Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, we have heard here that this really is not about taxpayer subsidy, because what we are doing today only makes possible that we will give taxpayer subsidies to American businessmen for closing factories here and opening up in this dictatorship in Southeast Asia, Vietnam. The fact is, that is what this debate is all about, whether or not it should be permitted for American companies to receive these subsidies from the American taxpayer that are not in the interest of the American people so that they can go over and manufacture things in Vietnam and then to export them back to the United States. That is what this is about, the same way it is about this in China in our China debate, and what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) read confirms that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, will the Chair please let me know what the time is remaining.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, let us look again at the central issue. No matter how much people are trying to deny it, the central issue is whether or not the American taxpayer should be subsidizing the investment by American businesses, not to sell American products in Vietnam but to set up factories in Vietnam, to take advantage of their, basically, slave labor, people who have no right to form a union, people who have no legal protections. Should we subsidize with our taxpayers' dollars American businessmen that want to go over there and exploit that market, closing factories in the United States, and then exporting their produce that they produced with this slave labor back to the United States, again, competing with our own goods made by our own people? That is immoral. Let us just say, yes, I agree with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane). OPIC and Exim Bank, these are the vehicles that we use taxpayers' dollars to subsidize this investment overseas. They do it with a lot of countries. But we should put our foot down here today and say dictatorships should not receive this kind of subsidy, especially the dictatorship in Vietnam that has not cooperated in finding our missing in action and POWS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, again, we should take a look at what is being said here today and what the central issues are. We have heard that if we vote today for this resolution that these subsidies for businessmen who go over there, who close factories in the United States and open up factories to produce goods with the slave labor in Vietnam and export them to the United States, will not ``automatically'' be granted; will not ``automatically'' have these subsidies available. We keep getting these words that should make it very clear that is what this debate is about. The debate is about whether or not U.S. taxpayers are going to subsidize American companies to close their doors in the United States, go over there and take advantage of, yes, slave labor. I am not impressed when I hear that there have been strikes in Vietnam. The question is what happened to the strikers after the strike. The question is whether those strikers had a right to form a union and to try to peacefully advocate their own position, which is the right of every person in a free society. There has been no progress reported in labor relations in Vietnam. There is no progress in terms of a free press, no progress in terms of religious freedom, no progress in terms of an opposition party. So where is this progress? We are rewarding the Communist government of Vietnam for continuing its repression. As far as Mr. Peterson's report, this is the first time any of us have ever heard of a report that there are records from a prison available. Let me note this, and I have just spoken to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), chairman of the committee, that it has never been reported to him; it has never been reported to me, a senior member of the Committee on International Relations and the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, that those records are available. Now, how limited are they? How long have they been available? We are being told this right now, during this debate, that records that have been denied us for 10 years of our demanding are now available to us. Let me just say if that is the case, and those records have been available and it has not been reported to the oversight committee of the United States Congress, there is something wrong with our State Department or something wrong with the process. And I would put on the record today that I expect to see those prison records. I would put this on the record for our ambassador to Vietnam that I expect to see those prison records forthwith and immediately so that they can be examined in relationship to the MIA-POW issue. Those records have not been made available to us. We have not had a good faith effort, and it is wrong to spring this in the middle of a debate on the floor on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. We are not talking about free trade, we are talking about pulling Castro's fat out of the fire right at the last minute. We are not talking about anything that is going to promote freedom or prosperity or goodness for the Cuban people, we are talking about keeping in power a dictatorship; a country in which the jails are full and the newspapers are censored. What is going to happen down there if we pass this? We are going to demoralize all the people in Cuba who long for freedom and democracy. We are going to cut the chances for freedom in that country in half, or cut them down to nothing if we pass this amendment. The fact is we can trade with Cuba any time Castro permits us to. We can sell them anything that Castro will permit us to sell them. Only one stipulation: Castro has to have a free election. What is standing in the way of trade with Cuba? One man, a dictatorship based on one personality, one guy who has thrown everybody who has ever opposed him or his system in the clink. We do not want to support that guy either. Oppose this amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, that may be a stated goal of the administration, but obviously this is the difference between goals and what reality, what comes from those goals and what is a result of the goals, in seeking the goal. Yes, we have a goal of lots of wonderful things for Russia. As long as we act like a bunch of saps, as long as we act like we can be taken advantage of, giving debt restructuring while they are doing things in a belligerent way to the United States, and providing resources for an intelligence facility in Cuba, providing hundreds of millions of dollars of resources to an intelligence facility in Cuba that puts the lives of American military personnel at risk is a belligerent act on the part of the Russian government towards the United States. We should not reward this type of belligerence by restructuring their debt. There is no moral equivalence between an American intelligence post and that of Russia. There is no moral equivalence between a Communist dictatorship in Cuba and other democratic societies. We should not be restructuring the debt of a country that is belligerent towards us and using their money to put the lives of American military personnel at risk.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4118. I am an original cosponsor of this bill. Let us get down to some basics. I know there is a major attempt by some when discussing this bill to try to refocus the debate on something that has nothing to do with this bill, and, that is, a general policy towards Cuba. We are not discussing a general policy towards Cuba. Any attempt to focus on a general policy towards Cuba is nothing more than an effort to get people not to confront the common sense alternative and the common sense policy that is being advocated in H.R. 4118. I would ask anyone reading the Congressional Record or listening to the debate or my colleagues on either side of the aisle to ponder this question: Does it make sense for us to offer debt relief to a country, to a regime, namely, Russia, if Russia is using the economic resources that we are then making available to them through that debt relief to finance a facility that is aimed at undercutting American security, at a facility that is aimed at gathering intelligence that will put America's military personnel in jeopardy? Does that make sense? Does it make sense for us to do a favor for someone, the Russians, giving them resources so they can spend more money to put American lives in jeopardy? If that does not make any sense, then you should support H.R. 4118, because it makes no sense to help finance someone who is putting their money into a facility that is aimed at gathering intelligence that puts the lives of American military personnel at risk. That is as simple as it gets. I do not understand how anybody can argue on the other side, except, of course, to try to talk about the general Cuba policy to deflect a reasonable discussion on the issue.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced H.J. Res. 103 to disapprove the President's annual certification of the so-called normal trade relations with China, and I have no allusions that this bill will overturn the House vote on permanent normal trade relations. But I have introduced this bill because we need to pay attention as to what has happened in China and throughout the world since we voted for permanent normal trade relations with China. I believe the American public has the right to hear about events and the events in China that followed the mega million dollar propaganda campaign that was waged by U.S. corporations in order to acquire the approval of Congress for PNTR. PNTR, let us remember, is a taxpayer subsidy for corporations; includes, and that is the most important provision for these companies, a taxpayer subsidy in the form of loan guarantees and actual interest guarantees and loan guarantees to companies that are closing their factories in the United States and opening them in China. What we are talking about is American workers being taxed in order to support the transfer of thousands of jobs to low-paying labor mills in China. That is what PNTR was all about, and it was sold to us as something totally different. It told to us that there would be many benefits of PNTR. Well, the day after the PNTR vote, the media began reporting what the real story behind the corporate lobbying campaign was all about, even though during the debate for PNTR we heard that it was all about selling American products which, of course, is not the case. But after the vote, the truth began to emerge. A May 25 Wall Street Journal article put it very bluntly. Quote, ``even before the first vote was cast by Congress and while the debate in Washington focused on U.S. exports, the multinationals had something very different in mind.'' Quote, ``this is about investment in China, not about exports,'' said an economist for a major U.S. financial firm. So I am including several articles for the Record, Mr. Speaker. [From the Wall Street Journal, May 25, 2000] Opening Doors: Congress's Vote Primes U.S. Firms to Boost Investments in China debate focused on exports, but for many companies, going local is the goal: ``Looking for predictability'' (By Helene Cooper and Ian Johnson) The China investment rush is on. Even before the first vote was cast yesterday in Congress's decision to permanently normalize U.S. trade with China, Corporate America was making plans to revolutionize the way it does business on the mainland. And while the debate in Washington focused mainly on the probable lift for U.S. exports to China, many U.S. multinationals have something different in mind. ``This deal is about investment, not exports,'' says Joseph Quinlan, an economist with Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., ``U.S. foreign investment is about to overtake U.S. exports as the primary means by which U.S. companies deliver goods to China.'' Michael T. Byrnes, chief representative of Rockwell International Corp.'s China division, seconds that: ``In China, that's the direction we're going.'' Yesterday, by a vote of 237-197, the U.S. House of Representatives gave its approval for the world's largest communist nation to become a card-carrying member of the ultimate capitalist club, the World Trade Organization. The hotly contested House vote was portrayed by proponents as a historical watershed. It was ``the most important vote we [have] cast in our congressional careers,'' said Rep. Bill Archer, House Ways and Means chairman. The vote perfectly punctuates the end of the 20th-century struggle between communism and capitalism for dominance of the world economy. Capitalism won. With China's entry into the WTO, free markets and free trade have emerged as the unchallenged global standard for business. The vote also cements a legacy for Bill Clinton. He will now be viewed by history as a president who firmly opposed protectionist forces within his own party, winning approval for the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993, the WTO in 1994 and, finally, permanent normalization of trade with China. After yesterday's vote, Mr. Clinton said: ``This is a good day for America. Ten years from now we'll look back on this day and be glad we did this.'' For business, which spent millions of dollars on advertising and lobbied vigorously for this outcome, the consequences are more practical, but no less far-reaching. In the tense weeks leading up to last night's vote, business lobbyists emphasized the beneficial effect the agreement would have on U.S. exports to China. They played down its likely impact on investment, leery of sounding supportive of labor union arguments that the deal would prompt companies to move U.S. production to China. But many businessmen concede that investment in china is the prize. Consider Mr. Byrnes's company, Rockwell, a Milwaukee-based maker of automation and aviation equipment. In 1987, Rockwell invested in a small cable factory in the southern city of Xiamen that produces about $3 million worth of equipment a year for the China market. Like many foreign companies in the 1980s, Rockwell was allowed to invest only if it entered a joint venture, a messy arrangement that required Rockwell to cooperate with four local partners, all of them state-owned. The experience so frustrated Rockwell that it never invested in another factory in China, preferring instead to export as much as $200 million worth of products each year to China from the U.S. and other countries. Now, Rockwell says that's likely to change. The WTO agreement, Rockwell hopes, will encourage China to abide by international rules, such as publishing regulatory changes and making transparent the workings of its bureaucracy. ``We're looking for predictability, rehability,'' Mr. Byrnes says. With that, Rockwell expects to set up more factories. ``My advice back to the headquarters,'' Mr. Byrnes says, ``is WTO makes things more predictable for investing.'' Technically, yesterday's vote in the House has no direct bearing on China's entry into the World Trade Organization. That was all but assured last week when the European Union completed negotiation of a broad trade agreement with China, following a similar agreement with the U.S. last year. But under WTO rules, China still couldn't enter the group until Congress provided permanent normal trading relations with China--rescinding the law under which China's trade status came up for a vote each year. If the measure hadn't passed, China would have had the right to deny U.S. companies the access to its markets that it is extending to other WTO members. Now that that hurdle is cleared, the agreements to let China into the WTO will probably boost exports to the country by lowering its tariffs on a host of products. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that American farm exports to China will rise by $2 billion within five years. U.S. and foreign moviemakers also expect to do more business in China, where their combined annual quota will rise to 40 releases from 10. Equipment manufacturer Caterpillar Inc., exports about $200 million of tractors and other construction equipment to China a year, a figure that has roughly tripled in the past few years as China has pushed an ambitious infrastructure program, says Dick Kahler, president of Caterpillar China Co. WTO entry will cut tariffs to 10% from 20%, making Caterpillar's products even more affordable to Chinese customers. ``We don't see why we can't continue to see that kind of growth,'' Mr. Kahler says. Indeed, the fear among many in China is that local businesses will be swamped by foreign goods. A play that premiered in Beijing yesterday titled ``Made in China'' tells the story of a beleaguered Chinese cosmetics maker fighting a flood of foreign imports. ``Chinese factory managers are terrified about the low tariffs,'' says the play's director, Wang Shaoying. Still, if the strategic plans of American companies are anything to go by, U.S. exports aren't the big trade story here. ``U.S. exports will increase, over time,'' says Greg Mastel, director of global economic policy at the New America Foundation, a Washington think tank. ``But not at the rate of investment, and the corporate community has been quiet about that. They've been able to avoid telling that story.'' That story reflects a simple business fundamental: Companies need to be closer to their customers. And China has 1.2 billion potential customers. Direct foreign investment in China already has burgeoned. It totaled $45 billion in 1998, according to a January study by A.T. Kearney Inc., the Chicago management consulting firm. Last year, after the onset of the Asian financial crisis and a slowdown in the Chinese economy, the total shrank to $40 billion. Now, many economists expect investment in China will resume rising, by as much as 15% to 20% a year. With WTO membership, China agrees to allow foreign-owned dealership and distribution services, a big boost for auto makers and heavy-equipment manufacturers. U.S. banks, too, will get a crack at a market totaling 1.1 trillion yuan ($132.88 billion), in terms of loans outstanding. U.S. lenders ultimately will have unlimited access for the first time to manage the deposits of Chinese citizens and to lend to individuals and corporations. And foreign asset managers will be allowed to establish joint-venture fund-management firms. Consider Motorola Inc.'s China plans. Motorola has just developed a $600 combination computer and wireless phone, called Accompli, which it makes entirely in China. ``It has really clever Chinese features, all done based on market research in China,'' says Motorola Chairman Chris Galvin. Already, Motorola has China sales of about $3 billion each year. When it officially joins the WTO later this year, China will allow foreign companies 49% ownership of telecommunications carriers, and 50% two years later-- compared with nothing today. Mr. Galvin believes that will be a huge opportunity for Motorola as its Chinese customer base expands. Motorola also plans to invest in Chinese Internet ventures, he says. In Shanghai, General Motors Corp.'s Buick Regal is in the second year of production at a factory that cost more than $1 billion to build. About 60% of the car is made locally, says Larry Zahner, president of GM China Group. Much of the rest, about $250 million a year, is imported from North America, mostly from Michigan. But even with China in the WTO--which should eliminate Chinese rules requiring local content--the Detroit company expects to raise the local content of its cars manufactured in Shanghai to 80% or 90%, Mr. Zahner says. Eastman Kodak Co. is well into plans to invest $1 billion on manufacturing plants in China. Kodak expects China will leapfrog the U.S. as Kodak's biggest market by 2025. To that end, Kodak has been boosting its manufacturing capacity there, as well as encouraging smaller investors to open Kodak Express processing stores. European and Japanese multinationals have been drawing up their plans as well. Germany's Volkswagen AG and Japan's Toyota Motor Corp. have big Chinese investment plans on the drawing board. In an era when new models are rolled out with increasing frequency, factories can't wait months for parts to be shipped around the world. As a rule of thumb, auto companies want their suppliers to locate within 250 miles of the final assembly plant. Many of the biggest trade concessions China made in return for its acceptance into the WTO are in banking, insurance and other services. New York Life Insurance Co. is one insurer already planning to set up a joint-venture with a Chinese partner, though it hasn't made public the amount it wants to invest. Just after the vote yesterday, New York Life International's chief executive, Gary Benanav, was preparing to hop on a flight to China. ``As quickly as possible, we are going to apply for a license to enter the life-insurance market,'' he said. American International Group already has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into China, mostly to set up offices, train Chinese insurance agents and to ingratiate itself with local regulators by plowing collected premiums back into Chinese infrastructure projects. It also is expected to be among the first to set up a fund-management joint venture. Even agriculture companies are getting in on the act. Poultry giant Perdue Farms Inc. is ratcheting up its investment in China with a joint venture for a processing plant and hatchery near Shanghai. Beijing is well aware that entry into the WTO will bring a rush of foreign investment. Indeed, that's a big reason why, after years of dragging its feet, China has in the past two years aggressively pursued WTO entry--to bring in the money needed to keep the economy growing and modernizing.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, who knows full well that in this bill there are subsidies to American corporations to close their doors here and open up factories in the dictatorship in China to use their slave labor. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, the center core argument of this debate today is never addressed. People always try to ignore it. I would just like to draw the attention of those people reading the Congressional Record or listening to this debate to this, that over and over again we have stated that this is not about free trade. This is not a debate about free trade, or even engaging in China. People have a right to do business in China. The reason why the American corporate community is insisting on normal trade relations status, which is a specific status, is so that those corporations can receive taxpayer subsidies and loan guarantees so they can close up their factories in the United States and open up factories in China to exploit a near slave labor, where people are not permitted to join unions, and do so at the taxpayers' risk, U.S. taxpayers' risk. Mr. Speaker, this is a sin against the American people. It is not leading to more freedom. They are laughing at us because we are subsidizing their $70 billion surplus which they are using to build weapons systems to kill the American military personnel that some day may have to confront their belligerency.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), one of this body's greatest spokesmen for human rights, who knows that we should not be subsidizing American corporations to close factories here and open them up in China.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the proposition of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) that we not provide a 50 percent increase in aid to India. The fact is, we should be asking ourselves why, in a country that has a vibrant and growing economy, a country that is now moving forward on its own, is the United States continuing to give more and more foreign aid to a country like India. Beyond that question, yes, let us concede that India is a democracy. We are proud that India has made some progress and stands in that region as a democratically-elected government. In Pakistan, I am afraid they have gone in the opposite direction. But that does not mean that we should have a reflexive, a reflexive response to give India money, or just ignore the transgressions that the Indian government commits upon its own people. We should be encouraging this democracy to live up to the principles of human rights and freedom that they are violating, and not just try to cover it up. The fact is that it is clear that there are severe violations of the rights of Christians, of Sikhs, of Muslims, that have been blessed by the Indian government, if not at the highest level, at the local level. We must also recognize the continuing violence and terrorism on the subcontinent. Most of it flows from one fact, and that fact is that India has refused to allow a democratic election in Kashmir in order to solve a problem that a long time ago happened in 1948. The United Nations has mandated that they have an election and permit the people of Kashmir and Jammu to control their own destiny. Then this terrorism that we have heard about would disappear. What we have now instead is terrorism on the part of government itself, trying to terrorize the people of Kashmir and other dissidents in India into submission. Terrorism is nothing more than an attack on unarmed people. We see that in Kashmir, unarmed people are being attacked by soldiers who are trying to push them into submission because they know in a free election the Kashmiris would vote not to be part of India. Let us not give India aid anymore. If we do, let us mandate democratic change and human rights.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, none of that makes any sense at all unless we have a government in that country that is willing to seek out those goals and try to implement them. Simply by changing money from this pot to their pot is not going to make those things better. Again, I am in favor of debt relief for these Third World countries, but let us not give money to countries that are not democratizing, not going through reform. Talk about pouring good money after bad, talk about pouring money down a rat hole, that is the way to waste more money. The money the gentleman is talking about will go straight in Swiss banks, unless we require a certain amount of reform and democratization to go forward with this. Mr. Chairman, in terms of military training, again, I would agree we need to put restrictions on our military training as well. The Waters amendment which I would like to address at this point, the lady from California (Ms. Waters) has the right idea, we should not be spending money just like we should not be spending money without democratic reform.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, whereas my name has been used several times and I was not paid the courtesy of being yielded to by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); yet, when I was on the floor I was very happy to yield for a question, even when I had not used another Member's name, I think we should reexamine the courtesies that we are trying to pay to each other to maintain a debate on a very important issue. And I am very pleased and thank the gentleman from North Carolina very much for yielding to me. There have been some very, very heartfelt points made here tonight. And this, of course, is an issue that tugs at our heart strings. But if we do not use our heads, none of the things that were just talked about that were so important, immunizations, schooling for children, food for people who are starving, not one of those goals will be achieved. Because although the gentleman may think that I do not know about this bill, the gentleman may not know about this bill if he claims that there is a demand in this bill for democracy, for freedom of the press, for opposition parties, for everything that ensures that the countries that receive this type of debt relief will use the money honestly that they get and the resources that they have available; that they will use them honestly or for immunization or for these benevolent purposes. No, the only thing in the bill that even touches on that says the money is not going to go to countries that have egregious human rights violations. All right, that is a step in the first direction, but that does not even go 10 percent of the way. All the speeches we have heard tonight that have tugged at our heart strings, yes, the benevolent souls, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who has a wonderful motive in proposing this today, I will say that this does not achieve any of the ends that we heard about on the floor today because it ignores the central requirement that will achieve those ends, and that is that the countries that we are giving debt relief to have to be under the control of democratically elected governments, governments that have opposition parties, and freedom of the press, or all the resources that the gentlewoman is talking about that will be used for immunization will not go to those noble purposes. They will go, instead, to Swiss bank accounts, they will instead go to arms to repress their own people. Because, yes, believe it or not there are gangsters in this world that control countries. Believe it or not there are monsters that are murdering people throughout this world. And the last thing we should do is give debt relief to regimes that are controlled by those kind of people. If my colleague wants the votes of people like myself, please add this into the bill. I am on the Committee on International Relations. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and I, and the rest of the members of the committee, can work out an authorization bill that accomplishes the ends that we are talking about. Just like the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), who 3 years ago challenged us as to why we were sending so many weapons to all these countries in the developing world. And I said to her that I would support her, let us not send any weapons to dictatorships, and we came up with a code of conduct. I challenge those of my colleagues who are speaking with their hearts tonight to work with us on this side of the aisle to put together legislation that will prevent money from going to these vicious dictatorships, prevent these loans to these vicious dictatorships, so that when they have democratic peoples on the ascendancy, they will not be burdened with these burdens like the people of Indonesia. We can do that. I, in fact, have tried to propose that to Export-Import Bank loans and to other World Bank financial dealings. But, no, we have not gotten any support from this side of the aisle or that side of the aisle for something like that. Let us help the decent people of the world who are struggling to have the inoculations of their children, to teach their children. Let us make sure that the money is going to those regimes that have a chance. What good would it have been to the people of Eastern Europe, for example, had we provided debt relief, which we did by the way to those countries, when they were still Communist dictatorships? That makes no sense at all. So let us make sure that we include the one element in the gentlewoman's proposal that will make it work rather than make it achieve just the opposite, and that is to put those type of requirements that we are dealing with countries that have democratic institutions in place.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise tonight in opposition to the proposed amendment by my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) but with some explanation. Also I rise to answer some of the questions that my colleague, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), just challenged us to answer. Debt relief in and of itself is a very positive humane and honest goal and should be considered by this body, especially debt relief in Third World countries that are developing and struggling to build new societies. Yes, if debt relief was the only issue at hand and it was done correctly, then my colleagues would have my support. Mr. Chairman, I, in fact, am very supportive of the idea that the Pope has suggested with the Jubilee 2000 concept reaching out to developing countries and Third World countries and alleviating that burden from them, taking it off their shoulders, this debt burden. However, for this to be successful, and to answer the challenge of my good friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), for this to be successful, we have to have more than transferring money from this pot to that pot. We have to have more than just saying we are going to give these underdeveloped countries debt relief and expecting that is going to do them any good; it will not do them any good. It will do them no good at all if they are still being run by the same gangsters, the same corrupt dictators, the same hooligans and monsters that have been repressing the people in the Third World over the last two decades. Mr. Chairman, one of my biggest gripes about the financial institutions, the World Bank and many of the financial institutions that are funded through this body is the fact that we do give money to corrupt administrations overseas. For example, the people of Indonesia right now are burdened with billions of dollars of debt. The fact is, in Indonesia, they are struggling to create a democracy. By the way, let me add, our training of the Indonesian military has been one of the greatest forces for building a democracy in Indonesia. Let us admit that some of this military training, for example, in Indonesia permitted an evolution towards democracy and, perhaps, people like in Indonesia do deserve to have some of that debt relief taken off of their shoulders, unless there is a requirement saying that these countries be headed towards democracy or there be a certain amount of reform, we are just pouring money right down a rat hole. Mr. Chairman, all the things that have been said here today about the horrors that are going on in a developing world will get no better if we simply transfer money to regimes that are controlled by dictators. This shift that is being proposed by this amendment is, as I say, being done with the best of motives. It cannot be done in this manner. It has to be done as part of a reform and a comprehensive authorization project in which we will look at how monies are dispersed throughout the Third World, not simply throwing money from one pot to another, which will result in corrupt dictators getting their hands on the money and all the problems that we talk about being exacerbated rather than being solved.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1304, and I want to note that I was an original cosponsor of H.R. 1304. Many of us who feel strongly about this also strongly support the Cox amendment. Mr. Chairman, this bill, the base bill, is about voluntary association, the right of people to gather to work together and to form unions if they want to, yes, but to have voluntary associations, if they want to do so. It is also about the right to choose. The Supreme Court recently had two decisions based on freedom of association, the Boy Scout decision and the political parties decision. The Cox amendment will ensure that this bill's lofty goals are actually achieved. The lofty goals of making sure that doctors are working for the benefit of the public and that the medical profession is not taken over by labor union bosses or anybody else, or managers of HMOs, but instead, the freedom of association will ensure that doctors can gather together and that they will remain true to the ideals that brought them together in the first place. Support the Cox amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise in strong support of the rule and even stronger support for the bill of the gentleman from California, H.R. 1304. I do so as a strong advocate of market-related solutions to meet many of today's challenges. This is a market-based solution. Ours is a multi-layered system of competing interests and checks and balances. America's health care is part of that system, but yet, it is an area today where we see justified concern and even perhaps alarm. Our citizens feel out of control. The HMO revolution that brought costs under control has brought with it new problems and new complications and new frustrations. New checks and balances have not emerged to see that the power vested in this new power, the HMOs, the new power that is vested in them and the authority that they have is not abused or that the cost controls do not go too far. The gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) is, as I said, offering a market-based approach to this challenge, instead of just strengthening government or putting new regulations in place. H.R. 1304 empowers health care professionals to balance the new power of the business managers who make policy decisions for America's health care, health care that is so vital to our families and the American people. Doctors should be able to act together as a unit if they choose to do so, just as investors, managers, and other voluntary associates join together to form HMOs and other businesses. The Campbell bill would result in a new balance that will well serve the families and people of our country. This system of competing interests has worked very well in other industries. It has worked to make us the most effective system in the world at providing good care and good products for our people, services for people. It can work in the health care industry, as well. The gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) is to be applauded for his creativity and his innovative approach. Rather than just trying to offer simplistic answers of giving more regulations or having more government that costs money, he is empowering people to do a better job and to work together to provide health care for America. Let us make sure that we use the power of the market. Let us make sure we use voluntary association, just as we have in every other industry, to provide quality health care to our people, and health care that we can ensure will not be abused because there is too much power just in the hands of the managers. This is true in every other industry, it will be true in health care as well. I rise in strong support of the rule and the Campbell amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for us to note, when we look at this issue that the gentlewoman is bringing before us today, that the central issue on permanent normal trade relations to China was blurred. Time and again people talked about, well, this is a trade issue. Well, in fact, the central core of permanent normal trade relations is a subsidy in the bill, and within that is the concept of that type of trade relation with China, in which we actually subsidize, with taxpayer dollars, through the Export-Import Bank and other government institutions, those businessmen that are investing in China. In other words, a businessman who closes a factory here or refrains from investing in building jobs here and goes to Communist China can expect the Export-Import Bank and other taxpayer subsidies to, for example, give them a lower interest rate or guarantee their loans. And if we are doing that with taxpayer dollars, at least let us watch out for the American people who are paying for that.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in strong support, strong support of the Coble amendment. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and I have worked diligently over the years, I would say that we probably put in thousands of hours over these last four years, in dealing with the patent issue, and I am very proud to stand with the gentleman now, and I am very proud that over our years of working on this issue, that we, last year, came together in support of a patent bill that will dramatically improve America's ability to protect our innovators. Part of that patent bill, which passed, and I believe it passed almost unanimously, I mean overwhelmingly, I think maybe only 40 or 50 members voted against it, but in that bill was a commitment by this Congress to keep all of the funds that were generated by the Patent Office in the Patent Office, so that those people who were paying patent fees and using the patent system, since it was their resources that they were putting into the Patent Office and they were using the Patent Office's services, that those resources could then be used to make sure the system was efficient and effective, and that the Patent Office could be the best Patent Office in the world, and that our innovators would have the protection they need in order to move forward and to change our society and to uplift America's competitiveness and uplift our standard of living. Well, here we are less than a year away from when we passed that bill; and already they are trying to change the rules of the game so that that commitment that we made on the floor overwhelmingly, that that money that comes into the patent system would be reserved in making the patent system better and for financing the patent system, already we are violating that pledge. What the Coble amendment is about is, number one, enforcing the standards that we have set as a body and making sure we keep our word and keep our word to ourselves, keep our word to the American people, and keep our word to the innovators in this society, the innovators who are coming up with the ideas and the technology that ensures that America will have the highest standard of living, that ensures that the American people will have the jobs, and ensures that we will be a secure country because we have the technology that is far better than any adversary. So number one, just for that alone, we should be supporting the Coble amendment. But furthermore, it talks about priorities. The last speaker spoke about the frustration; and yes, there is frustration in dealing with the system that demands that we continue on a road of fiscal responsibility, and I know how frustrating that is. But because the Republicans have maintained that standard, and insisted on it, we have a balanced budget today. Yes, we can pull our hair out and say we would love to spend more money on all sorts of other things; but we have a balanced budget, and we are paying down the national debt, and we are making sure that the Social Security system is safe and secure, and that is because we are being responsible; and yes, it means that we have to at times choose between two priorities that are both good options, but we have to determine what our priority is. Mr. Chairman, I am on the Committee on International Relations as well as being a member of the Committee on Science, and I know how important these exchange programs are. The gentleman's amendment suggests that we take funds from this exchange program of bringing leaders and potential leaders from overseas here so that they can see how the American system works, and I support that. I think it is an important service that we can provide and does a great deal of good. But I will tell my colleagues what does more good. What does more good is when an American inventor has an idea and he moves forward with it and follows through and develops a new concept that might create billions of dollars' worth of wealth for the American people, and that inventor can go to our government and receive the protection that he or she deserves. That is more important than just providing a visitor's service to foreign dignitaries to this country, even though that foreign dignitaries, their visits, yes, that is an important thing that we can provide, helping to bring peace to the world, et cetera. However, if we have to choose between options, let us choose the option of standing with the American innovators, the American technologists, the inventors. They are the ones that have ensured that in this, the beginning of the new millennium, that America is starting out ahead of the pack. They are going to make sure that our people have a good standard of living, but they are only going to do that if we make sure our Patent Office gives them the kind of protection that was given to American inventors throughout our history. That protection that we had since our country's founding is the mainspring of American progress. Mr. Chairman, vote for the Coble amendment and stay true to those principles and select the right priority.

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