Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who knows this issue is mainly about subsidizing American businessmen for building factories in Vietnam.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, who will close?

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to myself to close. Mr. Speaker, what are we debating here? Let us once again be reminded. Rejecting this waiver means one thing in policy. One policy decision is being made today, and that is whether or not we are going to subsidize American businessmen, take taxpayer dollars and guarantee the loans that they are getting and give them a lower rate of interest in order to set up factories in a Communist country, in Vietnam. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is a good idea for Democratic countries, and it certainly is not a good idea for dictatorships like Vietnam. Vietnam does not deserve a subsidy for American businessmen to set up factories, closing their factories in the United States, so these businessmen can take advantage of the slave labor in Vietnam. They do not deserve it. As we have heard, Pete Peterson, one of our former colleagues, a former POW, could not come up with one example of where Vietnam was progressing in the right direction after all of these years of engagement. We are not talking about trade. We are not talking about isolating Vietnam. We are talking about subsidizing businessmen to set up factories there. That is immoral as long as that country is such a dictatorship. Let me add, this same government continues to stonewall us on the POW issue. Although they let us dig, we can dig, and they get millions of dollars for letting us dig in Vietnam for the bones of the 200 Americans left that we knew were in captivity at one point in Vietnam. They have put roadblock after roadblock which continues to prevent us from finding out what happened to those last 200 American POWs. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support my reject of the Jackson- Vanik waiver for this dictatorship in Vietnam. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter addressed to me. Quinn Emanuel Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, July 17, 2001. Re U.S.-Vietnam Trade Agreement. Hon. Dan Rohrabacher, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Rohrabacher: I represent Mr. Dac Vi Hoang, a former Vietnamese businessman who fled Vietnam recently to escape persecution. I am writing to you to offer the testimony of Mr. Hoang regarding the political corruption and economic repression that stifle free enterprise in Vietnam. Mr. Hoang was a prominent Vietnamese entrepreneur who owned Thanh My, Inc., an international exporter of lacquerware. Thanh My, Inc. enjoyed astounding success as a private corporation in the midst of a Communist regime, with annual sales of U.S. $3 million and 400 employees. Than My was internationally recognized as the first private corporation in Vietnam to receive permission to sell its shares to a foreign entity (although that permission was eventually revoked by the Vietnamese government). Mr. Hoang accomplished this success despite having spent five years in a Vietnamese re-education camp because of his participation as an intelligence officer in the South Vietnamese army and cooperation with American armed forces during the Vietnam War. Mr. Hoang was severely tortured, both mentally and physically, while he underwent his ``re- education.'' The prominence Mr. Hoang achieved motivated him to advocate on behalf of private enterprise in Vietnam. In so doing, he repeatedly criticized, both privately and publicly, the repression of private enterprise and the economic policies of the Vietnamese government. This activity led to warnings, threats, and surveillance by the Vietnamese government. Eventually, Mr. Hoang received information that his arrest was imminent. Mr. Hoang and his immediate family fled to the United States soon thereafter and they currently are seeking political asylum before the United States Immigration Court in Los Angeles. Mr. Hoang was one of the wealthiest people in Vietnam, and now he has nothing except the prospect of freedom in this Country. The hearing on his case was originally scheduled for July 13, 2001, but was continued until January 20, 2002 at the request of the I.N.S. Attached is Mr. Hoang's declaration to the U.S. Immigration Court and a newspaper article that describes his plight. Mr. Hoang has continued to criticize the Communist regime in Vietnam since his arrival in this Country, and his comments have been widely broadcast in the media. Mr. Hoang was recently interviewed by Radio Free Asia, which broadcasts in Vietnam. If Mr. Hoang's testimony is relevant to the U.S.-Vietnam trade agreement ratification process, please do not hesitate to contact me at the telephone number listed above, or via e-mail at slr@quinnemanuel.com. Respectfully yours, Sandra L. Rierson.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) who knows we should not be subsidizing with taxpayer dollars investments in Communist China.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to myself. Mr. Speaker, I do not know what books my colleague has been reading from about history, but I read nowhere in history that if we treat the Nazis or the Japanese militarists as anything but dictatorships and threats where it turns out beneficial to the democratic countries of the world. I do not read where we in the past have ever benefited from trying to not recognize a real threat in the dictatorships around the world but instead try to gloss over those differences. I do not read where trade with dictatorships has led to peace. I do not read that. What I read is when there is free trade with dictatorships, they manipulate the trade in order to gain money for their own regimes; and our next speaker realizes we should not be using tax dollars to subsidize businessmen for closing factories in the United States and reopening them in China. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Let me remind my colleagues, this has nothing to do with erecting economic barriers around China. It has nothing to do with an embargo. It has everything to do with removing a subsidy. That is the only effect of this vote that we are having right here today. The only effect of taking away normal trade relations from China is that big businessmen who want to set up a factory in China, maybe close one in the United States, are not going to get their loans guaranteed or their loan subsidized in order to set up that factory. It has nothing to do with stopping people from selling American products or erecting some sort of trade barriers. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Let me remind my colleagues we are not talking about an embargo against China. That is not what this vote is about. Normal trade relations is about one thing: Should we subsidize, the American taxpayer subsidize American businessmen who want to close up their factories here and set them up in China? It is not about free trade or not about whether we can sell our goods in China. It is about whether or not big businessmen will get this subsidy. They cannot get guaranteed loans from the banks. It is too risky. So the taxpayers come in and guarantee the loans. That is what this is all about. It is not about selling American products; it is not about embargoes. It is about subsidies to big businesses to set up factories in China. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished former chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Let me note as we close this debate that over and over again in this debate I have stated that the only practical effect and, let us say, the dominant effect of Normal Trade Relations with China is one thing, and that is that it ensures that a subsidy that we currently provide to American businessmen to close their factories in the United States and rebuild factories in China to exploit the slave labor there, that that is the only practical effect of Normal Trade Relations. If we deny Normal Trade Relations, no longer will these big businessmen be able to get a taxpayer, U.S. Taxpayer-guaranteed loan or subsidized loan in order to build a factory in Communist China so that they can exploit the slave labor there. When we are asked to consider the American worker, I hope we will consider that, because there may be 400,000 American workers, maybe, depending on the China trade, but that does not take into consideration the millions of American workers who have lost their jobs because we have subsidized big businessmen to go to China and invest there, rather than to try to invest in the United States of America. If my colleagues will note, no one on the other side has sought to try to disprove that point, and over and over again I made the point. I would challenge my opponents here tonight in their closing statement to say that that is not true. Well, they cannot say that, because they know that that is the practical effect of this vote. We were asked by the gentleman from Illinois, will the young people of China know anything more about democracy if we deny normal trade relations? My answer is, emphatically, yes. The young people of China will understand that this greatest democracy on earth is standing with them and their aspirations to have a free country and to live in freedom and democracy and have decent lives. They will learn that, the young people will learn that, rather than learn the lesson of today, that America is doing the bidding of a few billionaires who are in partnership, as the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) said, an unholy alliance with the dictators of China in order to exploit slave labor. Yes, we can teach them a lesson. This is not about free trade. It is not about whether people can trade with China. It is whether or not we are going to side with those billionaires and those dictators in China against the people of China. The people of China are our greatest ally. We must reach out to them, not to the rulers. When we talk about free trade with a dictatorship, we are talking about them controlling trade on the other side so they can make the billions of dollars and put it to use buying military equipment which will some day threaten American soldiers. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support my initiative to deny Normal Trade Relations with this Communist Chinese dictatorship.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), a leader of the Human Rights Caucus, who has been a champion of human rights here in the Congress. (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced House Joint Resolution 50 with my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Brown) to disapprove the extension of the President's waiver on the Jackson-Vanik provision in the Trade Act of 1974. My reason for this resolution is to protect our country's national security, as well as to call attention to the gross violations of human rights that now are taking place on the mainland of China. Since we held this debate last year, and despite previous Presidential waivers, the Communist Chinese have used their $80 billion that they have in annual trade surplus with the United States to modernize their military and boost their nuclear forces which target American cities. In other words, they are using the $80 billion trade surplus that we are permitting. We are approving the rules of engagement in terms of our economic relationship. They use that $80 billion to buy technology to kill Americans. That is absurd, that we should continue in this type of relationship. Mr. Speaker, many people are going to suggest that this is in some way beneficial to the people of the United States. There is no doubt that the China trade is beneficial to a very few people in the United States, a few billionaires who are able to exploit the labor, the near slave labor in China and thus do not have to put up with unions or regulations in the United States of America. So, yes, it is beneficial for them, but it is not beneficial for the people of the United States of America. What is it then that propels this vote on normal trade relations? Why is it that we always have this vote, and those of us who are against normal trade relations with Communist China always lose. Well, it is because we have these people who have great wealth and power who are exercising their influence on this body and with the public to try to pressure to continue going down this road even though every road sign says, ``Turn back, not this way.'' Mr. Speaker, we will hear during this debate over and over again, mark my words, we will hear people say we have got to have normal trade relations with China in order to exploit the world's biggest market in order to sell American products. Let me repeat this two or three times. That is not what normal trade relations is about. It is not what normal trade relations is about. Opening up markets and selling American products that are manufactured here is not what normal trade relations is about. What normal trade relations is about is, with the passing of this bill, those billionaires that I just mentioned are able to get tax subsidies, subsidies for their investment. They are able to close down manufacturing companies in the United States and open up factories in Communist China to use their slave labor with a subsidy from the American taxpayer, be it the Export-Import Bank or other subsidized international financial institutions. Mr. Speaker, that is what this vote is about. This vote is whether we should be subsidizing big business to close down American factories and give that subsidy to them to open up factories in Communist China. It is an insult to the people of the United States. We are taxing them to put them out of their own jobs. That is what this vote is about. It is about continuing the economic rules of engagement with Communist China which has led to their militarization and has led them to become so arrogant of the United States that the Chinese downed an American military aircraft and held American military personnel hostage for 11 days. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to consider, what if those people had died on that airplane? Those 24 Americans, it was a miracle that they did not die, that that crash did not occur. Otherwise, what would we be doing today? I would suggest many people in this body would be making the same arguments, do not worry about Communist China, it is actually getting better. What do they have to do? They are murdering their own people. They are putting Christians in jail. They are putting Falun Gong meditators in jail. They have a higher level of oppression than they had before. They are bringing down American aircraft. What do we have to do? Mr. Speaker, we have to recognize that there are powerful forces at work in this country and they are profiting from what, from a tax subsidy from our taxpayers to give them the type of loan guarantees that they cannot get from private banks. This has nothing to do with free trade. It has nothing to do with selling American products in China. It has everything to do with subsidizing and guaranteeing big businessmen who cannot get their loans guaranteed in the private sector because it is too risky to go and set up factories in China. That is what this vote is about. I would ask my colleagues to support our position and to reject the Jackson-Vanik waiver for trade with China. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), a man who knows we should not be subsidizing American investment in China.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), who knows it is not right for U.S. taxpayers to subsidize businesses to close up here and set up shop on the mainland of China.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. This is a cup that, as we can all see, is empty, but I will submit to my colleague that there will be many people who will try to tell you that there is water in this cup. No. It is an empty cup. And no matter how much we would like it to be filled with water, it is not filled with water. No matter how much we would like to say that there has been human rights progress in China, there has been no human rights progress in China. In fact, the situation has retrogressed in the last few years. Japan was becoming highly westernized in the 1920s and 1930s. Berlin became a real party town compared to what it was when they were real poor and went through their economic hard times. Did this make Japan and Germany any less a threat to world peace? No. Today, China is, yes, advancing economically, but the money is being used by the militaristic elite to prepare for war and to attack the United States. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), my colleague. What we are doing here today and, hopefully, what we will be permitted to do is to send a message to those people who are committing criminal acts against the people of China, saying they will be held accountable. Doctors who are participating in crimes against humanity, which the harvesting of organs is all about, they will be held accountable. They will not be treated like any other individual or any other doctor from around the world who wants to come to the United States. Tomorrow, we will debate and discuss permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. China is a criminal country as well at this time. Their government should not be treated as we treat any other friendly and democratic government. They should be held accountable. That is a government that is run by gangsters and criminals. They should be held accountable. We should not give them that trade status. Individuals in China who are part of that regime and take part in these criminals acts also should be held accountable. Mr. Chairman, my hat is off to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) for making sure we stand up for this moral position.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I was not going to get up until I heard the legalistic arguments against this proposal. Let me just say, my mother passed away recently. She had a major operation. I went to the hospital to visit her. She had lost her appetite, and she was in severe pain. She had lost her appetite because she had been taking pain medicine. When I talked to her and tried to comfort her, I was very grateful that I had voted for medical marijuana in my State when we had the election there, because that is what she needed for her situation where her outlook on life was so bad, and she was in such pain. She needed to regain her appetite and could not survive without regaining her appetite. The people of my county, a very conservative county, voted overwhelmingly for this, or it was a strong majority, anyway. The fact is the Federal Government should not come into a State or to my area where the people have thus voted because of their humanitarian concerns or whatever and supersede the vote of the people. This is a democracy. It is also a Federal system. When we have people at that level voting that a drug should be used for medical purposes, the Federal Government should not supersede that vote.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that my colleagues support my amendment, and I am very grateful to the Chair for ruling it in order. All we are suggesting is that the money that we are appropriating here not be used to thwart the right of some of the greatest heroes in American history who were betrayed by their own government during World War II. This will prevent our State Department from continuing their policy of thwarting the legal suits by American POWs, the Bataan Death March survivors, against the Japanese corporations that worked them as slave laborers. I would ask all of my colleagues to support my amendment.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The parties are the corporations that worked them as slave laborers and our POWs. The United States Government should not be getting in the way.

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

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment in support of former American prisoners of war who were used by slave labor by Japanese corporations during the Second World War. These heroes survived the Bataan Death March, only to be transported to Japan and elsewhere in infamous death ships and then forced to work for Japanese companies under the most horrendous circumstances and conditions. Private employees in these corporations tortured and physically abused these American POWs while the corporations withheld essential medical care and even the most minimal amount of food. My amendment to H.R. 2500 would prohibit any funds in the act from being used by the United States government to prevent the former POWs from seeking a fair hearing against the Japanese companies who used them as slave labor in civil court. This amendment is supportive of H.R. 1198, which is a bill that I have authored and put into the hopper which has over 160 cosponsors which calls for the United States government not to interfere with the efforts of former World War II POWs to have their day in court. This provision now, as I say, has over 160 bipartisan cosponsors. After the war, approximately 16,000 POWs returned all battered and nearly starved from their terrible ordeal, many permanently disabled; their lives changed forever. Many of them had died during the war; 11,000 POWs died at the hand of the Japanese corporate controllers. The Japanese, by the way, had the worst record of physical abuse for POWs in recorded history. Some 4,500 of the former POWs are still alive. Now, like many other victims of World War II and the atrocities of that war, the remaining survivors, our POWs, our most heroic defenders, are looking to try to seek justice and recognition for the ordeal they suffered. They do not seek action or retaliation against the current Japanese government or the current Japanese people, nor do they seek to portray Asian-Americans or the Japanese people in a negative light. Rather, our former POWs, these brave heroes, seek the opportunity to bring their case against Japanese corporations who used them as slave labor, to bring their case to civil court. Japan has extended favorable reparation terms to many other victims of other countries, and they continue to settle war claims by other nationals of other countries. Unfortunately, to date our own State Department has asserted that our American POWs who were held by the Japanese have no claim against the Japanese corporations who worked them as slave labor. Our State Department has stood in the way of these American heroes, these POWs, in their struggle to obtain justice by restricting their ability to go to court. They have a very restrictive reading of the peace treaty between the United States and Japan, and are thus betraying our own POWs in order to protect Japanese corporations from our POWs seeking legal redress against them. It is, therefore, up to this Congress to pass this bill and to force our State Department to get out of the way and let our POWs have their day in court. This is a balanced and fair response to the situation. Many of the companies, the Japanese companies in question, are household names in the United States. As an ethical and moral matter, they should have voluntarily sought to close the book on this injustice a long time ago. I would hope that we can put this type of restriction into this bill that would prevent the State Department from using any funds that we authorize and appropriate today in order to prevent our POWs from suing the Japanese corporations that used them as slave labor in the Second World War.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman not believe it would be better to have those very objections that he mentioned settled by a judge rather than settled in the bureaucracy, with all the political pulls that are on our bureaucracy?