Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) has refocused and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has refocused this debate on exactly what we are debating about here right now on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the measure before us, which is H.J. Res. 114, which is designed to keep the government open till Wednesday. I would prefer to keep it open, even if we cannot come to an understanding among Republicans and Democrats and people on both sides of the aisle on appropriation bills. Unfortunately, the Gekas amendment, to keep the government open under these circumstances, was defeated in this House earlier this year. Perhaps some of my colleagues, even on my side of the aisle, might have second thoughts on the Gekas amendment now that we find ourselves in this predicament. But notwithstanding that, what we have before us is a measure to keep the government open through next Wednesday. Now, who could oppose that? Yes, that is right. What we have here is a situation where people are opposing that. In order to accomplish what? People are opposing that in order to accomplish, and I have heard the debate, I hope my colleagues listened very closely, spending proposal after spending proposal after spending proposal. What we have are people who are willing to hold the American people hostage, even hold Social Security checks and veterans' checks hostage in order to get more government spending on specific ideas that people on that side of the aisle support, particular government spending. All right. We have may have a difference on agreement on priorities. Republicans may want to spend a little bit less than. Democrats may want to spend a little bit more. It is not right to hold the American people hostage under this circumstance. Let me say one of the issues at hand that the President is demanding that we put into the Commerce, State and Justice appropriations bill, he is threatening to veto that bill and close down the government, what is that issue the President is demanding? It is for us to have an amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, which would again push up spending in the United States and the spending requirements that we have. This is not right. It is not right, number one, to hold us hostage and to demand things. It is not right to hold the American people hostage under these circumstances. We can have honest disagreements here. But the fact is that we have turned this into a political debate. We have gotten way off course, because, I am sorry, my friends on the other side of the aisle made this into a political debate. This is about whether or not we should keep the government open until Wednesday and not shut it down and not put our veterans and our Social Security recipients in jeopardy, and not to hold those things in hostage in order to force us to spend more money on illegal immigration and all these other spending proposals.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I gladly join my fellow colleagues in supporting this commemoration and this resolution. I grew up in a military family. I remember when I was a young boy, I was 10 years old, my father was stationed in Japan. We lived in a small enclave of military families. All the kids' fathers were pilots, and one day the news came that the Chinese had shot down one of our friend's father's plane, and I still remember the heartache and the crying and the tears just as a little boy. I remember seeing that and wondering what it was all about. But this family would no longer have a father, a wife would no longer have a husband, and there would be a vacant place around the Thanksgiving table and the Christmas tree. These sacrifices that our military people make, I do not think anybody knows the name of that gentleman and many gentlemen like him, men and women who have given their lives during the Cold War and since in order to protect our country. They are truly heroes; and wherever they go, whatever job there is in the military, they know they are taking the chance, the chance of giving their lives and leaving their own loved ones alone in order to protect all of us and our loved ones. And how much greater tribute and how much greater sacrifice and how much greater service can there be than that? So this resolution and the sacrifice of the American sailors who perished and suffered injuries on the U.S.S. Cole is something that we have to commemorate. This represents the voice of Congress, this resolution, in expressing our condolences to the families of those heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Unfortunately, the official radio of the United States government, the Voice of America, has been prevented by our State Department, this administration, from doing the same thing that we are now doing in this resolution. On October 16, the State Department, in an official message to the Voice of America, denied approval of the Voice of America editorial that would have been broadcast worldwide expressing the sorrow of the American people over the loss of our sailors, the damage done to the U.S.S. Cole and the loss of life of our brave defenders. I am submitting for the Record a copy of this disgraceful State Department message to Voice of America saying that they cannot commemorate, cannot broadcast, this opinion about our brave men and the sacrifice they made. I will read that, for those who are listening and are reading the Congressional Record. Mr. Speaker, this is from the State Department to a request from the Voice of America to have an editorial memorializing these brave Americans who gave their lives for us. It said: ``This editorial will reach an audience that is caught up in violence in Israel and the Occupied Territories. The 17 or so dead sailors,'' that is American dead sailors, ``does not compare to the 100+ Palestinians who have died in recent weeks where we have remained silent.'' I would suggest it is the job of this administration and of the State Department to care more about our American military personnel who give their lives than it is to care about things, tragic events that are going on overseas. If our military people give their lives for their country, they should expect that we will memorialize them in a fitting way, and that this administration and that the State Department will not get in the way because of some far-flung event in another part of the world. This is an insult. This is an insult to those brave people who gave their lives. As we remember them today, let us pass this resolution. Let us say our prayers for those families, and let us be very sincere in this effort. I am sorry that I had to read this State Department position here today, but I think it is important for the American people to know just what the attitude of this administration is toward our people who are defending this country and give their lives for us.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I extend congratulations to the 23 million people of Taiwan and their democratically elected government, led by President Chen Shui-bian and Vice-President Annette Lu, on the occasion of Taiwan's forthcoming National Day. Taiwan has become a beacon of democracy in the Asia-Pacific region, despite the threat of military force by Communist China. I have seen tremendous positive changes in Taiwan, from my first visit in 1967, when the island republic was under virtual martial law. Within the past three decades, as basic freedoms and civil liberties have become ingrained, Taiwan has evolved into a powerful economic engine for the entire region. Today the people of Taiwan are enjoying unprecedented prosperity and deserve international respect and admiration. I have strongly supported Congressional resolutions advocating that Taiwan be permitted as an independent entity into international organizations, such as the World Health Organization and the World Trade Organization even before Communist China is admitted. The government of communist China should never forget the importance of the freedom of Taiwan to the people of the United States. I wish even greater social and economic success for Taiwan in the coming years.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the people of Taiwan have proved that freedom and democracy are not just American ideals, not just European ideals, they are the universal principles that apply to every individual, to every community and every nation as our Founding Fathers stated, that we look at the rights as being God given to all people on this planet. The United States State Department's report on the Taiwan Policy Review 1994 clearly stated that the U.S. should more actively support Taiwan's membership in international organizations, because Taiwan has lived up to the ideals that we expect of democracies. And President Clinton, however, has not used our influence in international bodies to try to insist that Taiwan be able to participate in these organizations. Congressional support for Taiwan is solid. Taiwan has made enormous strides towards becoming a full democracy, as I stated, and it is unreasonable for the people of Taiwan to be excluded from the full participation in international organizations due to threats from mainland China. Unfortunately, what we have today is a Communist dictatorship headed by gangsters who have never been elected to anything, who are making demands upon us to mistreat a democratically elected government in Taiwan. It is embarrassing that our administration seems to be kowtowing to that type of pressure. The United States has supported Taiwan's membership in the Asian Development Bank and its admission to the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation group. Extending United Nations and World Health Organization membership is the next step in demonstrating U.S. support for Taiwan and a United States commitment to those people around the world who believe in democracy and freedom and liberty and justice and have actually moved to make sure their country, as Taiwan has done, enshrines those ideals. China's continued harassment and intimidation of Taiwan also underlines the urgency and necessity of Taiwan's participation in the United Nations. Taiwan currently does not have access to the United Nations Security Council, and the forum countries whose safety is in jeopardy and they must turn to. Not only that, but after Taiwan has joined the United Nations' responsibility for Taiwan safety and security, it will be shifted solely to the United States as laid down in the 1979 Taiwan's Relations Act to the international community. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and in doing so, strike a very solid note that can be heard around the world in the halls of the dictatorships in Beijing but also in the halls of democracy in Taiwan and in those countries that are struggling to be free that shows the United States is on the side of democracy and democratic people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H.Con.Res. 390) expressing the sense of the Congress regarding Taiwan's participation in the United Nations, as amended.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) to control the time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. This legislation is nothing more than a betrayal of American working people. Why should we bring in 240,000 foreigners in order to depress the wages in the United States of America? That is exactly what we are talking about here. There are enough Americans to do these jobs. The only thing that is lacking is the pay levels and the training. So instead of requiring our companies to train people to do these high-tech jobs who are unemployed now, like laid-off aerospace industries, or to pay a little bit more money to attract our kids coming out of school, no, instead we are going to bring in 240,000 foreigners to keep wages low. In times of prosperity if you believe in free enterprise, that is when wages are supposed to go up. But if we bring in 240,000 foreigners to take these good, high-paying tech jobs, those high-paying jobs which are now $60,000 that should go to 70 or $80,000 will stay at that level. What this bill does is, number one, betray our own people who are out of work who need that training, need those jobs, that are 50 years old; but the Bill Gates billionaires of the world would rather bring in foreigners and not have to pay for the training and not have to pay perhaps for the health benefits of someone who is a lot younger. We should not be subsidizing these billionaire high-tech companies and these billionaires who have made money up in the Silicon Valley. They should pay their workers more money, they should train them and, yes, let us have an incentive for more of our young people to go into these high-tech companies and high-tech skill areas. If we keep wages low, our students are not going to be attracted to these high-tech areas. But if we let wages increase as the market would suggest, we will have our students go in that direction to try to get those jobs. For someone who believes in the market and supposedly the Republicans believe in the market, this bill is a betrayal of our principles but a betrayal of America's working people. Let us not bring in 240,000 foreigners to take jobs that could be done by Americans if they had the training and the pay levels to get those jobs.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in February 2000, just the beginning of this year, a Russian-built Sovremenny class destroyer sailed through the Taiwan Strait with a mixed Russian and Communist Chinese crew, and the ship sailed to its new home in southeast China. The ship's most lethal weapon was the supersonic SSN-22 Moskit missile, also known as the Sunburn missile, which was developed by Russia during the Cold War to destroy U.S. aircraft carriers and Aegis class warships. On his recent visit to Beijing, leaders of the Chinese People's Liberation Armed Forces told Admiral Dennis Blair, Chief of U.S. Pacific Command, that if U.S. aircraft carriers once again sailed close to the Taiwan Strait, just as they did during the cross-Strait tensions of 1996, that the People's Liberation Army would fight a battle ``at any cost.'' The Moskit missiles now allow the Communist Chinese Navy to make such threats against the U.S. Navy's most powerful platforms, and they allow the Communist Chinese to endanger the lives of thousands of American service personnel. The Moskit missiles, which can be mounted on ships or on land-based mobile platforms, can carry either conventional or nuclear warheads. A new version is being developed to be fired from jet fighters. It is the most dangerous antiship missile, the Russians and now the Communist Chinese have in their fleet. Our Navy admittedly has limited ability to defend itself against this 20 kilo-ton nuclear-capable weapon, a payload, I might add, that surpasses the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima during World War II, and they can hit an American target at a range of up to 65 nautical miles. Each destroyer that the Russians are transferring to the Communist Chinese carries 8 Moskit missiles. This arsenal could destroy an entire U.S. aircraft carrier battle group, killing thousands of American service personnel. China is scheduled to receive at least three more of these Sovremenny destroyers at the end of 2001. The next delivery is scheduled during the end of this year. Each ship will have a component of at least 18 of these deadly missiles. H.R. 4022 seeks to deter the Russians from transferring these missiles to the Communist Chinese or any other nation or organization that would endanger U.S. naval vessels. The resolution prohibits the rescheduling of any outstanding bilateral debt owed to the United States by Russia, until the President of the United States certifies that the Russian Federation has terminated all transfers of these deadly antiship missiles that would endanger not only U.S. national security but the lives of thousands upon thousands of our naval personnel. Mr. Speaker, the resolution does not affect U.S. support for reform and humanitarian aid to Russia. It does not affect U.S. assistance to the Nunn-Lugar program. In fact, it gives Russian leaders the choice of whether they prefer selling these deadly weapon systems to the potential enemies of the United States, or whether they instead would prefer us to have bilateral debt restructuring and forgiveness, something that would help them out. This choice makes sense, and it makes sense for us to offer the Russian leadership this choice. Thousands of lives of our brave men and women in uniform who are serving in the Asia-Pacific Theater depend on our vote. And why should we be restructuring Russia's debt, giving them the benefit of not having to pay the money that they owe, if they are going to use that economic largesse on our part to provide deadly weapons that are aimed at one purpose, and one purpose only, the destruction of U.S. naval vessels and the killing of naval personnel, of U.S. naval personnel. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4022) regarding the sale and transfer of Moskit anti- ship missiles by the Russian Federation.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 4022, as amended.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this effort to pay tribute to a truly, truly great American, Frederick Douglass. Frederick Douglass has been an inspiration to me throughout my adult life. Let me say that Frederick Douglass was one of the truly great orators in American history, and I have read so much about him in the past. I, of course, was a speech writer for President Reagan, and when I read about Frederick Douglass and how he moved people and changed history with his passion, with his moral passion, I just could not help but admire him so. And, of course, he was also a gifted writer, and I am a former journalist, and I certainly admire the fact that we have a great orator and a gifted writer who did what? He helped save America from a moral sin. He helped cleanse America. He was a freedom fighter. He was a human rights advocate when the freedom fighters and the human rights advocates needed to work on the United States of America because we needed cleansing from our horrible institution of slavery. So I am happy to join in this tribute to Frederick Douglass.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, first as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Space Aeronautics, I would like to personally thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), my ranking minority member on the committee, for the great spirit of bipartisan spirit that we have shown in working together. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) just stated, this would be the first authorization bill that we will pass, the first NASA authorization bill that we passed since 1992, and let us all hope that we do this and get this through the system. But it has only been possible because of the goodwill and the spirit of compromise and honest disagreement, but also honest spirit of compromise that we have had working with the Members of the other party. Let me thank especially the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall). He is sort of a treasure in this institution, a bipartisan treasure, let me add, in that he has an institutional memory that has served us well on this subcommittee and in our full committee, Committee on Science, and his good sense has helped guide us along here. And also, of course, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who is the chairman of this subcommittee. He has provided me personal guidance in this job as chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics and helped us be successful in our mission. The bill before us now, H.R. 1654, the NASA authorization bill, offers the taxpayer a true choice in advancing America's leadership role in space. I rise in support of this bill, not because it is my role as chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics and as a member of the team that helped draft the legislation, but because it offers the right approach in supporting the Nation's space exploration requirements at a time when we find ourselves on the verge of a technological and scientific epiphany. H.R. 1654 reflects a bipartisan effort, as I said, to craft legislation enabling NASA to continue its work for the good of the Nation. Moreover, House and Senate conferees on both sides of the aisle labored for many months to ensure that this bill strikes the right balance between setting budget priorities and meeting NASA mission needs, as well as meeting the needs of our country to remain a leader in space exploration and utilization. H.R. 1654 addresses the full array of elements that support NASA's responsibility for space exploration and near-Earth space transportation missions. In the Human Space Flight section of H.R. 1654, funding for international Space Station, the Space Shuttle, Payload/Expendable Launch Vehicle Support and Investments and support for these things, and support matches the President's request for fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002. Within the science and aeronautics section and the technology section, the bill either matches or exceeds the President's request for fiscal year 2001 and 2002. And even in the face of major failures involving both Mars missions, we saw fit to authorize increases for space science by the tune of $19 million for fiscal year 2001 and $24 million for fiscal year 2002, and that was above the President's requested level. That is, again, working together, we realized that if we are going to be a successful player in space, we have got to expect that that success will come with some failures, and we should build upon our failures in order to have a success. Failures do not precipitate in this committee, bipartisan or should I say partisan, bickering that would in some way set back America's space program. Instead, we see failures as a means to learn and to move forward. It is important to note that space solar power benefits from those increases that I have been talking about today, and this space solar power and ability to relay system for energy and space solar power development is a technology that I believe will help address the energy needs of our country in the future. Similarly, increases have been authorized for life and microgravity science are 13 percent higher than the President's request for the same year. Further, Earth science, aerospace technology, and academic programs for fiscal year 2001 and 2002 have seen substantial increases over the President's request. And finally, I am pleased to note that H.R. 1654 includes provisions to ensure that cooperative agreements between NASA and the People's Republic of China do not result in China improving its space launch assets and its ballistic missile capabilities. H.R. 1654 contains a title regarding the International Space Station, including sections dealing with Russia's difficulty in meeting its obligations in the completion of the International Space Station. This issue was addressed by the chairman, and let me say the chairman has provided leadership in making sure that we do have cooperation with Russia, but to be done so in a way that is cost effective for our country. We also have provisions to ensure that the space station is used for the scientific purposes that it was intended for and not just an engineering project, although, as an engineering project, it is certainly a fantastic and laudable achievement. NASA's Space Launch Initiative offers the American people the opportunity to change how government has conducted the launch vehicle technology development, and through H.R. 1654, Congress essentially codifies the long-standing view that government launch needs can be supported by a market-competitive space industry. So we have, and it is not enough, however, to proclaim a national space policy. NASA must stay the course by funding technology and other risk-reduction activities that gives the broadest possible applications of new space technologies. And so I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this regulation legislation, the first NASA authorization bill that we have been able to get through this body in about 10 years.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I Would like to submit for my colleagues an article that recently appeared in the New York Times. With all the recent discussion about the H-1B visa issue, I thought this article was not only timely, but quite effective at unveiling the truth behind all the rhetoric I've heard. In fact, I believe this article succinctly captures the reasons why Congress should not raise the H-1B visa limit. [From the New York Times, Sept. 6, 2000] Questioning the Labor Shortage (By Richard Rothstein) To alleviate apparent shortages of computer programmers, President Clinton and Congress have agreed to raise a quota on H-1B's, the temporary visas for skilled foreigners. The annual limit will go to 200,000 next year, up from 65,000 only three years ago. The imported workers, most of whom come from India, are said to be needed because American schools do not graduate enough young people with science and math skills. Microsoft's chairman, William H. Gates, and Intel's chairman, Andrew S. Grove, told Congress in June that more visas were only a stopgap until education improved. But the crisis is a mirage. High-tech companies portray a shortage, yet it is our memories that are short: only yesterday there was a glut of science and math graduates. The computer industry took advantage of that glut by reducing wages. This discouraged youths from entering the field, creating the temporary shortages of today. Now, taking advantage of a public preconception that school failures have created the problem, industry finds a ready audience for its demands to import workers. This newspaper covered the earlier surplus extensively. In 1992, it reported that I in 5 college graduates had a job not requiring a college degree. A 1995 article headlined ``Supply Exceeds Demand for Ph.D.'s in Many Science Fields'' cited nationwide unemployment of engineers, mathematicians and scientists. ``Overproduction of Ph.D. degrees,'' it noted, ``seems to be highest in computer science.'' Michael S. Teitelbaum, a demographer who served as vice chairman of the Commission on Immigration Reform, said in 1996 that there was ``an employer's market'' for technology workers, partly because of post-cold-war downsizing in aerospace. In fields with real labor scarcity, wages rise. Yet despite accounts of dot-com entrepreneurs' becoming millionaires, trends in computer technology pay do not confirm a need to import legions of programmers. Salary offers to new college graduates in computer science averaged $39,000 in 1986 and had declined by 1994 to $33,000 (in constant dollars). The trend reversed only in the late 1990's. The West Coast median salary for experienced software engineers was $71,000 in 1999, up only 10 percent (in constant dollars) from 1990. This pay growth of about I percent a year suggests no labor shortage. Norman Matloff, a computer science professor at the University of California, contends that high-tech companies create artificial shortages by refusing to hire experienced programmers. Many with technology degrees no longer work in the field. By age 50, fewer than half are still in the industry. Luring them back requires higher pay. Industry spokesmen say older programmers with outdated skills would take too long to retrain. But Dr. Matloff counters by saying that when they urge more H-1B visas, lobbyists demonstrate a shortage by pointing to vacancies lasting many months. Companies could train older programmers in less time than it takes to process visas for cheaper foreign workers. Dr. Matloff says that in addition to the pay issue, the industry rejects older workers because they will not work the long hours typical at Silicon Valley companies with youthful ``singles'' styles. Imported labor, he argues, is only a way to avoid offering better conditions to experienced programmers. H-1B workers, in contrast, cannot demand higher pay: visas are revoked if workers leave their sponsoring companies. As for young computer workers, the labor market has recently tightened, with rising wages, because college students saw earlier wage declines and stopped majoring in math and science. In 1996, American colleges awarded 25,000 bachelor's degrees in computer science, down from 42,000 in 1985. The reason is not that students suddenly lacked preparation. On the contrary, high school course-taking in math and science, including advanced placement, had climbed. Further, math scores have risen; last year 24 percent of seniors who took the SAT scored over 600 in math. But only 6 percent planned to major in computer science, and many of these cannot get into college programs. The reason: colleges themselves have not yet adjusted to new demand. In some places, computer science courses are so oversubscribed that students must get on waiting lists as high school juniors. With a time lag between student choice of majors and later job quests, high schools and colleges cannot address short- term supply and demand shifts for particular professions. Such shortages can be erased only by raising wages to attract those with needed skills who are now working in other fields--or by importing low-paid workers. For the longer term, rising wages can guide counselors to encourage well-prepared students to major in computer science and engineering, and colleges will adjust to rising demand. But more H-1B immigrants can have a perverse effect, as their lower pay signals young people to avoid this field in future, keeping the domestic supply artificially low.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, when California was admitted as a state 150 years ago, Southern California paled in comparison to the northern part of the state, which was famous for the gold rush and the new City of San Francisco. The 45th Congressional District and surrounding areas hardly qualified even as a rural backwater, being made up primarily of swamps and cattle ranches. In the late 1800's farming gradually replaced ranching and spurred the conversion of coastal swamps and river flood plains into habitable land. Huntington Beach, which is today a booming city of over 200,000 people that forms the core of the 45th District, didn't even get its start until 1902, when a group of farmers and other investors decided to found ``Pacific City'' in an attempt to emulate the success of Atlantic City on the East Coast. This venture then got bought out by a group of Los Angeles businessmen headed by Henry Huntington, in whose honor the town was renamed when he brought his Pacific Electric Railway into town. The area that became the 45th District gained in population as tourism, the oil industry, and world war each took their turn as a spur to local growth. Our area played a major role in winning World War II, serving as the site for both the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, which even today supplies a major portion of the Navy's firepower and the Santa Ana Army Airfield. This airfield was the staging ground for G.I.'s shipping to the war from around the country, and can be credited in and of itself as a major spur to Orange County's population growth as G.I.'s experienced the pleasant Southern California climate first hand and many moved their families there after the war. Although this huge airfield was decommissioned after the war, the land on which it sat was put to good use--it is now the site of John Wayne Airport, the Orange County Fairgrounds and Orange Coast College. Huntington Beach has become known during the last half of the 20th Century as ``Surf City,'' becoming the nation's prime area, hosting the first U.S. Surfing Championships in 1959 and major national and international surfing events since then. Just as with World War II, the Huntington Beach area played a major role in winning the Cold War, providing the home for much of the nation's aerospace industry. Famous corporate names from the past: Douglas Aircraft (later McDonnell Douglas) and North American Rockwell have come under the umbrella of the Boeing Corporation, which today is by far the region's largest employer and still plays a major role in producing aircraft, satellites and rockets for both our both our military and our nation's space program. It's appropriate that an area so closely identified with our nation's freedom became the final destination for a majority of Vietnamese refugees escaping communism after the Vietnam War. The 45th District is home to Little Saigon, the heart of the largest concentration of Vietnamese people in the world outside of Vietnam. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent a district that represents our nation's finest traditions in not only serving our country in the cause of freedom, but also in knowing how to have a good time. The 45th District epitomizes my own personal motto--``Fighting for Freedom and Having Fun.''

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, as the Republican co-chairman of the Congressional Scouting Caucus, as a proud Eagle Scout and as a supporter, an unapologetic supporter of Scouting in America, I stand here tonight to commend the Boy Scouts of America for what they have done over these last 90 years in strengthening the American character, developing good citizenship, and enhancing both the mental and physical fitness among America's youth. Instead of attacking the Boy Scouts, we should be celebrating the fact that the Supreme Court has upheld the sanctity of our First Amendment; and we should applaud the Scouts for standing strong under pressure to compromise their own principles. H.R. 4892 proposes to revoke the Federal charter of the Boy Scouts of America because they have maintained a moral standard, rejected by America's liberal left. But the Scouts, like everyone else, have rights to set their own standards, and not to be targeted for doing so. That is what freedom of association is all about. That is what the Supreme Court confirmed in its decision. In recent months, we have witnessed the despicable booing of Boy Scouts by Democrat delegates during their convention; a 55,000 signature petition delivered to the Boy Scouts headquarters demanding that they scrap requirements for Scout masters, and in my own county in Orange County, California, where the ACLU and others have tried to force the Scouts to take God out of their Scout oath; and we have also witnessed a malicious and reprehensible effort by the part of some corporations and even the United Way in some areas to choke off funding for the Scouts in an attempt to force them into submission. Everyone is free to choose their own life-style and I would stand up for anyone's right to have their own privacy and their own life-style, as the Scouts stand up for that; but the Scouts, too, have their rights and we should be applauding them for standing up for their own principles and their own beliefs rather than trying to attack them now and to destroy the freedom of association guaranteed by our Constitution.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this proposal. Americans understand that our black brothers and sisters in this country have been given a raw deal over our country's history, but most Americans do not know exactly what a raw deal it has been and was. The fact is that black Americans and their achievements quite often have been written out of the history books. I love to read history, and I have seen that in so many cases where black Americans, they pop up here and there, but the average American has no idea that they have done such tremendous things. Just like today, we are giving credit for people who have built this altar of liberty, this altar of freedom for all America to see, and there were black Americans, and to this point very few people knew there were black Americans. Let us remember that one of the first Americans to be killed during the American Revolution, a man killed during the Boston Massacre which sparked the whole American Revolution, was a black American. In the last 4 or 5 years I fought a fight for patent reform here in the United States, and I had to study the issue of inventors and people who actually invented great things in our country. Certainly every American knows about Booker T. Washington. But as I studied the history of our patent system and the inventors in our country, I was personally surprised to see how many great inventions were invented by black Americans, because patent rights as a property right, even during a time of great discrimination against our fellow Americans, the patent rights were actually provided to black Americans. They excelled in creativity, in creating new machines and new technologies throughout our history. Not many people know that. Not many people know of the great many American heroes, not only during the Civil War, but other conflicts. But today we have the opportunity to congratulate those Americans who, again, not many of us heard of before, but did a great service to their country and to the cause of freedom in building this great edifice. So I support the legislation and thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) very much for letting me participate in this debate.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, yes, I think the people should watch San Diego. It is a pity that the liberal-left coalition that controls the Democratic Party is so allied with extreme environmentalists that for 20 years they have prevented the development of any new energy resources in California. So now the people of San Diego and all of California suffer under this loss because we are having an energy shortage in a State where we should have abundance in energy. Unfortunately, the only solution that we have being offered seems to be price controls rather than developing new energy sources, which will only make the situation worse. But tonight I need to talk about what is going on in Burma, which is something of importance now because thousands of lives are at stake in that country. During the past week, the SLORC regime, which controls Burma with an iron fist, a regime backed by the Communist Chinese, has intensified their crackdown on the opposition in Burma. This is a new round of brutality by the SLORC regime, and it occurred after democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi was prevented from leaving Rangoon to visit her party's members outside the capital city. Soldiers surrounded her car. This is a Nobel Prize winner, the person who is the rightful governmental leader of that country because of the elections her party won. She was forced to sit in a car in the sun for a full week and then forcibly return to the capital. Aung San Suu Kyi is one of the true heroes of our time. She is now under house arrest. Her house is surrounded by SLORC military forces and secret police, and many diplomats in Rangoon are expressing concern about her health and her well-being. Yesterday, the British Ambassador to Burma was roughed up by the SLORC goons when he tried to visit Aung San Suu Kyi. The National League for Democracy in Rangoon has had their offices raided and documents confiscated and their members have been arrested and face arbitrary jail sentences. In the countryside, the SLORC regime continues its brutality and ethnic cleansing against indigenous tribal groups such as the Christian Karens and Karennis, who are seeking emergency refuge in Thailand in growing numbers. The SLORC and Communist Chinese benefit from the narcotics trafficking of the ruthless Wa State Army, which is destabilizing Thailand and spreading the poison of deadly heroin throughout the world. The United States Congress is not ignorant of the corrupt and brutal practices of the Burmese dictatorship. Their wicked deeds will continue and will continue to be noted here. Their continued repression of democracy is evident. The United States and the Democratic nations which are doing business with SLORC, and I might add Japan, Australia, Israel, Singapore and others, those of us in the democratic world will not sit by and watch this idly as this type of repression continues forever. Investment in Burma has already been affected. Tragically, the people of Burma suffer as commerce and trade has dried up. And they are already suffering terrible deprivation in Burma as their gangster regime which controls their country impoverishes what should be a rich land. This regime, the SLORC regime in Burma, is condemning those people who should be living a prosperous life. They are condemning them to poverty and deprivation and tyranny. A country so rich in natural resources is now one of the poorest in the world without freedom. Tonight, as we note this is going on in Burma, let us note a champion of human rights. Ginetta Sagan passed from this scene last week. Ginetta Sagan helped me many times in the cause of human rights in Burma and in other countries. Ginetta Sagan first volunteered to fight tyranny as a member of the Resistance against Fascists and Nazis in World War II. After she was captured then, she was brutally tortured. And after she survived that torture, she helped lay the foundation for the modern human rights movement. Ginetta Sagan was under 5 foot in height, but she was a giant in the fight for justice and liberty, saving thousands of political prisoners through her efforts in Poland, Vietnam, Chile, and Greece. She died, unfortunately, after a full life, on September 1. Ginetta Sagan is gone, but the fight for human rights continues and the struggle against gangsters like those who control Burma continues. We have to pick up the torch and carry on where Ginetta left off. Justice and democracy will triumph over evil because we will not falter and Ginetta Sagan will not be forgotten. Let me just say that Ginetta Sagan and I were active for 20 years. She had enormous energy and love for people. She will be missed. But the tyrants in Burma and elsewhere should not think that this is a loss, because her spirit will continue to inspire others to continue this fight for liberty and justice.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, this week, a long-time friend of the United States, Ambassador Birabhongse Kasemsri, known as Bira to his friends, passed away in his hometown of Bangkok, Thailand. I last saw Ambassador Kasemsri, 65, in 1999 during a visit I was honored to have with Thailand's King Bhumibol, whom Bira served as His Majesty's principal private secretary. In service to his King and country, Bira, was granted three decorations, including Knight Grand Cordon of the Most Noble Order of the Crown of Thailand [Highest Class]. Too often, American policymakers underestimate the importance of our strategic alliance with Thailand, which extends to our Civil War when the King offered President Lincoln a herd of fighting elephants from the Royal Thai military. Ambassador Kasemsri reinforced the strategic relationship during the height of the post-Vietnam Cold War period, during his exemplary service as Thailand's ambassador to the United States. In addition, during the early 1980's while he served as Thailand's ambassador to the United Nations, Bira was a hero of the Reagan doctrine in Southeast Asia by protecting Thailand from communist aggression. During that time, Bira was instrumental in arranging for noted military historian and journalist Al Santoli--who currently serves as my foreign policy advisor--to visit areas of Thailand that were under attack by the Soviet-backed Vietnamese communist army and their surrogates from Cambodia and Laos. Thanks to the sponsorship of Ambassador Kasemsri, the articles that Al wrote for the New Republic and Parade magazines on the threat to Thailand directly contributed to the cessation of chemical warfare in Indochina and the withdrawal of the Vietnamese occupation forces in Cambodia. On behalf of my wife Rhonda and I, and my colleagues who have had the pleasure of working with Ambassador Kasemsri over many years, I extend deepest sympathy to his wife, Rampiarpha and their three children. I believe that the seeds of solidarity that Bira sowed during his many years of representing The Royal Government of Thailand in America will lead to further development of the friendship between the governments and people of Thailand and the United States.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, could I get the time that is left for all of us and what sequence that we will be making our closing arguments.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear for the first time today that the Vietnamese communists have made available the records of one of the prisons where Ambassador Peterson was held. In response, I just asked Ambassador Peterson which records he was referring to. Unfortunately, the records he is speaking of are not from the prisons in which he was held early during his captivity, for which I am most concerned that some Americans may not have returned from. I do not doubt that Ambassador Peterson is being honest that commanders from those prisons told him that they do not know where the records are after so many years. However, they as individuals were not the record keepers. The Vietnamese communist government kept many overlapping records on prisoners they held in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia or transferred from Indochina to other communist countries. It is those meticulous records that I am concerned about and to which my request to communist officials in Hanoi has not been addressed. Former American POWs such as Mike Benge and Colonel Ted Guy have told my staff and I how they were repeatedly interviewed and had written records made by overlapping Vietnamese communist intelligence and military organizations while they were transferred between Laos and a number of prison camps in Vietnam. U.S. officials have to this day, not had those records made available to them by the Vietnamese regime. In addition, there are some 400 Americans who U.S. intelligence agencies have identified as having been alive or who perished under Vietnamese communist control. The Vietnamese regime could easily account for these men, but to this day, refuse to do so. Finally, the CIA and DIA have verified the validity of the testimony before Congress by a Vietnamese mortician who testified to processing hundreds of deceased American prisoners' remains in Hanoi during the war. He testified that the organization he worked for kept meticulous records of the deceased Americans, processed the remains for storage, and carefully packaged and labeled personal belongings of the deceased Americans. To this day, none of the records of that organization--which could resolve the fates of scores of missing American servicemen--have been made available by the Vietnamese regime.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to support this resolution. Let us today make a stand for principle. Let us send the message to the world and to the American people about what America stands for. Today we are really a government that simply can be manipulated by large financial interests, billionaires who want to invest in various parts of the world under a guise of globalism. Is that what we are all about? No. We have Mr. Lafayette who watches us today. We have George Washington who watches us today. Is that the America that they fought for? Is that the globalism they had in mind? The globalism our forefathers had in mind were universal rights where the concept of the United States stands as a hope of liberty and justice for the world, not just that we are a place where people can come and do business together. Yes, we believe in that and that our businessmen have a right to do businesses overseas. Yes, they have a right do that. But there is some higher value involved with our country. We can reaffirm that today, and not only reaffirming that principle that human rights and democracy means something, but at the same time, watch out for the interests of the American people. We see this American flag behind us. What does that flag stand for? It stands for, number one, we believe in liberty and justice and independence and freedom. We believe in those things our Founding Fathers talked about 225 years ago. But, number two, it also stands for that we are going to represent the interests of those American people who have come here to this country and become citizens of our country. It is not in their interest, and it is not in the interest of human freedom that we subsidize American businesses to go over and do business in dictatorships, dictatorships where they throw the leaders of strikes in jail 2 days after the strike is over, dictatorships where they do not allow any opposition parties or freedom of religion. There has been no progress in terms of human rights in Vietnam. And now we are thinking about offering a perverse incentive again today. That is what this debate is about, to our businessmen to close their doors here, not watching out for the interests of the American people, but instead making sure that these business men can go over and use that slave labor. Those people in Vietnam have a $300 a year per capita income, and they are going to be exploited by American businessmen. Let us vote for this resolution. Let us not give them this waiver. Let us put them on notice that they have a year to clean up their act, and then we can grant them some concessions if they have progressed in those areas. I ask for support of the resolution.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 99. The American people and our colleagues should listen carefully to this debate. What is it about? It is about trade subsidies. It is about a subsidy by the American people, the taxpayers of American businessmen that want to invest in Vietnam. Investing in Vietnam? That does not mean selling American products in Vietnam. That means setting up manufacturing units in Vietnam to take advantage of the fact that that country is a brutal dictatorship that does not permit unions, that does not permit strikes, and thus there is virtual slave labor there at a cheap price. Do we really want to give taxpayer subsidies and encourage American businessmen to close factories in the United States and open them up to take advantage of that type of market? That is immoral. It is immoral against the people of Vietnam and it is against the well-being of our own people. We are sinning against our own people by providing subsidies for our businessmen to close up operations here and open up there in a dictatorship. It has been 2 years, Mr. Speaker, since President Clinton issued the first Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam. Each year we have been assured by this administration and by our ambassador to Hanoi that this action would lead to greater political openness and prosperity for the Vietnamese people and a better economic climate for American investors so they would not need those subsidies. Unfortunately, the exact opposite has happened. As The Washington Post stated on May 3, Vietnam remains a one-party state, rampant with corruption that retards foreign investment, and the Communist party fears more openness to the outside world could bring in more political heterodoxy for which the party shows zero tolerance, end of quote. In a recent Human Rights Watch, reports link the ongoing persecution of dissidents and religious believers in Vietnam to the pervasive economic and political corruption in that country. There is no free press in Vietnam. All information is controlled by the state. Radio Free Asia broadcasts are jammed routinely. The repeated promises by Hanoi of economic reform have been no more credible than their pledges in 1973 at the Paris Peace Agreement that the Communist violence against the people of South Vietnam would end and that there would be peaceful elections rather than bombs in resolving that war. There is still not even the slightest hint of a free and fair election or opposition parties in Vietnam. In that repressive government, it is hardly surprising that foreign investors and businessmen are bailing out. They are bailing out, but let us come by and save them. Let us use taxpayer subsidies and give them an encouragement to stay there in that corrupt and support that corrupt and undemocratic society, that tyrannical regime. As this panel is aware, the Jackson-Vanik provision primarily addresses the issue of freedom of immigration and migration for people who fear or who have had the experience of persecution. The Vietnam Exit Permit system for immigration, including the longtime reeducation camp survivors, Amer-Asians, Americans, Montagnards and other people who have an interest in the United States of America, that state remains ripe for corruption. Many Vietnamese on the U.S. migration list have not been able to come to the United States because they could not afford to pay the bribes. Contrary to the claims that we have just heard here today, there has been no progress in the MIA/POW issue. Hanoi has not even released the records. This Member has repeatedly, and last year, I might add, I made the same demand, but I have made this over and over again: if you want to prove good faith to us, simply release the records that you have of the prisons that you held Americans in during the war. Just give us those records. How about giving us the records of the facility that held our American ambassador, Pete Peterson. Just give us those records so we can examine it to see how many prisoners you really had. They have not given us those records after repeated demands. That is a sign of bad faith, and it is bad faith in the whole MIA/POW effort. Mr. Speaker, my joint resolution disapproving the President's waiver for the corrupt Vietnamese dictatorship does not intend to isolate Vietnam or to stop U.S. companies from doing business there. It simply prevents the Communist Vietnam regime from enjoying a trade status that enables American businessmen, now listen to this, to make increasingly risky investments with loan guarantees and subsidies provided by the American taxpayer. Why are we giving this perverse incentive for American companies to shut down their operations here or even refrain from opening up operations in countries that are struggling to be democratic and instead, to invest in dictatorships like Vietnam and China. If private banks and insurance companies will not back up these private ventures, why should the American taxpayer do that? American taxpayers should not be asked to do this. Rampant corruption and mismanagement, as well as the abuse of the migration program, the lack of free trade unions, the suppression of freedom of expression, and the persecution of dissidents and religious believers, these are valid reasons to oppose the Jackson-Vanik waiver, and also it is not in our interests to make sure the American people are shortchanged by subsidizing investments in dictatorships. Mr. Speaker, we do no favors for the Vietnamese people or American investors by again reflexively supporting the President's bogus Jackson-Vanik waiver. I propose that we get the Communists to give the Communist dictators in Vietnam to give a strong message from the United States Congress that corruption, mismanagement and tyranny will no longer be tolerated, much less subsidized. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.