the Burmese dictatorship. Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Prize winner, won with her party elections back in the 1990s when the generals were so deluded that they believed their own propaganda in thinking they were more popular than they were, and they permitted a free election. In that free election, they were wiped out. The fact is that Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma and the people of Burma went to polls and the people of Burma overwhelmingly supported democratic reform and Aung San Suu Kyi. The election was, of course, immediately discarded; the generals mobilized their troops. Aung San Suu Kyi was sent into House arrest. Aung San Suu Kyi, I went to Burma and met her several years ago, one of the great heroes of our time, a saintly person, someone who is depending on us like the people of Burma to make a strong stand. If nothing else, the American people must let the people of Burma know that we are on their side, and we must let the ruling junta know that we oppose them and we oppose their oppression of the Burmese people. This should be clear to them, and we must make sure that those Burmese generals and those military officers who were committing atrocities against the people of Burma realize they are not just murdering their fellow Burmese, they are committing crimes against humanity, and they will be followed and pursued just like the Nazis before them, and they will be held accountable and brought to justice. I am calling on our government to freeze any assets that any leader of the Burmese Government might have, and our government should be working with other governments to issue arrest warrants for any member of the Burmese Government who travels abroad. Furthermore, we must join with other nations and suggest that China is not doing its part and is playing a horrible role when it comes to freedom in Burma, as it will play the same role in the Philippines and elsewhere as its strength as a country grows. China has prevented the United Nations from stopping the atrocities that are now going on, as we speak, in Burma. China has been pulling the strings. The Burmese regime would never have opened fire without permission in Beijing. The people of Burma should know that. The people of the world should know that. It is time for the people in the United States to quit closing their eyes to the monstrous nature of the Beijing regime. Without that regime, the Burmese dictators, the gangsters in Burma, would not be able to succeed in holding down that population and by brutalizing their people. I have a piece of legislation before the Congress, and I would ask my colleagues to join me. The legislation is H.R. 610. It is a bill suggesting that we go on record as being in favor of boycotting the upcoming Olympics to be held in China. There is no reason, while China remains the world's worst human rights abuser, and that includes Burma, I might add, the Chinese are the world's worst human rights abuser, and why should we ever hold an Olympics, which stands for some of the higher aspirations of humankind, why should we ever hold an Olympics in China while it has that type of monstrously dictatorial government. Yes, in China they not only are involved with repressing the people of Burma, but they are deeply involved with criminal acts against their own people, especially against religious believers. Isn't it fascinating that in Burma, those who would try to lead the country to a better and more Democratic way are those Buddhist monks who now, in a very peaceful way, have presented their case and are answered with an iron fist. They are answered by bullets, they are answered by brutality. In China, it's the same. We have people of the religious faith, whether they are Muslims in the far reaches of China or whether they are people in Tibet, who have been so brutalized, or other religious believers, Christians, Catholics, and, yes, the Falun Gong, the Falun Gong who have a spiritual belief that is somewhat similar to yoga and somewhat meditation. Yet, this very simple and pacifist religion has been vilified by the communist party of China, and thousands and thousands of Falun Gong practitioners believing in meditation and yoga have been arrested. They are picked up, and they disappear. The women are raped in prison; they are murdered. Perhaps worst of all, when they disappear, they are sent to prisons, and now we have reports coming out of those prisons that Falun Gong prisoners, people who are pacifists, who are simply believing in meditation and yoga, they are, what, they are being murdered for their organ parts which are then being sold. Sometimes they sell them to Americans who come there. Falun Gong prisoners are killed right before a doctor, who would then remove the cornea from their eye and sell it to people in the West who spend thousands of dollars to get these body parts. If there is anything more ghoulish than this, even the Nazis, I don't think, could sink that low, but they sank about as low as one could ever expect. But that is the type of thing that goes on today, and we are giving the Chinese the ability to hold the Olympics, to cover up, to put a good face on this type of monstrous regime. It is time for the people of the United States Congress to join with me in agreeing that as long as China is doing, number one, what it's doing in Burma and in Darfur, where they are again behind the scenes playing a horrible role, it is time for us to join together and say we will not participate in an Olympics hosted by such a criminal government. And I am happy to announce today Neil Abercrombie, my colleague from Hawaii, has joined me in supporting this legislation. China, of course, even beyond, if it was simply a nondictatorship, there would be major problems with China. China is a predatory nation. China is a nation, for example, it is a nation, as a nation state it's huge, and it has more territorial claims than any other major power in the world. China has been built into a huge power, an economic power, which is now being translated into military power. Even though it has claims against India, huge areas of India and Russia, large areas of the ocean are claimed by China. If one remembers, it was just a few years ago when one of our planes, our surveillance planes flying in international waters was forced down in China, and they claimed that their territorial waters extended way beyond anything the United States would recognize. And all they wanted for us to get the crew back was for us to apologize and to acknowledge that we were in their territory. What does that mean? They would have murdered these American military personnel in order to assert their claim to huge areas of ocean. In fact, they claim the ocean right up to the shore line of the Philippines. They claim the Sprattley Islands, which are only 100 miles from the Philippines and 500 to 600 miles from China. Huge areas, as I say, of India and of Russia. This is a country that we have built an economy over these last two decades, we have built from a weak country, we now have created a Frankenstein monster. And when I say ``we,'' I mean the policies of the United States Government have uplifted the economic capabilities of a country that has had no liberalization, no political reform of their dictatorial system. We were told for 20 years, when I first got here, vote for most favored nation status for China, because if we interact with China economically, they will liberalize. What they need to do is, we have to prove to them not to fear us. This is a reoccurring theme by which people who live in democratic societies fool themselves into thinking that the criminals who run other governments, dictatorships are in some way motivated by the same motives that people are in free societies, that people in free societies will fear someone, thus they will agree to certain expenditures, military expenditures. The Chinese know exactly who we are and who they are. The Chinese people are not the enemy. Those people in Beijing want to hold on to power, just as the dictators in Burma want to hold on to power. And as we move forward and try to determine what our policy should be in the future, let us note the policies of trying to engage China economically, permitting huge transfers of dollars of capital assets, of technology, of American know-how, of opening our markets, even though their markets were closed, letting them manipulate the currency, letting them get away with policies that shifted wealth from the United States into China. That did not have a positive impact on their government. Their government is still corrupt. Their government is still a government of criminal dictators, people who oppress their people and, as I say, are the worst human rights abusers in the world. So first and foremost, in dealing with China, as in dealing with Burma, we must differentiate how we treat a dictatorship and how we treat a democratic country. Those leaders in China should not be granted the status of acceptability that goes with hosting the Olympics with our blessing. Yet, we have, for the last two decades, seen an army of American corporate leaders rushing to China to invest and build factories and in partnership with the Chinese Government set up these factories and create manufacturing units that sell goods back to the United States, putting American workers out of work, selling goods back to the United States that have such poor standards that some of them are made of toxic material, as we've just seen with Mattel Toys, American corporate leaders, who are looking for two, three, maybe 4 years' worth of big profit for themselves, then they can cut and run and go off to their vacationland homes and enjoy themselves. Those corporate leaders have created a monster with the blessing of the United States Government, because it's been our policy to permit them to transfer the technology, the know-how, and the investment dollars that were needed to build China into what it is today. And today, the Chinese are destroying the manufacturing base of the United States, and we have turned a blind eye to the fact that they manipulate the currency, that they manipulate access to their markets, and that they steal American intellectual property. We have turned a blind eye to that, just as we have turned a blind eye to the fact that the Chinese repress their own people. And when you talk to these corporate leaders who've gone over there and built this monster, created this Nazi-like government, you ask them, they say, well, you know, when we do more and more economic interaction, we have more business; that's what's going to create more liberalism and reform there. How many times have we heard that? We've been listening to that for 20 years. The first speech I heard about this on the floor for most favored nation status for China was saying just that 20 years ago, yet it never happens. This is called the ``hug a Nazi, make a liberal theory.'' Just get close to them and they won't fear you anymore. Well, the fact is China has been getting worse since, over these last two decades. It was Tiananmen Square that was the turning point. Up until Tiananmen Square, there was a legitimate reason for us to try to build the economy of China, to create closer ties, because there was an evolution going on, both economically and politically in China. And when it reached a point, at Tiananmen Square, you might say the tipping point, the United States didn't stand up. The Chinese gangsters, just like in Burma, where the military regime had to make its decision, was it going to open fire on their own people, the Chinese Government was facing this decision, and our government did nothing and we said nothing. It is my contention that had George Herbert Walker Bush, then President of the United States, sent a message to China and to the Chinese leaders that if you murder and try to slaughter the democratic movement in China, we are withdrawing from our economic cooperation that we have agreed to, they would not have done so. And I will tell you tonight, Ronald Reagan would have sent that letter in a millisecond. Ronald Reagan would have been told that the democratic movement was on the verge of success, but they would be slaughtered if they sent the troops in and they need to send a message to the leadership of China saying that we are going to withdraw our economic cooperation with them if they, indeed, mowed down their own people. Reagan would have done it. This President Bush's father did not; and thus we have had, in the last two decades, not a transition to democracy, but only a growing of their economy, which now gives them greater military capabilities and gives them greater wealth from which to try to undermine the United States. And, again, as we look at this threat, what is really important is the same thing that's important in Burma and elsewhere, the basic message that we need to understand tonight, that when confronting regimes like China and Burma, and confronting radical Islam that hates America, let's remember that it is the people who want to live decent lives and live in democracy who are America's greatest allies. The people of China, the people of China are the ones we must ally ourselves with. They need to know that we are on their side. They need to know that the people of the United States and the people of China all long to treat people decently and to live in freedom and justice. The people of China will be on our side if we are on their side. The people of Burma are on our side as long as they know we are on their side. Good and decent people throughout the world know this. But, instead, we have been so busy building an economic infrastructure that permits wealth to flow to China that we have not bothered to make the demands on the government or to create, to help create the democratic movements within China that would move their government from within. One example, by the way, of how we have done this is the fact that we have built a conveyor system for trade across our oceans, especially across the Pacific, especially from Shanghai into the ports that I represent, Long Beach and Los Angeles. We have built, with American taxpayer dollars, an incredibly efficient system so that American businessmen could go and set up factories in China, manufacture their goods over there, and ship them to the United States via a system that we've paid for, and come into our market and undercut our own American working people and our own American manufacturers who've stayed at home. We built this for them. That's why I've long been an advocate of a container fee system so that at least, at the very least, if they're going to send containers filled with goods here, why should we build the ports and spend billions of dollars of infrastructure so that they can very efficiently send containers filled with goods into our society and undercut our own manufacturers? I have not received the support that I believe that idea justifies. In fact, you see people in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, oh poo-pooing that as if it was a tax on the American people. We are not charging those American manufacturers who go to China. We're not. We are subsidizing them in their shipment of goods here to undercut our own people. That makes no sense. But it makes sense to those businessmen. It makes not only sense; it makes dollars for them. And as I say, they make a really quick profit; 4 or 5 years and they're done. They're even done with their own companies after 4 or 5 years. But we are the ones with our manufacturing base destroyed who have to pick up the pieces. In my own city, in Huntington Beach, where I live, a manufacturer of paint and coatings was the person who sold the coatings to Mattel Toys for Barbie dolls. And in the year 2000, Mattel Toys gave an award to this company as the number one supplier for Mattel Toys. And then Mattel Toys sold out to the Chinese, decided to manufacture everything in China. The Chinese came to this gentleman and said, give us the formula for your coatings, and we will be partners. As soon as he gave them the formula, the Chinese disappeared. They disappeared, and he was never able to get a hold of them. And next thing you know, they aren't using his formula. They're using lead in the formula. And my children at home, who have Barbie dolls now, and all the other American children who have Barbie dolls, may have been infected with lead poisoning because Mattel Toys took the easy way out, along with the other American manufacturers who went to China in order to not pay our own American workers a decent wage. They want to get a 10 percent or 20 percent higher profit in China rather than paying American workers a decent wage and having half as much profit. Who is paying the price for us? The American people in the end will pay the price as China grows into a massive, economic, and military power, which goes with that. Of course, during the Clinton years, what did we find? There was not only technology transfer in the economic area, but they had actually polluted our political system as well. Campaign contributions flowing into the American political system and American missile technology leaking out in the other direction. The scandal during the Clinton years of American missile technology being transferred to the Chinese through Hughes and Lorel Corporation is a disgrace. And the evidence of Chinese influence and especially financial support during that election makes that even worse. But we need to make sure that we bypass our own business leaders, bypass the leadership, the gangsters that run Beijing and Burma and like countries, and go directly to the people throughout the world with our message of hope, democracy, liberty, and justice. The people of Burma and the people of China are our greatest allies. These Burmese soldiers now have to make a decision as to whether they will fire upon their own people. The Chinese people should not permit their children, and they only have one child per family, to go into the military so that it can be used to suppress their own people. This is not unlike the war we fight today, not with Burma or China but, of course, with radical Islam. China is not an enemy today. China is an adversary today, a very powerful adversary. We are, in fact, making that adversary so powerful, it's becoming frightening. But we are at war with radical Islam. We are at war with radical Islam. And again let me note that when I say that, I emphasize that Muslims throughout the world who do not hate America, Muslims throughout the world who love their faith, as they should, which it has meant very much to their lives and over a billion people, Muslims throughout the world who know that their prayer time and their other religious ceremonies and beliefs have meant a lot to their life and have added great depth to their life, those people are not our enemies. Those people are our friends. We believe in freedom of religion. We respect other people's religion. We ask only that other people respect our religion. And, by the way, our respect for religion doesn't just go to other faiths, but it goes to people who don't believe in God at all, who don't choose to worship. Our Founding Fathers did not come here, as some of my conservative friends say, to create a Christian Nation. We came here to create a Nation where freedom of religion was respected and that we acknowledged God but we did not in any way want to force those beliefs on those who were nonbelievers. It is right that the people of Islam worship the way they choose, whether here or abroad. Those people who only want that freedom and are willing to grant that to others are our friends. But a radical fringe which hates everything we stand for has now arisen in the Muslim world. Let me note that during the 1920s we had terrorists and in years past we had terrorists who were Christians. In 1920, the biggest political force in this country was the Ku Klux Klan. The Ku Klux Klan, as we know, carried around banners with crosses and declaring their love of Christianity. And the fact is that Christian churches in the South did not condemn the Ku Klux Klan, as they should have. The good and decent people of the American South, when they knew that these Klansmen were murdering people, they were terrorizing the black population, murdering them, hanging them, all kinds of torture that was going on in our country against our own black population, the Christian people did not stand up in those areas when they knew that the Klansmen were right there in church with them. Well, that was a hundred years ago. Our Muslim brothers we are expecting to do better than we did when it came to the Klan because al Qaeda is the Ku Klux Klan of Islam. Al Qaeda are the hate mongers. Al Qaeda are those who would bring people who believe in God and put them at war with one another rather than trying to bring them together in peace and brotherhood. In Afghanistan after 9/11, the United States went to Afghanistan and allied itself with moderate Muslims. During the 1990s, there was a mistake by this government just as we made a mistake with China. We tried to work with the Taliban. In fact, during the Clinton administration, the Taliban came into being. And, in fact, it is very easy to see the historical record that the Clinton administration reached an agreement with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and our government was involved in creating the Taliban. During that time period, I was a Member of Congress, and because I had spent time in Afghanistan during the war against the Soviets, I spent considerable time in Afghanistan working with those people who would oppose the Taliban. I begged the powers that be that they support King Zahir Shaw, a moderate Muslim, a man who was much beloved by all Afghans, to support his return. And, instead, our government, under Madeleine Albright and all the others of the Clinton administration, did what? They decided to go along with the Saudis and to go along with the Pakistanis in creating a religious force, that they said because the people of Afghanistan are devout, this is what will draw them together, by supporting religious fanatics. I told them at the time it was ridiculous. I told them that it would backfire on them during the war with the Soviets. The Pakistanis had passed on aid to Hikmatyar Gulbadin, a horrendous terrorist who was, again, a radical Islamist. But there were many others whom we helped during the war against the Soviets. I was there with them. And whether it was Abdul Haq or Commander Massoud or others like them, there were many others, Galani's forces and others, who were very, very mainstream Islamic people who were not anti-Western but were just trying to free their own country from the atheistic dictatorship of the communists, and we helped them. But after that, as we walked away, when the Soviets walked away, we made this deal with the Saudis and with the Pakistanis to let them finance the reconstruction and determine who would be in power in Afghanistan, and that is when the Taliban was born, as I say, at that time over my serious objections, and I spent 5 years going in and out of Afghanistan meeting with those people who would later become the Northern Alliance. So as we look back on Afghanistan now, years after the Taliban has been defeated and al Qaeda was driven out of that country, let us remember the success that we had was because we went to the people. There is a mistaken belief that we are not ``winning'' in Iraq because we didn't have enough boots on the ground. We didn't send in enough American troops. Well, in fact, we had probably 100 boots on the ground when Kabul was liberated from the Taliban and al Qaeda forces in the aftermath of 9/11. In fact, that liberation of Afghanistan was accomplished with very few American soldiers on the frontlines. In fact, the people of Afghanistan liberated themselves, and we did not liberate them. And we went into that war, and we reached agreements with those leaders, tribal leaders. They are often called warlords, but that was the Northern Alliance. And it was the Northern Alliance and those good people in Afghanistan who worked with me in the Mujahideen to fight against the Soviets. Those are the people who drove out the Taliban. When we went into Iraq, it was a different story, unfortunately. Mistakes have been made, yes. Mistakes have been made in Iraq. There is no doubt. We sent in a military force, a strong military force, and they did their job. What did not happen was the political job that was necessary to complement the fact that we had dispossessed Saddam Hussein of his military might. Instead of making agreements as we did in Afghanistan with the tribal leaders, we did not, as we did in Afghanistan, reach out to the local powers that be that were moderate Muslims, and there are many moderate Muslims in Iraq. What we instead did was tell the people of Iraq that we were going to rebuild their entire country and that, for example, there would be no room. Mr. Bremer is quoted as saying to tribal leaders that there would be no room in a modern democratic Iraq for tribalism. Thus in our effort to make the decision for those people, rather than going to the people and their leaders ourselves, we have put ourselves in what has been a horrific quagmire. How we extricate ourselves from Iraq will go a long way in defining what type of world my children live in and, in fact, what kind of world the young people who are with us today will have. If we try to pull out precipitously and look like we are running away, if we look like we are surrendering, if it looks like we have been defeated, we will embolden those people in Iraq who hate everything about the United States, and we will embolden the radical Islamists throughout the world. There is no doubt about that. That is not to say, again, that we should not be admitting our mistakes and doing what we can to extricate ourselves in a responsible way. That is why I have been supporting General Petraeus and his efforts to have a phased withdrawal, a responsible phased withdrawal, that will then permit those elements within Iraq that do not want to be ruled by radical Islam or those elements that would like to be friends of the West to give them a chance to step up. If we are viewed as retreating and abandoning those people, there will be a heavy price to pay. And let us admit that with the mistakes that I have already mentioned, it is a tempting target for people involved in our political system to use what is going on in Iraq as a political vehicle in the upcoming elections. Now, the people here in Congress, we have to search our souls to make sure what we are doing is based not on political motives but instead is based on what is the long-term interest of the people of the United States. I go down and welcome home the troops, the reservists and National Guard, all the time that come in and out and leave Iraq or are coming back from Iraq, and I welcome them back, and I know, because I have supported this effort, that I must pay special attention. But let us note that we have to be doing this and looking at this and analyzing what is happening in a nonpolitical way. I am afraid that there are some forces at play that would try to politicize what is going on in Iraq. Those people who oppose our efforts to have a phased withdrawal, would like immediate withdrawal from Iraq, those people who see America as the big problem in the world instead of as the world's only hope, those people cannot attack American soldiers because they realize that all Americans are proud of the men and women who are defending our country in uniform. But what we are witnessing now is what I would consider a maneuver on the part of those who, if they could, would attack American military troops. What they are doing is attacking American security companies who have been brought to Iraq to try to supplement our war effort there. By and large these American security companies are made up of people who have perhaps 10 times the experience of our own soldiers. American security companies like Blackwater, for example, hire on special forces and other extraordinarily well-trained American military personnel when they retire from the military so that their skills can still be put to use in the defense of our country and in the promotion of human freedom. Their personnel are essential to the success of any of our military goals, but they're also essential to the success of a phased pull-out of Iraq. Otherwise, there will be no buffer. Otherwise, there is no means for us to have the type of withdrawal with success. Otherwise, it is a retreat. Blackwater, as I say, has been working now, I think, since 1997. It's run by a young man named Eric Prince. He inherited his money. And the fact is he could have done a lot of other things with his money and made a lot more money. He could have gone to China and made 10 times the profit that he makes by creating a security company that would work side by side with American forces and American diplomats overseas to try to offer protection to our country and to those State Department and other people who are working in the United States Government overseas. He could have gone and made much more money. Instead, now he's being called, I've seen him called ``murderer,'' I've seen the people in Blackwater being called ``thugs,'' when in fact almost every one of these people who work for Blackwater, like Eric himself, are former Special Forces people. Eric was a Navy SEAL for 5 years. And then, rather than just living the life of luxury that he could have done when he inherited his money, he decided to do something good for his country. Those people who are retiring from our military and have good pensions, yes, they could live the life of Riley; they could go fishing every day. But, instead, they are putting their skills to use by putting their lives in danger for us. Yet, they are being attacked unmercifully by people who just basically oppose the fact that this President got us involved in Iraq in the first place. We should not be taking it out on the people of Blackwater. Those men and women who are in Blackwater are very honorable people. And not to say they haven't made some mistakes, just as our own military personnel have made mistakes; but, in fact, Blackwater probably has a better record than our own military because they are, as I say, they are people with vastly more experience than that of our own soldiers and sailors and airmen. So tomorrow there will be a hearing on Blackwater. I would hope that Blackwater and the people of Blackwater, those people who have made enormous contributions to the safety and security of our operations in Afghanistan and in Iraq, that they are not brutalized, that they're treated fairly, and that we do not permit the politicalization of this fight with radical Islam and this effort that now goes on in Iraq to be used in a way that will, number one, hurt brave people who are risking their lives for us, but at the same time, undermine our efforts for the long-term security of our country so that we will have a phased withdrawal that will give the good people of this world a chance. We need to give the people of Burma a chance. We need to give the people of China a chance. We need to give the people of Iraq a chance. They are our greatest allies. The people of the world who would live in democracy and see America as a positive force and, fortunately, many of them see America as a positive force, yet many people here in the United States for some reason do not share that opinion of their own country and believe that the United States is a negative force in the world. And that's what motivates many of them in their actions when it comes to Blackwater and it comes to this war. Finally, let me note this: this President has made a lot of mistakes. And I have supported the President when he has been right; I have been opposed to him when he's wrong. This President seems to be headstrong, and I think that's a pleasant way of putting it. That does not mean that all the decisions that he has made have been wrong. We need to support him when he's right; we need to try to work with him and try to steer American policy when he is wrong. The idea of a phased withdrawal from Iraq is right. But this President did not get us in this war with radical Islam. This war that we are in with radical Islam was created in the previous administration. We need to document that. It needs to be documented what the policies of the Clinton administration were towards the Taliban. I will be giving a speech in the next few weeks again detailing that, about how I pled, as a senior member of the International Relations Committee, for the documents from Madeleine Albright to prove what our policy was towards the Taliban; why it was that we were giving our foreign aid to the Taliban in radical Islamic areas of Afghanistan and giving short shrift to Commander Massoud and the pro-Western Muslims in Afghanistan. We need to document these things. We need to document whether or not bin Laden was someone who could have been handled, if we were courageous enough to do it, 5 years, 10 years before 9/11. We know now that some of the documents that the 9/11 Commission was supposed to read were not available to them. We had a commission that went to study why we had 9/11, but yet we know today that the National Security Adviser to President Bill Clinton stole documents out of the National Archives to prevent that commission, the 9/11 Commission, from seeing certain information that would be relevant to the war on terrorism. Part of his agreement, Sandy Berger, the National Security Adviser to President Clinton, when his theft was discovered, he volunteered, as part of his plea agreement, to give a lie detector test to the Justice Department if so requested to determine exactly what were the documents that he stole from the National Archives. At the beginning of this year, a majority of Republican Members of this body signed a letter to the Justice Department, under the leadership of Tom Davis, asking the Justice Department to give that polygraph test, after so many years, I think it's been 4 years, it could be 3. For 3 years Sandy Berger has not been given the polygraph test to see exactly what documents he stole from the National Archives. It is time for the American people to demand that we know what caused 9/11, and we will not know that until Sandy Berger, the National Security Adviser to the Clinton administration, is given a polygraph test, which won't happen until the Department of Justice gives that polygraph test and demands it. Today, I am calling upon the new Attorney General to put Sandy Berger on the line, to give him a polygraph test and determine what documents he stole from the National Archives and to give us a full accounting of what led up to 9/11, what happened during the Clinton administration that was so heinous that Sandy Berger, the National Security Adviser to the President, would risk everything, would risk his reputation and go into the National Archives and steal documents. Could it be that during the Clinton years that, for example, there was evidence of technology transfers and Chinese involvement in our political system? Could it be that a Gorelick memo, who at that time the lady was an important player in the Clinton administration, she had a mandate that domestic and international intelligence groups and law enforcement could not work together, could that have something to do with a Chinese connection? What did Sandy Berger steal from the National Archives? We need to know. We should not be ignored. If this was a Republican, I can tell you that every newspaper in the country would be clamoring until we found out exactly what documents were stolen from the National Archives by the President's National Security Adviser. So, tonight, I hope that my colleagues would join me, number one, in telling the people of Burma we're on their side; and joining me in calling for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics; of supporting a phased withdrawal, responsible withdrawal from Iraq; supporting our people both in uniform and in our protective companies like Blackwater, making sure we do not mistreat them; and finally, join me in calling for the truth in what Sandy Berger, the National Security Adviser for Bill Clinton, stole from the Archives. He needs to be given his polygraph test. The Justice Department needs to act. So with those requests for my fellow colleagues, I now yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the Foreign Affairs Committee will mark up legislation dealing with the tumultuous events now taking place in Burma. I am an original cosponsor, and I would ask my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, we may be witnessing an historic event taking place in Burma. Religious leaders are bravely confronting a violent, brutal military dictatorship. The people of Burma are telling the generals who have oppressed them and looted their country for decades to peacefully step aside and let a democratically elected government rule the nation. Nobel Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy overwhelmingly won elections back in 1990, but corrupt and brutal generals betrayed their people. They ignored the election results. The SLORC, which is what the Burmese military regime called itself, then commenced to murder, torture and imprison anyone who would oppose their tyranny. Further, they have plundered Burma's vast natural resources, with the help of their Chinese masters and other foreign looters. Now, at long last, the people of Burma have a chance. This is their moment. I urge all Burmese soldiers: do not kill your own people to further the greed and corruption of those who have sold out your country to the Chinese. You are not a vassal state of Beijing. It is your country. Those demonstrating for democracy are your brothers and sisters and your family. Do not turn your weapons on them. I warn the Burmese military officers: if you slaughter the monks and those calling for democracy, when your regime falls, and it will fall, you will be pursued to every corner of the globe and hunted down like the Nazi criminals before you. The bamboo ramparts of tyranny are coming down. The American people and free people everywhere are with the brave souls in Burma who are seeking to free themselves from the gangsters who oppress them and steal their wealth. To the people of Burma: you are not alone. Your cause is our cause. Have courage. We are with you.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, it was very disturbing to learn that the Vietnamese dictatorship is seeking to become a nonpermanent member of the U.N. Council when the 62nd session of the U.N. begins to meet this week. Vietnam's Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung is scheduled to address the General Assembly on Thursday. It is great shame that in 2006 the Bush administration's State Department removed Vietnam from the list of Countries of Particular Concern and gave Vietnam PNTR status, which led to its membership in the WTO. As a result of the Vietnamese dictators achieving everything that they wanted, it was predictable that in early 2007 they would revert to their old tactics. They have again begun broad-scale detention and physical abuse of religious and human rights leaders and the destruction and confiscation of private property. What role can the United States play to align ourselves with the Vietnamese people who are struggling for their freedom? I agree with Ngai Xuan Nguyen, the overseas representative of the Vietnam Democratic Movement, that our Nation must condition its approval for Vietnam's bid to sit on the Security Council on three requirements: (1) A definitive improvement in human rights with the release of all political and religious prisoners. (2) A dramatic show of progress for freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of the press. (3) Allowing multiparties as part of the political process. Last week when I met with Ngai Xuan Nguyen he gave me a list of over 100 names of political and religious prisoners. I wish to submit these names to be printed at this point in the Record. I strongly urge the administration to vigorously pursue these cases. Our country should be a beacon of hope for people who struggle for freedom, democracy and rule of law. Access to cheap Vietnamese labor that will only benefit big business should not be the foundation of our Vietnam policy. The benefits of open markets and free trade will follow free systems. Economic deals with dictators will not lead to the long- term security that we seek from our relations with Asian nations. I am honored to work with people like Ngai Xuan Nguyen and I wish success for all Vietnamese who are struggling for freedom in Vietnam. List of Political and Religious Prisoners Still Detained 1. Le Van Tinh, People Action Party of Vietnam (PAP), Advisory Board member to Unified Buddhist Church, arrested 25/01/95, sentenced to 20 years in Xuan Loc prison, Dong Nai. 2. Nguyen Tuan Nam, PAP, sentenced to 19 years, Xuan Loc prison, Dong Nai Province. 3. Nguyen Van Trai, PAP, sentenced to 16 years, Xuan Loc prison, Dong Nai. 4. Tran Cong Minh, PAP, sentenced to 13 years, Xuan Loc prison, Dong Nai. 5. Le Dong Phuong, PAP, sentenced to 12 years, Xuan Loc prison, Dong Nai. 6. Bui Dang Thuy, PAP, sentenced to 18 years, Xuan Loc prison, Dong Nai. 7. Nguyen Anh Hao, PAP, sentenced to 13 years, Xuan Loc prison, Dong Nai. 8. Nguyen Huu Phu, PAP, sentenced to 10 years, Xuan Loc prison, Dong Nai. 9. Nguyen Van Hau, PAP, sentenced 8 years, Xuan Loc prison, Dong Nai. 10. Vu thi Ngoc An, PAP, sentenced to 8 years, Z30 D prison, Ham Tan. 11. Tran Thi Le Hang, arrested 12/04/07, founder to United Workers and Farmers Association, (UWFA) prison camp B5, Dong Nai. 12. Lawyer Tran Quoc Hien, spokesman to UWFA arrested 12/ 01/07, sentenced to 5 years, Bo La prison camp, Binh Duong Province. 13. Doan Van Dien, arrested 12/04/07 UWFA, prison camp B5, Dong Nai. 14. Doan Huu Chuong, arrested 12/04/07, UWFA, prison camp B5, Dong Nai. 15. Nguyen Tan Hoanh, arrested 12/04/07, chief to UWFA, prison camp B5 Dong Nai, reportedly missing. 16. Tran Khai Thanh Thuy, temporarily detained, not yet tried. 17. Tran Thi Thuy Trang, temporarily detained, not yet tried. 18. Vu Hoang Hai, temporarily detained, not yet tried 19. Nguyen Ngoc Quang, temporarily detained, not yet tried. 20. Pham Ba Hai, temporarily detained, not yet tried. 21. Rev. Nguyen Van Ly, Catholic priest, sentenced to 8 years (Founder of the Bloc 8406). 22. Nguyen Phong, sentenced to 6 years, Thang Tien Party Progressive Party of Vietnam, PPV), prison camp of Thanh Hoa. 23. Nguyen Binh Thanh, sentenced to 5 years (PPV), prison camp Xuan Loc, Dong Nai. 24. Lawyer Le Thi Cong Nhan, sentenced 4 nam years (member of the Bloc 8406, spokeswoman to the PPV). 25. Lawyer Nguyen Van Dai sentenced to 5 years (member of the Bloc 8406). 26. Dr. Le Nguyen Sang, sentenced 5 years (Chairman of the People's Democratic Party PDP). 27. Lawyer Nguyen Bac Truyen, sentenced 4 years (PDP). 28. Huynh Nguyen Dao, sentenced to 3 years (PDP). 29. Hoang Thi Anh Dao (PPV), probation of 2 years. 30. Luu Van Si, fugitive (UWFA). 31. Truong Quoc Huy, born 22/09/80, arrested 19/610/2005. 32. Ngo Van Ninh 87 years of age, president to Buu Son Ky Huong Buddhist Church, prison camp Xuan Loc, Dong Nai province. 33. Nguyen Si Bang, life sentenced in the Campaign the Red Jacaranda of Hoang Viet Cuong, prison camp Xuan Loc, Dong Nai province. 34. Pham Xuan Than, life sentenced in the Campaign the Red Jacaranda of Hoang Viet Cuong, prison camp Xuan Loc, Dong Nai province. 35. Truong Van Duy, life sentenced, the Campaign the Red Jacaranda of Hoang Viet Cuong, prison camp Xuan Loc, Dong Nai province. 36. Le Kim Hung, the Free Vietnam Organization (FVO), prison camp Xuan Loc, Dong Nai. 37. Ho Long Duc, FVO, sentenced to 20 years, prison camp Xuan Loc, Dong Nai. 38. Nguyen Thanh Van, FVO, prison camp Xuan Loc, Dong Nai province. 39. Nguyen Van Phuong, FVO, prison camp Xuan Loc, Dong Nai province. 40. Nguyen Ngoc Phuong, FVO, prison camp Xuan Loc, Dong Nai province. 41. Nguyen Hoang Giang, FVO, prison camp Xuan Loc, Dong Nai. 42. Nguyen Van Huong, FVO, prison camp Xuan Loc, Dong Nai. 43. Son Nguyen Thanh Dien, FVO, prison camp Xuan Loc, Dong Nai. 44. Nguyen Minh Man, FVO, prison camp Xuan Loc, Dong Nai. 45. Nguyen Van Minh, FVO, prison camp Xuan Loc, Dong Nai. 46. Huynh Buu Chau, FVO, prison camp Xuan Loc, Dong Nai. 47. Huynh Anh Tu, FVO, prison camp Xuan Loc, Dong Nai. 48. Huynh Anh Tri, FVO, prison camp Xuan Loc, Dong Nai. 49. Nguyen Van Than, FVO, prison camp Xuan Loc, Dong Nai. 50. Tran Van Duc, FVO, prison camp Xuan Loc, Dong Nai. 51. Vo Si Cuong, FVO, prison camp Xuan Loc, Dong Nai. 52. Ngo Thanh Son, FVO, prison camp Xuan Loc, Dong Nai. 53. Tran Van Thai, Viet Nam Tu Do, trai giam Xuan Loc, tinh Dong Nai. 54. Do Thanh Van (tu Nhan), Viet Nam Tu Do, trai giam Xuan Loc, tinh Dong Nai. 55. Dinh Quang Hai, Viet Nam Tu Do, trai giam Xuan Loc, tinh Dong Nai. 56. Lam Quang Hai, Viet Nam Tu Do, trai giam Xuan Loc, tinh Dong Nai. 57. Nguyen Anh Hao, trai giam Xuan Loc, tinh Dong Nai. 58. To Thanh Hong, Viet Nam Tu Do, trai giam Xuan Loc, tinh Dong Nai. 59. Mai Xuan Khanh, trai giam Xuan Loc, tinh Dong Nai. 60. Tran Van Thieng, trai giam Xuan Loc, tinh Dong Nai. 61. Phan Quoc Dung, trai giam Xuan Loc, tinh Dong Nai. 62. Nguyen Van Hoa, trai giam Xuan Loc, tinh Dong Nai. 63. Nguyen Van Chung, trai giam Xuan Loc, tinh Dong Nai. 64. Nguyen Sinh Nhat, trai giam Xuan Loc, tinh Dong Nai. 65. Bui Re, trai giam Xuan Loc, tinh Dong Nai. 66. Nguyen Huu Cau, trai giam Xuan Loc, tinh Dong Nai. 67. Le Thi Hang (Dang Thang Tien Party) sentenced to 18 months of probation. 68. Nguyen van Ngoc, Dong Nai, temporarily detained, not yet tried. 69. Ho Thi Bich Khuong, arrested in Nam Dan district, Nghe an province. 70. Hang Tan Phat, arrested 20/10/06 in Nha Trang. 71. Le Trung Hieu, temporarily detained, not yet tried. 72. Ngo Luot, victim of unjustly expropriated properties, Phan Thiet, Binh Thuan province, arrested 03/08/07.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let's note that there are several amendments that were not permitted by the Rules Committee. I did not submit amendments because those of us who have been following this bill realize it is fundamentally flawed. The purpose of the bill is to support those large corporations that Ms. Kaptur noted who are dramatically supporting the legislation. And it is being opposed, I might add, by a large number of universities, unions, pharmaceutical industries, biotech industries, et cetera, et cetera. So we have everybody except the electronics industry and the financial industry, who are already over in China making their profit at our expense, are opposed to the bill. I yield my remaining 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. This is yet another example of why this overall bill should be defeated. The fact is that we shouldn't be changing the provision and permitting outside agencies and taking authority away from us from setting the basic ground rules about patents in the first place. This idea that, well, let me put it this way. This bill is so filled with this type of imperfection, and as we have had our guarantee from those people who brought this bill to the floor so precipitously, they will work really hard to make sure all the flaws are out. I would suggest that that statement alone should have all these red flags going up for all of us. And then the muting of the opposition and not permitting us an adequate amount of time to actually discuss the provisions of the bill and not giving us time to control our own opposition, again, should be the red flags for all of us who's listening to this debate. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just note I think it is really much more important to talk about provisions of the bill rather than trying to point out things about each other, and that is one of the reasons we needed more time in this debate so that we could actually get into the provisions of this bill. The fact that no matter what happens with Mr. Issa's first amendment, that still there will be patent applications that will be published for the world to see even before the patent is issued; that our overseas competitors will then have information that they will be able to use to outcompete us even before our patents are issued to those inventors who have applied for patents. Those are the issues we need to talk about. We need to talk about why the assessment of damages has been changed in a way that helps these big guys, these big companies that Ms. Kaptur has just outlined, as well as the foreign corporations, I might add, at the expense of the small inventor. The inventor is just trying to prevent theft of his lifetime of work. We have to know why we have had different ways of determining the validity of a patent and opening up challenges in the front of the patent as well as afterwards so that we add cost after cost after cost to the little guy. We need to discuss these things in detail. Instead we have 1 hour in which the opposition, I think, had 12 minutes in order to discuss these issues. This should raise a flag to everyone listening to this debate. Why is Congress trying to stampede the rest of the Members of Congress into voting for an act that could be so damaging to the American people?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I certainly will.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And the time on the other side?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield myself 3 minutes. Let's just note when we are talking, Ms. Kaptur and Mr. Manzullo talk about one of the horrible provisions of the bill, which changes the whole concept of how damages are assessed, and who has benefited by this. We have to ask ourselves, we talk about the Wright brothers, the little guys who actually made all the difference in whether or not America has a high standard of living, the damages that these inventors have when people violate their rights and how those damages are assessed. That's right in this legislation. Yes, they are changing it to the benefit of the infringers. They are beating down the little guys, making it more difficult for the Wright brothers and for all the other little guys who have come up with these ideas in order to help the big corporations. By the way, let me just add this thought: we are not just talking about American corporations here. We are not talking about making inventors just vulnerable to the big American corporations. We are talking about multinational corporations, and we are talking about foreign corporations. Our little guys, with just this change, are going to be dramatically damaged. Their ability, in order to protect their rights, will be dramatically reduced. This is just one example of the type of diminishing of the rights of the inventor in this bill. Yet, we aren't able to discuss it fully. One hour of debate for a bill that's being described here as one of the most important pieces of legislation in the century? One hour of debate in which the opposition was not given a chance to control any time in opposition? This is a disgrace. What's going on? This alone should raise the red flag to all of our Members saying something is going on here; there is a power play people in our legislation aren't being able to control their time. What's happening here? We have a manager's amendment now that was permitted to be changed after it left committee. There wasn't even a proper debate on this bill then and this manager's amendment in the committee, much less the subcommittee. So what we have here is a power play by somebody. The rules don't count when it comes to the bill, because somebody out there really wants it really bad in order to not give us a chance to give the other side, not give the full committee a chance even to discuss these details that are changed in the manager's amendment, not to let the subcommittee play its role. Now, all I am suggesting is this should raise a red flag for all of our Members. All of us should be aware that when these types of shenanigans are being played, something is going on, that the legislation that's being pushed through probably is not good legislation, but, instead, helps a small group of powerful people.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, Ms. Kaptur has made a really important observation here, and that is, at the end of the day, yeah, the Issa amendment does make some changes, but at the end of the day, there will be American patent applications in which the inventor would like to keep secret until he gets the patent issued to him, which will be published for all of the thieves in China and India and Japan and Korea and elsewhere who would like to have all of that information before the patent is issued. There will still be a significant number of patent applications published for the whole world to see, and the patent applicant doesn't want that.