Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) on the statement that he just made. All of us should be very united in this effort to draw a spotlight on what is going on in Iran. If the Iranian people, who I am convinced want to have better relations with the United States, then Iran must know that they cannot conduct this sham trial and brutally terrorize their Jewish population or any other part of their population. We need to pay attention to this and send a message to the Iranians that we want to have good relations with them. But what I wanted to mention today, and with my last 30 seconds, is that we have heard a lot about trade with China this morning and we will hear more about it. The trade that we have had with Communist China these last 10 years have not made this world a safer world. In fact, it has done nothing but build up the powerful forces in Communist China that now threaten the peace of the world. Furthermore, it has not worked to the benefit of the people of the United States. What we have in China is the building up of their infrastructure. Our trade with them is building up their technological capabilities; building them factories so that they can then export to the United States and get enough money to buy weapons in order to put us under a threat. I would oppose any of this WTO for China.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for H. Res. 429 because I agree that it is right and proper for this House to condemn the racist and xenophobic statements of Jeorg Haider, who until a few weeks ago was the leader of the Austrian Freedom Party. Mr. Haider's statements and political activity relating to Austria's past are alarming. Clearly, many in Austria have yet to come to grips with Austria's Nazi past. That Haider, a governor of a province and the head of a major political party, went to a reunion of SS veterans (and praised them) is unforgivable and should sound alarm bells. In some of his statements that I have read, Haider is trying to create a moral equivalency between wartime deaths and destruction caused by the Allies during the war, and the crimes and mass genocide caused by Hitler and his henchmen (including many Austrians). This mindset is delusional. It deserves the forceful condemnation contained in this resolution, and I join the resolution's author, Mr. Lantos, who could not be here today, in support of this resolution. I see Haider as an Austrian version of David Duke, someone who is hiding his respect for an historic movement that was monstrously evil. This is obviously the result of nationalistic emotions that are totally negative and can have serious consequences, and thus should be of utmost concern. Yes, Haider is no Nazi. But yes, it is clear that he has sympathy for them. While I agree with the part of this resolution condemning Mr. Haider's views, I am uncertain whether those views reflect the mindset of the Austrian Freedom Party or the people who voted for them. Furthermore, this resolution states that Haider and his party have ``expressed fundamental disagreement with the principles of freedom, democracy, and respect for human rights.'' I don't believe the evidence supports this charge. The reports that I have read indicate, on the contrary, that notwithstanding the reprehensible statements of its former leader, the Freedom Party is, in fact, a democratic party that supports freedom; and that where and when they have been in power, they have respected human rights. The resolution also states that the Freedom Party has been associated with unspecified ``xenophobic, racist policies,'' not just statements. To the degree that that is true, then this Congress rightfully condemns whatever those policies are. However, many of us voting for this resolution, perhaps a majority voting for it, have no complaint with Austria running its own immigration policy in a way it believes consistent with the best interests of the Austrian people. Americans, especially this Californian, are proud of America's melting pot that includes people of every race, religion and ethnic background. Diversity and freedom is the culture of America. If other countries, like Austria, desire an immigration policy that maintains traditional patterns and culture, rather than becoming a melting pot like the United States, they have every right to immigration laws consistent with that goal. The immigration policies advocated by the Freedom Party, I would note, are very similar to the actual immigration laws of Israel, Switzerland, Australia, Japan and several other democratic countries. If it's not considered xenophobic and racist for Israel and Japan to have such laws, then it shouldn't be considered xenophobic and racist to propose them in Austria. Of course this resolution does not specify which policies are xenophobic and racist. If there are such policies, I certainly agree to condemning them. Mr. Speaker, this resolution reaffirms that Austrian people have the right ``to express their political views through a democratic election.'' More than that, they have the right to choose who will govern them, even if we disagree with the people they choose. This House is the greatest representative body in the world. We would never suggest that an election not determine who governs a nation. Yes, by all means, let's condemn the horrific statements of Mr. Haider and any racist or xenophobic policies that are part of the Austrian Freedom Party's agenda, if such policies are part of their agenda. But many of those voting for this resolution, again, perhaps a majority, are not attacking Austria. In this last four decades, Austria has had an exemplary record as far as a respect for human rights and democratic institutions. With vicious dictatorships and corrupt regimes abounding on this planet, it would be imprudent for this body to condemn Austria itself. However, it is clear from the words of Mr. Haider that a significant number have not come to grips with their country's part involvement with one of the most monstrous evils ever to threaten humankind. Any attempt to minimize this evil, to excuse the inexcusable, to portray the Nazi movement and those who participated in it, including Austrians, in any other way than despicable and bestial, deserves America's collective condemnation. I was visited the other day by members of the Jewish War Veterans from my district. I am proud of them, along with the other members of the ``Saving Private Ryan'' generation, people like my father, who saved this world from Nazism and Japanese militarism. They then went on to stand up to and defeat Communism. Communism and Nazism were the twin evils of this century. To claim or imply a moral equivalency to our brave saviors of the World War II brave saviors of the World War II generation is an insult we will not bear. This resolution, while I don't agree with all of it, vocalizes our outrage at such rhetoric. I have joined with Mr. Lantos many times in the past in condemning anti- Semitism, warning political forces in Hungary, Romania, Iran, Russia, and elsewhere that anti-Semitism will not be tolerated. Today, I join Mr. Lantos in condemning an Austrian political leader's reprehensible and alarming statements minimizing the crimes and evils of the Nazis and their army and SS storm troopers. I ask my colleagues to join in on this condemnation.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to join my colleagues today in support of this resolution that calls for honoring President and Mrs. Reagan with a Gold Medal. I first met Ronald Reagan in 1966. That is when I was working as a young person, I was in school at the time, in his first gubernatorial campaign. I then worked in both of his presidential campaigns as an assistant press secretary, traveling with then candidate Reagan throughout the United States both in 1976 and in 1980. After Reagan won the 1980 presidential campaign, I went with him to the White House, where I served as a special assistant and speech writer to the President for 7 years. Let me note, as someone who was this close to Ronald Reagan for many, many, many years, I will just have to testify today that Ronald Reagan never let me down. Far too often, people who get to know their heroes are dismayed when they get to know their heroes. They get to know them as people. And all of us, of course, are only human; and we have our personal defects, our strong points, and our weak points. Ronald Reagan was a human being, but he was a wonderful human being; and he never, ever disappointed me with a lack of conviction or a mean spirit. Throughout the time I knew him all of those years, I knew him as a man of strong conviction and principle and a man of benevolence, a loving person, and a man with a very positive character, always on the upbeat, always looking for the positive way to approach problems rather than just lamenting the problems that existed. And that was driven home to me, his character, the first time I met him. In fact, I had worked on his first gubernatorial campaign in the primary. They were going to eliminate Youth for Reagan. I had a hundred young people in my area, walking precincts, in 1966, in Reagan's first campaign primary campaign for governor. But there had been turmoil in Youth for Reagan, and they were going to eliminate it. So I decided I would talk to Ronald Reagan myself in order to save Youth for Reagan. At 2:30 in the morning, I walked up to his house in Pacific Palisades. There were no guards there, unlike today, we can imagine candidates today; and I camped out on his back lawn. At about 7 o'clock in the morning, Nancy's head came out of the back door and said, Who are you? I had a little sign that said, ``Mr. Reagan, please speak to me.'' She said, Who are you? I said, well, I work in his youth campaign and they are going to eliminate Youth for Reagan, and I need to talk to him for 2 minutes. She said, If my husband comes out here, he is going to be late for the rest of the day because I know he will spend more than 2 minutes with you. I have got to think about him as a man. He is going to skip his breakfast. I just cannot have it. If you go down to the campaign office, I will arrange that you meet the campaign manager. So how can I argue with a wife when she is protecting her husband? I started walking down that long driveway. And a few minutes later running after me, I hear these footsteps and there is Ronald Reagan with shaving cream on his face and his shirt is half off and he is waving to me and saying, Wait a minute, wait a minute. If you can camp out on my back lawn all night just to speak to me, I can spend a few minutes with you. Now, what is the problem, young man? Well, that was Ronald Reagan. That was the Ronald Reagan I met then. That was the Ronald Reagan I knew for 30 years after that, the very same Ronald Reagan. And it was the very same Ronald Reagan that was very often castigated as just an actor, well, he is up there just giving speeches. Having worked with Ronald Reagan, I can tell my colleagues he is a great writer. He is such a talented writer we always used to say that if he was not the President, he could be the President's speech writer. In fact, he was a man that was not just reading his speech. He was a man that was setting direction for his administration, setting the goals for the free world. And nowhere was that greater brought home to me than during the conflict over Ronald Reagan's visit to Berlin and whether or not he should say, Tear down this wall, Mr. Gorbachev. I worked with several speech writers with the President preparing for that trip to Europe. During that time, I will report to my colleagues today that Ronald Reagan was advised by all of his senior staff, all of his foreign policy advisors, including and especially Secretary of State Shultz, but all of his top senior foreign policy advisors begging him not to say, Mr. Gorbachev, if you really believe in democracy, tear down this wall. The night before that speech, Ronald Reagan was approached by his national security advisors, saying they wanted him to give this speech, all of his senior advisors wanted him to give this speech, not the one he had. And all it was was the same speech minus, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. Ronald Reagan looked at it and said, well, no. I think I will use the one I have. Thank you. Ronald Reagan made up his mind. He was courageous. He made the decision, not his advisors. That courage, that strength of conviction is what ended the Cold War, brought the Soviet Government down to its knees and said, no, we cannot withstand principled democracy, principled capitalism as Ronald Reagan is presenting to the world, and ended the Cold War without the nuclear holocaust we feared. Ronald Reagan was a hero of America and mankind, all of humankind.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, first and foremost I want to congratulate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for stepping up to the plate at a time when the American people are being hurt and being hurt badly. The fact is, this administration, the Clinton administration, should have acted a year ago and finally it takes us in Congress and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and his leadership to step up to try to do something about this actual theft of money from the American people. What is happening? We are talking about hundreds of dollars being taken out of the pockets of each and every American family by an international, a criminal conspiracy, to control the prices on oil and gas. This was not a covert conspiracy. A year ago, OPEC openly worked, blatantly and openly decided that they were going to cut production in order to bring up prices. Where was the Clinton administration? It is supposed to be watching out for the well-being of our people. This is the worst regressive tax we can have. It is hurting the very poorest and middle-class people in America that can be hurt. This is taking the money out of people's salary; it is taking money out of their pockets that they would spend on food, et cetera. Let us make it clear here, what is happening is OPEC has gotten together in a conspiracy to raise prices. This administration did nothing over a full year and now the prices are going through the roof and the American people are seeing that their standard of living is going down. That is what is happening. Now the bottom line is that makes it even worse, this administration could have done something. Some of these people involved in this conspiracy to raise prices, we are defending them, whether it is Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, friends of ours. We have troops over there right now defending them. And this administration does not use that as leverage to try to get them to treat the American people fairly? This is an insult to the American people that after defending these people they end up taking us to the cleaners; they end up hurting our people; they end up decreasing the standard of living or the well-being of the American people down after we have defended them. That is an insult. It is incompetence on the part of this administration or cowardice that they have not confronted those people in OPEC, used the leverage that we have and said if they are going to abuse the American people we are not going to defend them anymore. Believe me, had we done that we would have gotten their attention. Instead, by the time this gets fixed, there will be billions of dollars being taken out of the pockets of the American people and it is going to hurt some people's lives here. I salute the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for stepping up to the plate. I am just sorry that this administration did not do the same.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, today, as President Clinton began a visit to India, a new act of political violence occurred in Kashmir, as 35 Sikh villagers were rounded up and killed by gunmen. The New York Times reports in the enclosed article that this was the first major attack on the small Sikh community in Kashmir since an insurgency by Kashmiri Muslims against Indian rule began 10 years ago. Sikhs had previously lived peacefully in the only predominantly Muslim area of India. It should be noted that in India, government security forces have been implicated by international human rights organizations in the murders, disappearances and torture of thousands of Sikhs. The village of Chati Singhpura Mattan, 42 miles from Srinagar, is controlled by Kashmiri groups that abandoned the rebellion and were recruited by the Indian army as a counterinsurgency militia force. The Indian government has blamed Islamic radicals controlled by Pakistan for this heinous crime. However, the Indian government's control of this specific area has caused many Sikhs in the United States to believe that the gunmen were agents of the Indian government's Research and Intelligence Wing [RAW] posing as Kashmiri militants. There are more than 700,000 Indian security forces stationed in Kashmir, which has been called the most militarized area of this planet. A fair and impartial investigation by international monitors is necessary to resolve this case and other acts of brutality committed in Kashmir. I have repeatedly advocated that fair elections, free of violence, that would permit the people of Kashmir to determine their own destiny is the best means to end this conflict. In addition, a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir issue would have a significant impact in easing the conflict between India and Pakistan. [From the New York Times, Mar. 21, 2000] 35 Massacred In Sikh Town In Kashmir Srinagar, India, Tuesday, March 21 (AP)--Gunmen rounded up and killed 35 Sikh villagers in the disputed state of Kashmir, the police said today as President Clinton began a visit to India. The massacre on Monday night was the first major attack on the small Sikh community in Kashmir since separatist Muslims started their insurgency 10 years ago. Sikhs are considered a neutral minority, but Indian officials had warned earlier of violence by Muslim militants hoping to draw attention to kashmir during Mr. Clinton's visit. Both India and Pakistan claim the Himalayan territory and have fought two wars over it. The gunmen were not immediately Mr. Clinton arrived in New Delhi, 400 miles to the south, on Monday evening after a visit to Bangladesh. He has said that reducing tensions between India and Pakistan is one of his objective of the trip. Many Kashmiris were hoping that the president's visit would lead to a breakthrough in the long deadlock on the region's future. Mr. Clinton's spokesman, Joe Lockhart, expressed outrage over the killings, saying in a statement that ``out most profound sympathies go out to the victims of this brutal massacre.'' The attackers entered the village of Chati Singhpura Mattan after dark and forced the residents from their homes, police officials said. The assailants separated the men from the women, announcing that they were conducting a ``crackdown.'' Indian security forces operate similarly when searching a neighborhood for militants that they suspect may be hiding there. The gunmen then opened fire on the men, killing 35 of them. One man was critically wounded. Sikhs have lived mostly undisturbed in the Kashmir Valley, the only area in predominantly Hindu India with a Muslim majority. Many run the trucking companies that supply the valley. In the last six months, attacks by the militants have focused on army bases and patrols rather than random terrorism, and have shown a higher degree of training and expertise, senior army officers have said. They said about 3,500 militants were in Kashmir, and many of them had infiltrated the cease-fire line from Pakistan, with the help of the Pakistan army. Pakistan denies giving active aid to the militants. The area of the Sikh village is about 42 miles from Srinagar, Kashmir's summer capital, and is controlled by armed Kashmiri groups that abandoned separatism and were recruited by the Indian army as a counterinsurgency auxiliary force.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, just a few comments on some of the things that we have heard over these last few 5-minute Special Orders. I hope the American people who were listening understand what H-1B Visas are all about. We had several Members come down to the well and talk in glorious terms how important H-1B Visas are and about how we are going to give jobs, 200,000 jobs, to people who are the first string picks from overseas. No, I am sorry, I would like to have 200,000 Americans have those jobs. H-1B Visas is nothing more than a reneging on the promise to the American worker that, when supply and demand means that their wages will go up, that we will, instead, import people from overseas to keep their wages down. We do not need to import people into this country for high-tech jobs. We need to make sure our high-tech industries, which are making a whopping profit right now, spend that profit in training Americans for those jobs rather than giving them to 200,000 Pakistanis or Indians or others who will work for $25,000 a year and taking those jobs away from Americans who would be earning $75,000 a year. So H-1B visas are no gift to the American people. I hope those people listening to the arguments that were just presented understand who is getting ripped off and who is being attacked here and who is being rewarded. Big business is being rewarded so they can keep their wages low, and the American worker is getting shafted with these H-1B visas. Now, as far as human rights, which is something that we heard about today, and the President's visit to the subcontinent, let me just say that this administration has the worst human rights record of any administration in the history of this country. And it will be underscored again when the President visits the subcontinent and also underscored, of course, by the President's ongoing policy towards China. First, let us look at China. The President is now lobbying this body to provide China with permanent WTO status, meaning a membership in the WTO and giving it permanent normal trade relations with the United States of America. Again, a shafting of the American working people in order to grovel before a dictatorship that uses slave labor overseas. Yet Beijing, while the President is lobbying us, saying, oh, this will make the Chinese better and a nicer regime, more hospitable to human rights and democracy, they are in the midst of a campaign designed to eradicate a small religious sect based on yoga and meditation, the Falun Gong sect. They are also in the midst of threats and bluster and arming themselves to the teeth in order to commit forceful action against the little democracy on Taiwan. This, the world's worst human rights abuser and belligerent country is now, what, the country that this President wants us to give permanent normal trade relations to, to make them part of the WTO. Again, an undermining of democracy. When the President goes to the subcontinent, yes, there are a lot of issues to be had. It was a wrong decision on the President's part to visit Pakistan when we had just had a military clique overthrowing a democratic government in Pakistan. That in itself is a horrible message around the world to democracies that are struggling and in societies where the military might be inclined to take over that government. So at least the President should skip Pakistan until they have made a commitment to return to democratic government. Yet that will not happen. And when he goes to India, the President will not, I am sure, mention the problem in Kashmir. Because although my colleagues in the well a few minutes ago ignored that issue, the Indian government is involved with massive human rights abuses in Kashmir. The problem is not terrorism in Kashmir; the problem is the fact that India will not permit the people of Kashmir to have a plebiscite, which was mandated by the United Nations 40 years ago, and give them an alternative to solve their problem through the ballot box as to what country they would like to be part of. Instead, India controls Kashmir with an iron fist. So we have a President ignoring human rights and democracy, visiting Southeast Asia, undermining the very fundamentals that will make this world a better place. It will not be a better place by ignoring Communist Chinese violations of human rights and democracy. It will not be a better place if the President goes to South Asia and ignores the military takeover of a democratic government in Pakistan. And it will not be a better place when the President goes to India and ignores the human rights violations in Kashmir.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, communist China recently issued a so- called ``white paper'' threatening to attack the republic of China on Taiwan, almost immediately after a high level Clinton Administration delegation led by Strobe Talbott visited Beijing. Reportedly, Talbott told the Chinese dictators that President Clinton wanted ``a constructive strategic partnership.'' Through the militant ``white paper'' Beijing stated it would militarily conquer Taiwan if Taiwan's democratically elected leaders refused to meet Beijing's time-table for reunification talks. This is a new condition meant to frighten voters in Taiwan prior to Taiwan's presidential election on March 18. This latest bluster by Beijing is comparable to the 1996 Chinese ``missile test'' in the Taiwan Strait during Taiwan's first democratic Presidential election. Beijing failed to deter Taiwanese voters from electing President Lee Teng-hui. On March 18, the first time in China's 5,000 year history, Taiwanese voters will democratically choose a new president to replace a democratically elected leader. Communist China's threats against Taiwan are deplorable. Taiwan is a vibrant democracy and its people should have every right to elect their new leader without any sort of outside interference. Beijing should recognize the fact that the Chinese people now have two separate governments--one democratic and the other a militant dictatorship. Reunification talks between Beijing and Taipei should be conducted as between two equal entities, allowing both sides to discuss the creation of a new democratic China through the free will of all Chinese people. During this sensitive period, we should make clear to Beijing that the United States Government has zero tolerance for Beijing's bullying gestures toward the brave people of Taiwan. There current actions are sound reason to deny any trade agreements, such as the so called Permanent Normal Trade Relations proposal.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1838. I would like to congratulate the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) for the strong leadership that he has provided us. He has been a stronger leader for peace and stability in the Pacific region than this administration, unfortunately. What the gentleman has been leading is a bipartisan effort on the part of both sides of the aisle to make sure that the Communist regime in Beijing knows full well that we stand by our commitments in the Taiwan Relations Act and we expect Beijing to stand by its commitments to the Taiwan Relations Act. In that agreement, we agreed to provide Taiwan the defensive weapons systems they needed to preserve their security and to maintain stability and peace in the Taiwan Strait. Today, we are restating that unambiguously so that it will be understood by friend and foe alike. Mr. Speaker, this is the way to have peace in that region, to make sure America stands tall, keeps its commitments. Lets people know that we still believe in truth and justice and that as Taiwan moves forward towards its democratic elections, and we have this threatening time period where there are threats from communist China, that the United States is not backing down one bit from its commitments.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) for permitting me to speak in support of the rule; and I appreciate the remarks of my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) who has just finished another of his eloquent presentations before this body, however, a presentation that I must disagree with respectfully. I stand in strong support of this rule and in strong support of the bipartisan Taiwan security enhancement act. I congratulate the House leadership of both parties for bringing this bill to the floor at this critical period while the people of Taiwan and the Republic of China on Taiwan are entering into the final month of their democratic presidential campaign. There should be no doubt that the requirements in this bill to strengthen Taiwan's ability to defend its own people against air and missile attack is essential to maintaining peace and, yes, stability in the Taiwan Straits. It sends an undeniable message to the communist strongmen in Beijing and to our friends throughout the Pacific region that the American people are stalwart in defending democracy and honoring our treaty commitments. With all due respect to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), ambiguity and ambivalence in the face of tyrants does not bring about the result the people would like to achieve. Seeking stability through ambiguity and ambivalence will lead not to stability but, instead, to conflict and war through miscalculation. Stability without regard to moral commitment and to liberty and justice is not a worthy goal and leads in the end to conflict. We must give a specific message, we must not be ambiguous, to the people in Beijing so they will not miscalculate, so they will know what our commitment is and how far they can push us in the free world. This is the way to peace. It is not through ambiguity. Specifically, we are today reaffirming the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979. The Act clearly authorizes the United States or any other country to provide defensive weapon systems to the Republic of China and Taiwan and restricts Beijing from using force against the people of Taiwan. This is a legal understanding. We should not in any way hint to the strong men in Beijing that that understanding and that agreement has been altered or has evolved into something else than what it was whether that agreement was made. That is the way to have peace in the Taiwan Straits and to have stability in the Pacific, let people know we are holding them to their commitments and that we are strong and forceful in demanding our rights under agreements with those that we have made before. The upcoming election in Taiwan marks an historic milestone. It is the first time in a thousand years of recorded Chinese history that a democratically elected Chinese leader, President Lee, will be peacefully handing over power to an elected successor. The upcoming election and post-election periods present a very real danger of intimidation or even violent aggression by the communist regime in Beijing. I recently returned from Taiwan where I visited the political and military leaders there, and I also visited their air national and missile defense centers as well as frontline bases in the Taiwan straits. All the leaders in Taiwan that I met, the military leaders and political leaders, as well as people there who live there and are confronted with this challenge, expressed concern about the potential aggression from the PRC in the upcoming months. The threat from Communist China was underscored during the past few days with new public threats for the use of force against Taiwan by the government in Beijing. I am submitting for the Record a copy of the January 31 report out of Hong Kong detailing exercises to be conducted immediately prior to the election in Taiwan by the People's Liberation Army Missile Command in Fujian Province, directly across from Taiwan. Beijing needs to know that we are standing by the agreement we made with Beijing and that we will ensure Taiwan the defensive systems that we are permitted through that understanding to provide Taiwan. This is what will lead to more peace, not leaving Taiwan vulnerable, not being ambiguous but providing them the missile defense systems and the aircraft defense systems they need to deter aggression and to make a solid statement as this Congress is doing today in this debate that we are not ambiguous and not ambivalent in our commitment to Taiwan's security and the Taiwan Relations Act. Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record: PRC To Stage Anti-Air Military Exercise in Late February (By special correspondent Hsiao Peng) According to Jiang Zemin's requirements outlined at a recent meeting of the Central Leading Group for Taiwan Affairs on ``preparations for both eventualities,'' the People's Liberation Army [PLA] is to stage a large-scale antiair exercise in Fujian in late February. Massive antiair missile forces and various types of warplanes recently have arrived in Fujian. For the first time, a newly established reserve missile brigade will participate in the military exercise. conducting defense exercise to prevent giving us excuse A source pointed out that the mainland will conduct a completely defensive military exercise in the run-up to Taiwan's presidential elections. The antiair live-ammunition exercise involving a large number of antiair missiles and warplanes can put pressure on Taiwan independence forces. Because it is a ``defensive exercise,'' it will not serve as an excuse for the United States and other countries to intervene in the mainland maneuver. The war game also in China's direct military response to Taiwan Vice President Lien Chan's clamor for the development of long-range missiles against the mainland. At the recent meeting of the Central Leading Group for Taiwan Affairs, Jiang Zemin reportedly decided that preparations for both eventualities--peaceful reunification and retaking Taiwan by force--should be taken as the mainland's basic principle on future Taiwan affairs. Meanwhile, the top Chinese leadership has made a clear-cut decision not to allow Taiwan authorities to indefinitely stall the Taiwan issue, and has set a timetable for the settlement of the Taiwan issue. Should new Taiwan leaders refuse to accept the principles of ``one country, two systems and peaceful reunification'' and pursue Taiwan independence by incorporating the ``two-state theory'' into the constitution and the law, the mainland is prepared to use force to resolve the Taiwan issue by means of ``one country, two systems.'' large number of advanced anti-aircraft missiles to be showcased The antiair exercise will involve the live firing of massive advanced PLA antiair missiles in Fujian. In addition to Taiwan warplanes, such as F-16, Ching-kuo, and Mirage 2000 fighters, the military exercise will take US F-117 and B-1 stealth bombers and cruise missiles as the main targets of attack in order to prevent US military intervention in mainland operations against Taiwan. It is understood that since Lien Chan, Liu Taiying, and other senior Taiwan officials threatened to countercheck the mainland, the top mainland leadership has attached great importance to its air defense against Taiwan. To strengthen Fujian's antiair capability against Taiwan, the mainland recently not only has deployed a large number of antiaircraft and ground-to-ground missiles in Fujian, but for the first time it also has established a reserve missile brigade to arm reserve units with various antiaircraft missiles, which have considerably enhanced Fujian's antiair capability. The brigade is Fujian's second air defense reserve unit since its reserves established an antiaircraft artillery division. It also is the first reserve unit armed with missiles. The upcoming military exercise will serve as a warning to Taiwan's arms expansion and is the first military maneuver intended to put pressure on Taiwan in the run-up to its presidential elections this year.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution commending India for having yet another free election which again underscores India's commitment to democracy. Over the last four decades, however, let us recognize that India has not, and I repeat, not been a friend of the United States. During the Cold War, India consistently voted against the United States, consistently condemned everything that they could about the things we were doing while overlooking misdeeds of the Soviet Union. They were, in fact, a friend of Russia and the Soviet Union and not a friend of the United States. However, with that said, the Cold War is over and India's commitment to democracy, as demonstrated by this free election, I think should bring the United States and India closer together in the future. Yes, we should forget any disagreements we had in the past and work on those things that bind us together with this great, huge democracy. I agree with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown). Our businessmen and people of the United States should look to India, this democracy, in terms of investment and in terms of trying to work together economically and politically rather than with the world's worst human rights abuser in China. And so I rise in support of this resolution and hope it draws attention of the American people to the great opportunities that India has to offer now. Let me just say that with the Cold War being over and with us dealing now with a democracy that has reached its hand out as we are trying to reach our hand out in friendship to India, let us also recognize that we share a common threat and it is a threat to world peace as well. The aggressiveness of Communist China is nowhere more felt than in the subcontinent in India. If we are to preserve the peace in the world, let us recognize that while India is moving forward with democracy, Communist China is not, and the expansion of Communist China's military power is a threat to both India and the United States and all free people. Let us recognize democracy counts and applaud India for the election that it just had.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of at least a provision, if not the entire conference report, because I just would like to talk about a provision that I know about and where I have a little bit of expertise, and that has to do with the American patent system. Part of this conference report has a very strong patent reform provision that has been the subject of much debate and hard work in this body for the last 5 years. It is a victory for the American inventor. We have provisions in this bill that protect American inventors from prepublication which was a major issue of contention. It protects the patent term. And it ensures a strong patent system for the money that is going in there. It is going to be kept in the patent system to strengthen it and educate the patent examiners and to make sure that America remains the number one technological power on this planet from the bottom up. There is nothing we can do from the top down when it comes to the great inventiveness of the American people. This bill contains provisions, as I say, which we worked so hard on. A great victory for the American inventors is contained in this conference report.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I have to say, everybody has got a hushed tone tonight remembering George. I do not remember him in hushed tones. This guy was a fellow. He just had so much life about him and there was so much goodness about George Brown and he was right out front on everything. He was certainly my chairman, he was my colleague, and he was a friend. He was chairman of the Committee on Science, and I was on the committee. I am still on that committee. I am now the chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, and every time he would come over once he lost that spot, we would always be happy because he was a treasure house of information. He was an institutional treasure to our committee and we have already felt his loss. Let me note this: that as chairman of the Committee on Science, when he was chairman of the Committee on Science, he exercised his authority as fairly as anyone who has ever served in this body. So although we had some disagreements, he always, always was fair. I do not even remember one incident where I was angry at him because he did not give a Member the right amount of time or tried to cut off debate or short- circuit someone else. Now, we disagreed about things, but he was always right up front. In fact, one of the great things we know about George is that he never apologized about being a liberal. This man was unabashedly, no, he was bashed around for being a liberal I am sure, but he was unapologetic about being someone who believed that government should help people. That was his basic philosophy. Government should help people. It was as simple as that, because George Brown loved people. Mr. Speaker, I am a conservative. I have a little bit more suspicion about government, and that is my philosophy. George respected that. There was no situation where he thought he was above me because he wanted to help people through government and I am suspicious of government. No, he was an honest Democrat as well. He believed in democracy and believed in this system. Again, he treated differences, as we have heard today, with a great sense of humor. With his sense of humor he made this a really nice place and a good decent place to work and added a great deal to the cooperation we have had in this body. Let me just say that being someone of a different philosophy, we ran people against George Brown. Here we are commemorating George Brown. Let us remember those of us on this side of the body ran good candidates against George Brown every time. Marta will certainly, I know, confirm that he had some tough races out there. But guess what? George Brown won every single race. Every time we put somebody up against him, his constituents returned him because as we found out, George Brown was much beloved by his constituents, Republicans and Democrats alike. We had trouble getting the Republicans not to vote for George Brown, they loved him so much. The reason they loved him out there is because he loved them. There was a great deal of goodness and love in George Brown's heart. He was a man of integrity and that could be seen for sure early on in his life. We could see it here. But if one studies George Brown's history early on in his life, he took a stand against the war in Vietnam. He was one of the first ones to recognize what a great threat that was to the body. He did not wait for it to become trendy. He did not wait for it to become some issue where it was going to do him some good. George Brown was out fighting the war in Vietnam long before some of us realized. Some of us on the conservative end of the spectrum say to ourselves perhaps that war went on too long before we realized where it was going and where it was taking America. Perhaps George Brown, who had the goodness and intent of trying to help his country, maybe he had some realizations in his heart. Plus, he was a champion of civil rights early on. And, Mr. Speaker, I will say this as a conservative. Some of us who are suspicious of government have to look at people like George Brown and his early struggles in the civil rights movement and we have to feel a little bit embarrassed that it was an unabashed liberal who was taking care of protecting people's human and civil rights in this country. Some of us should have learned a lot from George Brown in that regard. Finally, let me just say that George Brown, even though we ran candidates against him, never held a grudge. I remember him telling me right down there standing with me, ``Well, you fellows always run somebody against me. And even though Dave Dreier likes me a lot, I know that we are friends, but don't worry. We are going to work all of these things out and we have all of these things we have accomplish together.'' And sure enough, he never held a grudge and we worked so well together. Mr. Speaker, he is going to be missed. I am going to miss him. Everybody else here is going to miss him. He loved us. He loved his constituents. He loved his country. He had a good heart and we loved him. I loved George Brown very much and I am going to miss him very much. My heart goes out to Marta and just condolences to the whole family. And I guess I cannot say much more except all of the great things that he did in the Committee on Science, they are going to go on helping America for a long, long time. A lot of people are going to benefit from those things. They are not going to remember George's name, because in 50 years none of our names are going to be remembered. But he has done a lot of good for this country and certainly those of us who served with him will never forget George Brown.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution and claim control of the time for the opposition.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, first of all let me say I have the utmost respect for the chairman of this committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), who has done a tremendous job in leading our Committee on International Relations. The gentleman has the respect of everyone who deals with him. He has been one of the most fair and thoughtful chairmen of the committee that we have had, and I respectfully disagree with him on this issue, as well as respectfully disagree with my good friend, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), who we have a disagreement, but these type of fundamental disagreements is what democracy is all about. Let me say that 20 years ago when we talked about NATO I was one of NATO's biggest boosters. As a speech writer for Ronald Reagan during the height of the Cold War, I worked to strengthen NATO and worked diligently to see that NATO would remain what it was supposed to be; and it was designed specifically to deter a land attack by the Soviet Union on Western Europe. NATO succeeded brilliantly. It helped stave off that attack until the Soviet Union collapsed in the weight of communism's vile contradictions as well as its own evil. But the Cold War is over. It is time for us to take a fundamental look at what our post-Cold War strategy will be and what is in the best interests of the United States now that the Cold War is over. There are new threats now to world peace, especially in the Pacific, and we have got to re-analyze where our priorities will be. Continuing to spend our limited resources on NATO actually undermines America's ability to deal with the number one threat to world peace, which, as I say, is on the other side of the planet from Europe. Specifically world peace is most greatly threatened now by the aggressiveness of Communist China. If we are to confront this threat to the world, we cannot just spend the money and resources that we have, the limited resources we have, protecting Western Europe against an invasion from the Soviet Union which no longer exists. We are told we must continue this spending of our limited defense dollars on NATO because it provides stability in Europe. Well, let the Europeans provide their own stability. I recently met, along with the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman), the head of the German Bundestag, and, as a matter of fact, he told me that Germany would be spending less, not more, on its defense for at least the next 5 years. Well, why should the Europeans not think, Let the Americans do it? Because we are doing it for them. We are subsidizing the cost for the defense of people and nations who are much richer than we are. Furthermore, our continued commitment to NATO is bound to get us mixed up in more conflicts like Bosnia and Kosovo. With the expansion of NATO, we will start hearing about conflicts like the one in Moldova. Now, we may sympathize with one faction or the other in Moldova, but do we really want to open up the possibility of sending our troops there as part of a NATO peacekeeping operation to ensure the stability of Europe? I do not think so. America has a vital role to play in determining the future of this planet and preserving peace and freedom on this planet. Our task has been, since the Second World War, to take on the biggest threats to democracy and freedom, threats that, if it were not for us, would irreversibly alter the balance of power toward tyranny and militarism. During the Second World War we saved the world from the Nazis and the Japanese militarists. We can be very proud of that. During the Cold War we stood firm against the Soviet Union and Communist expansion. Using our limited resources now for the stability of Europe, or to bring about peace to every troubled spot, to right every wrong, is counterproductive idealism and will weaken our ability to confront the major challenges to peace and freedom on this planet. NATO is the European way of playing we Americans as suckers once again. If we try to do everything for everybody, we will not be able to do anything for anybody. We will not be able to protect our own national security interests in the long run. This is not isolationism. This is a sound policy of an engagement strategy of picking and choosing commitments of where to spend our limited dollars. So, with that, I would ask people to consider seriously whether we should be supporting the expansion of NATO, or even America's current role in NATO. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett). (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Madam Speaker, today we have heard a very useful debate, but it is a very serious debate; and it is especially serious for the next generation of Americans. Where are we going to put our emphasis? Where are we going to put our dollars? Where are we going to put our commitments? NATO costs between $10 billion and $20 billion every year just to be a part of NATO. After 5 years of spending with NATO or 10 years of NATO spending, we could have a missile defense system for the United States of America, but we are giving that up by simply providing $10 billion to $20 billion a year for European stability. This resolution is designed, of course, for the expansion of NATO, and by its very nature will cause fear in Russia and, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) pointed out, is counterproductive, will lead to worse relations with Russia when we should be trying to help the democratic elements in Russia not fear the United States of America. It will leave us weaker in the Pacific. Finally, as this resolution is designed, it is designed to get us into more conflicts like Bosnia, like Kosovo, and perhaps in Africa, perhaps in Moldavia. We do not need to waste our precious resources and risk the lives of our people in these conflicts around the world. That is what this resolution is designed to do. It is a blank check for America's young people to go overseas and to spend our limited defense dollars in a counterproductive way. NATO served its purpose. Let us declare victory in the Cold War and come home and set our new priorities which have more to do with the reality of today than the reality of 20 years ago and 40 years ago. I oppose this resolution.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, every day America is losing one of our most precious resources. This resource provided our country what it needed to overcome the economic calamity of the Great Depression. It was a resource that saved the world from the twin threats of Nazism and Japanese militarism, and then, when that job was done, turn to rebuilding a shattered planet and, when they deserved to let others pick up the load, they then went and took on communism, which for decades loomed as a threat to democratic government and individual rights everywhere. I am, of course, talking about a generation, perhaps the greatest generation, of Americans, which is now passing from the scene. One year ago my father, Donald Rohrabacher, or Lieutenant Colonel USMC retired Don Rohrabacher died. Just a short-term ago, a friend of mine, Bob Smiley, Robert Smiley, Junior, lost his dad. My dad joined the Marines in the Second World War. Robert Smiley, Senior, volunteered for the Navy. Later, my father helped develop the method of dropping the atomic bomb from a fighter bomber that helped change the formula during the Cold War, and helped preserve the peace and preserved America's deterrence. Bob Smiley was instrumental in the Polaris Submarine program, which also deterred war with the Soviet Union. Their technological know-how helped deter war with the Soviet Union until communism collapsed under its own weight, under the weight of its own contradictions and evil. America is losing one thousand of these veterans from World War II from the Saving Private Ryan generation every day. They escorted us to the doorway of a new millennium. As we enter this new era, which will have unimaginable opportunity and prosperity and peace and freedom, let us remember the Robert Smileys and the Don Rohrabachers and the men and women of their generation for the magnificent gift that they have left us. Ours would be a far darker and more frightening world if it was not for them, if it was not for their service and their courage. In the history of America, few generations have carried such a heavy burden for as long as they did, or confronted more monumental challenges, or gave so much. Those truly were great Americans. So let us salute this generation as it marches on. Let us keep faith with them by insisting that America remain true to its ideals of liberty, justice, and democracy. Our greatest tribute to those who saved the world from the Natzis and from the Japanese militarists is to keep America the beacon of hope for the oppressed, to make sure that Old Glory keeps waiving proud and strong over the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this proposal. First of all, I was a cosponsor of the Illegal Immigration Reform Act of 1996, and what we are hearing tonight is a proposal to gut that very important piece of legislation. This should be called the ``open border legislation.'' This is what this vote is all about. This vote, all the horror stories that we have heard tonight about what is going to happen if section 110 is implemented are all conjecture. This is all conjecture. It is one thing to come to the floor of the House and say, vote a certain way based on a horror story of something that's happening, some piece of legislation that's gone astray. It is another thing to come to the floor and conjecture that there is going to be some sort of problem. Let me tell my colleagues what is going to happen if we do eliminate section 110. What is going to happen is millions of people are going to be coming into our country illegally who would not otherwise be able to come into this country. Colleagues, tell me what the horror story is. That is not conjecture. That is, if we take a look at what is going on at the border, what we can predict from what is happening to immigration in this country. I do not know what is happening in my colleagues' States, but in California we have still have a massive flow of illegal immigration that is undermining our education system, taking our health care system apart, our criminal justice system is going down; all of these things because we have a flood of illegal immigrants coming into this country. There is nothing wrong with strengthening our borders and trying to find a technological way of doing it so that we do not disrupt traffic, and that is what 110 says. It simply says let us develop technology so we can control the flow of illegals into our borders, but at the same time try to find a technological answer so it does not disrupt the flow of honest traffic between the countries. What is wrong with that? I will tell my colleagues what is wrong with that. We got a bunch of people in this country for one reason or another who want to have illegals come into this country, perhaps as a profit for the low wages they can pay these people. Let us not vote for a provision that will open our borders to every kind of illegal immigrant, whether it is from Canada or Mexico. Yes, if there are more delays at the Mexican border, all right, let us try to make it efficient at both borders, but for Pete's sake let us not open it up so that those many, many illegal aliens from China that are landing in Canada can just surge down into the United States, and that is what will result if we take 110 out. We are not going to have any hope, we are not going to have any chance of getting control of our borders because we are saying do not even try to find a technological answer to this problem. This is an open border vote, and I would say vote against it. We want to control illegal immigration, not encourage it.