Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) for yielding to me. He is a relatively junior Member of the House.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The gentleman has taken on a tremendous responsibility and has done a terrific job in calling attention to some issues that are vital to our national security and vital to the interests of the American people. Unless we address the problem of immigration, and I would put it, of illegal immigration, and we might have a little disagreement on that, but the fact is that those people who are concerned about immigration, and we have about 1 million people a year who come here legally into this country, which by the way, legally those people entering the United States, if we put the rest of the world all together, it has about the same legal immigration into their countries as we do into our one country. But, on top of that, there still continue to be millions of people, probably 3 million or 4 million people a year, entering this country illegally. It is frightening to see the lack of attention that has been given to this very serious threat by our government, both in the Clinton administration, and we will have to wait to see what happens with President Bush. But even among the Republican leadership, we have not been able to move forward with a program designed to stem this flow. I think it is basically because there is a fear among people who are politically active of being called racist. It is just this basic element, we do not want to be called names, and we are afraid that someone will impugn not only our integrity but our good hearts, so we have shied away from this issue. This issue will destroy this country. This issue will destroy the standard of living of our people, and it is currently doing so. In California we feel this acutely, but again, no one wants to face it. Proposition 187, which tried to hit at some of the real problems caused by illegal immigration, passed overwhelmingly. In fact, it was a landslide, and even right before the vote they were saying it was going to be close. Since that time, those same people who said it was going to be close and might lose have perpetuated the myth that in California we have in some way lost the Hispanic vote by being against illegal immigration. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Colorado is offering the leadership that is so vital to our country and to our well-being, because the people throughout the country understand what a threat this poses. When we talk about education and class size in California, we are talking about illegal immigration. There is plenty of money in California to educate our children and to have a class size that is appropriate so that our children can learn. Instead, because we have permitted illegal immigration to go unabated, our children, the children of U.S. citizens and the children of legal immigrants who are here in this country and who are going to our schools, are being shortchanged. Why are we doing that? Why are we permitting the education standards to drop like a rock, and our kids to not be taught or be given training they need to sustain a good life? Why is that? Because we are afraid to be called racists. Give me a break. What is our responsibility? We have got to step forward and say that we care about those young people who come from another country illegally. We care about their families and fathers and mothers, because they are mostly, and I am sure the gentleman from Colorado agrees with me, 95 percent of all the people who come to this country, even the illegal ones, are good people. But the fact is that we cannot take care of everyone in this country from everywhere in the world who wants to come here.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Colorado brings up a serious, serious issue. First and foremost, the reason we would like immigration to be in a very controlled and rational process, rather than what we have today, which is totally out of control, a chaotic situation, is because people who come here should come here and be able to, number one, speak the English language, because they should be able to take care of themselves, that is number one; they should be healthy; and they should be honest; just those three things. If they cannot speak the English language, obviously, in a country like ours, they are not going to be able to earn a good living and take care of themselves. I have no complaints, as I say, about the level of 1 million people coming in here, especially when we consider we have 2 million or 3 million that are coming illegally, and many of the people that the gentleman is describing right now are people who have come here illegally and expect to have the services provided to them in their own language. This is adding insult to injury.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, this morning, Vietnamese communist authorities arrested a highly respected Catholic priest Father Nguyen Van Ly, a former Amnesty International ``prisoner of conscience,'' accusing him of fomenting unrest against the government. Father Ly was detained in his parish of Phu An, near Hue, under a criminal law for failing to obey surveillance rules and agitating followers to cause public disorder. ``He was arrested for spreading propaganda against the government,'' said a spokesman for the secret police of Phu An commune. The propaganda charges Ly faces carry penalties of 10 to 12 years in prison. A longtime critic of the government, Ly has previously spent nearly 10 years in prison. On Wednesday, Ly led a religious service of about 150 people in which police said he distributed leaflets. The government said the leaflets were anti-communist. Ly, 54, had previously been under heavy police surveillance and in March was denounced by official media as a ``traitor'' for urging the United States to link religious freedom to ratification of a bilateral trade agreement with Vietnam. ``(Ly) continued to carry out behavior that affected public security and obstructed production and normal life of the people,'' the spokesman said. Father Ly's arrest came amid growing criticism of Hanoi for persecution of religious groups--Christians, Buddhists and, Cao Dai. Ly's detention coincided with a report that a dissident Buddhist leader, Thich Quang Do, was summoned for questioning in Ho Chi Minh City. The Paris-based International Buddhist Information Bureau said that 73-year-old Thich Quang Do received a summons demanding he appear before a Communist kangaroo court tomorrow to explain ``a number of wrongful acts'' he has recently committed.'' The move could be related to Do's recent letter to the Vietnamese leadership in which he called for the release of another dissident monk, the group said. Do is the second-highest monk in the banned Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam. The movement's patriarch, Thich Huyen Quang, 83, has been imprisoned for 19 years. Mr. Speaker, the Hanoi regime insists it grants full religious freedom to its citizens. This is a blatant lie. Given the simultaneous mass persecution of our former allies, the Montagnard tribes people in Vietnam's Central Highlands, this body should link an end to religious and ethnic persecution to the ratification of the bilateral trade agreement between the United States and Vietnam. I also call on the United States embassy in Hanoi to aggressively make every possible effort to demand the release of Father Ly and an end to religious persecution and rampant human rights abuses in Vietnam.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to discuss an issue that relates directly to the safety of the men and women whose task it is to defend our country. It also goes to the heart of the American lead in the aviation technology upon which we depend so much. For over a decade, I backed a project that I believed would permit America to take the lead in the next major step in aviation technology, that is, Vertical Takeoff and Vertical Landing aircraft. Unfortunately, it is clear now that the project, the Osprey project, has been a costly and a dangerous failure. Of the 11 aircraft built, four have crashed, and three of the crashes resulted in 30 fatalities. That is 30 dead heroes whom we cannot bring back. The flight crews that were lost were the most experienced on this craft and some of the best and the brightest of the Marine Corps. On page 32 of the most recent copy of the Marine Corps Gazette, there is an article by a pilot who is also a weapons and tactics instructor that underscores the skepticism about the viability of the Osprey program. Then there is the alarming allegations of a cover-up, a cover- up and records falsification by Marine officers directly involved in the Osprey's operational testing. Recently, the Defense Department's Blue Ribbon panel echoed the finding of the Marine Corps' Accident Mishap Board in recommending extensive redesign of the craft. All of this calls into question the Osprey's future use by the military and, of equal significance, its commercial viability. No commercial aviation company in this country is ever going to get insurance on a craft with this kind of safety record. The Blue Ribbon panel mandates that we go back to the drawing board. That is not a condemnation of vertical landing, vertical takeoff; it is a condemnation of the Osprey program. Vertical Takeoff and Vertical Landing technologies are the way to alleviate our overcrowded airports, to ease our overburdened air traffic control systems, and to ensure our military's ability to respond when our runways have been destroyed by a wartime adversary. To pull us into the 21st century, we need a simple Vertical Takeoff, Vertical Landing aircraft with longer range, higher speed, and greater payload capacity. Perhaps like a transport version of the Harrier jet. Tomorrow, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, a subcommittee that I chair, will be holding a hearing on one such aircraft that holds promise for the future, and it will fly for the first time this summer. Let me note that my father was a Marine pilot. Mr. Speaker, these 30 casualties during the testing of the Osprey program are unconscionable, 30 dead Marines. We do not need any more dead Marines. The Osprey program is a failure, but the Vertical Takeoff, Vertical Landing concept is not. We should not abandon that technology, and we should try to keep America first in aviation technology by ensuring that new concepts of Vertical Landing, Vertical Takeoff will be available to the American military and also available to commercial aviation so that the United States of America will be able to fly its up-to-date, cutting-edge aircraft throughout the world and remain the leader in aviation technology, creating jobs for our people and creating a capability, both militarily and commercially, that will keep America ahead of the competition and ahead of our adversaries. So I would ask my colleagues tomorrow to pay attention to our hearing, and I would ask the public to pay attention to the hearing of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics that I chair, and we will be examining the Vertical Takeoff and Vertical Landing concept, and perhaps some of the reasons why the old program failed and why there is hope that better technology is available in the future, technology that would protect our military people and offer great commercial possibilities for our country. Mr. Speaker, I would submit for the Record the article in the Marine Corps Gazette entitled, ``MV-22 Osprey or Edsel?'' [Ideas & Issues, MV-22 Osprey] MV-22 Osprey or Edsel? (By LtCol Bruce A. Milton, USMCR) is the osprey `too much' aircraft? Mishaps have been an aviation bane ever since Orville and Wilbur made those first epic flights amid the dunes of Kitty Hawk. The early days of powered flight took an incredible toll on those intrepid airmen who ventured forth to challenge gravity. Despite tremendous losses, the potential benefits to both the civil and military complexes enabled a fledgling enterprise to evolve into the technologically advanced industry that we have today. I doubt few events in modern history can compare with the meteoric accomplishments of the aviation field. To think that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon less than 65 years after the Wrights' first powered flight is simply phenomenal. Throughout these ever-evolving phases of aviation, countless steps have been taken to reduce the inherent risks associated with flying. There isn't adequate space in this article to pay homage to all the positive changes incorporated by manufacturers, operators, government entities, and others to enhance flight safety. Suffice it to say that the mishap rate--a tangible statistic that measures how safe we really are--has improved markedly over the years as a result of these positive changes. However, just as the automotive industry has had models that were not successful, the annals of aviation history also include numerous aircraft that were ``scrapped'' or pulled from production. Unlike the doomed Edsel, a car that the driving public simply did not find aesthetically pleasing, many prematurely canceled aircraft, certainly many military aircraft, had their operational lives shortened because they were deemed too dangerous. With a new aircraft, as with any complicated machine, there is a learning curve. This wringing out period includes the time that skilled test pilots put the aircraft through its paces. They ``push the envelope'' to establish limitations, procedures, and guidelines for subsequent squadron pilot usage. During this wringing out, the aircraft also undergoes operational test and evaluation (OTE). During OTE, more guidelines and procedures are established as how to best employ the aircraft in a tactical environment. Once the new aircraft has successfully completed this rigorous testing, it is ready for introduction to the fleet. When speaking of the MV-22, it is with this latter portion of the learning curve that I am most concerned. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a test pilot. I have, however, spent the majority of my aviation career in some type of instructional capacity. From my days on active duty as a weapons and tactics instructor to my current duties as a training captain for a large commercial emergency medical services operator, I have amassed literally thousands of hours of flight instruction in both fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft. This experience has provided me with some insights into pilot performance and behavior. Collectively, pilots are merely a cross section of society. As such, among pilots there exists a widely varying degree of aeronautical prowess and ability. I have flown with pilots whose seemingly effortless skill I admired. I have flown with those who struggled very hard to make the required grade. I have also flown with pilots whose performance made me wonder how they had progressed as far as they had. Interestingly enough, I suppose most of the pilots I have flown with over the last 19 years can be defined as being average. In most communities and subcultures of naval aviation, there is certainly nothing wrong with average. Average can be equated to someone who is safe, reliable, and aware of his or her capabilities and limitations. However, in the case of the Osprey, I am concerned that average may not be good enough. As recent tragic events illustrate, ``above average'' or even ``outstanding'' may not be sufficient skill levels to successfully master the MV-22. We have lost the two most experienced Osprey aircrews, senior test pilots even, in the first stages of fleet incorporation. What happens when we man this aircraft with less than stellar experienced aircrews? I'm not sure the jury is ``in'' on this subject. In my capacity as an instructor, I have more than a layman's appreciation for helicopter aerodynamics. I understand such phenomena as ``settling with power'' and ``vortex ring state.'' I have deliberately induced this condition at altitude to show pilots how dangerous it can be if encountered in close proximity to the ground. I opine that in most helicopters, under most conditions--even tactically--it is rare to enter the vortex ring state. Reports I have read about the Marana incident attribute the mishap to the pilot having entered a vortex ring state. The speed and rates of descent reported certainly did not seem to me to be excessive. I have seen conditions far worse with no hint of loss of control. Is the margin of error or more correctly, margin of safety, of the Osprey so narrow as to put the aircrews at a disadvantage? If the Osprey is as demanding to fly as it might seem, what happens when we man it with the inevitable average crew, cloak them in the fog of war, and send them forth in harm's way? Send them into a hot landing zone on a dark night wearing night vision goggles? Send relatively inexperienced crews into tactical situations where it is prudent to expedite time spent in the vulnerable landing phase? I cannot help but ponder such questions. I do not particularly care about the politics involved in the overwhelming process of aircraft acquisition and employment. Instead, I worry about the troops tasked to fly in those aircraft. It is time to take a long, unbiased, nonpartisan look at the MV-22's future in the Corps. If it can be proven that cockpit workload and aircrew skill requirements are reasonable, then let us welcome its capabilities into our arsenal. If the aircraft needs further redesign or modification to make it safer, then we should pursue those changes. If it turns out that there is no rational or cost-effective solution to the current woes, then perhaps we should consider tabling MV-22 acquisitions until such time that it is safe. We owe this analysis to our Marines. After all, the Edsel may have been unsightly, but it wouldn't kill you.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, one month ago, the Communist regime that controls the mainland of China attacked an American surveillance aircraft while it was in international waters. After being knocked out of the sky, 24 American military personnel, the crew of the surveillance craft, were held hostage for nearly 2 weeks. The Communist Chinese blamed us and would not return the crew until the United States was humiliated before the world. Wake up, America. What is going on here? Large financial interests in our country whose only goal is exploiting the cheap, near-slave labor of China have been leading our country down the path to catastrophe. How much more proof do we need that the so-called engagement theory is a total failure? Our massive investment in China, pushed and promoted by American billionaires and multinational corporations, has created not a more peaceful, democratic China, but an aggressive nuclear-armed bully that now threatens the world with its hostile acts and proliferation. Do the Communist Chinese have to murder American personnel or attack the United States or our allies with their missiles before those who blithesomely pontificate about the civilizing benefits of building the Chinese economy will admit that China for a decade has been going in the opposite direction than predicted by the so-called ``free traders.'' We have made a monstrous mistake, and if we do not face reality and change our fundamental policies, instead of peace, there will be conflict. Instead of democratic reform, we will see a further retrenchment of a regime that is run by gangsters and thugs, the world's worst human rights abusers. Let us go back to basics. The mainland of China is controlled by a rigid, Stalinistic Communist party. The regime is committing genocide in Tibet. It is holding as a captive the designated successor of the Dalai Lama, who is the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people. By the way, this person, the designated new leader, is a little boy. They are holding hostage a little boy in order to terrorize the Tibetan people. The regime is now, at this moment, arresting thousands of members of the Falun Gong, which is nothing more threatening than a meditation and yoga society. Christians of all denominations are being brutalized unless they register with the state and attend controlled churches. Just in the last few days, there has been a round-up of Catholics who were practicing their faith outside of state control. Now they are in a Chinese prison. There are no opposition parties in China. There is no free press in China. China is not a free society under anyone's definition. More importantly, it is not a society that is evolving toward freedom. President Richard Nixon first established our ties with the Communist Chinese in 1972 at the height of the Cold War. That was a brilliant move. At that particular moment, it was a brilliant move. It enabled us to play the power of one dictatorship off the power of another dictatorship. We played one against the other at a time when we had been weakened by the Vietnam War and at a time when Soviet Russia was on the offensive. During the Reagan years, we dramatically expanded our ties to China, but do not miss the essential fact that justified that relationship and made it different than what has been going on these last 10 years. China was at that time, during the Reagan administration, evolving toward a freer, more open society, a growing democratic movement was evident, and the United States, our government and our people, fostered this movement. Under President Reagan, we brought tens of thousands of students here, and we sent teams from our National Endowment for Democracy there. We were working with them to build a more democratic society, and it looked like that was what was going to happen. All of this ended, of course, in Tiananmen Square over 10 years ago. Thousands of Chinese gathered there in Tiananmen Square in Beijing to demand a more open and democratic government. For a moment, it appeared like there had been an historic breakthrough. Then, from out of the darkness came battle-hardened troops and tanks to wipe out the opposition. The people who ordered that attack are still holding the reins of power in China today and, like all other criminals who get away with scurrilous deeds, they have become emboldened and arrogant. My only lament is that had Ronald Reagan been President during that time of Tiananmen Square, things, I think, would have been different; but he was not. Since that turn of events about 12 years ago, things have been progressively worse. The repression is more evident than ever. The belligerence and hostility of Beijing is even more open. Underscoring the insanity of it all, the Communist Chinese have been using their huge trade surplus with the United States to upgrade their military and expand its warfighting capabilities. Communist China's arsenal of jets, its ballistic missiles, its naval forces have all been modernized and reinforced. In the last 2 years, they have purchased destroyers from the former Soviet Union. These destroyers are armed with Sunburn missiles. These were systems that were designed during the Cold War by the Russians to destroy American aircraft carriers. Yes, the Communist Chinese are arming themselves to sink American aircraft carriers, to kill thousands upon thousands of American sailors. Make no mistake about it, China's military might now threatens America and world peace. If there is a crisis in that part of the world again, which there will be, we can predict that some day, unlike the last crisis when American aircraft carriers were able to become a peaceful element to bring moderation of judgment among the players who were in conflict, instead, American aircraft carriers will find themselves vulnerable, and an American President will have to face the choice of risking the lives of all of those sailors on those aircraft carriers. Mr. Speaker, how is it, then, that a relatively poor country can afford to enlarge its military in such a way, to the point that it can threaten a superpower such as the United States of America? Even as China's slide into tyranny and militarism continued in these last 12 years, the United States government has permitted a totally indefensible economic rules of engagement to guide our commercial ties with the mainland of China. While China was going in the right direction, permitting that country to have a large trade advantage and thus providing a large reserve of hard currency may or may not have made sense, as long as China was going in the right direction and going towards democracy. Maybe we would like to build up a freer China that way. But it made no sense, and it still makes no sense, for the United States to permit a country that is sinking even deeper into tyranny and into anti-Western hostility to have a huge trade surplus as a resource to call upon to meet their military needs. In effect, the Communist Chinese have been using the tens of billions of dollars of trade surplus with the United States each year to build their military power and military might so some day the Communist Chinese might be able to kill millions of our people, or at least to threaten us to do that in order to back us down into defeat without ever coming to a fight. We have essentially been arming and equipping our worst potential enemy and financing our own destruction. How could we let such a crime against the security of our country happen? Well, it was argued by some very sincere people that free trade would bring positive change to China, and that engagement would civilize the Communist regime. Even as evidence stacked upon more evidence indicated that China was not liberalizing, that just the opposite was happening, the barkers for open markets kept singing their song: ``Most-favored-nation status, just give us this and things will get better.'' It was nonsense then and it is nonsense today. But after all that has happened, one would think that the shame factor would silence these eternal optimists. Perhaps I am a bit sensitive because, first and foremost, let me state unequivocally that I consider myself a free trader. Yes, I believe in free trade between free people. What we should strive for is to have more and more open trade with all free and democratic countries, or countries that are heading in the right direction. I am thus positively inclined towards President Bush's efforts to establish a free trade zone among the democratic countries in this hemisphere. I will read the fine print, but my inclination is to facilitate trade between democracies. When I say, ``I will read the fine print,'' I will be especially concerned with a free trade agreement, and I will be looking to that free trade agreement to make sure that we have protection that our sensitive technologies, which can be used for military purposes, will not be transferred from the countries in our hemisphere, democratic countries in our hemisphere, to China or to any other countries that are potential enemies of the United States. This will have to be in that free trade agreement. There will have to be protections against the transfer of our technology to our enemies. This is more of a concern following new science and technology agreements that were signed by China and countries like Brazil and Venezuela recently. Dictatorships are always going to try to gain in any agreement that they have with us, and they are always going to try to manipulate other agreements and the rules of the game so they can stay in power. When one applies the rules of free trade to a controlled society, as we have been told over and over again, more trade, and let us have free trade with China, that is going to make them more dependent on us and they will be freer and more prosperous, more likely to be peaceful people, well, if we apply the rules of free trade to a dictatorship, ultimately what happens is that it is only free trade in one direction. On one end we have free people, a democratic people who are not controlled by their government, and thus are basically unregulated and are moving forward for their own benefit. But on the other end, the trade will be controlled and manipulated to ensure that the current establishment of that country stays in power. Never has that been more evident than in America's dealing with Communist China. In this case, it is so very blatant. Those advocating most-favored-nation status, or as it is called now, normal trade relations, have always based their case on the boon to our country represented by the sale of American goods to ``the world's largest market.'' That is their argument. Here on this floor over and over and over again we heard people say, ``We have to have these normal trade relations because we have to sell our products, the products made by the American people, to the world's largest market.'' That is a great pitch. The only problem is, it is not true. The sale of U.S.-produced vacuum cleaners, refrigerators, autos, you name the commercial item, are almost a non-factor in the trade relationship between our countries. They are a minuscule amount of what is considered the trade analysis of these two countries. During these many years that we have given China most-favored-nation status or normal trade relations, the power elite there never lowered China's tariffs, and in fact increased the tariffs in some areas, and erected barriers to prevent the sale of all but a few U.S.-made products. So while we had low tariffs, and intentionally brought our tariffs down by most-favored-nation, for over a decade, even as China was slipping more into tyranny, they were permitted to have high tariffs and block our goods from coming in. Beijing would not permit its own people to buy American-made consumer items. They were not looking for a trade relationship with the United States for their people to be able to buy American products. That is not what they were looking for. That is not what it was all about. They knew it, but yet our people were told over and over and over and over and over again, ``Oh, we have to have most-favored-nation status and normal trade relations in order to sell American products to the world's largest market.'' That is not what was going on. It is not what the reality was. Instead, the Communist Chinese were out to get American money, lots of it, and American money to build factories, and they wanted the Americans to build the factories with our technology and our money in their country. By the way, many of the factories that were built there were not built in order to sell products to the Chinese people. Those factories were built to export products to the United States. The system that developed with the acquiescence of our government, and this is no secret, what I am talking about tonight is no secret to anyone except to the American people, our government acquiesced to this for years, this policy put the American people, the American working people, on the losing end of the transformational action in the long run and sometimes even in the medium run. The Chinese, because of our low tariffs, flooded our market with their products, and blocked our goods from entering China, and all the while we were hearing over and over again, ``We must have most-favored- nation status in order to sell American products in the world's largest market.'' They droned on year after year that most-favored-nation status was so important to selling our products in the world's largest market. I will just repeat that four or five times, because we must have heard it a thousand times on this floor, and every time said, I am sure, in complete sincerity by the people who were expressing it, but were totally wrong. A very quick look into the statistics could have indicated that. By the way, just to let Members know, the people of Taiwan, numbering 22 million people, buy more from us annually than the 1.2 Chinese on the mainland. The Taiwanese, with 22 million people, buy more consumer products from us than do 1.2 billion Chinese in the mainland. What has happened? What has happened as a result of these nonsensical counterproductive policies, anti-American policies to some degree, even though our own government has acquiesced in them? It has resulted in a decline in domestic manufacturing facilities in the United States. In other words, we have been closing down our factories and putting our people out of work. By the way, that does not mean the company is put out of business. Those factories spring up someplace else. There is this flood of Chinese products, the factory closes down, and guess where it reopens? It reopens, yes, in Communist China, using our modern technology and our capital, which is what the Chinese want to have invested in their country. Adding insult to injury, our working people, some of them, whose jobs are being threatened by imports, our working people are being taxed in order to provide taxpayer-subsidized loans and loan guarantees for those corporate leaders wishing to close down their operations in the United States and set up on the mainland of China. Even if China was a free country, that would not be a good idea. I do not believe we should be doing that even for democratic countries. But for us to do that to a Communist dictatorship or any kind of dictatorship, to have the American taxpayer subsidize these investments, taking the risks on the shoulders of the American taxpayer in order to build the economy of a vicious dictatorship, this is insane. This is an insane policy. This is not free trade between free people. It has nothing to do with free trade. It is subsidized trade with subjugated people. Companies that were permitted to sell their product to the Chinese in these last 10 years, and there have been a few, companies like Boeing who have attempted to sell airplanes to China, have found themselves in a very bad predicament. As part of the deal enabling them to sell planes now to Communist China, they have had to set up manufacturing facilities in China to build the parts, or at least some of the parts for the airplane. Thus, over a period of time, what the Chinese have managed to do is to have the United States just build factories and pay for them. Or, as part of an agreement to sell the airplane, we have set up an aerospace industry in China that will compete with our own aerospace industry. I come from California. I come from a district in which aerospace is a mighty important part of our economy. I just want to thank all the people who have permitted this policy, this blackmail of American companies, to go on under the name, under the guise of free trade. It is going to sell out our own national interest 10 years down the road when these people will have a modern aerospace industry building weapons and being able to undercut our own people. Gee, thanks. Making matters worse, many of the so-called companies in China that are partnering with American industrialists, and American industrialists, when they are going to build in China, are often required to have a Chinese company as their partner as a prerequisite to them investing in China, in short order these so-called partners end up taking over the company. So many of American companies have been there and have been burned. Guess what, we look at these private Chinese companies that were partners with our American firms, we look at them, and what do we find out? They are not private companies at all. Many of them are subsidiaries of the People's Liberation Army. That is right, the Communist Chinese army owns these companies. These are nothing more than military people in civilian clothing. Their profits end up paying for weapons targeting America, and we are paying them to build the companies that make those profits. Perhaps the most alarming betrayal of American national security interests surfaced about 5 years ago when some of America's biggest aerospace firms went into China hoping to use Chinese rockets to launch American satellites. They were trying to make a fast buck. It did not cost them a lot more to launch satellites here. Yes, the Chinese were insisting that any satellites we put up for them be put up on their rockets. I personally thought that, as long as we made sure there was no technology transfer, that was an okay policy. As long as we just launched our American satellite which helped them set up a telephone system or something in China, that is fine if they never got ahold of it, and that would be okay. I was guaranteed, along with the other Members of this body, there would be incredible safeguards. The last administration briefed us on the safeguards. Then as soon as we approved of letting these satellite deals go through and our satellites be launched on Chinese rockets, the administration trash canned all of the safeguards. I do not understand it. I do not understand why people did this. But when all was said and done, the Communist Chinese rocket arsenal was filled with more reliable and more capable rockets, thanks to Loral, Hughes and other aerospace firms. Communist Chinese rockets, which were a joke 10 years ago, when Bill Clinton became President of the United States, they were a joke, one out of 10 failed, exploded before they could get into space. Today they are dramatically more likely to hit their targets, and they even carry multiple warheads. Where before they had one warhead and nine out of 10 would explode, now about 9 out of 10 get to their target, and some of them are carrying multiple warheads. The Cox report detailed this travesty. We should not forget the Cox report. Unfortunately, there has been innuendo after innuendo as if the Cox report has in some way been proven wrong. There are no reports that indicate that what the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and his task force proved has in some way been discredited. In fact, there was a transfer of technology to the Communist Chinese that did great damage to our national security and put millions of American lives at risk that did not have to be put at risk. Yet, even with all this staring Congress in the face, we have continued to give Most Favored Nations status to China and even now vote to make them part of the World Trade Organization. Why? One explanation, well just bad theory. Expanding trade, of course, they believe will make things better. But expanding trade did not make things better. Expanding trade with a dictatorship, as I have mentioned, just expands the power base and solidifies the bad guys in power. Of course the other explanation of why all this is going on, why we end up seeing our national security trashed is pure greed on some individuals' parts. Our businessmen have been blinded, not by the dream of selling U.S.- made products to China as they would have you believe in the debates here on the floor of the House, but rather blinded by the vision of using virtually slave labor for quick profits on the mainland of China. With little or no competition, no negotiators, no lawyers, no environmental restrictions, no unions, no public consent, it sounds like a businessman's dream to me. Yes, it is a businessman's dream if you just blot out the picture of a grinding tyranny and the human rights abuses that are going on and the horrible threat to the United States of America that is emerging because of the things that are going on and the things that are being done. Because you are a businessman, because you are engaged in making a profit as we are free to do in the United States does not exempt you from being a patriot or being loyal to the security interests of the United States of America. Today's American overseas businessman quite often is a far cry from the Yankee clipper captains of days gone by. In those days, our Yankee clipper ships sailed the ocean, cut through those seas, the Seven Seas. They were full going over, and they were full coming back. They waived our flag. Our flag was flying from those clipper ships, and our flag stood for freedom and justice. Those Yankee clipper captains and those business entrepreneurs were proud to be Americans. Today, America's tycoons often see nationalism, read that loyalty to the United States, as an antiquated notion. They are players in the global economy now, they feel. Patriotism they believe is old think. Well, we cannot rely on the decisions of people like this to determine what the interests of the United States of America is to be. Yet, the influence of these billionaires and these tycoons, these people who would be willing to invest in a dictatorship or a democracy, they could care less which one, they do not care if there is blood dripping off the hand that hands them the dollar bills, those individuals influence our government. Their influence on this elected body is monumental, if not insurmountable at times. I believe in capitalism. I am a capitalist. I am someone who believes in the free enterprise system, make no mistake about it. But free is the ultimate word. People must be free to be involved in enterprise. We must respect the basic tenets of liberty and justice that have provided us a country in which people are free to uplift themselves through hard work and through enterprise. Today, more often than not, we are talking about how people are trying to find out ways of manipulating government on how to make a profit, not how to build a better product that will enrich everyone's life and make a profit by doing that, which is the essence of the free enterprise system. More and more people are not even looking again to this great country and considering this great country for the role that it is playing in this world and how important it is and how we should never sacrifice the security of this country. Because if this country falls, the hope for freedom and justice everywhere in the world falls. No, instead they have put their baskets, not in the United States of America, put their eggs in the basket of globalism. Well, globalism will not work without democratic reform. China will corrupt the WTO, the World Trade Organization, just as it has corrupted the election processes in the United States of America. You can see it now 20 years from now, maybe 10 years from now, the panels of the WTO, you know, made up of countries from all over the world, Latin America, Africa, Middle East. There are members of those panels making these decisions, they will not have ever been elected by anybody, much less the people of the United States of America, yet we will be expected to follow their dictates. Communist China, they will pay those people off in a heartbeat. Why not? They did it to our people. Remember the campaign contributions given to Vice President Gore at the Buddhist Temple? Remember the money delivered to the Clinton's by Johnny Chung? Where did that money come from? We are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars. Where did it come from? It originated with Chinese military officers. These military officers were wearing civilian clothes. They were top officers in that part of the People's Liberation Army that produces missiles. That is where the money came from, all this while our most deadly missile technology was being transferred to Communist China. One wonders why the Communist Chinese leaders are arrogant and think that American leaders are cowards and corrupt when we let this happen. Our country has, in short, had a disastrously counterproductive policy. We have, over the last 10 years, built our worst potential enemy from a weak, introverted power into a powerful economic military force, a force that is looking to dominate all of Asia. When I say worst potential enemy, that is not just my assessment. That is what the Communist Chinese leaders themselves believe and are planning for. Why do you think Communist Chinese Boss Jiang Zemin recently visited Cuba? He was in Cuba with Fidel Castro who hates our guts when he released the hostages, the American military personnel that he was holding hostage. What do you think that was all about? He was telling the whole world we are standing up to the United States of America, and they are our enemy. He was involved with an activity that was declaring to the world his hostility towards the United States. Why, when you have a country like this who are professing hostility to the United States and doing such as this, why are we permitting them to buy up ports that will effectively give them control of the Panama Canal, which is what they did a year and a half ago. The Panama Canal, the last administration let the Chinese, the Communist Chinese, through bribery, tremendously expand its power in Panama and, through bribery, let it get control of the port facilities at both ends of the Panama Canal. Why would we let such a thing happen? In many ways, we are repeating history. In the 1920s, Japanese militarists wiped out Japan's fledgling democratic movement. That it did. In doing so, it set a course for Japan. Japan then was a racist power which believed it, too, had a right to dominate Asia. Japanese militarists also knew that only the United States of America stood in their way. This is deja vu all over again as Yogi Berra once said. The Communist Chinese, too, are militarists who seek to dominate Asia. They think they are racially superior to everyone. They are unlike their Japanese predecessors, however, willing to go slow, and they have been going slow. But make no mistake about it, they intend to dominate Asia, all of it. And even know, their maps claim Siberia, Mongolia and huge chunks of the South China Sea. The confrontation with our surveillance plane must be reviewed in this perspective if the damage to the United States and the imprudence and arrogance on the part of the communist Chinese are to be understood. China's claim on the South China Sea includes the Spratley Islands. I have a map of the South China Sea with me tonight. Hainan Island. Our airplane was intercepted, knocked out of the sky somewhere in here. But what we are not told about and what the media is not focusing on and no one has been talking about is this plane was precisely in the waters between Hainan Island and the Spratley Islands. For those who do not know what the Spratley Islands are, they are just a series of reefs that are under water at high tide and at low tide above water. They are just a short distance, as you can see, this is here, this is the Philippines; and right about 100 miles offshore, the Spratley Islands. Yet they are several hundred miles from China. Yet the Chinese are trying to claim these islands. That is what this was all about. Not only are these islands, the Spratley Islands, the home of natural gas and oil deposits, but they are also in a strategic location. The Spratly Islands, having them in China's power, having them being recognized as part of China, would, of course, be a disaster to the Philippines whose oil and gas that belongs to, but also it would give the Communist Chinese sovereignty rights which would permit them to bracket the South China Sea. China, Hainan Island, the Spratlys would bracket the South China Sea, from this land point to this land point. Thus, we have a situation where when China claims, which it does, a 200-mile zone, that would leave China with a stranglehold on the South China Sea which is one of the most important commercial areas on this planet. It would have a stranglehold on Japan and Korea. What do you think our friends in the Persian Gulf, for example, would think about it if they understood that this was a power play, that what we had with the surveillance aircraft was a power play? The reason why the Communist Chinese were demanding an apology then, they were demanding an apology because supposedly we were in their airspace. If we apologized, that was a recognition of their sovereignty in bracketing with the Spratly Islands on one side and Hainan Island on the other side, bracketing the South China Sea. If we ended up apologizing to the Communist regime, it would have been taken as a legal recognition, a small one, of their sovereignty and their 200-mile limit. That is what this was all about. That is why they were playing hardball with us. The American people and our allies are not being told that that is what the stakes were. This is a long-term effort on the part of the Communist Chinese to dominate the South China Sea and expand their power so they could call it maybe the Communist China Sea rather than the South China Sea. It behooves us to face these facts. That is what it was all about. That is why they wanted an apology and that is why they should not have gotten an apology. I applaud this administration for wording its letter in a way that was not and could not in any way be interpreted as a recognition of the Chinese sovereignty over that airspace. An accommodationist policy toward Communist China, ignoring this type of aggression, ignoring human rights and democracy concerns while stressing expanded trade, and even through all this you have a bunch of people saying, ``Oh, isn't it lucky we have trade relations or we would really be in trouble with the Communist Chinese.'' Give me a break. But ignoring those other elements and just stressing trade as part of a so-called engagement theory has not worked. The regime in China is more powerful, more belligerent to the United States and more repressive than ever before. President Bush's decision in the wake of this incident at Hainan Island to sell an arms package to Taiwan including destroyers, submarines and an antiaircraft upgrade was good. At least it shows more moxie than what the last administration did. I would have preferred to see the Aegis system be provided to our Taiwanese friends. But at least we have gone forward with a respectable arms deal that will help Taiwan defend itself and thus deter military action in that area. But after the Hainan Island incident, the very least we should be doing is canceling all U.S. military exchanges with Communist China. I mean, I do not know if they are still delivering us those berets or not, but that is just ridiculous to think that we are getting our military berets from Communist China. We should cancel all military exchanges. The American people should be put on alert that they are in danger if they travel to the mainland of China. And we should quit using our tax dollars through the Export-Import Bank, the IMF and the World Bank to subsidize big business when they want to build a factory in China or in any other dictatorship. Why are we helping Vietnam and China? Why are we helping those dictatorships when nearby people, the people of the Philippines, whom I just mentioned, who are on the front line against this Communist aggression, who China is trying to flood drugs into their country. The Chinese army itself is involved in the drug trade going into the Philippines. The Philippines are struggling to have a democracy. They have just had to remove a president who is being bribed. Bribed by whom? Bribed by organized crime figures from the mainland of China. When those people in the Philippines are struggling, why are we not trying to help them? Let us not encourage American businesses to go to Vietnam or to Communist China, when you have got people right close by who are struggling to have a democratic government and love the United States of America. The people of the Philippines are strong and they love their freedom and their liberty, but they feel like they have been abandoned by the United States. And when we help factories to be set up in China rather than sending work to the Philippines, and they do not even have the money to buy the weapons to defend themselves in the Philippines. That is why it is important for us to stand tall, so they know they can count on us. But they can only count on us if we do what is right and have the courage to stand up. The same with China and India. India is not my favorite country in the world, but I will tell you this much, the Indians are struggling to have a free and democratic society. They have democratic institutions, and it is a struggle because they have so many varied people that live in India. But they are struggling to make their country better and to have a democratic system and to have rights and have a court system that functions, to have opposition newspapers. They do not have any of that in China. Yet instead of helping the Indian people, we are helping the Communist Chinese people? This is misplaced priorities at best. Finally, in this atmosphere of turmoil and confrontation, let us never forget who are our greatest allies, and that is the Chinese people themselves. Let no mistake in the wording that I have used tonight indicate that I hold the Chinese people accountable or synonymous with the Chinese Government or with Beijing or with the Communist Party in China. The people of China are as freedom-loving and as pro-American as any people of the world. The people of China are not separated from the rest of humanity. They too want freedom and honest government. They want to improve their lives. They do not want a corrupt dictatorship over them. And any struggle for peace and prosperity, any plan for our country to try to bring peace to the world and to bring a better life and to support the cause of freedom must include the people of China. We do not want war. We want the people of China to be free. Then we could have free and open trade because it would be a free country and it would be free trade between free people instead of this travesty that we have today, which is a trade policy that strengthens the dictatorship. When the young people of China rose up and gathered together at Tiananmen Square, they used our Statue of Liberty as a model for their own goddess of liberty. That was the statue that they held forth. That was their dream. They dreamed that her torch, the goddess of liberty, would enlighten all China and they dreamed of a China democratic, prosperous and free. Our shortsighted policy of subsidized one-way trade crushes that goddess of liberty every bit as much as those Red Army tanks did 12 years ago. Let us reexamine our souls. Let us reexamine our policies. Let us reach out to the people of China and claim together that we are all people of this planet, as our forefathers said, we are the ones, we are the people who have been given by God the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is not just for Americans. That is for all the people of the world. And when we recognize that and reach out with honesty and not for a quick buck, not just to make a quick buck and then get out, but instead to reach over to those people and help them build their country, then we will have a future of peace and prosperity. It will not happen if we sell out our own national security interests. It will not happen if we are only siding with the ruling elite in China. We want to share a world with the people of China. We are on their side. Let me say this. That includes those soldiers in the People's Liberation Army. The people in the People's Liberation Army come from the population of China. They and those other forces at work in China should rise up and join with all the other people in the world, especially the American people, who believe in justice and truth; and we will wipe away those people at the negotiating table today that represent both sides of this negotiation, and we will sit face-to-face with all the people in the world who love justice and freedom and democracy, just as our forefathers thought was America's rightful role, and we will build a better world that way. We will not do it through a World Trade Organization. We will do it by respecting our own rights and respecting the rights of every other country and every other people on this planet. I hope that tonight the American people have heard these words. The course is not unalterable. This is a new administration. And in this new administration, I would hope that we reverse these horrible mistakes that have compromised our national security and undermined the cause of liberty and justice. I look forward to working with this administration to doing what is right for our country and right for the cause of peace and freedom.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, by insisting on responsible policies, President Reagan proved that he cared much more about the needy and downtrodden than his touchy-feely liberal critics whose decades-long failed policies had kept millions of Americans in despair and dependency. Yes, during the Reagan years there was a budget deficit, as has been mentioned, just as there was in World War II. That deficit can almost all be attributed to our military buildup, and I admit that, certainly, that was the factor. But it was that buildup that permitted us to end the Cold War and to lower the level of defense spending and now to balance our budget, which is exactly what we have done. Now, in the spirit of Ronald Reagan, we are cutting taxes and paying down and paying off the debt. Finally, the viciousness against Reagan was at times so much. However, he himself kept a positive attitude. Reagan was often described as a puppet, a man, just a front man, and other decision- makers were using him. This characterization is so contrary to the reality of those of us who knew him that it just boggles the mind. The now famous Berlin Wall speech in which Ronald Reagan called for Gorbachev to tear down the wall, every one of his senior advisors told him, begged him, pleaded with him not to say it, but Ronald Reagan knew that if he was to remain true to the things that he had believed in all his life and was going to give hope to those people around the world, that they had to know that we believed in what we had been saying. He had to tell Mr. Gorbachev to tear down that wall, even though George Schultz and all his advisors and people in this city today who claim to have written that speech for Ronald Reagan were people who were actually advising him not to give the speech. Reagan stayed true to his ideals, and he saved the world in doing so. Today, the Ronald Reagan we knew and loved still lives, and he grows in stature as history reflects upon his enormous accomplishments and leadership. We wish him a happy 90th birthday. We enter now a new millenium, celebrating our liberty, secure in our peace, and blessed by prosperity and unimagined opportunity. A man of vision and ideals saw this as he looked ahead. He took the steps and stands that were necessary to make it happen. We thank Ronald Reagan. Now it is up to us, and I am certain if he were with us today, he would be just as confident of the American people as he ever was, and he would urge us on to greater heights and achievements because, after all, as he reminded us, we are Americans. So, what is holding us up? Let us get going.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, today we honor former President Ronald Reagan on the occasion of his 90th birthday. For those of us who worked with him, it is a tremendous source of satisfaction that our former boss is now being given the credit that he is due as one of America's greatest Presidents. Every day it is becoming ever more clear that the long period of prosperity our people have enjoyed started in January of 1983. January of 1983 is when Ronald Reagan's economic policies, especially his tax program, went into full effect. At that point the economy took off like a rocket, and it has not ceased to expand since then to this very day, except for a very short 6-month dip in 1999 and 1992, unfortunately during a presidential election. By the time President Clinton took office, however, the man who now claims credit for this long period of expansion, the growth rate in the economy was already 5.4 percent based on, of course, the strong economy that ignited in January of 1983. My apologies to my friends on the other side of the aisle, but it was President Reagan whose policies led to this dramatic uplifting of the well-being of the American people that we have enjoyed for over a decade now. Most of all, one of the factors that has insured that prosperity was that Ronald Reagan had a tough pro-freedom, pro-strength foreign policy that ended the Cold War and ushered the world into a new historic era of peace. The potential for world peace was never greater than at the end of his term in office, so that hundreds of billions of dollars that would have been spent on weapons now can build better lives for people and help pay off our debt. Our brightest minds, instead of focusing on developing technologies that will kill people more effectively, now can focus on technologies that will uplift the condition of humankind. That is what Ronald Reagan brought us, the kind of world that Ronald Reagan brought us. The peace and prosperity to which I refer did not just happen. It came as a result of the courage and the wisdom of Ronald Reagan, a former lifeguard in a very small town in Illinois. A lifeguard, that is how he started out, and that is what he did for his entire life. He saved the lives of 17 people in a small lake, and continued trying to save people for the rest of his life. He invested in the military, in our military, to win the Cold War. Just like we did in World War II, we invested a lot of money. There was a great deal of debt in World War II, but under his leadership, America went on the offensive. We began supporting freedom fighters, battling Soviet troops and surrogates from Afghanistan to Nicaragua, and supported democratic movements in Poland and in the Soviet Union itself. In the end, the greatest and most sinister threat to freedom on our planet collapsed in its own evil. It would not have happened without the vision of Ronald Reagan, a former lifeguard, and yes, a former sports announcer and a former actor. Today it is often said that the accomplishments I have mentioned would have happened anyway, without Ronald Reagan. Well, it just is not so. Ronald Reagan fought his battle against people who opposed everything he was trying to do every step of the way. He made things happen with the strength of his convictions and the power of his speeches. He was maligned as heartless and as stupid by people who disagreed with his approach. Let me add, a majority of Democrats in this Congress and in the Congress at that time consistently voted to undermine every attempt Ronald Reagan made to confront Soviet expansionism, whether it was the supporting of anti-Communist forces in Latin America or the rebuilding of our military strength. Had their policies been heard and carried the day, we would still be in the Cold War and still be spending those billions of wasted dollars on weapons systems that now can be spent in economy-building ways. Ronald Reagan was a good-hearted man. He was a strong man, but a good-hearted man, as good-hearted as I have ever met. He was hurt by suggestions that he was a mean-spirited person or did not care about others.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 additional minutes.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Congress has passed S. 3181, the National Moment of Remembrance Act, which calls for the creation of a White House Commission to honor men and women of the United States who have died while in service to their country while defending freedom and peace. In May 2000, both Houses of Congress passed a bi-partisan bill to establish a moment of Remembrance at 3 p.m. on each and every Memorial Day. The concurrent resolution to create a National Moment of Remembrance was introduced by Senator Chuck Hagel, Senator Bob Kerry, myself and Congressman John Murtha. S. 3181 was authored by Senator Hagel and was passed unanimously in the Senate, while I introduced a similar version in the House. The bill will establish a White House public and private sector commission to organize and coordinate national and local Memorial Day observances to honor the brave men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to their country. The National Moment of Remembrance is a symbolic act of unity to bring together Americans of all walks of life to respect our democratic heritage and to dedicate ourselves to the values and principles for which our citizen-soldiers gave their lives. The National Moment of Remembrance and other commemorative events are needed to reclaim the true meaning of Memorial Day. I commend our House leadership for bringing this Act to the floor. And I am grateful to Senator Hagel and Bob Kerrey for their leadership. I also thank Carmella LaSpada, Chairperson of the No Greater Love organization for initiating the National Moment of Remembrance and encouraging lawmakers to make this Act a reality. I also thank those who crafted the language of this Act: James Dean of the General Services Administration, Carmella LaSpada, Mike Coulter with Senator Hagel and my Special Assistant, Al Santoli, who is a Vietnam Veteran.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, in case the American people are having difficulty understanding the argument of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), as most of us over here are having difficulty, because it does come down to us, we believe, the President asking for more money; and we are trying to keep control of the budget. But if we cannot understand that, they should be able to understand one of the other issues, the major issue of contention between the Republicans and the other side of the aisle and the Clinton-Gore administration; and that is the Clinton-Gore administration is demanding that we stay here, and they are holding us hostage with the demand that we give a blanket amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Now, the American people should be able to understand that. All of this budget talk, if one cannot understand what is going on there, one should be able to understand that this administration, the Clinton-Gore administration, the other side of the aisle, want us, and we are refusing, to grant a blanket amnesty so that millions of more illegal immigrants will, number one, be granted amnesty and eventually be eligible for government programs, which means millions of illegal immigrants who are now not eligible will be eligible for health care benefits, for education benefits. Here we are trying to give a modest, just a modest bit of tax relief to the American people, and that is outrageous; but it is not outrageous to bring millions of more illegal immigrants into this country and make them eligible for government benefits. Give me a break. Give the American people a break. No, I am proud to stand here with the Republicans saying, no, we are going to watch out for the American people. We care about others. We care about our immigrant population. In fact, legal immigrants are some of our proudest citizens. We are happy to have them here as legal immigrants. But to have millions of illegal immigrants be granted amnesty is thumbing their noses at legal immigration and at the American people.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 347. Let me just say that it is sad that we must recognize today the chaos and turmoil that is found in Central Asia, the chaos, the turmoil, the repression, the dictatorship, the heartache, the torture, the things that could have been avoided, in a part of a world that showed such promise, such promise 10 years ago. Upon the fall of the Soviet Union, everyone expected Central Asia to emerge as a shining light of commerce and progress. Instead, what we see is Central Asia falling into a pit, a dark pit of repression and despair. I believe one of the primary reasons for this huge part of the world falling into despair has something to do with the policies right here in Washington, D.C. The Clinton administration has, more than any other administration in the history of this country, lowered the priority for human rights as an international goal. During the Ronald Reagan years, when we were in the middle of a Cold War, Ronald Reagan made human rights a priority. We established the National endowment for Democracy. We talked about it. We negotiated about it. It became preeminent among our demands when we were talking to the governments like that of the Soviet union. It worked. Because we stressed human rights and democracy, the world has a much greater chance for freedom and democracy but also a much greater chance for peace. Unfortunately, that great gift to mankind was squandered by this administration which, as I say, not only made human rights not a priority, but just took it off the list of which we were negotiating, especially with the Communist Chinese. What has this lack of priority, what has this lack of concern for human rights done in Central Asia? We have seen these regimes in Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and others which had such promise turn into a cesspool of repression and torture. We have seen election fraud in countries like Uzbekistan where they had such a great chance, a great opportunity to have free elections. In Azerbaijan, military takeovers of a democratically elected regime. In Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan and Tajikistan, countries that had a chance, the ruling elite there just turned their back on this opportunity. Why? Because this administration did not place any priority or value on the discussion of human rights or democracy when they met with the leaders of these countries. Well, there can be no peace without freedom and human rights. That is what we are finding today. Because what has happened now in Central Asia is there has been a new cycle of violence that has been set on its way, a cycle of violence that we do not know where it will stop. A cycle of violence in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and Tajikistan and, yes, in Azerbaijan as well where they have been unable to settle their problems there and which will probably reach Kazakhstan with their corrupt government. What is that cycle of violence? What we have is people who are demoralized by the fact that there is no democratic alternative in these Central Asian republics turning to radicalism. This year and at this time the face of radicalism is Muslim extremism, the fundamentalist movement, what they call it in that part of the world. Well, of course, decent, honest, people will turn to these radical alternatives if they are given no alternative at the ballot box, if their friends and relatives or their sons and daughters are arrested and brutally tortured for simply complaining about the government. Of course, Islamic fundamentalists are going to find that their ranks are bolstered with volunteers when they have governments like this. On top of that, there is one other factor that needs to be looked at about what is creating the cycle of violence which will lead to such turmoil. That is what? American policy towards Afghanistan. This Member, and anyone who is in the Committee on International Relations will testify, for years I have been warning what the results of this administration's policy towards Afghanistan would be. Years, I predicted over and over again that, unless we did something in Afghanistan to change the situation, that we would end up with Afghanistan as a center of, number one, terrorism, a base for terrorism for the Central Asia but also for the world; that it would be repressive and have one of the most repressive and fanatic regimes and anti-Western regimes on the planet; and, number three, it would be the center for the growth of heroin and that it would put all of the resources that, the billions of dollars one receives from the growth of one-third of the world's heroin in the hands of these religious fanatics. That is exactly what has happened. Yes, it is heroin money in the hands of the Taliban leaders that are fanning this, the flame of discontent and violence in Central Asia that takes advantage of the dictatorships. The dictators should not just focus, however, on trying to wipe out their opponents and wipe out these fundamentalist movements. They should focus on trying to create a democratic alternative so that people in those countries once be attracted to this type of fanaticism. Even the people of Afghanistan are not attracted to the fanaticism of the Taliban. The Taliban have an iron-fisted control there and have steadily refused to have democratic elections. It is my sad, sad duty to, again, repeat the charge on the floor of the House of Representatives, as I have on numerous occasions in the Committee on International Relations, that this administration, not only has discarded human rights and democracy as a priority but has a covert police of supporting one of the worst governments and oppressive governments in the world; and I am talking about the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. I have tried to investigate this for years, and I have been repeatedly cut off by the State Department from receiving the documents that would disprove, and I would like to disprove this charge, because it is a shame for any American to think that our government would be supporting this regime. But I can testify here today that, every time the opposition to the Taliban has had a chance of dislodging the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, this administration has run to their rescue time and time again. Now, people do not know, even in this body, do not know the details, much less the American people. But those are the facts, and I can verify that over and over again. We must have a policy that champions human rights and democracy in Afghanistan and Central Asia. This is what will bring peace to the world. Otherwise, there will be conflict, there will be bloodshed, there will be tyranny. It is a result of a lack of commitment here on our part in the United States to the ideals that our Founding Fathers thought we would support. So today I support H. Con. Res. 347 because it states very clearly that we in Congress believe that the ideals of democracy and human rights should be brought to bear in Central Asia, including Afghanistan, but especially the Central Asian republics, and that that should be the policy of the United States Government.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman may or may not be correct in terms of what the issue is. The President always is pushing us to spend a little more on health care, a little more on education. But the fact is what is the real issue that is keeping us here? The real issue is the President has demanded a blanket amnesty for millions of illegal aliens in our society. So all this money that he is talking about, a little more for education, a little more for health care, will be totally negated even if we give in to the President because we will be then adding millions of more people into eligibility for these same government programs. The President is keeping us here in order to pressure Congress to issue a blanket amnesty for millions of illegal aliens and then thus making them eligible for every government benefit that supposedly should be going to the American people. This is a noble cause for us to stand our ground here in Congress to protect the American people, not to let the President bring in millions of illegal aliens in order to consume the scarce resources available for them in health care, Social Security, and education.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, we have heard many explanations of why we are being kept in. It is important again to reiterate the President is asking us to spend more money in several different areas. Whatever his initial request was, it is irrelevant. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has come up and very eloquently explained to us his point of view on why that is no longer relevant. But the fact is, the President's demands at this time are what is relevant. What is relevant to us and what is keeping us is the President of the United States is threatening to veto pieces of legislation unless we include more money, more money in different areas like health care, education, and different things that he has in mind for his priorities. However, amongst that list of demands, it is not just more money for these things, but amnesty, a general blanket amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants into our society. I think the American people who are paying attention to what is going on in Congress right now, when we say that the President is putting politics before people, he is putting politics before the American people. For some reason, he must believe that granting blanket amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, making them eligible for these education and health benefits that should be going to our own people, that that in some way is going to get him votes for somebody. Give me a break. The American people should be outraged that their President is holding the Congress hostage, trying to force us in order to get home to campaign, for us to grant a blanket amnesty to millions of illegal aliens which then in the long run will drain money from education benefits, drain Federal dollars from health care benefits, will make our Social Security and Medicare systems less stable. Why, because we put millions of new people into the system who have come here illegally from other countries. When they were in the other countries of course, they never paid into those systems. So granting an amnesty, blanket amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants is demonstrably against the well-being of our people; and Congress should stay here and fight to the last ounce of our strength to prevent this travesty from happening. We have also compromised somewhat. We have said we will go along with the President and agree to a family reunion for those immigrants who are here legally now and have families and have been separated and overseas for a number of years waiting to get in and we will let them come into the country. There is a responsible number of people that we would then permit to come in for humanitarian reasons. But to grant a blanket amnesty for millions, the last time we did this was 1986 and what happened after 1986? It was like a welcome sign had been lit over the United States, ``come on in'' to everybody in the world who would want to participate in our free society and receive government benefits, I might add. What we had was a flood of illegal immigration that in my State of California has come close to destroying the viability of our health care system, of our education system. If we take a look at the education scores in California, much of it has to do with the fact that we have had a massive flood of illegal immigrants into our society and we have to pay for their education, even though they just arrived and never paid into our system. That is unfair to our people. Mr. Speaker, we care about the people of the United States of America. Yes, we care for other people as well. And most immigrants, illegal and legal, are wonderful people. But this bill that the President is demanding insults those people who are legal immigrants, who have stood in line and proven to be our very best citizens because they have come here legally. They respect our laws and they love the United States of America. We cherish their citizenship. But we have made fools out of them if we grant amnesty to people who have just jumped the line and come into our country illegally, thumbing their noses at our laws. We must resist the President's efforts to force this Congress to ignore the well-being of our own people and bring in millions upon millions of illegal immigrants and give them blanket amnesty. It is unfair. It is not right. We have agreed to a compromise here. We have agreed that we will have some family reunification and that is a responsible position, because it helps those people who are here legally and already in our country to unite with their loved ones. But a blanket amnesty is outrageous, and I ask the American people to pay close attention.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, this is a blanket amnesty being proposed by the President for people who came here after the conflict in Central America was totally over. The fact is that we are talking about a blanket amnesty. We are not talking about something to make it fair for certain people in Latin America. No, we are talking about people who have come here from all over the world, thumbing their noses at the United States, and the President wants to give them all the benefits; education, health, all the money we should be using for our own people would go to providing those people the benefits. It even dilutes our vote by having a blanket amnesty. Those millions of people who come here illegally will end up voting citizens, diluting even the substance of each American's vote. That is what the issue is.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I hope the public is paying close attention to this debate. I am sorry for using the name of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), but the gentleman is here, and so I thought I would confront him with this personally because the issue of illegal immigration means a lot to me and a lot to those people in California. In fact, all over the United States people are upset with the fact that we have had this massive illegal flow of illegal immigrants into our country. What the President is suggesting is not as the gentleman suggested earlier. The point is that the gentleman is incorrect, or at least he has left an incorrect impression when he stated that the President's blanket amnesty demand on this body had something to do just with El Salvadorans and making things right. No. The fact is that what the President is asking for is a blanket amnesty, an amnesty for millions of people who have been here illegally since 1986. That is what the President is holding us hostage for. All this other rhetoric about health care or about whatever issue we are here on, the surplus or education funds, just keep in mind that the President is demanding that we have millions of illegal aliens granted amnesty so they will be eligible for government benefits. What does that mean? It means draining money that should be going perhaps to pay down the deficit or perhaps to bolster Social Security, perhaps to help the education of our own people, to provide health care for our own people. Instead, the President wants a blanket amnesty for millions of people, which will drain scarce resources from using it to help our own people, to using it to help people who have come here illegally. In so doing, we put out a welcome mat, a shining light above the door saying, come on in, anybody who can get here, we are going to give amnesty and all will be able to get all of the resources and money that should be going to help our own citizens; whether that would be women who need health care or anybody else who needs health care; or our young people who need education. Perhaps we could even give a little bit of that money, and I know this does not sit very well on the other side of the aisle, a modest tax relief for our American people. Instead, the President wants to grant a blanket amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants. This is a sin against our own people, and that is why he is keeping us here. That is the demand. Let us remember this: the President of the United States vetoed welfare reform twice. Even though Al Gore is taking credit for welfare reform and the President takes credit for welfare reform, he vetoed it twice. What was the issue on which he vetoed it? I know what it was. It was whether or not noncitizens were going to be eligible for welfare. That is why the President vetoed that. Now he takes credit for all the welfare reform that we have had and the wonderful success that it has been. Who is loyal to whom? Why are we here? The American people need to listen very closely.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend to my colleagues the following letter and testimony sent by His Royal Highness Prince Sayavong to Philip Smith, of the Center for Public Policy Analysis, for the U.S. Congressional Forum on Laos that was held on September 7, 2000. My foreign policy advisor, Mr. Al Santoli, was one of the keynote speakers at this event after returning from a research mission to Southeast Asia. As a Member of the House International Relations Committee, I appreciate the important role of the Royal Family in Laos--past, present, and future. Laos is currently ruled by a one-party Communist regime. After 25 years of communism, its people want and need change. The Lao and Hmong people are rightfully demanding freedom, democracy, human rights and economic prosperity. Mr. Speaker, I wish to submit for the Record the important statement of His Royal Highness. Paris 4 September 2000 Hon. Philip Smith, Center for Public Policy Analysis, U.S. Congress--Capitol Hill, Washington, DC. Subject: U.S. Congressional Forum on Laos--7 September 2000. I should be most grateful if you could kindly distribute the attached paper--though unsolicited--to Distinguished Members of the Forum who are to examine the ``challenges and opportunities surrounding the 25th Anniversary of the Lao People's Democratic Republic''. The views expressed herein are those of the Lao people as a whole whom I am privileged to represent during the last 4 years from our operating Bureau in Paris (40bis Rue Championnet 74018 Paris--France). Thank you most sincerely for your kind assistance and understanding. H.R.H. Prince Sayavong, Brig. General, The Lao National Army--Surviving son of King Sri Savangvong (1885-1959) and Half-brother of King Sri Savang Vatthana (1907-1980).

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. The American people need to pay close attention, however, to the maneuverings that are going on in these last closing days of Congress. During this time, Members of Congress are, of course, anxious to go home and campaign, so the American people should pay close attention to what the Clinton-Gore administration is threatening those of us in Congress to do unless we do what they want. In fact, there is a veto threat to this Congress over the D.C., Commerce-Justice-State conference report. And what is that veto threat that the Clinton-Gore administration is making to Congress? Unless we include a general amnesty for all illegal aliens, a general amnesty meaning millions of illegal aliens to be permitted to stay in this country, the President is threatening, the Clinton-Gore administration is threatening to veto this bill and keep Congress in session. Millions. It has been described as family reunification. No, the Republicans are suggesting a compromise. Let us put people together who fell through the cracks 10 years ago and have some family reunification. What Clinton-Gore is demanding is a mass, a mass, amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, bypassing all of the legal restrictions making sure that all those people all over the world who are waiting in line to come here legally will be made fools of; making sure that millions of illegal aliens, people who are now illegally in this country and have violated our laws are eligible for education and health benefits because they are now legally in our country. Is this what we want to do with our surplus? Is this what Clinton- Gore wants to do with the surplus? We cannot give it back in some sort of modest tax relief; but we can, instead, grant millions of people who have come here illegally the right to consume benefits and cost the government billions of dollars. The last time we granted such an amnesty was in the mid-1980s. I come from California. I saw what that did to our country. We are talking about a huge increase in illegal immigration right after that amnesty. Because every time we give an amnesty to illegal immigration, it is like putting out a welcome mat: come on in from all over the world. Because if they can get here they know they will eventually be able to outwait these people and they will be able to get government benefits just like everybody else. I know how painful this is for some people on the other side, Mr. Speaker, who just tried to describe this as family reunification. That is not the demand of the Clinton-Gore administration. Again, it is a betrayal of the American people, the people who are here legally, who have come here as immigrants legally through the process. Those people, they love this country enough to obey our laws. Should we then reward people who have just thumbed their nose at the legal system and come here illegally and put them on an equal par to those legal immigrants, those people who make our country and have such a beneficial effect on our country? There is a lot of politics being played in this country right next to this election. There are some people who are calculating that Americans of Hispanic descent, especially Americans of Mexican descent, in some way like illegal immigration. That is an insult to those American citizens. This bill is an insult to them; and it is an insult, as I say, to the legal immigrants who have gone through the system and done what they were supposed to do and are making fine U.S. citizens. But, no, what we have now is a threat from this administration, and I believe it is for political reasons, to make sure that millions of people who have come to this country are made legal in an amnesty program, and a general amnesty. Again, let me say that those of us on the Republican side are willing to compromise. We think it is a fine compromise to bring family reunification, and a much lower level of people would be involved in this, and it is a humane thing to do. But a general amnesty is a betrayal of our country and our people.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to be here tonight to honor Ron Packard. It is not a happy occasion, however. It is not happy, and it does not make me happy and does not make us happy that we will not have Ron Packard with us to help us and to guide us and direct us and to cheer us in the years ahead in this body. We will remain friends, we will remain people who respect Ron Packard forever, but we will sorely miss you. This is something that I say from the heart. Ron has been a father figure, especially for those of us in the Republican Party and the Republican delegation from Orange County. He has been truly a father figure, a kind father. He has been a hard- working father, he has been a caring father, and he has been a wise father, and all of the things you think of when you think about a good man and a person of integrity, of strength, that is what you think of, that is what we think of, the people who have worked with him so many years and relied upon his strength of character and his cheerfulness, that is what we think of when we think of Ron Packard. Ron started his career as a dentist. I always find it is fascinating to talk to people, as I have spoken to Ron for many hours, about what they did in the previous career before actually coming here to Washington, D.C. Actually I know it is hard to say you were thrilled to hear stories of his dentistry, but it made him a real human being to me, and realizing you could actually go into a dentist's office and have Ron Packard there, you know, him leaning over you and saying this is going to hurt me as much as it is you, and you realize that is really true; that Ron is such a sympathetic person and empathetic with people, that he was as a dentist and a human being was very successful outside of the political arena. Also we know that Ron Packard served in the Armed Forces. I know he has several stories which he will not tell in public about the Armed Forces. He served his country and he had a good time doing it, but he also was very dedicated to his country. Ron is the true image of a Patriot, of an American Patriot. American patriots, some of us in the conservative movement think patriots are the solemn guys and just repeating slogans about the country. Ron is an honest, honest patriotic person. He is an American, a true American, and you can sense that in his heart. How one can tell that this is so evident, not only to us, but to his constituents, as has been mentioned here several times, Ron did not win his first race right off the bat. Ron won a write-in race. Now, with a name like Rohrabacher, I can tell my colleagues that that would have been absolutely impossible, but even with a name like Packard, which anybody can spell, it has only happened 4 times in the entire history of the United States Congress. Why did this happen? What was the issue which made people in his district take the time to fill out that name? What was it that motivated them? What was the crying need that said, we need Ron Packard in that first election? It was one word, and the word is integrity. The people in his district knew that they needed integrity and they called out for it and they knew that Ron Packard was the candidate, even though they had to go out of the way and do more work to get him in by writing his name in, to get him in this position. Of course, since then he has been winning every election by huge majorities. As a Member of Congress and the dean of the Orange County delegation, he has given all of us direction. We have looked at his hard work, we have looked at his fairness and his willingness always to lend a helping hand to others on both sides of the aisle, and yes, to give advice. We look at those things as a role model for the rest of us. I came in in 1988 and Ron was already a veteran. I will have to say that what he has offered us and offered me personally has been very, very advantageous. He has given me a lot of professional guidance on how I should be operating here as a Member of Congress, but he has also served as a role model and given professional advice, or I should say personal advice. Ron is a model for us, both professionally and personally. Ron, I might add, in the last election showed his values and showed how important values are to him by taking a lead in California in trying to pass the Save the Family or Protect the Family Act, which is basically designed to protect the institution of the family in California. Also, the efforts he has made to make sure that the Boy Scouts are not forced into lowering their moral standards or giving up the word ``God'' in their scout oath. Mr. Speaker, I was just married 3 years ago, and I will close with this. I hope that I have as much happiness in my life and that it shows on my face and in my life as much as Ron's family life and the happiness and joy that he has had has had on his life, because he has been a shining example to all of us of what marriage and what love between people is all about. We will miss you, Ron. Your presence will not be forgotten; it will shine on as long as the rest of us are here. Thank you very much for all you have done for us and for what you have done for the United States of America.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the Taliban represent one of the great threats to stability and peace and civility on this planet. They, in fact, represent an aspect of Islam that if accepted and if influencing other areas of the world will have a tremendously, tremendously negative impact on the peace of the world but also the well-being of women who are in these Muslim countries who would then become chattel and treated like slaves, which is what happens under the Taliban's rule. The Taliban is anti-Western beyond belief. They treat their own people like tyrants, and vicious tyrants at that. They are engaged in terrorism against the West. They are involved up to their eyeballs in the drug trade. One-third of all of the world's heroin is grown in Taliban-controlled territory in Afghanistan. These people are evil, and they pose a threat to the Western world; but also they pose a threat to those positive elements among the Muslim world that would seek to be part of the world community and are responsible in their behavior and believe in the Western-style democracy or at least Western-style freedom for their people. Unfortunately, over the years, as I have worked with the pro-Western elements within Afghanistan, I have been undermined over and again by our own State Department. This administration, and I really am sorry that I have to say this on the floor, this administration I honestly believe has had a policy, a covert policy, of supporting the Taliban, believing that the Taliban will at least create stability in Afghanistan. This is like the stability that Adolf Hitler brought to Europe, or the stability that prison guards bring to a prison. Yet we know that the Taliban's repression, their involvement with drugs and terrorism, is almost unconscionable. Now, why do I say this administration has failed on this point? Because the administration has time and again undermined efforts on this Congressman's part to support those people who are opposing the Taliban in Afghanistan. My efforts and the efforts of other moderate Muslims have been undermined over and over again. In fact, this administration disarmed the opposition, was part and parcel of disarming the opposition to the Taliban, who then moved forward and wiped out their opposition in northern Afghanistan. It is a horrendous, horrendous legacy that we have to deal with now that this administration's policies have led to bolstering this horrible regime. I would ask that this resolution be supported because it does offer another alternative. There is a king of Afghanistan who is pro-Western and a very reasonable person and tried to lead his country, where women had their rights respected under the former king. He was overthrown at a time just before the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. We need to work with that former king to bring about a democratic government. The people are not fanatics in Afghanistan. They are devoted Muslims, but they are not fanatics like the Taliban. They are dedicated people who love their families; yet they have been abandoned after their fight with the Soviet Union; they have been abandoned to forces like the Taliban. Let me just say that the Taliban, by and large, and I know this very well because I, probably the only Member of this body now, was in Afghanistan during the war, fighting the Russians with the Mujadin, and I was there in 1988 with the Mujadin and I know the commanders. The Taliban are not the Mujadin who fought the Russians. Unfortunately, once the Mujadin had defeated the Russians, the United States walked away and we did not support the type of elements that would have created a more positive country in Afghanistan, and other anti-Western Muslim countries moved in to get control of the drug trade and to create this monstrous regime. We need to reassert ourselves and to become a positive force for the people of Afghanistan so they can determine their own destiny through elections, and this Loya Jirgah would be the first step in doing that. That is part of their culture. I would like to commend the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman), who over the years of me trying to find peace and getting rid of this horrible Taliban regime, he has been so active and supportive of my efforts, and over and over again he joined with me in calling for the State Department to provide me the documents to find out if indeed our State Department had this horrible policy of supporting the Taliban, and the State Department has not provided us the documents that we need to determine whether or not these charges are false or not. What does that say if the State Department is unwilling to provide those documents? So I would like to commend the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman). He has done so much for the cause of peace and justice in this part of the world and to create a more stable world, especially concerning the Taliban. I would ask for my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 414.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 426.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 426, and I do so reluctantly out of my deep respect for the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International Relations. I, in fact, originally cosponsored this bill at the request of the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman), because of my deep admiration for how he has handled himself and he had done a fair, very fair job in being the chairman of our committee; and I was hoping that I would have the opportunity possibly to amend the bill to correct some of the unevenness parts of this legislation. Unfortunately, I will not have a chance to amend it, and so I have to oppose it. It is appropriate, as I am certain was the intent of the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman), for the United States to be a force for peace in the Middle East, but we cannot do this by just at this time declaring that we are totally in favor of one side, which is what this bill does. This bill unamended will not further the cause of peace. Instead of reaching out to those in Israel and Palestine who are committed to compromise and finding a just peace for all people in the region, this legislation simply and unequivocably backs up one side of the conflict. That is not how peace will be achieved. America should be an even-handed peacemaker. Our goal should be a secure Israel living at peace with its neighbors; but in achieving this noble, yet difficult goal, justice for the Palestinian people has to be part of the formula. And that is why this has been able to go on for so long, because no one has been willing to accept that the Palestinians and their rights have to be brought into consideration. All of these years, they have been ignored and treated as nonhuman beings; and they have legitimate claims that need to be addressed and honestly addressed. And, as I say, for so long, it was total intransigence even dealing with them. Mr. Speaker, passing a resolution that condemns the Palestinian authority for the current violence on the West Bank, yet ignores the fact that of the 110 people killed that only 2 have been Israeli and over 100 have been Palestinian. This will not help the cause of peace. Ignoring that Ariel Sharon, a former Israeli defense minister, incited the current violence, he knew what would happen if he went there. And he went there anyway. Any of the information that the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), my good friend, said was available, to say there was a potential for violence, he knew. Yet, this defense minister arrogantly and irresponsibly went on this provocative trip to a Muslim Holy site. This will not help our country to end the cycle of violence by simply ignoring that this act took place and that was what sparked this violence. There are people of good will on both sides, and we should be siding with them, the people of good will on both sides, rather than unconditionally backing up one side. The policy of unquestioning support has undermined the willingness to compromise, which is what has kept this dispute festering for decades. Just as we should condemn the United Nations resolution, which was one sided, as this bill would do, let us not commit the same offense by passing one-sided resolutions that take us out of the role of being an even-handed peacemaker. Seeking a secure Israel and justice for the Palestinian people is an enormously difficult endeavor, but one that deserves our best effort. This resolution does not further that cause, and I will have to oppose it.