Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Istook amendment. Last week Congress, all of us, took some stands publicly. Basically Congress was posturing last week. We postured for the public. We let the public know apparently what we believe. This is where we make it real. This is the real vote. This is when we determine what we were sent here to determine, what the future of the United States of America will be, not just posturing, not just saying what we would like it to be. We are here to determine what the actual policy of our country is. This legislation, the base legislation that we are describing, is designed to do what? We are here trying to upgrade the readiness of America's military forces, of our Armed Forces. That is the purpose of this amendment or this legislation. Frankly, if this amendment does not pass, we are striking yet another blow to undermine the readiness of the American military. Throughout the world we will make our country vulnerable. In all these other regions we are depleting those forces in order to fight a battle in the Balkans that has nothing to do with our national security. It is up to us to determine right now whether or not we agree with that policy, that money should be spent in the Balkans when there are threats elsewhere in the world to our national security. The President's threat to veto our efforts if we do not continue to pour money down this rat hole in the Balkans, is an insult to this Congress. For 6 years this President has starved our military, and he has abused those people in our Armed Forces by sending them on all kinds of military missions that were not important to our national security, and in doing so he has brought us to a state of unreadiness. Now if we continue this operation, we will be in jeopardy in Asia, in jeopardy in the Persian Gulf; tens of thousands of American troops in jeopardy because of the President's strategy for these 6 years, and now we are not up to facing this challenge. Mr. Chairman, that is our challenge right now, that is what we are determining. Are we going to upgrade the readiness of our troops, or are we going to give the President a blank check, a blank check to spend what he wants to spend, further deteriorating our readiness in this Balkan campaign that has nothing do with our national security. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), I have respected him for many years, and we worked together on many human rights issues. Mr. Engel offered an alternative that was a good alternative. We need not send American troops all over the world, we need not be the policemen of the world, we need not carry the burden of the Europeans and everyone else in the world. We can arm people like the Kosovars, let them defend themselves. That is what we did in Afghanistan. How would we have voted had President Reagan sent troops into Afghanistan and then said, ``Well, we're already in. We have got to spend even more billions of dollars.'' That would have been an insane policy, and do my colleagues know why? It would have made us vulnerable throughout the world and the Cold War would still be on. Today we have another option, and it is the same option that we should have taken in the beginning. Let us work with those people who want to defend themselves, but let us not be the policemen of the world. Let us not send a signal to the Europeans that after we have defended them for 40 years, and bore the burden of the Cold War. Now we will signal them through this vote, through this vote, that America, that Members of Congress, are going to continue to spend our hard- earned tax dollars, put our people in harm's way for their security. Europe is rich enough, Europe is strong enough to defend themselves. Please do not buy this argument that it is all or nothing, that we have to send our troops in, we have to conduct this air war, we have to spend our tens of billions of dollars or do nothing. That is a false dichotomy. It is false, and it is even worse because not only do we then get ourselves involved in a conflict that we do not need to be involved in, but we deplete those scarce resources that we are trying to replenish today. What is this legislation all about? Why are we here? We are here because we care about the well-being of our military personnel. The Istook amendment is going to make sure that that is what we care about, that is our number one priority, the national security of our country and the well-being and security of our own military personnel. Because if we do not pass the Istook-Burton amendment, or if we do not pass the Rohrabacher-Kucinich amendment which comes on after this, what we are saying is those forces will continue to be depleted because we are giving the President a blank check. I, for one, will not vote for a blank check for this President.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the United States has been blessed in so many ways, and not the least of which is the good sense that our Founding Fathers had in keeping us out of foreign entanglements and military engagements overseas. George Washington threatened us of these foreign entanglements that would drain our Treasury and drain our national will. So it has been written into our Constitution that we have such limitations on foreign commitments. We have not obviously declared war. This administration is unwilling to declare war even though it is clearly written into our Constitution that we need to come to Congress. Now, realizing that during the Cold War we gave certain powers to the executive branch for the security of our country and during this four decades of Cold War we felt we needed to centralize this power and give the President a little more authority. The Cold War is over. What we are engaging in now is a process of evolving back. That is what we are doing this very moment, evolving back the power as defined in our Constitution, what our Founding Fathers wanted us to have, and that is the legislative branch must have a check and a balance to the decisions of the Federal branch when it comes to foreign commitments and military operations, and this is something that is part of our Constitution. We are demanding that the Constitution be followed. We are demanding that the War Powers Act, which of course came about after the Vietnam debacle, the War Powers Act is still part of our law, we demand that that part of the law be followed. Obviously the President of the United States and those people in this body that agree with him do not believe that that part of our law and that part of our Constitution need to be followed. Well, this is what the debate is about. The American people should understand that no one person, as our Founding Fathers so demanded it in writing the Constitution, no one person, whether he be or she be the President of the United States or any other officeholder, should be able to get us into war and cause the deaths of tens of thousands of people. We all must be part of that process. That is what our Constitution is about. That is why I support the efforts of the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) to ensure this type of congressional participation. I rise in support of Mr. Campbell's position on this resolution. Seriously, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Campbell for giving us this opportunity to discuss, through this declaration of war resolution, the legal ramifications of the Balkan conflict. Here in the United States we have been blessed in so many ways, not the least of which was a product of the good sense of our founding fathers and mothers in keeping us out of foreign conflicts and entanglements. George Washington warned of the threat of military alliances that would lead to foreign adventures that would drain our treasury and undermine our national will to meet the serious challenges to our own security. Written into our Constitution are limitations on power and hurdles that must be dealt with in order to engage the United States in war. In World War One and the Second World War we followed those constitutional requirements. During that second great conflagration that engulfed this planet we permitted, for the safety of our country and the cause of peace, power to be centralized in the hands of the executive branch as never before. Then, during the decades of, what John Kennedy described as the twilight struggle, Congress acquiesced and endorsed the policy of a strong executive in order to deal with the dangers of the cold war. My friends and colleagues, the cold war is over. What we do today is part of the process in evolving back to the constitutional system that served our country so well in the past. First and foremost we must reestablish the checks and balances in our federal system, checks and balances that apply to foreign and military commitments as well as domestic policy. There is no doubt that the intent of our Constitution was to assure that one person, whatever his or her office, could not get our country into war. We had revolted against the power of a king to rule. Congress must declare war, or it is illegal for our President or military commanders to spend our treasure and spill the blood of our defenders in fighting a war. Yes, during the cold war, which was an uncommon and unique period in our history, the legal necessity of such declarations of war was intentionally by consensus, overlooked. The frustrations of Korea and Vietnam, perhaps, call into question that strategy. And in the aftermath of Vietnam, the War Powers Act was enacted into law to prevent the very kind of questionable foreign military commitments that we debate today. So in this debate let us as law makers admit that the law is not being followed and that it should be. The Constitutional requirements for conducting war have not been met because the majority of this Congress and more importantly, the President, are unwilling to declare war. The legal requirements to an extended military operation, as mandated by the War Powers Act, have not been met, because this President and his allies, who represent a majority in this Congress, are not concerned with this law. Mr. Speaker, the crisis of the cold war is over and the Constitution and the law, as reflected in the body of the Constitution and in the War Powers Act, should be obeyed. If it cannot be obeyed, it should be changed. As it stands, we are making a mockery of the law, which is evident when the Secretary of State testified at the International Relations Committee. Secretary Albright has to speak in convoluted rhetoric, twisting and turning like a semantical acrobat, in order to prevent a legal case that can be easily made against her. There is something wrong if a Secretary of State cannot speak directly to the congressional body which has the constitutional mandate of overseeing American foreign policy.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, even though I am not opposed to air strikes philosophically in the Balkans as a vehicle to achieving American policy. Unfortunately, the policy of this administration, which includes air strikes, has been confusing and sometimes incoherent. Air strikes as part of a policy that would recognize Kosovo, and part of that policy would be arming the Kosovars to defend themselves, certainly might have been a respectable plan at one point. Instead, this administration is using bombing to force both parties into accepting a plan in which American troops would be garrisoned in the Balkans for years and years to come. This is total nonsense. And we will be spending tens of billions of dollars and putting American lives at stake in order to achieve what? The garrisoning of troops, leaving the troops in the Balkans all of those years? This is a blank check, my colleagues. This resolution is a blank check for an air war which will lead to tens of billions of dollars and American blood being shed. And do my colleagues know where that check is going to be cashed? It will be cashed at the bank that is holding the money for the Social Security Trust Fund. It is going to be cashed at the bank that is supposed to be paying for the defense of our country all over the world. Because we are going to be spending the money, instead of buying ammunition and making sure our defenders are safe overseas, we are going to be wasting that money in the Balkans on big explosions. It is going to make us worse off. We are not going to be as safe. And as far as NATO goes, this is an organization that did its job. Are we now to be the policemen of the world? And because we are part of NATO, to keep an organization going, finding a purpose for it, we are going to spend our money all over the world, send our troops all over the world, in order to create stability wherever there is not stability? American lives are going to be put on the line? This will, in the end, cost American lives. It will break our bank. We will not be able to deter the aggression in Asia and from China and elsewhere where there are serious threats. Oppose this resolution.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, what we have to understand in debating this is there is a false dichotomy that is being presented. And the American people can understand that. The option is not doing nothing or sending in our U.S. troops to do the fighting. That is not the option. The American people need no longer bear the burden for maintaining stability throughout the world, especially in Europe's backyard. Our forces right now are flying 9 out of 10 combat missions, and we Americans are paying two-thirds of the cost. We have done our part in this conflict already. If the Balkans are so important, let the Europeans step forward and finish the job. Let them deploy their troops if they think it is so important. This operation has been confused since its inception. The Kosovars were willing to fight for their own freedom, for their own stability, for the protection of their families. Helping them do this would have cost us a pittance compared to the tens of billions of dollars this will drain from our coffers. There goes Social Security reform. There goes our surplus. No, America need not bear this burden itself. People are willing to fight for themselves. Other people can pick up the cost and meet the responsibilities. We can be the arsenal of democracy, yes, and help others. But we cannot be the policemen of the world or it will break our banks and put us in jeopardy in other places in the world

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and all those who have put a lot of hard work and effort into this piece of legislation. I especially want to tip my hat to the gentleman from California (Mr. Brian Bilbray). Before Brian got here, I was the best surfer in the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, Brian was elected, and seeing that there is another surfer, he is the best surfer in the House, even though sometimes he is a wave hog. Let me say this, that this bill is a terrific piece of legislation. The gentleman has put a lot of effort into it. There are some conservatives with a few apprehensions, and the fact is that we do believe that the States should play a major role. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Sherry Boehlert) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Brian Bilbray) have made sure that this bill represents a cooperation with the States, and not a domination of the States by the Federal Government. The oceans, both as a recreational resource and an economic resource, are perhaps the most valuable asset we have in the United States of America. We have scuba diving, we have people like the gentleman from California (Mr. Brian Bilbray) and myself who do a lot of surfing in the ocean, and we also have fishing and other recreational uses that add a tremendous value and are a tremendous asset to our people. I am very pleased that this bill is the very first time where surfing is actually identified as a federally-recognized recreational activity. Whether when you are a surfer or a scuba diver, which I am also a scuba diver, but when one is in the ocean, one is experiencing one of God's most awesome gifts to humankind. It is a living force, and it is also in itself an entity of tremendous power and energy. Those of us who surf and use the ocean know this, and it is like skiing on a mountain, except the mountain is going right with you. It is this tremendous, awesome power that you are with. The ocean represents this to all of humankind, this potential. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for us to realize that this bill, H.R. 999, is officially recognizing the ocean and recognizing this asset as a valuable asset in which we all in the States and in local communities and in the Federal Government will cooperate with in order to maintain this asset, and make sure it is available to those of us who use it. So many millions of Americans use this asset. Let us also remember when we talk about the ocean, our bodies are made out of water. God made human bodies out of water, just like he made the world mainly out of water, so we are caretakers for God's gift. Finally, my colleagues who have any thought of opposing this bill should know and be advised that if the amendment fails, the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) and I will double the number of surfing videos that are played in the Congressional Gym.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, today I am submitting to Congress what I believe will be an historic piece of legislation. It is entitled The Employee Ownership Act of 1999. This legislation, I predict, will be as significant to the American people as the homeowner's mortgage deduction, which has ensured the widespread ownership of homes throughout the United States of America. In fact, 60 percent of the American people own their own homes, and this can be traced to the fact that we have written our tax law in a way that encourages widespread ownership of housing and homes in the United States. The goal of my bill is that after 10 years, 30 percent of all of America's major corporations will be owned and controlled by their own employees. Now, I know that sounds a bit radical. That sounds like a big change, but we have had a great deal of employee ownership expansion over these last 20 years. This bill, under the guise of ESOPS, Employee Stock Ownership Plans, what I am proposing is an ESOP-plus-plus idea that would increase employee ownership throughout this country. This bill will bring about a new category of American business, the Employee Owned and Controlled Corporation, EOCC. These new corporate structures would be modeled somewhat after United Airlines. As we know, the employees at United Airlines bought a controlling interest in their own corporation and now make many of the decisions that affect United Airlines and thus affect the employees. In fact, the legislation I am proposing would establish an employee trust that when it owns 50 percent of the shares of a company will be entitled to substantial tax incentives that will encourage the growth of employee ownership and ensure the success of this new employee owned and controlled company. Some of the tax incentives suggested by my legislation: Number one, if someone sells stock in a company to an employee trust or to the employee who is part of the trust, that person shall pay no capital gains on the sale of that stock. Thus, someone is given the incentive to sell the stock to an employee. Employees who accept stock as part of their pay during the creation of an employee owned trust, that if they accept it in lieu of their pay, they will not have to pay income tax on that stock. Of course, corporations have a right not to be a part of an employee trust and there are many corporations who will not participate in this or employees who will not be part of this, but if, for example, an employer or anyone else who owns stock in a company, which is establishing an employee trust, if they sell their stock or, let us say, they give their stock to an employee trust as part of a bequeathal situation, where someone is leaving that in their will to the employee trust, then it decreases the inheritance liability on their estate by a one-to-one ratio. So if someone left a million dollars in their will to an employee trust of stock in that company, well, then the inheritance liability to their heirs would be reduced by that one million dollars. The goal of this, of course, is to expand employee ownership. In the end, if we have established these employee owned and controlled companies, they will, by my legislation, not pay corporate income tax. This will provide a major incentive for Wall Street to work with the working people of this country to empower them in a way that they will be able to control their own economic destiny as never before. This would be the equivalent of the Homestead Act. Many people forget that the Republican Party was the party of the Homestead Act. In 1862 when Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, that same day he signed the Homestead Act, which opened up the idea of ownership of property to millions of people. It was essentially an important part of the American dream. What we are trying to do now is expand upon that, expand on the home mortgage deduction, expand on the Homestead Act, expand on the idea that people have a right to own their own home but they also should have an incentive in the tax system to own and control their own company. Thus, they will control their own economic destiny. This is the ultimate empowerment. This will increase productivity. It will see that there are no strikes because people would be striking against themselves, their own company or at least they would be more willing to talk out problems within a company.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution and I support our troops. And that is what this resolution is about. But a greater support for us would be to insist that before we send our troops into action, as they are today, that there be a reasonable and understood long-term game plan in place prior to sending these young people, our young defenders, off to fight so far from home and in a cause that has little to do with our national security. Yes, we support our troops, but let us all together also send this message to the people of the world. We are not going to send our troops all over the world and garrison the rest of this planet for the stability of the rest of the world. Let Europeans, for example, provide the troops necessary for the stability that they need in their own backyard. Yes, there is a case that there is Serbian genocide that is taking place. The Serbs are committing genocide against these Kosovars as they did against the Bosnians in their attacks against the Slovenians and the Croatians under the dictatorship of Milosevic and it is intolerable. We recognize the Kosovars and their right for self- determination and independence. Yet we do not have the courage to lay the diplomatic foundation for a long-term solution before we order our troops into harm's way. Something is terribly wrong here. We should not be the policeman of the world. Our troops, they deserve to be applauded which we are doing, but we should not accede and tell the world that they have a blank check on the use of our troops to create their stability for them. Four years ago and $10 billion ago, we were told that sending our troops to Bosnia would be a 1-year operation and $2 billion in cost. They are still there. This vote tonight is done to applaud our troops, but it is not a blank check. It is a message of support for our troops.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly support this resolution and to send a message that public officials making anti- Semitic statements, whether it is in Russia or anywhere else, is unacceptable and it is something that we are noting here in the United States and we will take action on these types of violations. We do not take public expressions of anti-Semitism, of hatemongering of this kind, lightly. Anti-Semitism, as all ethnic-based hatred, is an ugly threat that cannot be ignored, and if we ignore it, we do so to our own jeopardy. The fact is, anti-Semitism and this type of hate rhetoric has gotten out of hand in the past and it could get out of hand in the future if in any way the civilized world refuses to take the actions that are necessary to make sure that we quarantine it, that we eliminate it, and that we condemn it with all of our strength. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for providing leadership on this issue. These type of strong messages are heard. For the record, let me say a strong message certainly is important, but for the record I believe that we should warn Russia and others that we will not deal with those racist and anti-Semitic officials in Russia or anywhere else. For the record, I would suggest that the American ambassador should warn those public officials concerned that if those anti-Semitic statements do not end, there will be some action taken by the United States, and that if they repeat these anti-Semitic statements, perhaps the American ambassador should act to ensure that these public officials not receive any visas to the United States. I will put this on the record, that if indeed we hear more anti-Semitic statements coming out of public officials in Russia, or, I might add, anywhere else in the world, I will be happy to work with the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from California to put in a law that requires our ambassadors to deny visas to anyone who has made an anti-Semitic statement after being warned that it is unacceptable. The good people of Russia will be strengthened by our message today. We need to make sure that those good people know that we are not blaming them and that we want to work with them to make sure that the evil elements in their society do not get the upper hand. There is a good way to determine who an evil element is in a society. Certainly it is easy to tell when you see those are the people who are making anti- Semitic and racist and hate-filled remarks and trying to build animosity from one group to another based on their race, their religion or their ethnic background. If Russia is to be part of the civilized world, then anti-Semitism cannot be part of the public officials' dialog in that country. If Russia wants to be part of the western democracies and wants to build their country into an economic partner with the rest of the world, wants us to cooperate with them, they have got to earn our respect. We in this country do not respect anyone that permits this type of hatred to be uttered by public officials. With that said, I stand in strong support of this resolution and add my voice to those of the gentleman from California and the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for adding his prestige to this important resolution, and I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), of course, for taking the lead in the sponsorship role and in expediting today's markup. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), of course, for his longtime support of human rights everywhere, but especially here concerning the Taiwan Relations Act and our confrontation with China on these very important and all-important human rights issues. House Concurrent Resolution 56, commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act, was originally introduced in the Senate by Senator Frank Murkowski and by myself in the House as House Concurrent Resolution 53, to send an unmistakable message from the United States Congress to the people of democratic Taiwan. The bipartisan cosponsorship also sends a strong message to the communist Chinese that Congress is unified in its stand to steadfastly stand by our democratic allies in Taiwan under the carefully crafted terms of the Taiwan Relations Act. In recent years the balance of power in the Taiwan Strait has been altered by the unprecedented military modernization and missile buildup by the communist Chinese, who continue to threaten to take over Taiwan by force despite the fact that the Taiwan Relations Act commits them not to commit that act of force and violence in order to reunify Taiwan with the mainland. This resolution calls for the United States to continue to provide adequate defense materials and support to Taiwan in order to assure that the future of Taiwan is determined by peaceful and democratic means. This is totally consistent with the letter and the spirit of the Taiwan Relations Act which, of course, was brought about 20 years ago today. In effect, the resolution supports the cost of a cross-strait dialogue negotiating position of Taiwan President Lee that in order for a peaceful reunification to occur, Beijing must stop its threats of force and must implement real democratic government in mainland China. This House Resolution does not explicitly state the need for Taiwan to be included in a regional missile defense system. However, due to the communists' growing missile arsenal, the inclusion of Taiwan in regional defense forums and in missile defense programs I believe is essential. Having been in Taiwan during the recent legislative elections, I observed the enthusiastic participation of the majority of people in Taiwan in the democratic process. There should be no mistake, whether in the United States or in China, that we value the friendship of the courageous, democracy-loving people in Taiwan and, yes, those democracy-loving people on the mainland of China as well. We are committed to standing by them, and no matter what the bluster and bully of the communist regime that now controls the mainland, we will now stay true to these principles as were laid out in the Taiwan Relations Act. The Taiwan Relations Act laid the foundation for peace and set in motion at the same time, 20 years ago, a democratization process. In Taiwan that democratization resulted in what even its former critics agree is now a full-fledged Western style democracy. This is a magnificent accomplishment for the people of Taiwan and something that we tip our hats to as well today. Unfortunately, on the mainland of China there seems to have been a backsliding in just the opposite direction. Since the Tiananmen Square massacre of China's democratic movement, the mainland has retrogressed and has slid deeper and deeper into repression, militarization and belligerence. The communists in Beijing have tried to sabotage the Taiwan Relations Act which, as I say, was the foundation laid for peace and democratization, and they tried to sabotage it through subtle changes, subtly implying that this does not apply any longer to the Taiwan Relations Act, and in some cases with some language that is just out and out confrontational, saying that the Taiwan Relations Act does not apply. We are putting the communist Chinese on notice today that the Taiwan Relations Act has brought peace, has brought stability to that area of the world, and we expect it to be followed to the letter. We will not see it changed subtly, we will not see it changed through confrontation, and any attempts to change the Taiwan Relations Act without another consultation agreement with all parties is considered an act of belligerency against the United States and an aggression upon the cause of peace in that part of the world. We hope that by reaffirming this 20th anniversary, that we can step forward again with peace for another 20 years and hopefully a new democratization process that will include all of China.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, national missile defense is essential, especially after the Communist Chinese have availed themselves of America's most deadly nuclear weapons secrets and, of course, upgraded their rockets with American technology. Yet this administration still labels the Communist Chinese as our strategic partners and continues its closely held policy, its plan, for extensive military exchanges with Communist China. Even after their espionage ring was at long last revealed, the Peoples's Liberation Army delegation is still scheduled to go to Sandia nuclear weapons laboratory. Despite the opposition of the United States Army, a Chinese military delegation will observe their training exercises of the 3rd Infantry Division and the 82nd Airborne Division. The Communist Chinese are engaged in an unprecedented modernization of their military and a missile buildup. There are those who would leave us defenseless to the Communist Chinese and turn a blind eye to this threat. This administration cannot be trusted to protect the United States. We must act and do it here in Congress.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let us debate this issue honestly, Mr. Chairman. What are the parameters? Are we going to send troops everywhere where genocide is committed? No, that is obviously not the case. Why then do we determine the Balkans is the case, when in Africa and other places around the world surely tens of thousands of people are dying in a similar fashion? No, in the Balkans, actually this should be the job of the Europeans. We are told, ``They won't do it.'' It is their job now that the Cold War is over. The United States of America shouldered its share of the burden for stability in the whole world in this century. In the First World War we went to Europe to save them. In the Second World War we fought the Japanese and the Nazis, and in the last four decades we have had to carry the burden of the Cold War. Yet we carried that and we carried it to victory and the world has a better chance for peace today. But it will not be a peace where Americans have to continue garrisoning the entire planet for the sake of stability. We must set the parameters or we will lose the peace because we have not been willing to meet the challenges that we can face. I ask for support for the Fowler amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to sending America's young defenders to Kosovo. We are being asked to deploy our troops yet again, eroding our overall strength even as new threats are becoming evident in Asia. Our military is being stretched so thin we are putting them at grave risk. Unlike what is happening in the Balkans, there are other national security threats to our country. By dissipating our limited resources, asking our military for yet more sacrifice, we are doing a horrible disservice to our country and to its defenders. I have no doubt that the people of Kosovo have a right to their self- determination, just as the people in Slovenia had a right to their self-determination, in Croatia, in Macedonia, and in Bosnia. Yes, we were given an option then, do nothing or send in the troops. We could have then provided the support necessary for those people to fight for their own independence, but instead, we held off, and then it was just send in the American troops. But the people of Kosovo, just like the people in Croatia, are willing to fight for their own freedom. We are being told, it is either send troops or do nothing. That is nonsense. If we are too timid to even recognize that the people of Kosovo, 90 percent of whom want their independence, they are Muslims, Albanians, who do not want to be under the heel of oppression of the Serbs, if we cannot at least recognize their independence, if we are too timid to do that, how can we ask our own military to jump in the middle of that cauldron? There is no peace plan. There is no peace plan at all. Our troops will end up either being the police force of the Serbians, or we will end up fighting the battle that the people of Kosovo are willing to fight for themselves. We have been promised things before in the Balkans. We have been promised, the last time we have sent our troops, that it would take 1 year and $2 billion. That was 5 years and $12 billion ago. That dissipation of our money, that stretching our troop strength so wide that it is about to break, is causing great damage to our national security. The Balkans is not in America's national security interest. We can talk about NATO in nostalgic terms all we want. The job of NATO was done when the Soviet Union split apart. It is not our job now, because at that time it was in our national security interest. Now it is not in our interest to send our young people all over the world, trying to be the police force of the world in a way that it weakens us as a Nation, so when there are threats to us from China or from elsewhere, or in Korea, that we will be unable to act, and that perhaps thousands of American lives will be lost in situations like that. Let us support the people of Kosovo's right to self-determination. Let us give them the weapons they need to do their own fight, and not have American lives at stake.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. The gentleman from Wisconsin just noted that he had visited our troops in Bosnia, and it has been noted here in Bosnia there have not been any casualties. Let me say I have visited troops in the last few months as well and American troops are stretched thin throughout the world, whether it is in the Persian Gulf or whether it is in Asia. We have a situation where thousands of American military personnel lives are on the line. They are being put in jeopardy because we do not know how to say no. We do not know how to lay or to set the parameters. Has our involvement in the Balkans so far been worth the $12 billion that we have spent and the stretching out of our military forces? Yes, we have been lucky that there has not been a major crisis. But had there been a major crisis during this time period, yes, we can be proud of those military guys that were there, and they have done a good job, but the fact is that $12 billion that we have spent, and stretching our forces in that way, could have resulted in a catastrophe. We are talking about the loss of thousands of American lives. But we have been lucky. We have been very lucky. I do not think we can try this again. We were told that the Bosnia operation was going to be 1 year and $2 billion, and it has been 5 years and $12 billion and counting. And this peace accord, the one we are being asked to support now, the plans are not even down yet. Do any of us doubt this is going to cost more than $2 billion? Do any of us doubt that 3-year time period? They do not even have a plan yet that encompasses something that the Kosovars themselves, not to mention Milosevic, could accept? No, this will go on and on, and we will spend tens of billions of dollars in the Balkans. Our people around the world, who are putting their lives on the line for us, will be put in great jeopardy because we did not have the courage to say that, in the post-Cold War world, maintaining stability in Europe is the job of the Europeans. And while we tip our hat to NATO and say they did a good job during the Cold War, and thank God NATO was there because it prevented the Russians from sweeping across Western Europe and creating a war, that the job of NATO has been done, thank God, our hats off to NATO, but through some nostalgic attachment to NATO that we are going to commit our treasury and the lives of our young people to maintaining stability for Europe, and in the far stretches of Eastern Europe at that, is ridiculous and we are not standing by the people we need to stand by. First and foremost we need to make sure that if we send our military out, we give them the weapons they need, we give them the support they need or we do not send them. We are doing that throughout the world today because we are stretching ourselves too thin. This has been an historic debate and I am proud tonight to rise in support of the Fowler amendment and opposed to any new deployment of troops in the Balkans. This is an historic debate. We can be proud of this debate. There have been high points, but there have been some low points. Let me first say what the low point is. The low point to me is that there have been some suggestions here by Members, and I do not know what it is by this body but some people cannot disagree without trying to impugn the motives of those who disagree with them. Any suggestion that those of us who are opposing yet another deployment of American troops in the Balkans, that we are in some way politically motivated, that we are just doing this to attack the President or something, that argument is not fit for this debate, this great historic debate where we are trying to define what America's role will be in the post Cold War world. There are conservatives and liberals, there are Democrats and Republicans on both sides of this issue. We will see that when the vote comes, because we are trying to define what our country will stand for and what we will do in the years ahead. During the Cold War it was easy. We had Ronald Reagan defining everything for us, it polarized everybody, everybody knew what the arguments were, where we were going to stand. Well, it is not that way anymore. It is fitting that now when we are outside of a Cold War setting that the power comes back to us, the elected representatives of the people of the United States to determine what our policies will be. I say yes, there is genocide all over the world, and we have heard these accounts. I am the first one to admit that the Serbians are engaged in genocide and atrocities. And yes, there have been genocide and atrocities on both sides. However, they are the bad guys.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would that be considered coverup?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico. Introduction of Radiation Exposure Compensation Improvement Act of 1999

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me reclaim my time so we know the administration will try to fuzzy this issue by claiming that some of these thefts that we are talking about started during the Reagan years. And let me be very specific when they were making this attempt to cloud this issue. During Ronald Reagan's term of office I was working in the White House. During that time period there was a strong democracy movement building in Communist China, and, yes, we cooperated with the Communist Chinese in order to split them away from the Russians, a tactic that ended the Cold War. But at the same time we pushed for democracy. We did not give meaningless platitudes to requests for democracy and human rights, and there was a thriving democracy movement that we thought could well take over China. We thought it was irreversible at the time, and it was not until the massacre at Tiananmen Square that that optimism should have been reversed. The fact is that we could well have had a democratic country in China by now, but what happened was during those years some of this information the communists were able to steal from us but we realized that the government itself in China may be undermined by the democratic movement there. There was an excuse for having looser controls at a time when communist China was becoming more democratic. After Tiananmen Square, when they massacred the human rights workers and the democratic movement, there is no excuse as the country, as communist China, slid further into militarism, into tyranny and into hostile positions to the United States of America. So, thus, during the Reagan years, yes, some problems happened, but during the Clinton years, when there was no excuse whatsoever because the democracy movement had been annihilated and in fact the human rights report last year of the Clinton administration noted that there has been a substantial decline in human rights even from last year, which was already on the way down, that there was no excuse for this administration to try to cover up the wrongdoing of that regime and no excuse for them to cover up the threat that that regime was putting itself in to threaten our well-being and our security by upgrading their own military capabilities, especially in their weapons of mass destruction. So I would hope that my colleagues and the American people are not confused, intentionally confused, by this administration in an attempt to shuck the responsibility and to throw off the responsibility. For the fact that our country has been put in terrible jeopardy, at a time when they knew the facts, when China was becoming more totalitarian, when they had been briefed on this threat, they continued to belittle those of us who were calling attention and sounding the alarm.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time for a moment, that was clearly a veiled threat, if not an unveiled threat, and what was it made over? Why were they threatening us? They were threatening us because we were standing between them and intimidating the people on Taiwan not to hold free elections. They were involved with an act of aggression upon people who were trying to conduct a free election. So now we have in the United States, we have a government that has declared the Communist Chinese our strategic partners and continue to do so even after they have made threats to blow up Los Angeles, even after they have conducted aggression in the Spratly Islands and in the South China Sea against the democratic countries and with the knowledge, as we know now from this New York Times report, that the Communist Chinese were in the midst of obtaining sensitive atomic secrets that we had paid for to build their own nuclear weapons and that we and American aerospace companies with the acquiescence of this administration had been, as my colleagues know, upgrading Communist Chinese rockets' reliability, and their effectiveness and their capabilities. What message are we sending to the Communist Chinese, what message are we sending to our democratic allies? No wonder why the Chinese are becoming more aggressive and disdain the Clinton administration when the Clinton administration tries to warn them about anything. There is nothing that that administration can say that will be taken seriously by these militarists in Beijing when they know that our administration knows about these vile acts and these threats against us.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It is beyond belief that we have a report by the Cox Select Committee into this ongoing systematic espionage by the Communist Chinese as well as the transfer of technology over the recent years and that that report, the Communist Chinese know what they got from us, our government now knows what they got from us. The only people who do not know are the American people. And during this time period, as I say, while the American people are being kept in the dark about something that is threatening the lives of their children, and their families, and their communities, this administration continues to call the Communist Chinese our strategic partners. This is beyond, as I say, beyond comprehension. Then by the way, even after the White House was alerted to the scope and the magnitude of the Chinese nuclear weapons build up and the transfer and the theft of American technology, the White House continued its efforts to loosen the controls of the sale and the other forms of transfer of dual-use weapons technology from American corporations to Communist China. Just the other day we had a major vote in the Committee on International Relations on this issue, and the administration was proposing what I considered a loophole, and a way for getting more weapons technology. Indeed there was civilian applications for these technologies, but they were clearly weapons-related technologies as well, setting up some sort of a loophole for them to get into China. And last summer, when President Clinton was in Beijing meeting with Communist Chinese, the Chinese military successfully tested. While he was in Beijing, they tested the first time a motor for their new DF-31 missile, a missile that will enable them to hit the United States with a nuclear attack from the mainland of China. This happened while the President was there. The President was alerted to this, and yet there was no indication that he raised this issue with his hosts. What are the Communist Chinese to think? We give them these platitudes about human rights, and then we have nothing to back it up, there is no action at all taken to back it up, that we insist on a change in their policy. They must mean we do not believe in that. And then we are there at a time when the President of the United States is there with them, they are conducting a weapons test, making a mockery of his visit, and the President does not have the courage to bring this up? No wonder they hold us in disdain. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. To amplify, if I may reclaim for a moment, on that point, and again this is a little bit too horrifying for Americans to comprehend. I mean this is one of those facts that we like not even to think about. We want to turn off the TV and pretend it does not exist. But the fact is that during the last election the top contributor to the President's reelection effort was Bernie Schwartz, who was the head of Loral Corporation, and we now have ample evidence that Loral Corporation was one of the American aerospace firms that helped upgrade the capabilities and reliability of Communist Chinese rockets. Couple that with now this understanding that the espionage effort by the Communist Chinese, which was ongoing, had collected these miniaturized atomic bombs, the ability for the Communist Chinese to make them, this is the most heinous betrayal, and who can think worse?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, this week shocking information became available to the American people that cries out for a change in U.S. policy toward Communist China. Some of us have long warned about the deadly transfer of American technology to a government that is the worst human rights abuser in the world. The Communist regime in Beijing has long benefited from a policy that ignores its genocide, its militarism, its abuse of religious believers and its fundamental antagonism toward the Western democracies. Now we find that American technology, developed with billions of U.S. tax dollars during the Cold War, intended to deter nuclear strikes against the United States by the Soviet Communists, that this awesome technology has now made its way into the hands of a regime that hates everything America stands for and is determined to dominate the 21st century. Specifically, this weekend the American people, through an investigative report by the New York Times, found out that China has made a quantum leap in modernizing its nuclear missile force with the help of American technology and know-how. Beginning last year, I have come to this floor on numerous occasions, perhaps sounding like a bellwether in the night, a warning bell, trying to get people's attention that something dreadful was happening to our national security. I have done my best to alert my colleagues and the American people to the danger that we are now beginning to realize. What we are talking about is a dictatorship that is hostile to the United States, that is militaristic and expansionist in its policies. The most recent revelation is that this Communist Chinese regime has obtained secrets from the Los Alamos nuclear weapons laboratory that has permitted them to produce miniaturized nuclear warheads that enables them to deliver a devastating attack against the United States and its allies. The Communist Chinese as a result now have the ability to carry more than one warhead on their rockets and to launch nuclear weapons from submarines and other vessels at every American State and every American city. This is a nightmare. It is almost beyond comprehension. It is a nightmare even more so when we realize that people like myself and others have been trying, have been struggling over these past months, over these past years, to draw attention to the potential danger. And now we find out that not just the Chinese rockets have been upgraded by American aerospace companies, with the acquiescence of this administration, these rockets, their capabilities, and the reliability of those rockets improved by American technology, but now we find out that stolen from us in a sustained and comprehensive espionage effort by the Communist Chinese, they have managed to steal from us the very secrets that will permit them to build nuclear weapons that are of a small enough size to put in those rockets and to be delivered to the United States which might cause the death of tens of millions of Americans. Mr. and Mrs. America, it does not get much worse than this. The Communist Chinese have had an ongoing and a sustained espionage campaign targeting America's most sensitive weapons technologies. Our country has been put in grave jeopardy. The safety of every man, woman and child in every community in our land has been put at risk. The transfer of American nuclear technology, coupled with the upgrading of Communist Chinese rockets by American aerospace corporations, is the worst betrayal of our country's safety since the Rosenbergs. The New York Times story reported this very point, that it is the worst betrayal since the Rosenbergs. In that New York Times story, this very point was made by the CIA's counterintelligence chief. It is time for us to wake up. It is time for our outrage to be felt. It is time for us to change our policies before a catastrophe happens. What do we need? Do we need a detonation of a weapons system that was developed by the taxpayers of the United States in a city of the United States by a hostile power before we wake up? In short, the transfer of weapons technology to the Communist Chinese has been a debacle of historic proportions. This could well shift the balance of power in the world and change history, as well, of course, put millions of Americans at risk. What we have been able to do in the last decade has been based on a very fragile balance of power. We have a rogue nation in Communist China that obviously does not care about the losing of millions of its own citizens. Yet we have tried to engage this very same government entity that controls Communist China, this dictatorial regime. Instead of drawing closer to our allies in the Pacific, we have tried our best to try to draw closer to this Communist regime in the nonsensical belief that the closer you get to tyrants would make them less aggressive and less tyrannical, less abusive. This has demoralized our democratic allies in the Pacific, and it has actually increased the disdain that the Communist Chinese rulers in Beijing have for the people of the United States. The more that our people that represent the United States like Madeleine Albright who was recently in Beijing, the more they go into the Communist Party headquarters in that country and proclaim a belief in human rights and a belief in democracy, yet we are unwilling to do anything to back up those words with deeds in any way, the more disdain they have for us, the more they are committed to wiping out the degenerate Americans who mouth cliches but have no belief in anything. It underscores our weakness to these dictators. Strength of purpose, strength of protecting our own national security interests, strength of protecting the people of the United States who rely on us, these are the things that dictators and militarists understand. They do not understand sincerity and honesty and laying it all out and going through some sort of sensitivity training with these militarists. Perhaps the most irksome aspect of this whole, and I would say debacle, this whole revelation that our weapons systems that we paid so dearly for during the Cold War to protect our own country, now having been made available and put into the hands of Communist Chinese who hate our way of life, perhaps the most irksome aspect of this is that the Clinton administration has for years downplayed this information and belittled those of us who were trying to counteract this danger. This administration has in fact interfered with investigations and undermined the efforts of patriotic government watchdogs to address this threat. High level officials told the New York Times that although the White House was fully briefed on the scope of the Communist Chinese espionage aimed at our country, they were briefed on this as early as 1997, that the matter was ignored and even covered up because it would interfere with the Clinton administration's policy of engagement with Communist China. The chief of intelligence at the Department of Energy, who first discovered the Los Alamos case, this fact that our most sensitive nuclear laboratory had been compromised, he briefed the National Security Council of the Clinton administration and the CIA and he was ordered by senior administration officials not to tell Congress about this grave threat to our security, to the well-being of our people, because critics might use his findings to attack President Clinton's China policy. Well, that is certainly true. While we were complaining that American technology was being used to upgrade Communist Chinese rockets and missiles, while we were complaining that sensitive weapons technology was going into the hands of the world's worst human rights abuser, the Communist Chinese government, yes, we would liked to have known that the espionage of the Chinese Communists had permitted them to get their hands on the technology and the information and know-how they needed to produce miniaturized atomic bombs, and to let my colleagues know the magnitude of this, those miniaturized atomic bombs have the strength and the power of 10 times the power and the nuclear capabilities of the bomb that we dropped on Hiroshima, 10 times that destructive power in these miniaturized weapons. Smaller atomic bombs could then be put on rockets, Communist Chinese rockets that have been increased in their capability and reliability by American technology. As I say, this is catastrophic. It takes the breath out of one's lungs to consider the magnitude of the words that I am saying and the magnitude of that New York Times report. But that the Clinton administration knew of this and continued its efforts to downplay our attacks on the technology transfer, it is more than wishful thinking. This has got to be more than wishful thinking. It has got to be looked at as insanity, an insane policy. This coverup is of critical national security information, so we would not know that the Chinese communists had gotten their hands on these atomic weapon secrets. This coverup is of severe consequence to our country because we in the House of Representatives and in the Senate of the United States have not now been able to do our job and watch out for the interests of our people, which is our job, as well as that of the President. To put this in perspective, President Clinton has insisted on labeling our relationship with the Communist regime that controls the mainland of China as a strategic partnership. This insistence that they call the Communist Chinese our strategic partners was going on at a time when his administration had been briefed of a espionage effort that had resulted, already resulted, in the Communist Chinese obtaining these nuclear weapon secrets that enable them to put our people in jeopardy. They are insisting on calling it a strategic partnership, and when I asked an administration official what was that all about, it was strategic partnership against whom, there was nothing to say. Strategic partnership; what does that mean when we have a partnership with a country that is the most oppressive government of the world, the world's worst human rights abuser? Does it mean that we are in partnership against the democratic government of the Philippines where they now are expanding and trying to take over the Spratly Islands, the islands that are 800 miles off of their shore, but 150 miles off the Philippines? Is anywhere going to end a partnership against Japan? Does it mean we are in a partnership against Taiwan? How about a partnership against Malaysia or Singapore? Does it mean that we are in a partnership against the people of China itself? That we are the partnership with the regime, the dictators, against those people who would struggle for democracy, who would struggle for democracy in China itself? How this administration can use this word and insist on using this phraseology knowing that the Chinese Communist espionage effort had already acquired our atomic secrets, knowing that American companies had gone over and improved the capability of their rockets. Knowing about the repression that is going on there, it is beyond me. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 28. This resolution is right on a number of counts. It is right philosophically, it is right practically, it is right in terms of trying to get the American people to think about the defense and technology policies that bind us to the People's Republic of China. First of all, in terms of the principle of House Concurrent Resolution 28, the principle is that we are asking the United States, and I commend the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for the strong leadership he has always had, and my good friends on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and others who have long fought the battle that human rights and democracy should mean more to the people of the United States than just platitudes on the Fourth of July. The fact is that human rights and democracy are the foundation of what makes us, as Americans, different from people elsewhere in the world. The United States of America, unlike other countries, is not composed of a single religion or a single culture or a single ethnic group. We are people who are made up of various races and various religions. The one thing that binds us together is a love of liberty and justice, and a sense of human decency and honor that is not found as the basis of other societies. This is the glue that ties together the United States of America. When that glue is in some way loosened, or in some way becomes unaffixed, it is a threat, it is a dire threat, not only to ourselves but to people around the world that depend so dearly on the commitment of our country to the founding principles. In fact, the United States of America, without our commitment to human freedom and democracy, there is no freedom and democracy anywhere in the world that is not threatened by our own lack of commitment. Today this resolution underscores that. It insists that even though in other countries, for pragmatic reasons, they may be afraid of what is going on in China, afraid to make the Communist Chinese regime in Beijing mad at them, they are not willing to vocalize those concerns about human rights abuses that are going on in the mainland of China, this resolution insists that the United States take the principled stand in these international bodies and officially oppose the degeneration of the human rights situation in Communist China. I know it has already been stated, but on February 26 the State Department issued its human rights report and found that over the last year, in terms of human rights, China's record has ``sharply deteriorated.'' This is unfortunate, because the policies of the United States have not kept pace with the deterioration of human rights that is going on in China. At least this resolution will put us, in principle, where we should be in terms of this vital issue. There is a symmetry in this world. If we are not right on the issues of human rights and democracy, if we base our principles on something other than those principles that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson laid out, no matter how imperfect we were in those days, and how we have struggled to overcome our imperfections over these many decades and into this century, those principles hold firm, and trying to use those principles as a guiding light has served our country well, and has served the world well. One note. If it was not for the commitment of the people of the United States to democracy and freedom, the Nazis and the Japanese militarists would undoubtedly dominate this planet at this time. Undoubtedly the millions of people who died under the genocide of the Nazis, there would be millions more people who would have died under the genocide of communists and Nazis and other dictatorships. So it was our commitment, it was the Saving Private Ryan generation, that not only saved Private Ryan but saved the world and provided us, provided us with a message. It is now our job. They have done their duty. We must do ours. So this goes a long way in establishing that principle. But there are practical issues when we set this principle down. Although this is not dealt with specifically in this resolution, I will mention them only in passing. We must, when setting down this principle, that human rights counts, democracy counts, and that if a country is the world's worst human rights abuser and is expanding its military power, that that is a concern for us; that we must then look at our policies and say, is it indeed right that we treat the People's Republic of China, the world's worst human rights abuser, in the same way that we treat Belgium or Italy or other democratic countries? This is a national debate that we need to have. We need to know what we should do in situations like this. Congress does not have all the answers, but we do know that in the last 10 years, as the human rights situation in China has continued to decline, as there has been more and more repression, as there has been genocide, genocide in Tibet and murders in the Muslim areas in the far reaches of China, as well as the repression of people of religion in China, we have not changed our trade policies or some of our other policies to deal with this. We condemn those policies or actions today, but we need to have a discussion, an honest and open discussion of what our trade policies should be. As it is, our trade policy has provided the Communist Chinese regime with billions of dollars worth of surplus which they are using to upgrade their military capabilities and to increase the control over their own people. By the way, this trade policy is done at the expense of our own people. Quite often we are subsidizing the investment of manufacturing units in China which are then used to manufacture goods to put our own people out of work. This may be a policy that we might not want to have with a democratic country; but to a dictatorship, for a country that is the world's worst human rights abuser, to a country that is expanding its military power, I do not think so. Finally, we have to confront the issue as has become more evident this weekend when, finally, word leaked out about the technology transfers, the awesome technology transfers that have taken place over these last few decades. The Communist Chinese, not only have been able to obtain military technology, sophisticated military technology, but they have obtained technology that will permit them to produce weapons of mass destruction that put in jeopardy the lives of millions of Americans. Then we hear about American companies trying to keep down the cost of putting in satellites by increasing the reliability and the efficiency of Communist Chinese rockets to deliver those very same weapons of mass destruction possibly to the United States if we are ever in a confrontation. These are items that can no longer be ignored. These are things that should be on our agenda to discuss as a free and democratic people, a people of goodwill on both sides of the aisle. Today we express our concern for the principle, for the underlying principle of human rights and democracy. We express this to reconfirm our commitment to what George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and our Founding Fathers talked about. But we should also reaffirm it as the foundation of practical policy. So today, as I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 28, I would also call on my colleagues to begin a debate, a sincere debate on how this positive stand for human rights should be interpreted in our trade and technology and defense policies that guide our country. I thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) and for the leadership he has provided, the leadership that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) has provided on human rights throughout the years.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, this is an appropriate evening for me to be presenting what I have to say, whereas we have just heard about the changes in American defense that have taken place, some alarming changes that have taken place over these last 10 years, and in fact since 1985 there has been a dramatic decline in America's military power. At the same time, while America has been permitting its own military power to go astray or to be in decline, there have been noises being heard from across the pond, from across the Pacific Ocean, and those noises, unfortunately, are not the sound of a peaceful neighbor, but instead the sound of a neighbor that seems to be, instead of decreasing its military power and concentrating on peace and prosperity, instead seems to be the sound of a neighbor that is building a massively repressive military regime that threatens the United States and threatens our security, especially when we are considering the fact that America is no longer the military power it once was. After 10 years in Congress, I find myself to be a senior member on two very powerful committees, the Committee on Science where I am the chairman of the Subcommittee on Space Aeronautics, and the Committee on International Relations where I sit on both the committee dealing with export policy as well as the subcommittee dealing with Asian policy. Thus, I find myself playing a major role in the trade and technology transfer issues concerning communist China. I would like to focus on China policy this evening, and I thought that an appropriate lead-in was something that just happened to me recently in my own congressional district. It was only a short while ago that I received a call in my office that the local Chamber of Commerce, with the support of the local city government, was planning to have a lunch co-hosted by the city and the Chamber of Commerce honoring the Consul General of the People's Republic of China, and I was asked whether or not I would be willing to present a certificate or a key to the city or some kind of greeting to this representative of the communist Chinese regime. And I felt at that time that even in my own congressional district at the time, with all the time and effort that I have put in to describing what is going on in Asia, even the people in my own congressional district did not understand the magnitude of the threat posed by this vicious dictatorship on the mainland of China. In fact, I was called by Mayor Green when I expressed my disapproval of this luncheon honoring this representative of the Communist Chinese government. Mayor Green of Huntington Beach asked me, well, what is your opposition all about, and after I explained it to him, he understood why I was opposing this, and he said: But how should we treat officials from the communist Chinese government? I mean, after all, they are a government. How should we react to this? How should we act towards them, if not having this type of luncheon? And I said, Mayor, you should treat the representatives of the Chinese communist government the same way that you would treat a representative of Adolph Hitler's Nazi regime in 1938. And if you would feel comfortable having a Nazi representing Adolf Hitler as a guest of honor, being honored by your city and Chamber of Commerce back in 1938, if you thought that would be an appropriate thing, well, then you would feel that it was appropriate that that is the way we honor a representative today of the world's worst human rights abuser, the communist regime in Beijing. Well, that luncheon was canceled, and I am very grateful that the members of the local city government and Chamber of Commerce listened to what I had to say because I am sure that the communist Chinese would have used it as a propaganda tool to say that, see, even the American people in Congressman Rohrabacher's own district do not go along with him. Well, as soon as they knew the facts, the people of my district were very quick to respond, and I think what is vitally important is for the American people to know the facts; for them to know, number one, that we are not the same powerful military force that we were 10-15 years ago and that, number two, that there is a growing threat to world peace and a growing threat to our own national security on the other side of the Pacific. During the Reagan years I worked as a speech writer while President Reagan was President, and I worked for him for 7 years, and during that time period I remember when he went to China. In fact, I remember working on his speech in which we offered American know-how to the Chinese if they would agree to have their goals as being peace and liberalization of their country. And at that time that made sense, and in fact President Reagan's approach was a positive approach, as Ronald Reagan was known, and it was something to try to give them the incentive to go in the right direction. When I say ``they'' I am referring to the leadership of the Communist Party that controls the government of China. During that time period when I worked at the White House, a young Chinese exchange student walked into my office, and what was fascinating, that it was on a Saturday, and I was working there on Saturday afternoon, and almost no one was in the Executive Office Building. By the way, the Executive Office Building is that building right next to the White House where the President's top national security and economic advisers and policy advisers work. When most people say they work in the White House, they really work right next door in the Old Executive Office Building. So the most sensitive area of our government, there a Chinese student walked in unaccompanied and just walked right into my office as I was working on his speech, and he explained to me that he had met one of the researchers in my department and that she had invited him to lunch and that he was coming there to meet this researcher. And he had been checked in through the security, and again without being escorted whatsoever he was walking by himself through the very heart of America's decision-making process at the Old Executive Office Building. I did not find that to be unusual at all because we were at that time convinced that China would never go back, that China had already evolved to a point that it would never be a threat to freedom, and that in fact the people of China were well on the way to a bright and prosperous and democratic future. During the Cold War, of course, is when we started this evolution towards democracy in China, and it was right for President Nixon and the other presidents who followed the policy laid down by Nixon to play China off against Russia during a time when Russia threatened the entire world, when Russia's communist regime was arming itself to the teeth, sponsoring military actions and covert operations against the democratic governments all over the world. Nixon, yes, played China against Russia in a way that permitted the western democracies to have the leverage they needed, the leverage they needed in the western democracies to prevent war and to prevent the dictatorships, the communist dictatorships of the world, from having the leverage they needed to win the day and to win the battle of the Cold War and to put us in jeopardy. So we did. And during this time period, when we were playing China off against Russia, we developed a new relationship with China. And as part of that relationship, a democracy movement was building. This was what we saw when that young Chinese student was walking right through that building a few years later in the early 1980s. He represented a new China, the new potential for freedom and peace in China. And through the Reagan years, although the leadership of China remained tyrannical, just as it was under Nixon, there was a growing democracy movement that was undermining the tyranny that controlled the mainland of China, and it was an ever-increasingly powerful democracy movement, but it was invisible. All of a sudden it became visible when, in Tiananmen Square, tens of thousands, perhaps even more, Chinese people, activists, democracy activists, gathered to tell the world that they were committed to democratic reform, and there, before the world to see and all of the national and international media, we could see that there was a democratic movement in China that gave us all hope, and it was a surprise to us and actually it was a surprise to the communist leadership. But by then Ronald Reagan was no longer the President of the United States. George Bush was President of the United States, and, unlike Ronald Reagan, President Bush did not believe that the promotion of democracy and freedom was on the highest level of priority for the United States Government. In fact, George Bush's administration, instead of talking about freedom and democracy, spent most of its time talking about stability and trying to build a new world order. What that led the communist Chinese to believe was that if they came down hard on the democracy movement in Tiananmen Square, that this administration, meaning the George Bush administration, would go along, because they were interested in stability. In fact, that is what happened. There was a massacre of the democracy movement in Tiananmen Square. Thousands of people lost their lives, and then throughout China there was a great leap backwards, where people who believed in democracy, people who believed in religious expression and different various religions, people who were bringing China into a new era, were arrested throughout that country and thrown into a logi prison system that was similar to the gulag archipelago that the Russian people were thrown into by their communist bosses. In a very short period of time, the positive and pro-democratic and pro-peaceful future of China was turned around dramatically, and instead, the picture of China controlled by thugs and goons, putting their boot in the face of the people of China forever, was the vision that emerged. This, of course, happened very quickly, because I think there was something that was happening that we did not really fully appreciate that was happening in the United States at the same time that the democracy movement was gaining strength in China. You see, while we had this special relationship with China, and thus there was a democracy movement developing there, there was another movement developing in the United States that could be traced, its origins, back to that same relationship that we are talking about. American billionaires and would-be billionaires were using their considerable leverage on the United States Government to ensure that they had a policy, that we had a policy, in dealing with China, that would permit them to exploit what was little more than slave labor in China. American business interests, powerful American business interests, wanted to go there and wanted to make a quick profit, and they could care less about the other implications of doing business within a regime that was so tyrannical and so militaristic. Of course, the businessmen who were doing this described their motives in the best possible ways. In fact, they claimed that the China market was so large and potentially so valuable that it would be a sin against the American people to let America's competitors get that business, when they should be the ones getting the business, as if those American business interests really had the interest of freedom and democracy or even the interest of the American people at heart. Well, those big corporations were wrong, or perhaps they were just lying, because perhaps they did not care anyway. That remains to be seen. Perhaps some of the people who have invested in China care deeply about the Chinese people. Frankly, there have been hundreds of businessmen that I have spoken to on this issue, and while they claim that the more contacts they have, business contacts, with China, will make China more liberal, not one of them seems to have ever spoken about human rights to any of the local government officials in those areas in which their own factories are located. Well, all we have to do is look at the record. Over these last ten years, since the Tiananmen Square massacre especially, repression has increased, even though investment in China has gone along at a very brisk rate. So no matter how much money our businessmen are putting into China, the repression continues, and it has gotten worse. In fact, there was a democracy movement at one point, and now all the democrats are in jail or they have been executed or they have been forced into exile, and there is not a viable democracy movement today. So has this, our trade, really helped stimulate more democracy? No. In fact, the Chinese dictators have seen our investment as evidence that Americans really do not believe in freedom, do not believe in democracy, do not even believe in their Christian principles or other religious principles enough to side with the religious people of China who are being persecuted. Let us note this at this moment: China, although we have been told is this vast market, little Taiwan, with 20 million people, little Taiwan buys twice as much from the United States as does all the billion, over 1 billion people, perhaps 1.5 billion people, on the mainland of China. Is this such a vast market? Well, one of the reasons, of course, that vast market is not being exploited is that there is a government policy by the United States to permit the communist Chinese regime to charge a tariff on any American products being sold in Communist China that is far greater than any of the tariffs we charge on their goods that are flooding into our markets. Thus, many of our goods that we would like to see sell in China to their consumers are charged 30 and 40 percent tariffs, while we only charge them 3 or 4 percent tariffs, and they flood our markets with shoes and commercial items and consumer items that have put many American businesses out of business. No, my theory is when looking at what has been going on is the big businessmen who are investing in China really do not care about America's, about America's, future share in the Chinese market. What they care about is the 25 percent quick profit that they themselves will make by investing in China today, and they have done so in these investments over these last few years with not one concern at all of the human rights abuses, nor any concern about the American people. In fact, as I say, much of this investment has been done at the expense of the American people and the expense of people who are working and providing goods and services here. In fact, a large number of the sales that China is making here can be attributed to U.S. companies that have built manufacturing units in China in order to use the Chinese, that have no environmental rules, no labor legislation. In fact, the Chinese laborers have none of the rights of the American laborers, and actually they receive a pittance many times as compensation. So, a lot of times our people, they say we have to invest in China in order to make sure that America can sell its goods. In reality, what they are doing is they go to China and set up a manufacturing unit and then sell those goods back to the United States. If a refrigerator company would like to sell a refrigerator in China, no, they go there and set up a refrigerator manufacturing company and sell the refrigerators not to the Chinese, but back to the people of the United States, taking full advantage of the slave labor in China. In fact, I have heard that people who believe in certain religious faiths, Christians and others, who have not joined the official church in China, sometimes have been dragged out kicking and screaming, out of certain factories, even factories owned by Americans, and yet the American employers have done nothing to prevent these people from being arrested because they belong to a church that is not registered by the state. Yes, there are some companies, Boeing Company, for example, is a company that is the largest employer in my district, and I respect the fact that they want to sell airplanes. As I say, most of the time when people are talking about selling, they are not really talking about selling the product. A lot of times they are talking about setting up a manufacturing unit. In Boeing's case, they actually do sell some airplanes. But along with these deals to sell airplanes, how many of us realize that part of the deal is that Boeing will be setting up manufacturing units in China, so after a given period of time, in dealing with enough American aerospace firms, they will have the capability of manufacturing airplanes and aerospace technology on par with the United States. Yes, there is a quick profit to be made by a sale this year or next year, but if we are doing that by setting up manufacturing units which will permit the communist Chinese to outcompete our own aerospace workers and put them out of work five years down the road, who is to profit? The communist Chinese will benefit from that, and the American people, in the long run, will lose. Well, we have a fight every year here in Congress over most-favored- nation status for the communist Chinese, and in fact we have just passed a rule today that is changing that to say, what is the trading status they want to change it to, it is the standard trading status, or something. Normal trading relations, that is it. They want to change most-favored-nation status to most normal trading relations. I did oppose most-favored-nation trading status for China, and I oppose normal trading relations for China, because by passing this classification of China, we are saying that the communist Chinese will be treated just as we treat Belgium or Italy or Canada in terms of our trading relations. No, if we have free trade with other people, free trade should be between free people, not between a dictatorship that manipulates it on one end and free people who permit their billionaires to invest with no concern about the national security implications to our country or the long-term national economic interests of our country. So I would be opposed to normal trade relations. Also there is the side benefit that the communist get, by the way, as well as the billionaires who want to invest in China get, by having normal trade relations. And that is what this issue really is all about. It is hard fought on this floor of the House every year, and you will hear speech after speech saying we cannot isolate China. We have to sell our products. We have to engage in commerce with China. No one is talking about isolating China, and no one is talking about preventing these businessmen from selling whatever they want to sell to China, except perhaps some very sophisticated military equipment, which I will discuss in a few moments. But by and large, American companies, or no one who opposes Most Favored Nation status or normal trading relations with China are opposed to them selling these things, and they will not have anything to prevent them from selling these things. However, with normal trading relations just like we have with the other democratic countries, these large financial interests, these billionaires who want to seek ever more money with no concern about the effect that it has on jobs in the United States, are then subsidizing, they are eligible for subsidies by the American taxpayer. By having normal trade relations, we then have set up a situation where the Export-Import Bank, or the World Bank or OPEC or any number of other financial entities paid for by the American taxpayers, can provide a subsidy or a loan guarantee or a loan at a lower interest rate for their investments in communist China. Now, what does that mean? That means working people in the United States are being taxed and their money is being given to a very wealthy interest in order for that interest, to guarantee that interest's investment in a dictatorship, in order to use slave labor to export goods to the United States to put our own people out of work. What we have done is we have made it more attractive to invest in a hostile dictatorship than to invest in our own country. We actually can say businessmen can think about earning a large profit margin and have their investment guaranteed by the American taxpayer. That is what normal trade relations is all about. That is what Most Favored Nation status has really been about. Because these businessmen could still, if they manufacture a product here, there is no one stopping it. This has been an effort to confuse the American people; their arguments have been designed to confuse and to lie to the American people, so that they do not realize that in reality their own money is being used against them. This whole system, to be fair, was in place before Bill Clinton became President of the United States. And I remember when he first ran for President, he accused George Bush of kowtowing to the communist Chinese dictators. And President Clinton, when he became President after he won the election, just like in so many of the other things that he has done as President of the United States, has gone in exactly the opposite direction than what he promised the American people when he ran. In fact, this administration's policies on human rights and democracy have been a catastrophe that has been an administration with the worst human rights record in the history of this country. People all over the world who look to us and believe that the United States stood for democracy and freedom have now lost hope, because they see an administration that wraps its arms around not just the communist Chinese, but just about every vicious dictatorship in the world. Ronald Reagan understood that there is a relationship between peace and freedom. He understood that unless we fight for democracy and stand firm for our principles of freedom, that we will not have peace, because there is a symmetry in this world in which economic freedom and political freedom and peace are all connected. And there is a price to pay, there is a price to pay when one wraps his arms around criminals or when a country wraps its arms around a vicious dictatorship like that in China, which is the world's worst human rights abuser. The American people are just now beginning to learn the truth about the risks of treating a vicious dictatorship in the same way that we treat a democratic nation. They are beginning to learn the truth about the risks that we have been taking by having normal trade relations or Most Favored Nation trading status with China, and treating them the same way we would treat the English or the Italians or the Austrians. Let me put it this way. In those other democratic countries, they are ruled by people who are elected and who respect the rights of individuals, of their own citizens. Those people who run these dictatorships around the world hate the United States. These gangsters that murder their own people and have aggressive goals, and they look with an eye towards the resources and the land of their neighbors, these people who suppress people for their religion, these people who would murder someone for speaking up against them, these gangster regimes hate the United States and hate the people of the United States because they know that we are the only thing that stands between them and being secure in their power. Because they know it is the goodwill of the people of the United States of America that has saved this world in this century twice during the world wars, and then during the Cold War, from tyranny and totalitarianism, and it was only the strength and courage of the American people and our determination to live up to the ideals that were set forth by our Founding Fathers, it was only that commitment that prevented monsters like they are now from achieving total power on this planet. The Hitlers and the Stalins are still in power, but they are in power in China and in others of these little petty dictatorships around the world, and they hate us, and they know that we are what stands between them and having a secure hold on power in their own country and their ability to bully their neighbors. President Clinton thinks he is trying to make friends with these people in Beijing by calling them, wrapping his arms around them, calling them our strategic partners, saying that the United States Government, the people of the United States, the most freedom-loving people in the world, people who take their religion seriously but believe in freedom of religion for all people, that we are strategic partners with the world's leading abuser of human rights, a regime that has been manipulating the trade between us so that it has tens of billions of dollars every year to increase their military power and their military might. Well, as they do increase their military power and President Clinton calls them our strategic partners, one must wonder whom are we the strategic partners against? Are we in partners against the democratically elected government in Taiwan, or how about the democratically elected government in Japan, or how about the democratically elected government in the Philippines, or how about South Korea? What do the people who live in these democracies think when they see the President of the United States calling our relationship a strategic partnership with this militaristic regime that opposes their own people so thoroughly? Even while President Clinton was in China the last time, the Chinese dictators are so cynical that they were testing a new rocket engine that they are trying to bring out and deploy in a new weapons system, and this new rocket engine in this weapons system is designed for one thing. It is to kill Americans, kill American military personnel and perhaps even put our country in jeopardy. And when they were testing this rocket engine while President Clinton was there, he knew about it, he had read the cables. His National Security Council had read the cables. They knew the intelligence information, and guess what? President Clinton did not bother to bring it up to the Chinese. It just did not come up in the conversation. Do you think that the strong-arms and tough guys and the gangsters who run communist China respect President Clinton, or are they more likely to be friends of us, friends of us because he did not bring it up, he did not embarrass them by bringing it up in a conversation? Mr. Speaker, when we do not mention the genocide in Tibet or the threats against Taiwan because it was having free elections, or the arrest of Christians and the repression of a free church, forcing everybody to register in a communist-recognized church; when one does not bring up a free press or forced abortions, one should not be surprised that the communists who control China do not take our calls for human rights seriously. And when they do not take us seriously, we should not be surprised to find out that they are building their military forces in a way that threatens the United States and that they are beginning to commit acts of aggression against their neighbors. That should not surprise us at all. This hug-a-Nazi-and-make-him-a-liberal strategy of the Clinton Administration is doomed to failure just as it was when Neville Chamberlain and those people in the 1930s confronted that threat to world peace and freedom. President Clinton of course has gone beyond that. He is not just hugging the communist Chinese dictators, he is encouraging American corporations to do business. It is this administration's policy that taxpayer money be used as a guarantee for businessmen who will invest in China. In fact, it was President Clinton's administration that encouraged even our aerospace companies to go in and do business in communist China. Of course, there is evidence that during the last election some of these companies were also major contributors to President Clinton. In fact, Bernie Schwartz was the biggest contributor to President Clinton's campaign, and he also of course was the head of Loral Corporation, which is now accused of sending missile and other technology, weapons technology secrets to the communist Chinese who will now use that information, if they have it, which we know they do, to threaten the United States and to threaten the lives of the American people. So, but one cannot determine, was it the aerospace companies, some of these big corporations pushing Clinton, or was it Clinton pushing them? The Chinese have invested money in American elections, not to buy perhaps opinion but at least to meet people and to have friends in high places. We all remember that the communist Chinese provided certain amounts of money, and we still do not know if that money was the money that was given to Vice President Gore when he went to that Chinese monastery, all of those Buddhist monks out there on the West Coast who had all of those thousands of dollars to donate. Even though they had been living a life of poverty all through the years, they just had those checks that they gave to the President's reelection effort. Where did that money come from? Did we ever learn where that money came from? The bottom line is there has been a lot of shenanigans going on, but what is worse is the fact that weapons technology that was developed and paid for by the American taxpayer to help us preserve the peace has made its way into the hands of a regime that hates the people of the United States and hates everything that we stand for as a Nation. And now they have technology for weapons of mass destruction paid for by the American taxpayer that has been put into their hands. Now, I am proud to have played a role in exposing this to the American people. It was about a year ago when I first made my first speech on this issue. Because earlier than that, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, I had actually gone to a meeting of aerospace workers and engineers, and one of them was describing how he was involved in upgrading the capabilities and the efficiency of communist Chinese rockets in order to lift off satellites, American satellites. I said, wait a minute, wait a minute. You are telling me that you are using American technology, your know-how, and you are improving the capabilities of these rockets? He says, Congressman, they do not even have the right stage separation technology and they will blow up shortly after lift-off, and they do not even have the capability in some of these rockets to carry more than one payload. I said, wait a minute. A communist Chinese rocket blowing up, that is a very good thing. He says, ``Don't worry, Congressman. You are thinking about the security implications.'' I said, ``Yes. Yes, I am. I am worried about the security implications of American technology upgrading the capability of Communist Chinese rockets.'' He says, ``Don't worry. The White House has given us waivers. This is part of an overall program that the White House has totally approved of.'' That is when the alarm bells started going off. Who is watching the watchdogs? I talked about this. I did my own investigation. I verified what this engineer had told me. I talked to subcontractors and major contractors and major aerospace companies. In just a very short time I was able to confirm that some of our aerospace giants had used the technology that we had made available to them in a way that enables the Communist Chinese to have a better chance to effectively drop nuclear weapons in the United States of America and to upgrade their weapons systems, putting American military personnel at risk. It was enough to knock the wind right out of my lungs. While I was doing this, the New York Times was also involved in an investigation, an investigation that turned up the same type of information that I was coming up with. I tried to alert people. All over this body I was talking to chairmen and people. I tried to tell Newt, but things were very confused and things were going fast. I told Newt several times. Finally I remember when I got his attention, because Newt was a man of history. I said, you know, Newt, this is really the worst betrayal of America's security interests since the Rosenbergs. He turned to me and said, what did you say? I said, yes, the Communist Chinese, people who hate us, now have the ability, a greater ability to incinerate millions of Americans, and it is due to American technology. He turned to his aide right over there in that corner, I will never forget, and he said, is Dana right? His aide said, yes, there are some reports out that what Dana is saying is accurate. And Newt immediately called together the leadership of the Committee on National Security, the Committee on International Relations, the Committee on Science, and the Committee on Intelligence, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Chris Cox) was assigned, after a long discussion. The gentleman from California (Mr. Chris Cox), a man who was one of top legal counsel to President Reagan, was assigned to head up a select committee to find the details about this transfer of technology to the Communist Chinese. While I have not read the Cox committee report because it is labeled top secret, and I wanted to be able to speak freely on this issue, but those who have read it, and the gentleman from California, (Mr. Cox), in his summary, which is not a classified summary, indicates that the charges that I have made against certain American aerospace companies have been verified, and that there has been a sustained and systematic effort by the Communist Chinese to get their hands on American weapons technology, especially the technology of weapons of mass destruction. During the Reagan and Bush years the Communist Chinese stole this technology. They stole it because we were trying to operate with them on a friendly basis. During the Clinton years this technology has been up for sale, up for sale, and the Clinton administration has overseen the transfer of American technology through these large aerospace companies. That means that American citizens by the millions could lose their lives in a future confrontation with the Communist Chinese. As I say, it is perhaps the worst betrayal of American interests that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The Cox committee report verifies that, but the American people are not being permitted to see the Cox committee report. This is kind of a funny situation, because the Chinese know what information they stole from us. Now our government knows what information they stole from us. The only people who do not know the details about the technology that they have paid for to protect their interests, now being used by a vicious dictatorship to threaten the American people, the only ones who do not know about that are the American people themselves, because this report is being kept under wraps, except it is, of course, being exploited by this administration, which I will go into in a few moments. In the meantime, as the Communist Chinese ability to fight and kill Americans is increased, they have become more and more belligerent, more and more tyrannical, more and more aggressive toward their neighbors. Whether we are talking about the Spratly Islands, where they have been bullying their neighbors, or in Tibet, where they are committing genocide against the people of Tibet, or in Burma, where they are the godfathers of that vicious dictatorship that holds the whole population of Burma in a grip, in a dictatorial grip, or the helping hands they are giving to other anti-western dictatorships throughout the world, these are things that are happening now because the Chinese have lost all respect, the Communist Chinese have lost all respect for us, because they know that we do not care about a thing that we say, that it is just phony baloney when we talk about human rights, because this administration has done nothing to prevent the flow of weapons technology, and in fact has done nothing to prevent the billions of dollars that they have left over from this unfair trade relationship, which we have permitted them. Not only have we permitted them to have an unfair trade relationship, we have subsidized this unfair trade relationship, giving them tens of millions of dollars to upgrade their military capabilities. What is the solution? There is a solution. This is as serious as anything we have confronted as a Nation, and we need to focus on it. First of all, we must not treat the Communist Chinese regime as if they are a friendly regime. We must not treat them as normal trading partners like we would Italy, Belgium, or the Netherlands. We must treat them as a potential enemy of the people of the United States. They have earned that with the repression and murder that they have brought down on their own people, much less the aggression they are committing against their neighbors. That is number one. We must classify them and understand what they are, and we should not, we should not in any way subsidize them, either through technology transfers or through an unfair trading relationship, or through Export- Import Bank guarantees to businessmen who would set up factories in Communist China. We must support the freedom elements in China itself. Radio-Free Asia, the National Endowment for Democracy, we must support these people in every way we can, support those who are struggling for democracy in this vicious dictatorship, because they are the ones that will free the world from this terror as they themselves free themselves from oppression of the Beijing regime. It is only when the people of China who love freedom and love democracy and love the United States, I might add, because they are our brothers and sisters in freedom and democracy, when they ascend to their rightful place as a representative government, they will no longer be a threat to the United States, because the people of China are not our enemy, it is the dictatorship in China that is. Finally, we must insist, and I hope every one of my colleagues and everyone who may be reading this or listening insists that the Cox report be made public. They should write and call their congressman and say that, why are the American people being left in the dark? The Cox report on Communist China must be made public so we can know what the Chinese have and what they have been able to steal from us, and what role American companies have played in preparing the Communist Chinese to kill Americans. I come to the floor tonight to inform my colleagues and to inform the American people, and perhaps to mobilize them. I personally witnessed some things, by the way, that underscore the very points that I have been making. In a recent fact-finding trip to Asia I overflew the Spratly Islands, and I could see that there, on Mischief Reef, a small sort of island like an atoll, because at low tide it is above water but at high tide it is below water, but it is an atoll about 150 miles from the Philippines, a country that is a democratic country that has very little defense. They are trying to spend their money on improving the life of their people. But that little island or reef, that lagoon situation 150 miles from the Philippines, is over 800 miles from China, and the Communist Chinese are trying to bully the Philippines and the other nations of the Pacific into letting them, and not letting them but in acquiescing to them, in giving in to them and giving in to their claim that this is their territory. I flew in an old C-130, a Philippine Air Force plane. As we went through the clouds and were heading towards this reef 150 miles off the Philippine mainland, as the clouds parted right above the reef, what did we see but three Chinese warships perched in this lagoon, armed to the teeth, helicopter decks there. And what else did we see nearby but scores of Chinese workers who were so fervently constructing a concrete military outpost on this reef that even as we flew over, their acetylene torches continued to build this fortification on that reef. Last week the Philippine military command called this Chinese buildup the greatest threat to the Philippines and America's interest in Asia since World War II. The Chinese are committing acts of aggression. They are willing to bully their neighbors. They are willing to murder their own people. This chain of islands, this chain of islands that we are talking about, the Spratly Islands, and some, as I say, are under water at low tide, serve and will serve as bases for the Chinese communists. They will be like stationary aircraft carriers and helicopter aircraft carriers that will threaten the most important strategic areas, trading areas, and trading routes in the world. Now we understand that the Chinese have an anti-ship missile that can be fired from the helicopters that will be stationed on these island bases. This missile that can be fired is a supersonic cruise-like missile, the SSN-22, the Sunburn missile they have achieved from Russia. These missiles were developed specifically by the Russians to destroy American aircraft carriers and Aegis cruisers. They are essential to a sea-based antimissile system, the Aegis cruisers. Yet, if we have any type of antimissile system, they will be vulnerable now to the Communist Chinese and their Sunburn missiles that they may be able to fire and probably are setting up bases for deep into the Pacific Ocean, 800 miles off their own shore; in fact, right off the Philippine coast. This is a threat to the United States as well as to the people of the Philippines and the people of the Pacific. A large hunk of the world's trade goes right through the straits between these islands and the Communist Chinese mainland. Also to highlight what I am saying, and also to highlight why an antimissile defense system is so vital for the United States and our allies in the Pacific, in early December while I was in the region the Communist Chinese launched a mock missile attack exercise against Taiwan. During this exercise, for the first time the Chinese targeted U.S. military bases in Japan, in Okinawa, and South Korea. We know what they targeted. We know what their game plan was. The game plan was to put their finger on American bases to kill tens of thousands of Americans, and they have also now the ability to use these bases in the Spratlys, and these missiles that the Russians have sold them, to kill tens of thousands of American sailors. These bases that they have targeted for the first time, these are bases that are essential for the defense of Taiwan and essential for the peacekeeping in that whole region. Later this week when the Pentagon releases its congressionally- mandated report on the Chinese missile threat to the region, it will become public knowledge that China is in the midst of a massive buildup of ballistic missiles that are intended to overwhelm Taiwan and American military outposts in the Pacific. Ironically, the Chinese military has built its first military communication station in the South Pacific. Their first military communications station is located on the atoll of Tarawa. It is there where thousands of American marines perished, battling to turn the tide of Japanese militarism during World War II. Mr. Speaker, the Pentagon has confirmed what I revealed on this floor last year, that China, with the help of U.S. corporations, has modernized its growing nuclear missile force so it can now strike at the continental United States from the mainland of China. American people by the millions, our neighborhoods, our peoples are at great risk because American technology has been transferred to the Communist Chinese. It is still not too late, however, to defang this emerging dragon before it is ready to strike. But we must begin the process, and we must be realistic about what we are trying to do. I am especially troubled by the President and the Secretary of State continuing to use the Communist Chinese and label the Communist Chinese as strategic partners. That has got to stop. The unwillingness of the United States, as the leader of democracy and freedom in the world, to even object to the human rights abuses committed by the Beijing dictators and their henchmen against the people of China is little less than cowardice. The ghoulish repression in China is being ignored so that our billionaires can reap huge profits in the short term, while putting our own people out of work in the long run and putting our country in great jeopardy. Then we excuse all of this with flippant phrases like, for example, when we complain about this, these human rights abusers, we are told, oh, do not worry. We have a multifaceted relationship with China. Multifaceted. That is what our Secretary of State used to excuse the fact that we are not using the strength of our own moral courage to complain and to put the Chinese on notice that we will not put up with human rights abuses and aggression. I cannot believe that a young Madeleine Albright, while she was fleeing the Nazi-occupied Europe, that threat to mankind in those days, I cannot believe that a young Madeleine Albright would have accepted that we cannot, that the United States could not be too harsh on Adolph Hitler and his goons because, after all, we had to preserve a multifaceted relationship with Adolph. In fact, throughout the 1930's, the United States did try to appease Adolph Hitler's Germany and fascist Japan, despite the full knowledge of the atrocities that were being committed in Czechoslovakia and Poland and elsewhere to the Jews and the gypsies and others. Appeasement did not work. Leaving the subject out of conversations did not work. It led to World War II, and it led to a massive loss of American lives. There is a relationship between peace and freedom and democracy. What do we need to do? Again, let us refrain from referring to the Communist Chinese as strategic partners. Let us label them what they are, potential enemies of the United States. Let us develop a missile defense system for ourselves and our friends and our allies. Let us encourage those people who are struggling for democracy and dictatorships everywhere but especially in Communist China. Let us today commit ourselves that the Cox committee report, which will disclose this treachery, this betrayal of American interests, this transfer of weapons of mass destruction that we develop with our own tax dollars, that this transferred technology, the upgrading of Communist Chinese rockets, and their capability of hitting the United States, that we need to have that verified for the American people. The Cox committee report must be made public. I urge the White House to release the entire document. But I was outraged yesterday when the White House selectively declassified information in the Cox report and leaked it to the press. It leaked it in order to rebut the committee's recommendations which were aimed at preventing weapons of mass destruction and related technology from being sold to Communist China. So here, instead of disclosing all the information, just little pieces of it was disclosed so that friendly members of the press could then use it to defeat the very purpose of the select committee that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) headed. Does this administration have no shame? Is there no level to which it will go? We are all in jeopardy. Then they play this kind of game. I do not care what administration it is. If a hostile power has been helped by American technology, and we know about it, and they know about it, the American people should know about it, and they should know the details. Every one of us should be insisting that this be done. The Chinese must know that we are on the side of the Chinese people who long for democracy. But the Communist Chinese leadership must know that there are political and diplomatic consequences for the actions that they are taking and that we will be willing to stand strong, and that we are Americans, the same Americans that stood for freedom. We may be losing the Save Private Ryan generation, those people who saved the world from the Nazis, those people we are so proud of. I lost my father recently who fought in World War II. But we are the same American people, and we stand for those same principles. We are on the side of people who love freedom. We are not on the side of ghoulish dictators like the Nazis or the Communists or like the Chinese who make their deals with American billionaires. We need to act as a people, the freedom loving people of the world need to act together, and we as Americans need to lead them.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, during the impeachment inquiry, many of those who have stood against the President have been targeted for personal vicious personal attack. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Dan Burton), the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Helen Chenoweth), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Henry Hyde), a Democrat, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Paul McHale), and yesterday the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Bob Livingston) all have been made to suffer. What we have experienced on Capitol Hill is consistent with the threats and intimidation endured by each and every one of the women claiming to have been used and abused by the President of the United States. I will submit for the Record the names of seven such women, the last being Kathleen Willey, whose cat disappeared, and then had a skull of an animal put on her front porch when she was supposed to testify. Then a jogger comes by and starts talking about her children, and where is her cat, and then says, did you get the message? Mr. Speaker, I will vote for impeachment because the President is guilty of perjury and lying under oath, and lying to a grand jury, and all the rest. Impeachment is another way of reaffirming certain standards and principles. America today is in dire need of reaffirmation of a commitment to truth, justice, and to fundamental human decency. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of all four articles of impeachment against the President of the United States. My vote will be based upon the Judiciary Committee's findings that our President committed perjury and lied under oath. Although the debate in which we engage is of monumental consequence, and being so, is to some degree contentious, let me suggest that I do not sense a high degree of personal hostility in this chamber. Even for a hothead like me, and I know I can be far too frank at times, I have not sensed ill will between Members, and have instead had some friendly exchanges and given and received some heartfelt best wishes for the holiday season. One might note that between Members of the House of Representatives this is about as amicable an impeachment as one could expect, all things considered. With that said, however, there is another more sinister dimension to the impeachment crisis. An ugly cloud of intimidation is evident here in Washington. Over these last few months many of those who have stood in opposition to the President have clearly been targeted for vicious personal attack. This ruthless campaign of intimidation is unprecedented. The Government Reform and Oversight Committee had barely started its investigation when its chairman, Dan Burton, was put in the bulls eye. Helen Chenoweth, Henry Hyde, Democrat Paul McHale and yesterday Bob Livingston, all have been made to suffer. In the case of McHale, the mudslingers couldn't even get their facts straight. What we've experienced on Capitol Hill is consistent with the threats and intimidation endured by women who may have been in a position to make embarrassing allegations against the President. At first it was made light of--the women were labeled as bimbos. But now it's more serious and no one is laughing. Each and every one of the women claiming to have been used and abused by the President has been threatened, smeared, or victimized. Former Miss America Elizabeth Ward Gracen; former Miss Arkansas, Sally Purdue; Paula Jones; Dolly Kyle Browning; Jennifer Flowers; and Monica Lewinsky. Kathleen Willey. Her cat disappeared and an animal's head appeared on her porch shortly before she was to testify. Then outside her home a jogger came by and asked what happened to her cat and made mention of her children, then asked if she got the message. My fellow colleagues, I will vote for impeachment because I believe the President is guilty of perjury, lying under oath, and lying to a grand jury and the rest. Impeachment is another way of reaffirming certain standards and principles. America is today in dire need of a reaffirmation of our commitment to truth, to justice, and to fundamental human decency. Thus I will vote for impeachment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution and strong support of our troops who are in action in the Persian Gulf. Today, even amidst a political crisis at home, our military personnel are engaged in a major operation against the regime of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Over the last year, Saddam Hussein has violated the agreements that he made to end the Gulf War. And I would agree with my colleague who just stated, the actions taking place today should have started long ago, because Saddam Hussein was committing these same violations 6 months ago and 6 weeks ago that he is violating today and was violating today which precipitated the President's decision to call in military actions. Saddam Hussein agreed to give up the right to possess weapons of mass destruction in order to end the Gulf War 8 years ago. By violating his pledges that ensured that he gave up those weapons of mass destruction, he is the one who has called this military action upon his people. Let us resolve today that we are not the enemies of the people of Iraq. The people of Iraq are our friends. The Members of Congress have stated we should, in fact we passed a resolution here and allocated money to support those people who believe in democracy in Iraq and who would wish to overthrow Saddam Hussein's vicious regime. So today, as we tip our hats and as we sing the praises of our military personnel who are willing to put their lives on the line for stability and peace in the Gulf which ultimately tied to the security of the United States of America, let us also resolve that we are for peace and freedom and we are for the peace and freedom of the people of Iraq as well and they can join with us and bring about a more peaceful world and end these military operations by getting rid of the Saddam Hussein dictatorship. It is that dictatorship that is the enemy of the people of the United States, not the people of Iraq.