Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there is an ongoing, joint operation in the Philippines to rescue American citizens. Martin and Gracie Burnham, who have been held hostage by the brutal terrorists who have been trained and supported by Osama bin Laden, are still being held hostage there in the Philippines. Although the operation to rescue them has received little publicity in the American media, this resolution supports that operation. After the terrorist attack on September 11, Philippine President Arroyo was the first international leader to offer facilities and troops to assist the United States in the campaign against Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network. President Arroyo described the campaign as ``the start of a just offensive.'' In addition, President Arroyo demonstrated political courage, and it took political courage for her to do this, to invite U.S. soldiers to help Filipino forces conduct a joint operation to free the American hostages that are being held in the Philippines by the Abu Sayyaf terrorists, those Abu Sayyaf terrorists, of course, trained by bin Laden. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the United States-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty. This treaty takes on significance in light of the enhanced partnership between America and the Philippines, our democratic partner in Southeast Asia, and in the international war against terrorism. President Arroyo, whose father was President of the Philippines at the time of the signing of the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty, understands this new global war because terrorist groups inside the Philippines, trained and supported by bin Laden and other terrorists, have committed hundreds of acts of violence and kidnapping against the Filipinos over these last few years. This legislation has nothing to do with partisan politics. It does express bipartisan support for the efforts to rescue American citizens being held by the bin Laden-backed Abu Sayyaf terrorist group. Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 273, cosponsored by 32 bipartisan Members of the Congress, expresses, number 1, gratitude to President Arroyo and the people of the Philippines for their sympathy and support since the September 11 terrorist attack. Number 2, it affirms the commitment of the United States to the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty. Number 3, it supports the efforts of the Philippine government to prevent and suppress terrorism; and finally, it supports the promise recently made by President Bush to address the economic and military needs of the Philippines in order to defeat the internal terrorism that threatens that country. Mr. Speaker, we should stand together, yes, tonight, to say that we are going to rescue those Americans held hostage in the Philippines and, number 2, that we stand in solidarity with the people of the Philippines in their struggle of having democratic government threatened from the outside and the inside. The people of the Philippines now deserve our help. They are stepping forward again to be America's best friends, and we should extend our hand in friendship as well. It is what is right for America and right for the Philippines and right for the cause of freedom and justice. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 273) reaffirming the special relationship between the United States and the Republic of the Philippines.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think it is the sensitivity to that pain and suffering that causes frustration at a time when one is trying to help. We have to remember when looking at this legislation, this is legislation that will be seen not only in the United States, of course, but will be certainly noted in the Philippines and noted throughout Asia. What we are saying tonight is that we recognize that the Filipino people are our best friends and that the people of the Philippines stood with us in the past and we will stand with them in the future. The Philippines did stand with us, and we must never forget that time when just over 60 years ago, the Japanese militarists decided to make their move in trying to capture a huge hunk of the world and dominate it under its own terrorist grip, and at that time, when the Nazis on one side of the world and the Japanese militarists on the other side of the world threatened any democracy and threatened the people of the world, in Asia it was the people of the Philippines who, more than anyone else, stood with us and bore the brunt of that fight and of the despotism and of the brutality of Japanese occupation. We must remember, that the fight in the Philippines, the Bataan Death March that we talk about, there were not just Americans in that fight, but there were Filipinos standing beside each and every American, and we must never forget that, and as a member of my family who is a survivor of the Bataan Death March has told me, that as these prisoners were walked, as they were shackled and walked on this death march for day after day without food and water in the sweltering heat, with Japanese guards there with their bayonets and with their samurai swords and the Filipino people would come out of their homes and throw food and water at these prisoners, knowing that the Japanese guards would shoot them if they saw them doing this. Ordinary Filipino citizens risking their lives for our people, as well as their own soldiers. We can never forget that type of heartfelt commitment, and that is at the basis of the relationship between the United States and the Philippines. It is a commitment to those values of decency and human understanding and freedom and liberty and justice that unites us, and the Philippines have gone through many travails since those days. Let me add that one of those travails was the liberation which also took many Filipino lives and the Filipinos were fighting with us. My father fought in the Philippines to help liberate that country, and he always, as I say, spoke very highly of the people of the Philippines. It is very fitting today that I am authoring this legislation, to honor him and to honor all of these veterans, both the Filipinos and the American veterans, not only just the ones who fought in the Death March, but the ones who liberated the Philippines, for the great job that they did for our country and the cause of freedom. Nothing we could do would honor them more than the bill we pass today. Yes, we can recognize the Filipino veterans and should give them their benefits. I, too, have a piece of legislation that was not permitted to come to the floor yet, giving the Bataan Death March survivors the right to sue those Japanese corporations that used them as slave labor. So there is frustration in this process, and it takes a little pressure to try to get good bills to the floor. I am happy that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) is trying to provide that pressure. Tonight, let us again remember that today this piece of legislation, in and of itself, is very important. It is very significant because we are reaffirming our solidarity with the people of the Philippines. We are reaffirming this defense treaty at a time when now there are Japanese being replaced by Chinese soldiers who would threaten the peace of Asia, and we have an ongoing battle, not only in the Philippines but elsewhere, a battle raging against terrorism that we are all a part of this battle and that the Philippines have stepped forward so courageously to join us in that effort. I would call on my colleagues to join me and thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his principled support of this legislation, and I would ask all of my colleagues to follow the leadership of our President, President Bush, who has restated our commitment as a people as this resolution will do for the Congress.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), a man who has provided such leadership to this House since I have been here, the former chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and a man of such strong principle and ethical guidance that he has really meant a lot in my life. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), who has worked tirelessly on behalf of two of his constituents who are being held hostage by the terrorists in the Philippines.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), my good friend and colleague, who has been very active in California with the Philippine community and very active in the Committee on International Relations as a force for freedom in the world.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and I understand his frustration. I have had legislation that I wanted to bring to the floor that was very valuable, that I know that as a backer of his legislation which I backed in committee, I understand the value of that legislation and I have gone on record suggesting that it should be brought to the floor. So I understand his frustration.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor from H.R. 3427.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very apropos that my colleague is talking about the danger of out-of-control immigration to our country. My staff was recently looking at some of the statements that I made back in 1997 in the Congressional Record. On September 29, 1997, there was a debate about extending 245(i), which was basically a provision which suggested that if someone was in the United States illegally, instead of having them have to go back, which they traditionally have had to do, to their home country in order to change their status and then stand in line and become a legal applicant, 245(i) would have permitted them just to give $1,000 and to stay in the United States of America and to have their status adjusted here. During that debate, I stated, and I think it comes right down to the safety of the country, and we are talking about immigration policy: ``Extending 245(i) also raises serious national security questions.'' This is back in 1997. ``Unlike those who enter the United States legally, 245(i) applicants are not required to go through the same criminal checks, history checks, as they do when they go through this check in their home country when they are waiting to come to this country legally. The consular offices located in the applicant's home country, along with foreign national employees working for the State Department, are in the best position to determine if an applicant has a criminal background or is a national security risk.'' Again, this is in 1997. ``Consulates abroad are more knowledgeable, they speak the local language, they know the different criminal justice systems in the country, and they are the ones who should be screening the people before they come to the United States so that we do not have criminals and terrorists coming to the United States, not being screened, and ending up just paying $1,000 to be put in front of the line. Allowing these lawbreakers to apply for permanent status in the United States rather than having them returned to their home countries to do so circumvents a screening process that has been carefully established to protect our country's security.'' Now, that was back in September of 1997. And let us note that any one of the September 11 hijackers who was here in this country would have been eligible then to find a sponsor or to marry somebody, just with the restrictions that they wanted to tweak this 245(i), that would have permitted them to stay in this country. And the general idea of 245(i), had that been totally accepted, which was being pushed in 1997, none of those guys would have had to go home to get their status changed. Every one of the terrorists that slammed into those buildings and was involved in this conspiracy to kill thousands of Americans would have been given an avenue to stay right in this country legally. Now, when we have policies, when we have people advocating this type of policy that we are going to change the way we do things around here, and this is the policy change, and it is so evidently nonchalant about the national security of our country, something is wrong. And I would like to applaud the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) for the leadership he is providing on this overall issue of immigration, because what we have here is immigration out of control. And an immigration policy that is out of control is bound to do great damage to our country, to our people, and to the national security of our country. Already we have seen what that means just in terms of traditional national security, and that is we have lost almost 4,000 of our citizens to a terrorist attack because we did not have proper control of our borders. We had people here in our country that should not have been here, not to mention of course the failure of the CIA, the FBI, and the National Security Agency, which of course was a failure as well, but now we are just talking about specific policies. In my State, okay, we have not lost 4,000 people to a terrorist, but we have criminals who are let loose every day in my State because we have a policy of, what? If someone is arrested and they are here illegally, that does not automatically mean that they are sent home to the country from which they come.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Imagine that. We are turning loose criminals, people who have been arrested for crimes in our country and just turning them loose among our citizens. This is outrageous. And why are we doing this? We are doing this because Americans have good hearts and we are afraid to do things that would cause great hardship and discomfort to very good people. Ninety-five percent of the illegal immigrants, much less the legal immigrants, but 95 percent of them are wonderful people, and we are afraid to do something that would cause them hardship. Well, who are we representing, anyway? Who are we supposed to represent? We are supposed to represent the people of the United States, the people who happen to be of all races and all ethnic backgrounds. The people of the United States are not one race. We are not representing a racist point of view or one ethnic point of view. We are representing the patriotic interests of every American, no matter what color he or she is, or what religion he or she is. We should have no apologies that to whomever it is we are saying, ``I am sorry, because you are not here legally, you have to go home,'' or ``you are here illegally and you cannot get benefits to take away from our citizens,'' we should not be afraid to do this.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I salute the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo). This issue would not be discussed without the effort put out by the gentleman.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentleman would yield, during this time when we do need some working people in these jobs, it is a fact, that is, when wages rise because employers are competing for better workers. During that time period, we might have created a situation where employers needed employees, and that they would have bid to get their services. We might have ended the problem of our own citizens not having health care coverage, for example, because the employers in order to get people to wash their dishes and wait on the tables, maybe they would have had to then offer those workers a health care plan. Maybe they would have had to talk to the people washing the cars and handling the parking lots, maybe they would have had to offer those people a health care plan. Instead, we let that opportunity to raise the standard of living and help our people get those benefits from the private sector get away, and it ends up a burden on the taxpayer, not only of those other people but of the illegal immigrants as well.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentleman will yield, I take it the gentleman did remind everyone that on the morning of September 11, 245(i), and the extension of it, was scheduled to be voted on right here in this body. How ironic that on the day that we suffered this horrendous attack, this monstrous atrocity that was committed against our people, that we had an attempt to open up 245(i)'s wedge into the door, open up a little more. We were going to vote on that ``reform'' that day, and of course, because of the attacks, we were not able to hold a session that day. Conveniently, that proposal has been shelved recently and has not even been brought up since then. But just the insanity of the fact that people are still considering that type of thing, again making the wedge into the door a little bit bigger so people can squeeze through that opening. It is just insanity. Now we are paying the price for this, and we are paying it in a big way. Number one, on these people who died. The people who are victims of criminal attacks. Also, our working people who are now working at less wages because illegal immigrants in particular are willing to come in and work for anything. Yes, we have a huge class of people who have benefited, and even the upper middle-class people benefited from having this great expansion in the last 10 years. But guess what, a lot of working people did not because they were competing against people who came here illegally from another country. Now, do we really care about those people? Yes, we should care about our citizens at that income level who now have a lower standard of living. And we can be proud that, yes, the upper middle income in our country, those people benefited greatly and now they have three cars and now they have houses that are so expensive. Yes, let us feel proud that so many of our citizens, 10 percent of our citizens, can live like that. What about the other 25 percent of our citizens that are working class people and have found their wages stagnated for a whole decade because people come in from all over the world and undercut them in their attempts to seek higher wages.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentleman would yield, ``idiotic'' is a mild word to describe this insanity. It is bizarre. It is surrealistic to see the type of immigration policy we have and the people who, with a straight face, will come and advocate these insane policies as if they are, in some way, respectable. Frankly, I do not see how, if I was hiring myself out, like a lot of people who are advocating these things, such as former congressmen who take PR contracts, I do not see how you can advocate for this. The 24-I example and the H-1B visas, this is insanity. I remember that debate so well because they kept saying we cannot find people to take these high tech jobs in the computer industry. I said we should try to, for example, go into the schools in the inner city and offer to pay entire college tuition for any kids who will agree to work for this high tech corporation when they get out of school. I am sure there are a couple hundred thousand kids that would love to have some type of scholarship program. I said, what about disabled people? We are talking about computer work, after all. How much work has been done by the computer industry to recruit disabled people who can still work with their hands and be able to do that job? Well, nobody had taken that really into consideration, either. But the easy answer is, of course, to hire somebody from the south part of Asia who will come in who is 25 years old, and come in and work for $30,000 less a year than our own people will work or than will cost us to train our own people to come in and do these jobs. In other words, it is no consideration for the Americans at all. None.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I will be voting for House Concurrent Resolution 280. This bill reflects my abhorrence and total condemnation of terrorist attacks on innocent Israelis, noncombatants. That attack, carried out on December 1 and 2, mutilated and killed 26 noncombatants, and 175 were wounded. These were human beings: men, women, and children, young people, and seniors. This monstrous atrocity must be condemned by all who believe in morality, all who believe in God, all who seek a better world and seek peace. We condemn this as we condemn all attacks which have targeted Israelis and noncombatants in the decades past. This unconditional condemnation of such attacks on Israel, on their noncombatants, is totally justified. But that is not enough. If America is to be a peacemaker in the Middle East, if we are to take a principled stand that will then be taken seriously by both sides when we condemn terrorism, we must condemn with equal moral outrage the murderous assaults on Palestinian noncombatants. There are piles of bodies in the Middle East today, piles of bodies of innocent people. The Economist Magazine recently noted that the number of Palestinian noncombatants who have been killed in these last 6 weeks far outnumber the number of Israeli victims. But there have been victims on both sides; and we need to equally, with equal fervor, condemn these attacks on innocent people. We should have zero tolerance, zero tolerance of this brutal terrorism that has kept the Middle East in such turmoil. But let me note that does not mean, because we condemn this terrorism, that we close our eyes to the fact that Israeli soldiers are mowing down young boys who are doing nothing more than throwing rocks, a nonlethal weapon, and they use deadly force. There are people in this body who are, with me, dedicated to human rights who would never permit a regime anywhere in the world to use such deadly force against people who are simply throwing rocks in order to call the public attention to their seeking justice for their cause. The killing of an Israeli soldier does not justify the shelling, indiscriminate shelling, of Palestinian villages, which has been part of their policy in the past, as well. If we are to be taken seriously about condemning terrorism, if we are to be a peacemaker in the Middle East, and that is what we should be whenever there is an act of terrorism, we need to step forward; and we have not done it when the Palestinians are the victims. Today I am going to vote for this resolution because I wholeheartedly condemn the killing that we are talking about here, with these poor Israeli people, 26 of them, and 175 wounded. These young people who are wounded probably have no legs, young people being disfigured all their lives. This is a horror story. But it is an equal horror story when those things are done on Palestinians by the Israeli soldiers, and we need to be a peacemaker and not just give blanket approval to everything Israel does.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that seems to be at the heart of one of the discussions going on here today is whether or not the terrorism which we are condemning in this resolution, which I support wholeheartedly, is intentional, which we understand, but whether or not those actions on the part of the Israeli Government which result in the death of noncombatants, whether that is just collateral damage. The gentleman has been in the Middle East many times and knows many of the players. From a firsthand point of view, does the gentleman believe that the damage that is being done to noncombatants by the Israeli army is unintentional?

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution honoring the crew and passengers of United Flight 93. But, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues must be aware that as we honor these passengers we are honoring them for disregarding government policy. That government policy related to how one deals with a hijacking situation. That government policy mandated that we have full cooperation of the passengers and the crew with any potential hijackers. Amazingly, the FAA has still not changed that policy, despite the obvious changes in circumstance that make this policy ridiculous. Of all the precautions that we have been taking or could be taking to make sure that there are not any more hijackings, there are only really two things that matter: to secure the aircraft cockpits so they cannot be broken into; and, most importantly, to make sure that the crew and passengers never again cooperate with hijackers, and never open the door to that cockpit to any hijacker, no matter what may be happening in the cabin. Nothing else, not the banning of tasers or knives or even strip searches, is going to make air travel any safer than that. As we honor these people who gave their lives and were so brave and courageous, let us admit that perhaps we have made some mistakes in Congress in dealing with this crisis. The fact is that we have moved forward in response to these horror stories on September 11 and the bravery on Flight 93 and the other planes that were hijacked, and we have put in place policies that may be backfiring right now. Instead of saving the industry, we may be killing the airline industry, and that is the very last thing we should do to honor these brave people on Flight 93, who more than any other fellow Americans stand for freedom to travel. Instead of saving our airline industry, we have people who are being now so inconvenienced that they are giving up airline travel. This makes no sense at all. We should today, as we honor these heroes of Flight 93, reexamine what we put in place so our airlines can serve people. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) mentioned to me a few moments ago, we are losing more passengers to this incredible, nonsensical way that we are hindering people from getting on the plane to the inconvenience that we have created that is not making travel any safer than we are losing passengers for fear of terrorism. So today, let us honor these people who fought so bravely, these Americans on Flight 93, United 93; and let us say that what they were fighting for was the freedom to travel. Let us back up the airline industry. Let us not do something that just makes us feel good or makes the American people feel good; but instead, let us put in practice some of the changes in policy needed to make airline transportation safer, but is not some sort of show that makes things more inconvenient, thus killing the airlines.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear about what is going on here. The American POWs from World War II, the survivors of the Bataan Death March were used as slave labor during the war, and after the war, they were told that they did not even have a right to sue these Japanese corporations that had used them as slave labor. Let us note that German corporations have paid reparations, even Japanese corporations in Japan have paid reparations, but our own people, our greatest heroes, have been denied that right. Whether or not this is symbolic or not, I think that is a matter for the lawyers to determine. But what we should do as legislators is bend over backwards to watch out for the interests of our great American heroes, the survivors of the Bataan Death March and not try to give the benefit to Japan or the Japanese corporations that use them as slave labor. A court will decide, and already we have an opinion, as I said, in one court that has decided that this is much more than symbolic. Now, how about the argument that because we are now at war, we should not do right by the heroes of World War II? I do not think so. I do not think that is the way that we send a good message to those people serving this country. I think it is just the opposite. The fact is, Japan needs to close the books on this incident, that these Japanese corporations do not want to admit that they used our people as slave labor and they tortured people and committed crimes. I am sorry. They did. And it is time, like the Germans did, to just recognize it and close the book. That does not mean that we are not going to work with the Japanese anymore, and they may be angry. But it is time for us to stand up for our own people. If there is any message we need to send in a war, it is that our soldiers who fight and die for us or are taken prisoner, we are going to watch out for them and they are our number one priority afterwards. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), who is actually the coauthor of this bill and has been my partner in this gallant effort.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, for those reading the Congressional Record or those listening to this debate, let us understand exactly what is going on here. Before the Second World War, America sent thousands of troops to the Philippines in order to defend that country and to deter war with Japan. During the war, of course, Japan attacked and occupied the Philippines and took tens of thousands of American troops into custody, and it was one of the most brutal incarcerations and treatment of prisoners in the history of humankind. In fact, it resulted in what was called the Bataan Death March, where these men, these Americans who had fought and been in our uniform, they were just marched for days and days without water and food, and thousands of them died along the way in the most brutal type of conditions. The United States has let those men down. We have told them if they held out in the Bataan Peninsula, that we would come and rescue them. We could not do it during the war because the Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor and we did not have the military strength to do it, so we let them down. Then, after they were incarcerated, they were sent to work camps and slave labor camps and concentration camps in Japan and in Manchuria. They were worked like slaves where, again, many of them died under the worst possible conditions. As the war ended and we put together a peace treaty with Japan, we let them down again. In the treaty, we put some provisions that sounded like we were waiving their rights to sue those Japanese corporations that had tortured them and used them as slave labor. But there was a provision in the treaty that said if Japan signs another treaty with another country that grants more rights to those citizens than our citizens have in the treaty we signed, those rights automatically become American citizens' rights, as well. So the Japanese, guess what, have signed other treaties, and other people have been permitted to sue those Japanese corporations. Are we going to let these American heroes down again out of consideration of some huge Japanese corporations who do not want to apologize or to give them some just compensation? I do not think so. This body voted overwhelmingly for that, on the side with our great heroes, overwhelmingly, and the Senate voted for it in a heated debate. All we are saying today is we are demanding that our conferees not take out this provision behind closed doors. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has a measure that suggests that our government pay $20,000 apiece. At the very least, if they are not going to give the right to sue, they should at least come up with the $50 million needed to pay our people off by ourselves. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is, our American POWs deserve truth and justice. They deserve their day in court. They do not deserve just a stipend from us. We did let them down, but we were not the ones who tortured them and worked them as slave laborers. They deserve their day in court, they deserve an honest opinion, they deserve an apology from Japan, and yes, they deserve compensation from those Japanese companies that worked them as slave labor. These are our greatest heroes. This is the message to send to our defenders: We will never let you down again; and those people who march off to defend this country, whether it is against them, the terrorists, or wherever it is, they will know that the American people will not let them down because they have not let us down. Mr. Speaker, let me just suggest to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), he has worked so hard on this and I deeply admire him for this, because he could have taken some personal criticism from people who tried to make this into a racial issue. This is not a racial issue. I lived in Japan as a young man myself, and we think nothing but good thoughts and goodwill toward the people of Japan. Most of the people in Japan, as we know, had nothing to do with this, but those Japanese corporations that did, they deserve to be held accountable. The patriotism of the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) and his stepping forward and his courage at a time like this are deeply appreciated because it helps define the issue in the way it should be. I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again, we need to take a look at what this is all about. The House and Senate voted overwhelmingly in the House, and yes, with a solid majority in the Senate, to make sure that the survivors of the Bataan Death March, our greatest American heroes, were able to sue those Japanese corporations that worked them as slave labor. After the war, there was a provision put in the treaty which prevented them from suing these Japanese corporations until the situation changed, which it did when Japan had agreements with other countries that permitted those countries and the citizens from those countries to sue. So what we have now is a situation that even after the status of their case and their ability to sue had changed, our State Department became the biggest block to having these heroes from the Bataan Death March exercise their right, because our State Department would intercede in their court cases and undermine their right to sue in court. What this bill does and why it is necessary to put it on this appropriations bill is, it prevents the State Department from using its resources or its people to interfere with the rights of those American POWs and interfere with their right to take their case to court. That is why it was important for us to get it on this bill. This was the vehicle. It was written in a way that was ruled in order, so the provision was ruled in order by the Parliamentarian. This gives us an opportunity to bring justice to these men. They are dying every day. Every day there is another survivor of the Bataan Death March who passes away. All of us have family members who were in World War II, and we are seeing them pass away, at great pain to us. We need to make sure that when they die, they know their country has done right by them. That is what this is all about. Every day that we postpone this, another number of these men pass into eternity. Let us let them go knowing their country backed them up and appreciated what they did. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this motion is highly unusual. It is highly unusual because the Parliamentarian's Office has not been able to find another instance in the history of this House in which a motion was offered to instruct conferees to keep something in a conference report that was approved by both the House and the Senate in identical form. In theory, such a motion should be completely unnecessary, because under the rules of both Houses, this House and the Senate, any provision that has been approved by each House in identical form is ``non-conferenceable,'' which means it automatically goes to the conference and goes into the conference report as it passed both Houses. That is called democracy, where the majority of people in both Houses vote for something, and then it stays in the bill as the bill goes through the system. Unfortunately, the lobbying of Japanese corporations and other very powerful interest groups in this city over this period of time has been unusually heavy. They have been spreading misinformation about the peace treaty with Japan, and it appears that our courageous World War II POWs will feel the brunt of this deception. The fact is that private companies did use American POWs during World War II as slave laborers. In his recent decision, Judge William F. McDonald rejected all arguments by the State Department that such a court hearing, in terms of a hearing of our own POWs' requests for compensation from these Japanese companies that enslaved them, Judge McDonald decided that this would not violate the treaty which ended World War II, although what we have been hearing over and over and over again in this town is, my gosh, we cannot permit our greatest war heroes, the survivors of the Bataan Death March to sue the Japanese corporations that used them as slave labor in the war, because this would violate the treaty that ended the war. Well, already we have a judge suggesting, a Federal judge suggesting that that argument does not hold water, and a reading of the treaty itself suggests that that does not hold water. What do we have, then? We have a situation where this judge, a neutral party, an American judge, has decided that our POWs under the treaty have the right to file a claim in court. In the past what has happened, and the reason this legislation is necessary, is our greatest American war heroes from World War II, the survivors of the Bataan Death March, not only were they left out on their own and betrayed by our country in a certain way, at least if not betrayed, let down, that we did not come to their rescue; then they served as prisoners of war and as slave labor; and then after the war, we betrayed them again, we let them down again in that they were told that the treaty prevented them from suing the corporations that had used them as slave labor. Well, as I say, in the treaty there is a provision that says very clearly, any rights not granted to American citizens in this treaty that are granted to other citizens of other countries in other treaties, subsequent treaties, will automatically be the rights of the American people as well, and since that time, of course, Japan has signed many other treaties and other people have had the right to sue these Japanese corporations. We are not talking about suing the Japanese Government, we are talking about suing Japanese corporations. It is the courts, not the executive branch, that will ultimately determine the meaning of what this treaty is all about. We already have a court decision. The political question is what we need to decide, and that is what is happening today, and that is what happened in a decision in this body overwhelmingly and a decision in the Senate. Both in this House and the Senate, we decided that our American heroes of the Bataan Death March, their claims are more important than bending over backwards to try to recognize claims of big Japanese corporations that used our people as slave labor during the war. The courts have found that factual issues exist for the application of our people. That means that our POWs have a right to sue, they have an actual, factual claim, and the court has decided that the 1951 peace treaty with Japan does not, does not prevent the plaintiffs from filing action in the court. Now, I would ask my colleagues to vote for this motion, and I would ask them to pay particular attention, and the American people to pay attention, to what is going on here. What has been voted on on the floor, some people are trying to take out behind closed doors in the conference. It is the first time in history we have a motion to recommit, to insist on language that has been passed in both Houses. I think it is vitally important for us to pay attention to this, because I can see when these things happen why people lose faith in democracy. Let me also note that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has a bill just to provide $20,000 as compensation from the United States Government to these American heroes. One would think that at the very least, the Cox bill would be implemented if they were going to try to take out the legislation that we passed in both Houses. But no. Again, our POWs are not being treated justly. I would ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this motion to direct the conferees. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.