Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, the WTO is a majestic dream that predictably will become Americans' worst nightmare. The lure of more open trade with hundreds of countries is being used as a disguise for an awesome transfer of power and authority that will in the long run ill serve the interests of the American people. Let us recognize that this is not about whether there should be or should not be trade. That is a nonsensical argument. America is the world's largest market, and there will always be countries clamoring for commerce with the American people. The question is, how will we trade and what will be the procedure that we trade with these countries? The question is if we, through our democratic processes and bilateral agreements negotiated by elected officials, people elected by the people of the United States, will be setting the ground rules for this trade, or whether it be controlled by international boards, commissions, and committees of the WTO. Let us admit, yes, Third World countries and developing countries will probably have more open markets to American and multinational corporations if this WTO goes through and keeps going on. That trade potential, let me point out, is minuscule. We are talking about trade with a bunch of countries like Rwanda or like tiny countries in Latin America, Paraguay, as compared to large developing countries. We are going to trade, give up our rights here in this country to determine our own economic destiny, to open up the markets of these tiny little countries? That is ridiculous. So there is an economic down side if we do not go through with WTO, yes. It is a minimal down side. But the potential down side in terms of the loss of the ability of the American people to control their own destiny is staggering. Predictably, the boards, commissions, and the rest of the decision- making apparatus of the WTO will within a decade or two be dominated by the same crooks and despots who now control so many of these Third World countries that refuse to open up their markets, and bribery and corruption will come with this centralization of power. There is no doubt about that. If we try to predict that is not going to happen, give me a break. Idealistic globalism is today the greatest threat to freedom and liberty in this country, for the people of this country. We should not be transferring power and authority to an unelected, appointed international bureaucracy. That is what the WTO is all about. Can one foresee a country like Communist China bribing WTO commissioners in the future? How about multinational corporations? Will they try to influence decisions that dramatically impact the standard of living of the American people, without any protection of our own elected officials? We can bet on it. We can also bet that they are going to try to just do that, and that we will not have anything that we can do about it. Yet, we will have little recourse in this whole situation except to quit. I oppose PNTR with Communist China now because it is a dictatorial system. Now we are being eased into a system that will mandate that every despotic regime in the world be treated equally with democratic societies. The WTO plan is a blueprint for bolstering tyrannical regimes throughout the world. Trade will not turn the hearts of these despots, or it will not make honest people out of corrupt officials who end up with power. Please, I ask Members to support this resolution. Do not sacrifice American liberty on the altar of globalism.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, and let me say that the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has been trying to propose an amendment of this purpose for several years now. But it seems that every time he proposes it, there is just something wrong with it, that it just is not exactly right. I do not know about these details about the little loopholes of intricacies of the writing of the bill, but I do know that the fundamental principle he is trying to advocate here is right, and, that is, if a pharmaceutical company takes money from the taxpayers to develop a new drug, they have taken on the taxpayers as a partner; and thus they cannot then turn around and exploit the taxpayers and soak them for all money that they can get out of them because the taxpayer has paid basically for their research and development. Research and development is the risk that a company takes, and if we are going to pay for that risk, the taxpayers should get something back in return. And fairer prices that are affordable prices is certainly a reasonable assumption for companies that are taking that money. By the way, let me note, many pharmaceutical companies do not take research and development money; and they should have every right to charge what they want for their product. But in this case, the principle is absolutely sound, whether you are conservative or a liberal or a capitalist or a socialist. The fact is that the people have paid a certain amount of money, they deserve some rights with that money and protecting the consumer at the same time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, let me say that we have heard today that there is reciprocity in PNTR. Anyone who talks about reciprocity in PNTR probably has not read this. Let me just say that, at the end of 5 years, there are still going to be 25 percent tariffs; on cars, 45 percent; on motorcycles, 30 percent; these are all tariffs on American goods while our tariff has virtually been eliminated. There is no reciprocity with PNTR. They may bring down their outrageously immoral and anti-American tariffs, this unfair situation we have now, but they then still keep the tariffs way above anything in the United States. We eliminate ours. They freeze their high tariffs against their products in permanently. That is not reciprocity. Plus there are still requirements that American companies going there will have to partner in many cases, for example, 51 percent of all telecommunications investment has to be owned and controlled by Chinese. We are providing them technology, manufacturing, investment. What are they providing us? They are flooding our markets with cheap goods and putting our people out of work. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf) and would just note that I disagree totally with what was just said. (Mr. METCALF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Long Beach, California (Mr. Horn). (Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today both sides agree on the importance of today's vote. This is not a vote about severing ties with China or isolating China, which is absurd. This is not even about trade with China, frankly, just free trade anyway. It is about a specific trade policy and policies of the United States Government in dealing with one of the world's most powerful dictatorships. The debate today, and in this debate, we will hear about jobs and the selling of American products; and when we hear people talk about that, I hope that the people who are listening will remind themselves that these people are not talking about the sale of U.S. consumer items. What they are talking about, when they talk about this commercial tie with China, is not the sale of commercial items but the transfer of factories and technology, this transfer to Communist China of American factories. Almost none of this trade deals with consumer items. Yesterday, of course, we heard from the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) that once there, our business leaders who set up these factories in China end up in partnership, if not controlled by, the People's Liberation Army. We are setting the People's Liberation Army up in business with normal trade relations, and this makes it permanent normal trade relations. The driving force behind this debate, which the other side dutifully refuses to acknowledge, is that with PNTR, as they have set it up, the American corporate interests will continue to be eligible for American- taxpayer subsidized loans and taxpayer-guaranteed loans through the Export-Import Bank and other financial institutions. Without NTR, those corporate interests building factories in China will not get the loan subsidies and the guarantees supported by the American taxpayer. So much for free trade. That is the primary issue here and yet the other side continually refuses to address that issue of subsidized transfer of technology and manufacturing to Communist China. This vote is about confirming government policies that have created a perverse incentive for American businessmen to close manufacturing facilities in the United States, where they have no loan guarantees, and set them up in Communist China. Over the last 10 years, American investment backed by the U.S. taxpayer has built the manufacturing and technological infrastructure of the world's worst human rights abuser, Communist China, a major competitor of the United States and a country that is America's number one potential enemy in the years ahead. Nixon, on his death bed, told writer William Safire that his China strategy may have created a Frankenstein. Our policy of most favored nation status, or normal trade relations, has created a monster that uses slave labor to compete with the American worker and is in the process of building a high-tech military force capable of defeating our military if there is a confrontation and incinerating millions of Americans, if necessary. The over-$500 billion in trade surplus that we have had under this normal trade relations that people want to now make permanent, what have they done with this $500 billion in trade surplus over these last 10 years? Well, that is about the same amount of money they pumped into modernizing their military, building their missiles and rockets, building their airplanes and ships; and often, of course, these things are being built in factories supplied to them by American investors. Today we are voting whether or not to freeze NTR in place and to make it permanent. We are voting today to take away Congress' annual review of the heinous human rights abuses that have gotten worse under NTR, and we are voting to muzzle those in Congress who fear the technological transfer and the building of manufacturing plants in Communist China. The last thing we should do is make this system permanent and to limit congressional oversight and debate and to turn all enforcement mechanisms for disputes over to Third World-dominated World Trade Organization panels and commissions. Let us champion liberty and justice. Let us not finance our competitors and our potential enemies. Let us defeat making permanent normal trading status that has worked against our country's security and against the economic interests of the American people. If we do not champion liberty and justice, who will? If we do not champion liberty and justice, we will not only be betraying our Founding Fathers but we will be demoralizing those people all over the world who look to America for hope. We will be betraying the vision of America as a shining city on a hill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) and recognize that he represents many people in the Armed Forces who will suffer by the things that are produced in those factories that we are building for the Communist Chinese.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, noting that the other side still ignores the charges that PNTR freezes in the taxpayer subsidies for businesses closing here and setting up shop in China, I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, we hear time and again that greater trade will somehow make China freer. I suggest that greater trade as it is structured through PNTR will enhance the dictatorship in China. People in China themselves do not need to be convinced that they want the tyrant's boot off of their face. This idea that if we trade more we are going to reach more people with the Internet, telephones, et cetera, it is ridiculous. Those people know they do not want to live in tyranny. But what we are doing by giving this PNTR, we are giving the Communist Chinese regime their number one primary objective. We will embolden them. They think we are suckers, they think we are saps, they think we are cowards, unable to watch out for our own interests or to champion the cause of liberty and justice. Why should we be setting up factories? Again, the opposition refuses to address that the fact that taxpayers under this proposal will pay subsidies to businessmen who set up factories over there and close them in the United States. That is a central point here. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I will have to leave this debate at this point. I am chairing a hearing today. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control it.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). There has been no stronger voice for human rights in this body than this gentleman.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) who is one of the few Ph.D.s and scientists we have with us here in the United States Congress.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), a human rights advocate who has earned that reputation through many years of human rights work in this body.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney). (Mr. NEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that we heard about reference to Ronald Reagan and China. I worked with President Reagan on some of the speeches that he gave when he went to China; and we should not forget that, during Ronald Reagan's time, Ronald Reagan strategized in order to develop a democratic movement in China, which, after Ronald Reagan left office, was smashed, yes. But during Ronald Reagan's time, when he supported expanding our relationship with China, he also supported and was very active in making sure that there was a democratic movement. That was a force within China. Now that that has been destroyed by the Communist Chinese Government, there is no excuse for continuing those same strategies. When it came to the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan made himself very clear; we never provided anything like that. He tried to undermine the economic strength of the Soviet Union to bring about peace and democratization. That is what worked, because there was not a democracy movement in the Soviet Union. Let us read history, and let us learn from it. What we have now is we are going in the opposite direction. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, our economic relationship with Communist China has been a disaster for the United States of America, a disaster; and it is in the making and we can see it coming, though we have people trying to prevent the American people from understanding the significance of what has been going on for these last 10 years. Economically we have had year after year after year of a massive trade surplus with Communist China. What does that mean for the people of the United States? We are just going to laugh that off, where they have a trade surplus? They allow us to import all of their goods while they put restrictions on our goods? In terms of our national security, they have used that trade surplus, which will be $80 billion this year, to build up their military. And who do we think is being threatened by this military buildup of the Communist Chinese? They now have the capability of murdering millions of Americans with nuclear weapons that they did not have the capability for 10 years ago, based on our technology and our money. I consider that a disastrous policy. And morally, morally, has this worked in our benefit to have this relationship, which people now want to make permanent? That is what this is about, making a disastrous relationship with Communist China permanent. What has it done morally? Today, the Democratic movement in China, which used to be healthy, has been smashed. Religious believers are being persecuted, even to the point where people who believe in meditation and yoga are being thrown into prison by the thousands. In Tibet, the genocide goes on. The Communist Chinese could drop an atomic bomb on Tibet and murder millions of people, and our business community would still be up here saying, well, how are we going to cut off progress by trying to confront them with this. No, we have to maintain our engagement. PNTR basically says that we are going to make permanent the relationship that we have had for the last 10 years with Communist China. Freeze it. We are going to freeze it. Now, my colleagues may say, oh, no, that is wrong; they are going to bring down their unfair tariffs that they have had. No, I am afraid not. What will happen is, these tariffs, which have been disproportionate, monstrously disproportionate, will be brought down a little. They will still have a huge tariff disparity between the United States and China. In other words, they will continue flooding our market with their goods, but what will happen? If we have a dispute with them in the future, if we pass PNTR, we have taken all of our bullets out of our gun to enforce our decisions. We are giving it to the World Trade Organization. Instead of being able to enforce our agreements with China, which we have not been able to enforce before, and they have broken their agreements with us, we are going to rely on panels and commissions of the World Trade Organization. We have been told that if we engage with China, that we will liberalize China. We will make them more like us. They will become more Democratic. It has gone the opposite direction. We have been dealing with gangsters, and right now we are talking about putting gangsters into the chamber of commerce. What makes my colleagues think that dealing with a gangster is going to do anything but corrupt their people rather than making them any better? The debate is not about isolating China. Do not let anybody fool us. This is not about isolating China. It is not about severing our relations with China. My colleagues will hear that over and over and over again in this debate. That is a ruse. It is not true. It is trying to get us off what this debate is really about. What are we going to achieve by this decision today on permanent normal trade relations with China? What we are talking about is continuing to allow our big businessmen to massively invest in China with government guarantees to the Export-Import Bank and subsidized loans and guaranteed loans. That is the bottom line. That is what is pushing this. We have people closing factories in the United States and opening them up to use slave labor in China, and they want the taxpayers to guarantee that. They do not care about morality. They do not care about human rights. This is a joke. Even with the proposal of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), we are taking away our ability to enforce any type of human rights standards that we have been trying to push on Communist China. And they know it. They know that we are taking away our rights even to discuss it on the floor of the House every year, which has been one of the only things that have held them back. And even with that type of control or, at least, influence on them, they have gone in the opposite direction. Let me close by saying this: I realize people who believe on the other side of this are sincere; they believe they are trying to better the prospects for peace in this world and better the prospects for freedom, which I think is nonsense. We do not treat tyrants that way. But we have tried this before. The world has tried this before. We remember Neville Chamberlain as the man who gave away Czechoslovakia to Hitler and Munich, but we do not remember what Neville Chamberlain did in the years prior to Munich when Hitler had taken over Nazi Germany. Neville Chamberlain led up to Munich by creating an economic task force designed to invest in Germany so that the Germans would have so many economic ties they would never think of violating the peace. It reads almost verbatim the argument that we are getting today. We do not make a liberal by hugging a Nazi. We do not treat gangsters as if they are democrats and expect them to be democratic people. No. We must stand together with the people in China who long for freedom and justice, and we will not do that by kowtowing to these dictators in Beijing and giving them what they want. Do not give me this, the hardliners do not want us to give them this. The hardliners want to continue to have the type of trade surpluses that they have had and want us to have to only rely on the WTO if they break their word to us. This whole idea of permanent normal trade relations with China is against the interest of the people of the United States, against our moral position, and has undermined our national security as we wake up to find that we have built a monster that is capable, with the weapons systems and technologies that we have provided them, of killing millions of Americans. I call on my colleagues to oppose normal trade relations with this monstrous regime in Communist China. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, today we have heard many things that do not really represent a real analysis of what PNTR is all about. We have been told that PNTR means there are no concessions on our part. Give me a break. I mean, no concessions? We have frozen into our reality unfair trade tariffs from now to forever. Let me give my colleagues an example of PNTR. Car tariffs are going to be 25 percent. They are going to say, oh, well they are higher now. Yeah, they are higher now, but then they are going to bring them down and freeze them forever at an unfair level. Car tariffs 25 percent. Motorcycles 35 percent. VCRs 30 percent. Color TVs 30 percent. Corn 65 percent. Rice 65 percent. Sugar 65 percent. These are the tariffs that they are going to have on our goods while our tariffs are just going to, again, as we have had for these last 10 years, almost down to nothing. This freezes us into an unfair economic relationship with the world's worst human rights abuser. The Levin-Bereuter proposal that in some way just eliminates our review is going to do some good for the people of China; we are eliminating the review that we have. Their only restraint on their violations of human rights we are taking away by permanent normal trade relations. What is this again? As I started out, this whole debate is about what? It is about whether or not we are going to continue the subsidies of American businessmen through the Export-Import Bank who are making their investments in Communist China to take advantage of that slave labor at the taxpayers' expense by the taxpayers guaranteeing that investment. That is what is fueling this whole debate today. Nobody wants to recognize it. What we are doing is building the infrastructure, the technological and manufacturing infrastructure, of the world's worst human rights abuser and the country that poses the greatest threat to us militarily in the future. We are creating a monster with blood on its hands. The blood on its hands is dripping from the hands of this terrible totalitarian regime. They have been repressing their religious believers and people who believe in democracy. And we want to have a permanent normal trade relationship with them to help them build up their technological capabilities. Such immoral policy-making will come back and hurt the United States. This is Neville Chamberlain's strategy with Adolph Hitler, build up his economy that he will not dare to commit aggression. We will be hurt very badly if we pass this. Oppose PNTR.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, we have just witnessed a very fine debate on PNTR, and I thought that I would expand for my 5 minutes' worth a little bit on the points that have been made today. I think it was vital that people not miss the point that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) stressed when he gave his speech, and that was that many of the companies that we are talking about that have been opened up and that people are talking about doing business with in Communist China are companies that are owned by the People's Liberation Army. What a travesty it is that what we have got, and this is as I have repeated in that debate several times, the essence of what is being decided is whether or not major businessmen in the United States can invest in building manufacturing facilities in Communist China, while what they do when they build these manufacturing capabilities in China, these manufacturing centers, they have to go into business, they have to go into business with a Chinese partner. Who is that Chinese partner? More often than not, the Chinese partner is the People's Liberation Army. Thus we are providing the capital through the American taxpayer, subsidizing the loans that these businessmen get, guaranteeing the loans so that people will give them the loans they need to create these manufacturing jobs, manufacturing centers in Communist China. They go over there and set them up and who is their business partner? Who is splitting the profit with them? The People's Liberation Army. The People's Liberation Army that builds missiles with the technology that they steal from us and the technology that they get from us through this economic relationship they have with our businessmen, and they build these missiles. Who are those missiles aimed at? Today because of our policies toward Communist China, the Communist Chinese regime has the capability of killing tens of millions of Americans, and they did not have that capability 10 years ago. This is not the type of policy that we should make permanent. It has worked against the American people. Why should the American people subsidize a businessman for closing a company here and setting it up in China? We are told over and over again the debate is about selling American products overseas. Please listen to that debate when you hear that. It is not about selling American products. Almost none of our economic activity with Communist China is the selling of American products. What we are sending over there are manufacturing units. What we are selling to China is the ability to manufacture high technology goods. We heard it today in the home district of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane). Motorola has set up a chip manufacturing company there. Why should the people in his district not be in those jobs, building those chips, in Illinois or in other places? By the way, just to let Members know, I was in Cambodia a few years ago, and they were having trouble with the millions of land mines that are sown throughout Cambodia. Somebody actually had changed the nature of the land mine, and our U.S. military team was finding they were up against a smart land mine that would blow up if the land mine could sense that someone was trying to defuse it. Our people finally got it open. They found a chip inside the land mine. The land mine, of course, was designed to blow the legs off children and women and terrorize that society in Cambodia. What was the little chip? The chip came from a Motorola factory that was built by the United States in Communist China, perhaps the one that was built there by the businessmen from the gentleman from Illinois' district. The fact is we should not be subsidizing businessmen to build factories even in democratic societies, much less subsidizing the building of factories and high technology transfers to the world's worst human rights abuser. Neville Chamberlain had that strategy with Adolf Hitler. We all remember in Munich where Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister, gave away Czechoslovakia to the Nazis. We think that was the sellout. No, that sellout started years before when Chamberlain said, we will build up Hitler's economy and have so much investment there, he will never be able to commit aggression because it would have such a deleterious effect on the German economy. That was his strategy. That mirrors exactly what we are being told now of why we must, quote, engage the Communist Chinese. No one is talking about isolating Communist China. No one is talking about stopping trade. Our people would still be free to do that. But why should we subsidize the investment there? And why should we give up our rights here in Congress for an annual review of what our policy towards China does for the people of the United States? Making it permanent and giving up our review, is that going to be seen by the Communist Chinese as a commitment on our part to human rights and to protect our own interests? No, it is going to be looked at exactly the way they have been looking at our policy for 10 years. The Communist Chinese leadership thinks we are a bunch of saps, that we do not believe in freedom and liberty and justice, that it is just a matter of cliches. They see us as people who are weak. We must be strong to protect the interests of the people of the United States, to protect our national security. That means a vote against permanent normal trade relations with China.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Committee Chairman Dan Burton, Subcommittee Chairman Joe Scarborough, Ms. Judy Biggert, Ms. Eleanor Holmes-Norton, and other Members and staff of the House Government Reform Committee supporting this bipartisan resolution that honors the brave American men and women who have died defending freedom and peace. H. Con. Res. 302 calls on the people of the United States to observe a National Moment of Remembrance on Memorial Day. The voluntary moment of silence at 3 p.m. local time in the various time zones that span our great nation, will offer all Americans the opportunity to participate in a symbolic act of national unity. In addition, this effort will reinforce the true meaning of Memorial Day and call attention to the high price that has been paid by Americans of all walks of life to win and defend our freedom, from George Washington's revolutionary forces to those heroes who have perished in more recent military actions from the Persian Gulf to Somalia to the Balkans. In my personal experience, I grew up in a military family during the Cold War. My father, Colonel Donald Rohrabacher, a Marine Corps aviator, was a veteran of World War II and the Korean War. He was also among thousands of Americans who participated in dangerous experimental military missions to develop the weapons systems that led to our technological advantage and ultimate Cold War victory. In particular, he commanded aviators participating in developing the methods of delivering nuclear weapons from tactical aircraft. I recall my mother and father making Commander's condolence calls on the wives and children of members of his unit who perished in developing the dangerous aviation maneuvers. It was tragic that, because of the then-secret nature of this critical national security mission, the families never knew the true nature and importance of their sacrifices. They were told only that their loved ones perished in ``training'' exercises. I will never forget the faces of those widows and their children who were my playmates. This resolution asks all Americans to recall and honor the sacrifices of these men and all of the others who made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom. I extend gratitude to Carmella LaSpada, the director of the non-profit No Greater Love organization, who originated the idea for the National Moment of Silence. From the middle of the Vietnam War, No Greater Love has worked with the families of deceased service members and those missing in action, organized celebrities to conduct hospital visits for wounded veterans and has conducted Memorial Day remembrance ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetery. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this resolution for a National Moment of Remembrance.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment given us today by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas). Mr. Chairman, it is time for us to give up, which is the budgetary equivalent of a doom's day strategy, a nuclear weapon. It is time to repeal for all time the threat of a government shutdown. It is not a threat to us as much as it is a threat to the people of the United States. It is time for us to say that we do not have to threaten ourselves and the American people to do our job. We do not have to threaten to do something that everyone agrees is stupid, just to give ourselves enough incentive to do our job and to enact appropriation bills. Mr. Chairman, whenever we propose to end government shutdowns, we always hear the same thing as we have heard. How can we pass appropriations bills without the threat of a government shutdown? One answer is that almost every year we somehow manage to enact one or more supplemental appropriations bills, even though we know for a fact that the government will not shut down if we pass them. The larger question is this: Are our appropriation bills so bad that the only thing worse than passing them is the totally irrational alternative of shutting down the government? I, for one, have more confidence in our appropriators and the appropriations process that it will work than that. Even a step towards sanity would be worthwhile. The main reason that I supported the amendment that we just debated and which failed, which provided for a 2-year budget cycle, is that it would mean that at least every other year there would be no threat of a shutdown, but if we can eliminate the threat for just half the time, which unfortunately we did not do, why should we not go all the way? Why should we not just eliminate this threat? Let me suggest this: The American people are looking to us. There is no reason for us to threaten the American people, especially there is no reason for us to threaten government employees with the hardship and the burden of government shutdowns just to get us to do our bills. Let us work together. We have proven we can work together this year, but let us put an insurance policy in place that protects the American workers, the American people and government workers; protects them if we are not doing our job, and let us instead insist that the job get done and not threaten the American people if we do not do it. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Gekas amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for being very cooperative on this measure. This is one of those measures, Mr. Speaker, that goes through Congress that has bipartisan support because it reflects fundamental values which I believe that this body is supposed to be all about. This is a body that represents the greatest democracy in the world, and all of us who meet here share these values of democracy and freedom. And when we are talking about issues that go to the heart of our country, we stand united. This resolution commemorates the 25th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War and expresses a tribute to the Americans and South Vietnamese who gave their lives in the cause of freedom in that conflict. The international press reports from Vietnam this past weekend unanimously emphasized the ongoing repression that the people of Vietnam have had to suffer under the Communist regime in Hanoi. The violation of human rights and the denial of democracy for the people of Vietnam has been just a horrific experience over these last 25 years and has caused a firsthand observer, Senator John McCain, to state that regardless of America's shortcomings in conducting that war, that the wrong side won. Singapore's senior statesman and ASEAN founding member, Lee Kuan Yew, commented recently that the sacrifices by the Americans in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s gave the rest of the region, which also faced Communist-backed guerilla movements, time to stabilize and even prosper. So, yes, there were some good things that came out of Vietnam, yet the people of Vietnam still suffer. And there was great sacrifice during that war: 58,000 Americans perished and more than 300,000 were wounded. In addition, 270,000 South Vietnamese military personnel perished, and over 570,000 were wounded. And that was before, of course, the final offensive by the Communist forces 25 years ago today. This resolution honors their sacrifice and calls attention to the cause of freedom in Vietnam. This resolution is entirely in support of the people of Vietnam who deserve the right and the opportunity to participate in the democratic process of a free and Democratic society. The greatest example of the potential of Vietnam is perhaps the tremendous educational and economic success of the Vietnamese American community, such as that in Little Saigon, which is in my district. And I am very proud to represent these freedom loving people who came here in such turmoil and have made a success of their lives despite great hardship. In fact, the fact that they came here with little more than the shirts on their back and now live in relative prosperity and have made wonderful citizens for our country indicates just how important freedom and democracy is considering that the people that they left behind still languish in poverty and still are repressed and suffer great tyranny there in Vietnam. This resolution expresses the hope that some day the people of South Vietnam will enjoy the same kind of freedom that the people who came here after the war enjoy. The resolution urges the Vietnamese regime to commit to a framework, a set timetable for open and free elections. Twenty-five years after the end of the war, it is time for Vietnamese leaders to make peace with their own people and to permit their citizens to peacefully choose their own local and national leaders without fear of intimidation. This resolution also, as the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) stated, congratulates the Vietnamese-American community in Southern California and throughout the United States for initiating and funding through private donations the first memorial to honor both American and South Vietnamese military personnel who sacrificed their lives during the Vietnam War, which is now being developed in Orange County, California. Finally, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan resolution which honors the sacrifice of American citizen soldiers who perished for the cause of freedom during the Indochina conflict by supporting the struggle for democracy in Vietnam. And finally, I would like to salute a member of my staff, Mr. Al Santoli, who is standing behind me at this moment, who helped me put this resolution together. Al Santoli, a triple Purple Heart winner from the Vietnam War, has dedicated his life to the cause of freedom and justice not only in Southeast Asia but throughout the world; and we appreciate the effort that he put into this resolution, as well.