Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), a man who served in Vietnam and a man who represents many military personnel deeply concerned about the security of our country.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I would like to remind the Members exactly what we are debating here. We are debating not whether or not we are ever going to talk to China again. We are not talking about cutting all relations or isolating China. We are talking about whether or not China should continue to have huge tariffs on our products while we let them flood their products into our country with low tariffs on their products while they keep our products out of their country with high tariffs. We are also talking about whether or not our businesses that shut down factories here, whether those businessmen should be able to get taxpayer support, subsidies for their loans in setting up factories over there to use slave labor. Those are the issues we are talking about today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Then I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), a new member of the Committee on International Relations, a strong voice for America's values and American security.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Chair. Is there some notion or plan for a quorum call? So we just finish this debate in the next few minutes, and there will be no quorum call?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), a man who represents tens of thousands of U.S. Marines and their families in his district, and a man who cares deeply about American national security.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the man who has studied this issue and realizes that Japan and Nazi Germany were both very, very developed in their economy, and they also were aggressors and human rights abusers.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), a healer, a doctor, a person concerned about human health and human beings.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about maintaining commercial relations with Communist China. It is about maintaining the current commercial relations with Communist China. This is not about isolating Communist China or disengaging from Communist China. It will not prevent anybody from talking to Communist China. This is not about banning trade with Communist China or ending trade with Communist China. It is about altering the current rules of the game with trade. This is about what? H.J. Res. 57 raises tariffs on Chinese goods as long as they keep their high tariffs and roadblocks to American manufactured products. In other words, it ends the Chinese tariff advantage against our products. What does it also do? It eliminates the subsidies. This resolution, H.J. Res. 57, would end the trading status which eliminates the subsidies. Our resolution eliminates the subsidies and loan guarantees that are now given to U.S. businessmen to close their factories in the United States and set them up in Communist China in order to take advantage of slave labor. Do we really want to subsidize businessmen this way? This resolution ends that practice. Yes, it changes the current rules of the game. Under the current system, under those rules of the game where they can have high tariffs against our products, we let them flood their products into our country, and we subsidize the investment of our businessmen in China, in Communist China, to give jobs to their people and put our people out of work, give them the ability to outcompete us with our technology. Under those rules of the game, we have had a $70 billion trade surplus. What have they done with that? They have used it to modernize their weapons. With that technology that they stole from us, from our missiles, and our weapons systems, they are using that $70 billion to build weapons to aim at us and to threaten American cities and threaten the lives of every American person. Does a government like this deserve normal trade relations? I say no. It is time to change the rules of the game to protect America's interest, America's security.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations and a Member of this body who served in World War II in the Pacific and knows full well the price that we pay as a country for an unrealistic policy towards a militaristic regime. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear about all these agreements Communist China has signed. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Let me again state, this is not about isolating China; this is not about not trading with China. Those arguments are irrelevant. Those arguments are not what this is about. Normal trade relations, by providing this privileged status for Communist China, simply says that if we provide that, and I am saying we should not, and those voting for this resolution are saying we should not, provides that we can subsidize the investment in China by the American taxpayers. If my resolution passes today, people will still be able to trade with China all they want. They can sell all their goods, they can try to set up their factories, but they have to do so at their own risk. The reason the business community is fighting this is because we are then, by taking away normal trade relations with China, taking away their right to get government subsidies when they close factories here and set them up in Communist China. It does not isolate China. People can continue in engagement. We are just not going to subsidize them and subsidize the people who are providing them what they need to build their infrastructure to outcompete us. That makes all the sense in the world. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). (Mr. TRAFICANT 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, as the author of this legislation that we are discussing today, I dedicate this bill to Ginetta Sagan, a champion of human rights, who has inspired me for many, many years. The legislation we are talking about will deny normal trade relations, formerly Most Favored Nation status, to Communist China. This preferential trade status should not be granted to a despotic regime. It should not be granted to regimes that are engaged in aggression, militarism, proliferation, and a systematic abuse of human rights of their own people. I certainly disagree with the last speaker who suggested that the United States of America is in some way morally equivalent to this dastardly, dastardly tyrannical regime, the world's worst human rights abuser. By ignoring the nature of the Communist regime that rules China with an iron hand we are doing no favor to the American people and we are doing no favor to the Chinese people. Mr. Speaker, we will be told time and again during this debate that bestowing this preferential trade status on Communist China will tend to civilize and moderate the gangster-like rulers there. All empirical evidence suggests the opposite. Since Tiananmen Square 10 years ago, which was a massacre of democracy advocates that the Beijing regime still denies, but since then the genocide continues in Tibet and the repression throughout China has escalated. We have just heard today someone say that freedom of religion has never been greater in China. Yet, in fact, in the last few weeks a new generation of victims are being rounded up and brutalized, many disappearing into the Lao Gai prison camps, which are the Chinese version of the Nazi concentration camps, or the gulag system of the former Soviet Union. The latest victims are part of a meditation and exercise movement, a religious minority based purely on Chinese cultural and spiritual traditions. This has grown to some 70 million practitioners, including some members of the Communist party and their families. Yet these innocent people, who have no political agenda, have now joined the Tibetans, the Chinese Muslims, and the Christians, who refused to register in their registered churches, in that they are all becoming enemies of the state. The leaders of this same tyrannical regime that is persecuting these religious people still boasts in their meetings, and it has been quoted in their last meeting just a month ago, that they will ``destroy capitalism.'' I think we can read that the United States of America is who they want to destroy. This is the same regime that is using its annual $70 billion trade surplus, and we are permitting them that trade surplus with our irrational policy that we are talking about today, they are using that to modernize their military. They are building nuclear-armed missiles based solely on American technology, and stolen American technology, missiles that are aimed at the United States and that could incinerate millions of Americans. After 10 years of debating this issue in Congress, as their trade surplus with the United States continues to grow, there is absolutely no sign of moderation or liberalization on the mainland of China. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we will hear that China must be given this preferential trade status because we cannot isolate or refuse to trade with this vast potential market. Glassy-eyed businessmen can overlook any crime, shut their ears to any pleas for mercy in their quest for the China market. Well, China is the market of the future, it always has been, and as long as it is under Communist Chinese rule, it always will be. The Communist rulers are playing Americans as saps. Little Taiwan, with 20 million people, buys more from us than all of mainland China with its 1.2 billion people. So does tiny Singapore. This debate, no matter how the other side may claim otherwise, is not about isolating China or cutting it off from trade. Americans will still be free to trade with China at their own risk. But those are the operative words we are talking about today. They will be trading at their own risk. The reason these powerful business lobbies are pushing for normal trade relations status is that it will permit wealthy financial interests to invest in Communist China with the benefits of subsidies provided by the American taxpayer. In short, American businessmen will be able to close down their factories in the United States, as they have been doing, and they will be able to move them to China with a subsidy by the taxpayers of the United States of America. And that is what this debate is really all about. Because people will still be free to sell their products over in China, no matter what happens in this particular debate. This debate is not about free trade. Obviously, it is about subsidy, as I just said. But if it was truly about free trade, I would be on the other side. I believe in free trade. Free trade between free people. What we have is manipulated trade on their side and free trade on ours. That ends up benefiting the Communist Chinese and their clique that rules that country. It is not free trade; it is just a masking phrase for a totally insane policy that permits huge tariffs on any American product that they are trying to sell into China versus low tariffs on the Chinese goods that are flooding into the United States and putting our people out of work. There has been a short-term profit. Sure, there has been a short-term profit, to a few billionaires in the United States. But it is not in the long-term interest of the American people, who are now in the shadow of Chinese nuclear weapons that are aimed at the United States and our cities. I am asking my colleagues to join me in changing a policy that is out of control and self-destructive. Our current policy is not good for the American people, it is not good for the Chinese people, it is not making peace more likely, and America's technology is flowing to a regime that is very similar to the Japanese militarists of the 1930s. This is simply emboldening. Just like our trade policy did with the Japanese back in the 1920s and 1930s, we are simply emboldening the bully boys in Beijing to continue their repression, their aggression, and their belligerency. This immoral policy of accommodating the Japanese back in the 1920s did not work and did not lead to peace or freedom, and it will not give us peace and freedom in our time. I ask my colleagues to join with me in standing up for democracy, for the economic interests of our people, and for a rational approach to world peace. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, in a few brief minutes this House will consider the issue of what trade policy we shall have towards the Communist regime in China. It is a bipartisan issue. It is an issue in which there are some Republicans on one side and some Republicans on the other; some Democrats on one side, some Democrats on the other. I would ask the American people to pay close attention to the debate that we will have on this issue. This debate will determine whether or not this country is remaining true to its principles as stated by our Founding Fathers; whether or not that is indeed our highest value, that freedom and democracy and human rights remain the highest value for the American people. Mr. Speaker, if we are not committed to those fundamental principles, we will lose in the end, because not only will we not prosper, but our country will be put in jeopardy, our national security will be compromised. This, perhaps, is one of the most important issues that we will discuss this year, and I would hope that the American people pay close attention to the upcoming debate.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Commercial Space Transportation Competitiveness Act of 1999. Last year, the American people learned that two U.S. companies had helped Communist China improve its Long March launch vehicles. And we've all heard about the immediate and long-term impacts this is having on our national security. But this travesty was merely the symptom of a greater challenge. In Communist China, we have a ruthless dictatorship that is using commercial space activities to help its military someday compete with the United States. In America, however, we have a space transportation industry that has grown up as an extension of the government, and therefore hasn't been dynamic enough to meet the launch needs of our vibrant commercial satellite industry. Sadly, these two facts created the circumstances that led to the technology transfers we have learned about. Ever since I entered Congress over a decade ago I have championed the issue of improving America's space transportation capabilities. With leadership and support from colleagues like my late friend George Brown, the Committee on Science has reported, won House passage, and seen enactment of several legislative initiatives over the past decade. The legislation I am introducing today is another significant step towards the goal stated by the Select Committee led by Chris Cox and Norm Dicks; improving U.S. ``space launch capacity and competition.'' The aerospace industry--along with the FAA--has testified before the Space & Aeronautics Subcommittee on ways to improve U.S. launch competitiveness. The message we have heard loud-and-clear is that their top priority is the renewal of the government-industry risk sharing plan known as ``indemnification.'' Mr. Speaker, this bill extends indemnification authority for a full 5 years beyond its scheduled expiration this December. I do wish, however, that we had more time to fully consider this issue. Industry has been signing launch contracts for nearly 3 years that presupposed an automatic renewal. With little time for debate about whether this is the right risk sharing plan for the future, the Science Committee was put in a tough spot that I for one don't want to see repeated in 5 years. So this bill also directs that various government agencies and industry sectors present Congress with the broadest possible range of ideas as to whether and how this risk sharing regime should change in the future. Make no mistake about this: we want to give U.S. industry a stable business environment so they can be more competitive in the international marketplace. However, we also want to start the process now of planning for risk sharing in 2005 and beyond. This legislation authorizes funding through Fiscal Year 2002 for the FAA's Office of the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation. Over the past two years, Patti Grace Smith has dramatically reformed and improved this office. She and her staff have worked hard to keep up with rapid growth in U.S. commercial space transportation, while drafting regulations to help industry move forward into the era of reusable launch vehicles. For these reasons, we have provided this office with a steady increase in funding over the next 3 years. The other non-user agency that works with the commercial space transportation industry is the Office of Space Commercialization (OSC) within the Department of Commerce. Last year the Congress created this office in law, and this bill provides OSC with steady funding but requires the office to lay out more specific programmatic objectives and results so the Congress can judge its progress. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer this legislation to help make America's commercial space transportation industry more competitive. I want to thank Science Committee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner for his help and encouragement in developing this bill. I would also like to thank Chairmen John McCain and Bill Frist in the Senate, and also Senator John Breaux, for actively focusing on commercial space transportation issues. We look forward to joining with them soon to send a mutually agreeable version of this legislation to the White House for the President's signature.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the remarks we have just heard concerning the vote that will be coming up tomorrow on Most Favored Nation status, or as it is now referred to, normal trade relations, with the Communist government of China. Let me just say for the record that this is a bipartisan effort. As we can see tonight, some people on the other side of the aisle have been very active; some people on my side of the aisle have been very active. Perhaps one of the greatest disappointments I have had with this administration is that during President Bush's term in office I was very disappointed in his policies toward Communist China and, in fact, after Tiananmen Square was bitterly disappointed in how we took that and the positions we were taking in response to the massacre of democracy advocates in Tiananmen Square. When George Bush lost the election in 1992 to president elect Clinton, I thought to myself, well, at least here is someone that I will be able to work with on the issue of human rights. Unfortunately, I had bought in to President Clinton's posturing on human rights. And I might add, unfortunately, all of us who have been active in the human rights arena have been disappointed with this administration. I personally feel that this administration has been the most anti-human rights administration in my lifetime, and it certainly has undermined the tough stands made by President Reagan and President Jimmy Carter, and has even superceded George Bush in the area of human rights. For example, in China, this President has decoupled trade negotiations with China in relationship to anything to do with human rights. The administration no longer has that as part of its negotiating position. This President personally decided to make that decoupling. Had a Republican president done that, I imagine people would remember it a great deal more because there would have been a much greater fracas caused by that. But tomorrow we will again address this issue that has been one that has gone on every year since my election to Congress, and tomorrow the House will debate legislation that has been introduced. However, it will be my legislation that will be debated. And that, of course, makes me feel a bit humble. I remember the time when I came into this body 10 years ago when I could not have dreamed of having a piece of my legislation being the focal point of a major day's work of the United States Congress. But I have introduced legislation that will disapprove of the extension of so-called normal trade relations with Communist China, which was previously known as Most Favored Nation status. For the past 10 years, since the massacre of the democracy advocates at Tiananmen Square, and by the way, let us remember that the folks over in Beijing, the same people who have been in charge, the same gang that has been in charge, those people still deny that there was ever a massacre at Tiananmen Square of democracy advocates. But since then, the Congress has undertaken this debate every year, but there has been little change in the repression that is taking place in China. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) outlined that these are the very same arguments that we will hear tomorrow by the advocates of normal trade relations with Communist China. These are the very same arguments that have been offered year after year after year after year. My colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), asked earlier on in his remarks what must happen for these people who come to this floor and suggest that there will be progress made on the human rights front; that there will be a liberalization; that there will be a change in their belligerency; that there will be positive steps taken and recognizable steps taken if we just engage them in this trade policy, what more does China have to do? How much longer will it be before these folks who advocate these positions with all of their heart and with all of their sincerity, how much longer will it take, how much more must China do before they admit they are wrong? They are dead wrong, and it is clear to everyone that they are wrong. I personally could not come and advocate those policies, that I believed perhaps were right, if they had continued over a 10-year period to go in exactly the opposite direction than what my predictions were. I, in fact, would suggest that if tomorrow a revolt broke out in Tibet and that nuclear weapons were dropped by the Communist Chinese Government on Tibet, annihilating hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Tibetans, we would still hear from these folks on the floor of the House of Representatives that if we just continue to engage them in this trade policy, that the policies followed by the government in Beijing are bound to liberalize and that the government in Beijing will become more civilized by their association with us. I believe that they could murder every last christian in China, they could murder every last Tibetan, they could commit genocide against every Muslim out in the far reaches of China, who they are also murdering, they could take every one of the 70 million member group, who are nothing more than a movement of people who believe in meditation and believe in exercise, as is consistent with Chinese tradition, they could murder every one of those people and we would still have on the floor of this House people advocating that we continue on with the same policy year after year after year after year. Well, something is wrong. Something is wrong, and it does not take a rocket scientist to know that something is wrong. It certainly might take a rocket scientist, however, to know exactly how much damage has been done to us that we have discovered in the last year. Because in this last year we have found out that since the last vote on Most Favored Nation status with China the Communist government in Beijing has managed to get their hands on, through theft and other methods, of our most deadly weapons secrets. They now have the ability to produce miniaturized nuclear weapons. They have the ability to produce these weapons of mass destruction. And our own companies are overseas telling them and teaching them how to upgrade their missile capacity and their missile capability so that they can more accurately target American cities with these weapons of mass destruction. Now, it is the theory of those who advocate most-favored-nation status that the world will be a safer place if we have this trade with China. But as we can see, that not only is the world not a safer place as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has pointed out, Communist China is the source of this deadly weapons technology to Korea, to Iran, to other Third World rogue nations, but not only that, not only is the world not a safer place, the United States is not a safer place because of this. Our own country now faces the prospect of our companies who have gone over there to liberalize China and make them more pleasant, make them more consistent with the civilized values of the western world, our own companies have gone over there and they have been corrupted themselves to the point that they have armed our worst potential enemy with weapons that could incinerate tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of American citizens. There is something wrong with this policy. There is something dreadfully wrong. What more needs to be done before people will come on the floor of this House and will admit that that policy does not work? Year after year after year the same arguments, yet the empirical evidence suggests that they are going in the wrong direction. Making matters worse, as China has gone in the wrong direction, as China has kept up its roadblocks to the importation of American goods, kept up its high tariffs, used the surplus that it is generating by its tariffs on our goods and taking advantage of the low tariffs in exporting their goods to the United States, taking the tens of billions of dollars that they have earned and while they are using that money to modernize their weapons, to aim it at the United States, we have an administration that insists on calling Communist China, again the world's worst human rights abuser, is being called our strategic partner. If we do not change our policy towards the world's worst human rights abuser, Americans will pay a woeful price. It will not be just the Tibetans who will be slaughtered but it will be the American people, not just losing their jobs as we have shown in this testimony before us this evening, we have shown how our ability to compete with China and the slave labor prices in China and the slave labor wages in China, our ability has been cut down as we export technology to that country. Yes, we are paying an economic price. The Tibetans are paying a price with their lives as are the Muslims in that country, as are the dissidents in that country. But if we keep up this policy, the American people will pay a woeful price for this irrational, immoral and greed-driven policy that is putting us in grave jeopardy to a country that is controlled by gangsters and despots. The time, Mr. Speaker, has long since passed when the United States should reexamine these fundamental policies toward the Communist dictatorship that rules the mainland of China. Our commercial policies as well as our diplomatic and military policies have for the past decade worked against the interests of our people and has not, as we had hoped, increased the level of freedom enjoyed by the Chinese people. In fact, after some initial progress, China has gone in the opposite direction, as I have just described, especially since the end of the Reagan administration and the tragic national reversal that took place in Tiananmen Square. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) defines insanity as doing more of the same and expecting to get different results. Here I have been describing it tonight. The same policies are being advocated over and over again, but yet these folks ask us to believe that this time around, there are going to be different results. I do not believe there will be different results if we continue this policy with Communist China. I believe our country will just be in more jeopardy and that in the end we will reach a threshold in our economic relationship with China where it causes great economic damage to our country as well as the national security damage, which is already becoming evident. It is at the least unreasonable, perhaps, and what we are talking about at the least is irrational optimism for these people to continue advocating this position. I think that it is up to us to advocate what we believe in, and I certainly respect people with different opinions. But the American people should pay close attention to the debate that is going on here tomorrow. We must understand that since this debate started 10 years ago, the genocide has continued in Tibet, the Chinese democracy movement was wiped out, and there has been an increasing belligerence of the guys who run-- the bully boys, I say, of Beijing--toward the United States, towards Taiwan, towards the Philippines. Now, big business falsely claims that China will be liberalizing through this commercial engagement. As I have said, there is no evidence of that. The evidence goes exactly the opposite direction. China, as we heard from the gentlewoman from California, is exporting its weapons technology to various rogue nations. Let me just add, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, I was shocked to find out that Communist China is aiding the North Koreans in their, quote, space efforts, in their space program. North Korea has a space program? Give me a break. North Korea has a space program? Here we are shipping North Korea hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign aid, our biggest recipient in Asia, and they are spending their money on a space program in which Communist China is taking the technology that they stole from us, or was given to them by our own aerospace firms, illegally, I might add, and they are building these rockets in the name of a space program. How many people who read this Congressional Record or listen tonight on C-SPAN believe that North Korea is really developing these rockets to launch civilian satellites but are not, which we know that probably is the case, that the North Koreans, with the Chinese help, are developing missiles in order to intimidate Japan and intimidate the democratic peoples in the Pacific, and unfortunately also to intimidate the United States because many of these rockets in North Korea and in China, thanks to our own companies, like Hughes and Loral, are now more capable of being more accurate in their targeting of American cities. What we have in our China policy is a catastrophe, a catastrophe for the United States of America in the making. We see this with the money that the Communist Chinese have left over, and as the gentlewoman from California said, what type of normal trade relationship is it when they have barriers to our goods and high tariffs to our goods and we let them ship all of their goods into our country with very little tariff? With the surplus that they have from that, they are in Panama, they are in North Korea, they are modernizing their weapons, they are creating havoc throughout the world and they are putting the world in a position where we could have a catastrophe in which millions of lives are lost and we could face a catastrophe where the United States is put in grave danger. It is in grave danger today. We must change that policy for a number of reasons. Let us go in now to what this means, what the policy is that we are talking about. Why is normal trade relations being proposed, then? Why do we have large financial interests who are pushing for that? If you examine what the trade is, what we have been talking about tonight, not only do we not have free trade, and the proponents will say, ``Well, we're free traders.'' My Republican colleagues will say, ``We're free traders.'' Well, I am sorry that that is not free trade. We are not talking about free trade. There is no such thing as free trade when on one side of the trading partnership you have a country which permits in all of the goods imported from the other country at 3 percent tariffs and with very few restrictions and the other country, Communist China, putting barriers up and controlling who gets to come over and who gets to buy and sell in their market. You have got a controlled economy here and controlled trade on this side and relatively free and open trade over here. That is not a free trade equation. A free trade equation is when you have free trade on both sides. No, this is an equation that is a one-way free trade, one-way controlled trade equation. When you do it that way, you leave the outcome, the results, not to a free expression of the market between the countries but instead you leave it up to some gangsters who run a tyrannical regime in Beijing, you leave it to them as to what will be the results of that trade, because you have permitted them to manipulate it while leaving it somewhat open on our side. This is not about free trade. No, it is about managed trade on the side of the Communist Chinese regime so that they can get the $70 billion surplus and they can channel money and power in China to their clique. We are actually strengthening the dictatorship in Communist China by going along with this nonsense that they talk about of free trade, because it is not free trade. I personally believe in free trade. I would advocate it. It is called free trade between free people. If you do not have free trade between free people, it is a non sequitur, it does not exist, for a one-way free trade is not a free trade equation. But then why are these companies here? If you take a look even to that degree of what we supposedly export to China, once you take a look at what those exports are, you know we have several think tanks in this town that have done studies of this, and I believe it was the Heritage Foundation that did the most extensive study and reported that there is almost no trade going on with China in which American products are manufactured here and sold to the people over there. That is not what is going on. Now you are going to have a lot of people come to this floor tomorrow who will be saying, oh, we have got to take advantage of the China market, we need its jobs for the people of the United States, and we have got to make sure that we do not let other people sell their products there when we should be selling American products. I hope people listen to those arguments because that argument is totally fallacious. What the facts are behind that argument is enough to curl your hair. What is being sold to China are not American products that are being produced in the United States and sold to the Chinese consumers. What is being sold there that makes this trade surplus on the part of the Chinese even worse is what we are selling to them are factories and technology, and we are building their industrial infrastructure so that, as my colleagues know, on our side of the equation what we are selling them is the long-term process and the long-term technology they will need to destroy us economically and militarily and in every other way. We are giving the Communist Chinese tens of billions of dollars, and in our side of the equation our people are making money not on selling commercial items to the Chinese and building their standard of living. We are selling them factories. I come from a very heavy aerospace area, and we sell airplanes to Communist China. But what the companies do not want you to know and do not want to focus on is that the Chinese are insisting if we buy your airplanes, you got to help set up airplane building factories in our country, and over the past 10 years we have set up almost an entire infrastructure in Communist China so that they can come back and put our aerospace workers out of work. Oh, that is only the first layer of this cake. The second layer is: What else is there in this? What are we talking about here when these businessmen go over there and are setting up those factories? The reason they must have normal trade relations or most favored nation status, as we used to call it, is so that they will be eligible for taxpayer subsidies. Now is this free trade? Now I heard the word ``subsidy'' mentioned here. I thought that I am a protectionist, that Rohrabacher and his gang are protectionists, and the other people are free traders. But where does subsidy come into the free trade equation? No, they have to have most favored nation status or normal trade relation status tomorrow, passed tomorrow, so that when a factory owner in the United States wants to close his factory, he will then be eligible if he wants to relocate it in Communist China to take advantage of slave wages over there, no unions, no freedom, no environmental controls. When he wants to do that and put our people out of work, he might need to get a loan. He might need to get a loan. Otherwise he would have to risk his own capital; and, my gosh, when you are doing that in a Communist country, that is a pretty bad risk. Now, if you give him most favored nation status or normal trade relations, he can get a guarantee through the Export-Import Bank or any number of financial institutions that can traced right back to the American taxpayers' pocket, and they will guarantee the loan or they will subsidize the interest rate. We are subsidizing and we are encouraging American businessmen to go to Communist China and build the industrial infrastructure to put our people out of work. That is what we are voting on tomorrow. Now we will be told that, no, we are voting on whether or not we are going to engage China or whether we are going to be able to trade with China. No, no. Let us ask. Everyone who hears that argument tomorrow, ask yourselves if this does not pass, will Americans be free too sell their goods in China? Of course they will. Americans will be able to sell their goods in China just as if they will be able to do it today. Unfortunately, the Chinese have those roadblocks, but the difference will be if an American industrialist wants to set up a plant in China, he is going to have to do so on his own risk. He is going to have to do so using his own money rather than the taxpayers' money. That is the difference. That is what we are voting on tomorrow. No wonder why these powerful interest groups want us to vote for most favored nation status, not normal trade relations. Of course they want to have the taxpayers pick it up, because they do not want to risk their money putting their money into a dictatorship. You know, I will tell you something about the American people. If it was not for the American people, there would not be any freedom on this planet. To the degree there is freedom anywhere on this planet and stability anywhere on this planet it is because guys like who went out to save Private Ryan went out and did it, because the American people believe in freedom and democracy and justice, believe in the type of honest and fair government, believe in democracy, believe in what Thomas Jefferson said, believe that rights belong to everyone. To the degree that we have gone all over the world and we have stood firm for those principles is to the degree freedom has succeeded around the world, and the American people, the American working people, deserve to have somebody watching out for their interests. They do not deserve to have some industrialist who says, oh boy, I can be here in the United States and make my money, and that is all because of the protection of these decent hard-working American people; but I am going to take that for granted, and I am going to go over there to Communist China, and I am going to invest over there because they know over in Communist China without some kind of guarantee their government is so corrupt and so tyrannical, this can be taken away from them, and it is only because of the decency and honor of the American people that we do not have that kind of oppression and instability here in our own country. But who are they hurting when they invest over there? And it is a slap in the face, they are investing over there, and they are using tax dollars from our own working people to guarantee those investments. Something is dreadfully wrong; something is dreadfully wrong. Now I do not deny that there are a lot of people who probably think that they are telling the story as they honestly believe it, and I am sure they must believe it. But how much longer can it go on and keep going in the opposite direction? We have a situation today where this, and this just happened the last 2 weeks. As my colleagues know, we have been told things are getting better in China, and now all of a sudden tens of thousands of people who are just members of sort of a quasi-religious movement that they exercise in the parks. I have seen them. And it is a yoga-type of exercise. It is with Buddhism and Taoism put together, and these people and this movement, they have now been targeted, targeted by the Communist Chinese Party, and they are being arrested by the thousands. Now remember this. We have had people lobbying, lobbying this Congress for this upcoming vote tomorrow, telling us that we should vote for this because it is going to help the Christians, and the Chinese Communists have said one thing. They have said one thing. Anybody can worship God in Communist China as long as you register with the state, sort of like the Nazis said to the Jews. You just have to register. Trust us, you will be okay. And now we have that same regime who Billy Graham and these others have told us we must, as my colleagues know, not deny them this trade status because it will hurt Christians, and all Christians have to do is register. We have had our own religious leaders over there encouraging them to register, to register with the government. On my, my, my. The history in Communist China, you have seen this happen time and again where you have people who are being coaxed out into the open, and then it will followed by repression. Anybody who suggests to a Christian in China or a Muslim in the far- off reaches of China to register with the government is doing a great disservice to our country and a great disservice to those people and a great disservice to the cause of human rights. Our country has to be the champion of human rights and believe in those fundamental values, or we are nothing. Those people themselves, their lives are on the line, and in terms of human rights, we have to have a standard of human rights where people can worship God without having to register and tell the government what faith they are. What has happened now? That argument has been underscored, underscored by this attack on what we call the Falung Gong, which is this movement that is under attack, because even a religious movement based on something that is entirely Chinese in culture is being attacked and brutalized in the worst possible way. Mr. Speaker, there is a real comparison about the days that we live in, and for those people who read history, I think it is time that we should read history about the time of what happened in Asia back in the 1920s. There was another country back in the 1920s who thought, like China, that they were racially superior to all of the others. We had a country back in the 1920s in Asia who thought that they had the right to dominate all of Asia, this huge hunk of Asia; and they felt that they had the will to rule, and they were going to create a prosperity sphere, and everything would be out of one capital and unfortunately at that time it was Tokyo. The Japanese back in the 1920s had the same policies that we now have in Beijing. They had this image that they had history on their side and they had a right to dominate the planet. And the United States had people who wanted to trade with them. In fact, we traded. We sold them scrap metal, just like Lorel and Hughes traded them secrets for how to build their rockets. We had lots of commerce with the Nazis. We had industrialists telling us a lot of the same things about the Nazis, the same thing about the Japanese militarists. In the 1920s and the 1930s we let it go. And the Japanese knew one thing: there was only one country in their way, and it was the United States of America. They knew that, and the Communist Chinese clique that runs that country in Beijing knows that the United States of America is all that stands between them and dominating that region, and some day, mark my words, we will see a Chinese Communist move on central Asia and Kazakhstan and that area. We will see a move toward the north in Siberia and Manchuria. We will see a move to try to dominate the Pacific Basin. We already see that where they are trying to take these islands away from the Philippines, the Spratly Islands, and we will see a move into Southeast Asia. If we just give the Communist Chinese the idea that they can do anything and we will still give them this trade status, they can do anything and we will still call them our strategic partners, we are inviting the very worst elements in China to stay in power and to brutally maintain their control and to move forward with their plans, because we are a bunch of pansies and we are saps, that we will not even protect the interests of our own people. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is time to change that policy before it is too late. We ended up in a war with Japan. We can prevent that with China. We must support the democratic elements in China, and we must not treat China as a democratic country; and we must make our alliances with the people rather than the clique that runs that country. It is up to us. We can make history. We do not have to relive the 1920s and 1930s again. But if we just blithely ignore reality, if we blithely ignore our country being treated in an unequal way and just ignore the fact that they are modernizing their military at our expense and that we come groveling to them with this unfair trading relationship that gives them all of the advantage and puts our own American people at a disadvantage, because who is representing their interests, the Communists that run China will not respect us. They will loathe us, they will treat us like the weak links we are, and we will pay a price. Unfortunately, we are already close to that. So tomorrow I would hope that people pay close attention to the debate, and it will be a spirited debate; and it will determine again the policies of the United States of America, because this is still a democratic country where the rule of law and the will of the people will prevail. It is just that we have to get the people active and involved in these issues.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentlemen from California (Mr. Filner and Mr. Bilbray) for working together on this important piece of legislation. We all live along the coastline of Southern California and this issue of sewage, especially from Mexico going into our waters, is of utmost importance to the health of our people; and both of the gentlemen from California (Mr. Filner and Mr. Bilbray) have put out an enormous effort. They have shown bipartisan spirit. I want to commend both of them, and I appreciate the efforts they have been putting out, especially those of us who do surf in the ocean, recognize the importance of the quality of that water.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, earlier the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) spoke about Pete Conrad whom we laid to rest today in Arlington National Cemetery, an American hero and a member of the team that walked on the Moon, in fact the third man to have walked on the Moon. It was my honor to have represented Mr. Conrad in Congress. In fact, he lived in Huntington Beach, California. I had many, many meetings with Pete. I was very honored to not only know him but I was very, very pleased to have had the guidance that he gave me over the years in dealing with American space policy. Now as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, that advice that he was giving me was of real importance and of real value. Pete was such a wonderful person. It was a sad day, but then again knowing Pete and his spirit, it was a day that we know that the spirit of Pete Conrad lives on. Over the years, I have observed that real heroes do not look like the ones in the movies. John Wayne never risked his life for his country, but he was certainly tall and handsome. No, the real heroes that I have met generally have been short and balding. Jimmy Dolittle was like that. I met Jimmy Dolittle on one occasion. And so was Pete Conrad. If Pete were here today, he would be really embarrassed to hear me compare him to such a courageous and heroic man as Jimmy Dolittle. But that trait of being humble was one of the traits that made Pete Conrad himself such a great man. When you think about it, great people, the great people of our country, just what is Americanism, who are these great Americans that people have thought about? In the past, the personification of the American ideal, perhaps let us say back in the 19th century, one would have to say that the personification of the American ideal was the pioneer or the frontiersman, with perhaps a little bit of cowboy or industrialist thrown in as well. Well, in this century, we need look no further than Pete Conrad, the man whom we laid to rest in Arlington today. Pete Conrad was the quintessential 20th century American hero. It is fitting, then, that Pete was buried today among America's most noble champions in Arlington National Cemetery. Pete's accomplishments in the space program, of course, speak for themselves. He was the third human being to have walked on the Moon. He did an incredible job in front of the whole world as it watched in repairing Skylab. He piloted or commanded four different space flights. Before that, he had a career as a naval officer and, yes, during some of the other space missions, Pete was an intricate part of the team that backed up those people who were flying the missions. I would also like to pay tribute not only to his accomplishments but to those personal qualities that made him much more than a space age technician and a flight jockey. He was a man with enthusiasm for life and adventure. He had wit and optimism. His vision, his humble demeanor, his positive can-do spirit with which he approached every task, every challenge, was something that inspired and energized everyone with whom he worked. His spirit itself was an immeasurable contribution to America's space program. And, yes, his persona became a part of the personalities and the personality of America's space effort. He took his job seriously but never took himself too seriously, which was part of his charm and an example to others. He did not dwell on the past which of course is a trap for both individuals and institutions of great accomplishment. Pete instead, yes, he looked back and he thought about that and he talked about that when he was asked about it, but he was busy laying the foundation for America's next exciting era in space, the era of space commercialization, when space becomes the arena of entrepreneurship, open to all with boundless opportunity rather than the confines of bureaucratic management and government planning. This, too, is the epitome of Americanism. We are a people who want to lead the way, maintaining a fun-loving spirit as we do but making no apologies about wanting to make a profit by doing what is right as well. I chaired the hearing of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics on NASA's 40th birthday, its anniversary. Pete testified, his testimony was superb, or should I say, as Pete would, super. He said, ``It was a crazy time of excitement and adventure and new worlds to explore,'' of the 1960s and 1970s. But Pete said, ``I would like to go on record as saying those days are not half as exciting as the coming age of commercial space.'' That was Pete Conrad, a man who was pointing the way to the future. We laid him to rest today. We are all grateful for the things he did for his country, for the world, and I am grateful tonight to have had the opportunity to speak on his behalf. God bless Pete Conrad and God bless the United States of America.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to at this moment to submit for the Record a testimony that Pete Conrad gave before my subcommittee, and I chair the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics in this House Committee on Science, on October 1, 1998, which was his testimony at the 40th anniversary of NASA. The title of his testimony was ``Life Begins at Forty.'' It is a terrific, terrific vision for the future that Pete outlined his goals for America's space program in the next millennium. Mr. Speaker, I commend my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), for being here tonight. I will have 5 minutes a little bit later on to say my piece, as well. The gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) is just one of many people like myself who have been inspired by Pete Conrad, a man who is not just a great pilot and a great technician but a beautiful human being, a person with an incredible sense of humor. And of course, let me just say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) that when he quoted Pete and his first word when he stepped onto the Moon, I think he had to give a little bit more umph to it. It was ``whoopee!'' And not just ``whoopee,'' because Pete Conrad had a zest for life and was just a fantastic human being. He was a naval pilot who was a very successful naval pilot. Today we buried Pete Conrad in Arlington Cemetery. And as we stood there and as his body was about to be lowered down, a team of naval pilots flew over that site and one pilot peeled off and headed straight for the heavens. And that is Pete heading straight for the heavens. It was a glorious sight. We just thank God for men and women in our military and in the service of our country as astronauts and the rest like Pete Conrad, leading the way for America. NASA 1998: Life Begins at Forty Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Space and Aviation of the House Committee on Science, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, Chairman Charles ``Pete'' Conrad, Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Universal Space Line, Inc., Newport Beach, CA, October 1, 1998 Good afternoon Chairman Rohrabacher, Congressman Gordon, and other honored members of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee. I'd like to thank you for inviting me to speak to the Subcommittee about the future, and the role NASA can play to develop that future. Having been a long time NASA team member on Gemini, Apollo and Skylab, I rode the wave of public support and popularity the U.S. space program engendered through the 1960s and early 1970s. I enjoyed the rare opportunity of being an astronaut for this great country, but the bigger legacy I hope to leave behind is a robust commercial space industry making money for America in the 21st Century. I can't speak for the entire industry, but I would like to speak for my part of it, Universal Space Lines (USL). USL is a small business just over two years old, but already with over fifty employees. Our long-term company goal is to position ourselves as the world's premier provider of affordable commercial space transportation services, including purchase and operation of both expendable and reusable launch vehicles. Our current products range from the commercial tracking and commanding of satellites, to a near term, low cost expendable launch vehicle for small to medium payloads. And Mr. Goldin will be interested to hear we've begun planning for the eventual transition to reusable launch vehicles as their technology matures. Our success will primarily be driven by the growing commercial space sector. Commercial space revenues will exceed $100 billion annually at the turn of this Century, a figure far greater than today's combined NASA and Air Force space budgets. And remember: this new millennium is only 15 months away! As many as a thousand or more new commercial communications satellites will be placed in orbit during the next decade, extending the World Wide Web into the sky. Iridium, Globalstar, Teledesic and others are literally betting tens of billion dollars on the opportunity to cash in on an annual trillion-dollar global communications market. My company and others are gambling we will be a part of the emerging commercial space industry. However, we should not become too sanguine about the power of the word ``commercial.'' Both NASA and the Defense Department will also play a major role, for good or for bad, in the ultimate environment that emerges. In the years ahead my hope is that this Congress will help guide our nation to establish a free and competitive market in which all companies can participate fairly. NASA, if it so chooses, can be a major player helping the transition to a commercially focused profitable space industry. As an example of how our country dealt with a similar issue from our past, I'd like to draw your attention to the early history of commercial aviation. Between the late 1940s and early 1960s, during a post war era of declining budgets, NASA (and its predecessor agency, the NACA) and the Air Force invested in a host of experimental aircraft that opened America's skies to military and commercial aviation. In particular, experimental and military jet aircraft spawned the thriving commercial aviation industry we have inherited today. During those early pivotal years after World War II, visionary leaders in the Air Force and NACA pursued a technology policy of building and flying demonstration hardware; hardware that was build quickly and flown often. These early investments pushed aviation into a thriving, commercially focused and profitable industry. Our challenge today is to ensure the same opportunity is afforded our budding commercial space industry. Just as the success of our aviation industry hinged on the introduction of affordable and reliable aircraft, the commercial space industry can't truly take off without affordable and reliable launch vehicles. Forty Years Hence: Through A Glass Darkly Mr. Chairman, history is a funny thing, full of unexpected discontinuities. So before I try to look forward into the middle of the next Century, I'd like to briefly look back to the middle of this Century. Forty years after the Wright Brothers first flew at Kill Devil Hills, B-17s and B-24s were bombing Germany, and the B- 29 was in initial full scale production. In Germany, the Me- 262, a jet fighter (and probably the finest airplane in the war) was also just entering initial full scale production. So, too, was the A.4 (the V-2)--an honest-to-God war rocket. But we haven't seen the same sort of progress in the forty years since the founding of NASA in 1958. Why? In 1903, people aboard an airplane were called ``aeronauts.'' Forty years later, they were called ``passengers.'' Where are the passenger tickets to space available for purchase today? A second cautionary analogy. USL is a business being run virtually. We depend upon the interconnectivity of the Internet. I have no idea how I would do my job without access to the information resources of the World Wide Web. But the Web only came into existence around 1992--just six years ago! And we're not at all unique--scores of other businesses are also now totally dependent upon the Web's existence. How do you predict the coming of something like the Web? It's roughly equivalent to being able to predict, in 1900, that the coming of the automobile is going to lead to the suburb, or to drive- through fast food stands. . . . I'm a bit reluctant, then, about trying to predict or describe what 2038 might look like. But I can describe what I'd like it to look like. Strategic U.S. Goals In Space For the Next 40 Years The committee has asked, ``What should be the strategic goals of the U.S. in space for the next forty years?'' I think that there are four overarching goals. (1) Foster a commercial space industry. (2) Explore the Solar System. (3) Settle the Solar System. (4) Explore the Universe. For the first time, there now exists a nascent commercial launch services industry. It came slowly into existence during the last part of the 1990s, and it came into existence primarily because, for the first time, NASA didn't try to strangle this new industry in its cradle. The foremost thing a medical doctor learns is ``First, do no harm.'' This prime principle of medicine should also become the foremost policy of the Federal Government with respect to the newborn commercial launch industry. Exploration of the Solar System will be done by robots and by humans. In the case of robots, these missions will be primarily scientific, and could be pursued by the Government, or by academia, or both. Commercial data purchase is one method that either or both could pursue as a means to achieve their exploration goals, and at the same time save money, and again at the same time help to foster a commercial space sector. Exploration by humans will probably be confined to the inner Solar System over the next forty years--i.e., Luna, Mars, and the small bodies (asteroids). These explorations will also be primarily scientific, certainly so in the case of Mars, but in the case of Luna and the asteroids, one can easily see economic rationales. There are thus business cases that can be made and that will be pursued. Settlement of the Solar System may begin with Luna. There's lunar water ice at both poles, making settlements and outposts on Luna tremendously easier to accomplish than might have been otherwise. Lunar water ice, in a phrase, changes everything. One might even speak of a lunar ``Cold Rush. . . .'' The exploration of the Universe is primarily a scientific one, using space-based astronomy facilities. Such work, of course, is done to ``do'' science, but a lot of this science will begin to lay the ground work for the first robotic missions to the near stars, possibly in the 22nd Century. the Single Issue That Must Be addressed But before any of the above can be attempted, much less accomplished, there must be Cheap Access to Space. You need to be able to get to low Earth orbit (``LEO'') easily, frequently, reliably, and cheaply. There is no inherent technical barrier to the creation of such a capability-- ``only'' engineering development need occur for cheap, easy to operate, robust access to low Earth orbit to become available. And as has been pointed out, once you're in LEO, in terms of energy, you're halfway to anywhere else in the Solar System. roles of the federal government The second issue the Subcommittee wished addressed is ``What are the appropriate roles of the federal government in pursuing those goals?'' I would argue that there are four roles for the Federal Government. The first appropriate role is to support and encourage science, both directly funding it as well as helping to encourage and underwrite its accomplishment by the private sector and academia. This also applies to exploration activity, both human and robot. The Government ought to help academia and the private sector explore, through underwriting, partnerships, tax credits, and other such mechanisms. In some rare cases, the Government itself might also mount its own explorations. These were the patterns and methods of exploration employed by Spain and England in the 1500s and 1600s, as well as by the United States in the 1800s. The second appropriate role of the Federal Government in my opinion is to foster long-term, high-risk technology development. The Federal Government should strongly invest in next generation technology, including experimental reusable launch vehicles and military demonstration hardware. The third activity that I feel is appropriate for the Federal Government to pursue is that of the use of space for the defense of the United States. Finally, the Federal Government has, I believe, an important, if not critical, role in the encouragement and incentivization of the growth of the nascent entrepreneurial commercial launch industry. short term policies to accomplish these goals ``What policies and priorities should Congress and the Administration be putting in place in the near term to begin the transition to the future?'' Here are a few of the possible options I think would go a long way in the short term for encouraging and incentivizing the growth of our emerging commercial launch industry. NASA and the Air Force should procure all launch services via competitive bids that are truly open to all companies, not just the largest defense contractors. These ``fly before buy'' launch service contracts must not develop new launch vehicles; instead, they should be structured like the Air Mail ``service'' contracts of the 1930s to encourage private investment. During the next forty years NASA should transition totally out of operating space launch vehicles, or of on-orbit support infrastructure. Space science data should be purchased by NASA in order to help to support science and the development of a commercial space sector. Resupply and support of the International Space Station should be provided commercially by the private sector, so as to also help support the development of a commercial space sector. The International Space Station should also be commercially operated. In parallel, Congress can also pass legislation providing incentives to the commercial space transportation sector. One possibility is investment tax credits to incentivize the creation of launch service providers. Such credits ought to be able to be traded. Other possibilities include interest write-offs, legislated market incentives like ``air-mail,'' and regulatory improvements. All of these incentives can help give birth to a thriving commercial launch industry modeled after today's aviation industry. The one thing we must not do is create a monopoly where a single company controls the ability to launch critical commercial and military assets into space. Guaranteeing government loans or market share for a single company would be catastrophic to the emerging commercial industry. In the future tax credits may also be an appropriate mechanism for helping to encourage long term goals, such as Lunar missions and settlement. A third policy thrust should be to robustly invest in the experimental technology and military demonstration hardware that supports truly low cost space launch vehicles. No technology investment is required for expendable launch vehicles, as the commercial sector is well positioned to develop such vehicles today. Instead, the government should be investing in the longer term, higher risk reusable launch vehicle technologies that promise to reduce launch costs by two orders of magnitude. Mr. Goldin at NASA has already done a good job with his early investments in experimental vehicles, but it's just the first step. NASA's early, but underfunded plan to fly many ``Future-X'' experimental vehicles is an excellent blueprint for the future. In the past, Mr. Goldin has shared his vision of ``blackening the sky with X-vehicles''--not prototypes or commercial vehicles, but pure experimental demonstrators. If we truly want low cost launch vehicles, it will require the flight of many experimental vehicles built by many different companies. The policy goal of flying X-vehicles for technology demonstrations should become the basic way that the government (and NASA) should approach technology development. Build 'em, fly 'em, and break 'em--both by intent and accident, this approach has led to today's thriving commercial aviation industry. In coordination with NASA, DoD should also be investing in their own experimental vehicles and early military demonstration hardware. Either the Air Force or the Navy should develop a Military Spaceplane capability that supports global reach and the ability to defend U.S. interests ``anywhere, anytime,'' with dramatically smaller force structures than exist today. Blue ribbon panel after blue ribbon panel has advocated the need for such technology investments starting with General Moorman's Space Launch Modernization Panel in 1994. Most recently, the Defense Science Board is recommending an ongoing investment in the Space Maneuver Vehicle flight tested at Holloman AFB just last month. Finally, while institutional changes are not necessarily required at NASA, the mindset must change. NASA should be the leading advocate of change and the transition to a primarily commercial space industry. Nonetheless, the real change is up to Congress. NASA, the Administration, and Congress must decide to place funding and budget priorities on the side of change. The Government should be investing in technology, experimental vehicles, and military hardware for the defense of the country. 2038: free people in free space The United States is at a seminal point in our transition to a commercial space industry. If we choose to encourage and incentivize the move towards a commercially based space industry we can accelerate and fundamentally enable America's move into space. We did this once before when America invested in the technology of commercial aviation, and it paid handsome dividends. Now it's time to build the same bridge to the future of commercial space. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to present USL's views. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or any other Members might have.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc amendment to H.R. 2415. I have two provisions included in the en bloc regarding export of U.S. satellite technology, and I am the original cosponsor of a third provision that calls for the United States to support and defend the democratic Republic of China on Taiwan. I congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for his timely provision in support of the Taiwanese allies. My first amendment will strongly improve the State Department's process of approving export licenses for American satellites and related technologies. Last year, the Congress made a bipartisan decision to transfer the licensing of satellite exports from Commerce back to the State Department. Our intention was obvious. We wanted someone to scrutinize proposed exports to potentially threatening countries like Communist China. Instead, the bureaucracy clamped down on everyone, stopping even normal business transactions with friendly nations like Canada and Sweden. The en bloc amendment before us today includes my amendment forcing the State Department to create and properly fund a streamlined export regime which would apply to allies and friendly countries, but which would not be available for Communist China and other hostile powers. I appreciate both the chairman's and the ranking member's acceptance of this amendment as well as the strong support shown by the U.S. aerospace industry. With all of their continued support in conference, I believe we can enact this mandate and funding into law that will serve America's security as well as our economic and commercial interest. My other amendment calls for the State Department to provide the appropriate congressional committee a report in classified and unclassified form on the March 30, 1997 grenade attack on Democrats in Cambodian. In this attack, where 17 Cambodian men, women and children were killed, among the 120 persons wounded was an American citizen named Ron Abney who is a member of the International Republican Institute. Thus, we need to see that report. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for including my provisions in the en bloc amendment.