Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the years of the 105th Congress have been historic for the Hmong and Lao people. For the first time in their long history, the Hmong and Lao people have received long overdue national recognition from the United States Congress and American officials for their pivotal efforts in fighting for freedom and helping to defend U.S. national security interests during the Southeast Asian conflict. I was honored to play a role, along with many bipartisan Congressional colleagues, to honor these courageous veterans and speak at both of the two Lao Veterans of American National Recognition Day ceremonies held in 1997 and 1998 at the Vietnam War Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery. Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my utmost appreciation to General Vang Pao, Colonel Wangyee Vang, Cherzong Vang, Ching Bee Vang, Ying Vang, Song Ge Kue, Philip Smith, Grant McClure and Dr. Jane Hamilton- Merritt of the Lao Veterans of America and the Lao Family Community organization for helping to organize these historic ceremonies which received national media attention. I would also like to include in the Record the following important article from the Washington Times about these events, as well as the ongoing patriotic efforts of elderly Hmong combat veterans to become American citizens. [From the Washington Times, May 15, 1998] Hmong Army Veterans Ask for U.S. Citizenship--Want To Take Exam With Interpreters' Help (By Ben Barber) Thousands of Hmong veterans of the CIA's secret army in Laos from 1960 to 1975 assembled in camouflage uniforms at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial yesterday to mark their flight from communism and to ask for U.S. citizenship. ``We fought in Laos so that young American soldiers would not have to fight in the mountains,'' said Gen. Vang Pao, leader of the one-time secret Hmong army. ``Members of Congress: These former soldiers who escaped death at the hands of the Lao communists and stand here in from of us today appeal for your assistance'' in becoming U.S. citizens. Thousands of aging soldiers dressed in camouflage and hundreds of Hmong women wearing traditional colored dresses, jewelry and headcoverings, spread out in a neat formation on the grass of the Mall. ``America has been good to us--four of my children have good jobs, another is in college, and one is in high school,'' said former Capt. Lapien Sphabmixay, 64, from Charlotte, N.C. Philip Smith, executive director of the Lao Veterans of America, said 4,000 Hmong-Americans arrived in Washington yesterday for the second annual celebration of the start of the Hmong exodus across the Mekong River into Thailand. From 1975 until about 1988, some 300,000 Hmong fled Laos after its takeover by Laotian communists, with the help of then-North Vietnamese troops. About 25,000 of the refugees came to the United States and largely collected in Fresno, Calif., and St. Paul, Minn. Last year was the first time since the war that the Hmong veterans had assembled. Then, as yesterday, members of Congress and former CIA officers honored the sacrifices the Laotian hill tribe made during the war. The Hmong continued yesterday to call for passage of a bill to allow the refugees to take U.S. citizenship exams with the help of interpreters, since many of the aging fighters and their spouses still have not mastered English. In Laos, most Hmong did not attend school and could not read Hmong or Lao. Fifty-seven members of Congress have co- sponsored a bill to grant the Hmong exemptions from the English language exam. The Hmong also observed a memorial to victims of a Laotian offensive against Hmong fighters and villages around Phu Bia mountain, where many had retreated after the 1975 communist takeover of the country.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 345. My name was added to this bill in error.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot of people say that this fellow or that fellow or this colleague or that colleague will be missed, and sometimes we just wonder because they are just people who we have worked with. We might think this is just someone that I have worked with in my office or someone in my school or whatever. Tonight, I would just like to say from the bottom of my heart, in recent days as I have walked around the floor of Congress as we have been discussing the various issues, it has crossed my mind and my heart, not just on a couple of occasions but probably 10 or 15 different times, boy, Frank Riggs is not going to be around here next year. We are really going to miss him. I personally am going to miss Frank Riggs. This is not just like missing somebody because we got used to working with him. We are going to miss him because he was a voice of decency. And some people claim that I am sort of a little boisterous and get a little hot under the collar and that I might be animated at times. But Frank, on the other hand, is someone who presents himself in a very decent and a very honorable way and seems always to be in control, because he seems to always have the confidence that comes from someone who has a very strong set of values that he is very proud of, and that is recognizable. We are going to miss him around here. In the debates, he added greatly with his even-tempered approach and a very astute way of looking at especially the areas of education and such. But we always knew that Frank was a man of integrity. And some people talk of men of integrity, sometimes get mad and they punch you in the nose because they really know what is right. But that is not what Frank was about. Frank was a man of integrity and in a very low-key way earned the admiration and attention of his colleagues because when he did speak, we listened because we knew he was saying something that was worth listening to and was speaking from the vantage of truth and honesty that we could certainly respect. I think that was really brought home to me, and I do not know if he will remember this or not, but I remember it very vividly that when Frank was here, I think it was during his first tour of duty, so to speak, one of the early votes that really tested all of us was the vote as to whether or not we should be permitting offensive military action in the Persian Gulf. It was a very tough vote, because most of us believed at that time there would be very severe casualties and most us believed at that time that this was going to be a situation that would test us as a country. Frank had some reservations about it. And, frankly, I had reservations about it as well. However, Frank made sure that he acted upon those reservations. I sat down with him, and I remember sitting in the cloakroom as the vote was happening and saying, ``This is a really important vote. You are going to be judged by this. This is one of those votes that your constituents are not going to miss. And that could really cause great harm if you are making the wrong decision and you know that every one of your fellow Republican colleagues are voting on the other side.'' I remember saying, ``I am not trying to tell you what to do. I am your friend, but I just want to make sure that you are thinking this through.'' Peer pressure did not mean anything to Frank. Frank had thought it out. He knew in his heart what he thought was right and he voted ``no.'' And I will have to say that there are some people who vote differently than I do on various issues and I get upset with them because I do not respect the act that they have done, because often those votes that are on the other side of the issues that I stand for, they are voting because they lack the courage to stand up to where I am. But, no, this is an example of the quintessential of Frank Riggs in that his vote. He stood alone and he stood that way and he voted that way because that was a courageous thing for him to do. He honestly felt that way. Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have ever brought that up to Frank before in all of these years, but I will never forget that moment and how I was deeply proud of this man. If there is anyone in this body who knows how to twist arms and to try to convince people to change their positions on issues, I mean, I learned from the master. I learned from Ronald Reagan and I tried every trick in the book that night to get Frank over on that side. Now, we also know that Frank is not just someone who can be kept down. I do not know any of our other colleagues, or maybe there must be one or two here who actually lost the seat and then came back after 2 years and was reelected by their constituents. So here we have a guy who came here and, of course, he represents a very, very liberal Democratic district up in the northern part of the State. It is overwhelmingly the other party. And Frank was elected. And when someone else came in, a Democrat came in, I remember that young fellow. His only claim to fame was that he refused to wear a tie on the floor. And once they really tried to figure out what really counted, his constituents insisted on bringing Frank back to Washington, D.C. There are very, very few people in this body that have lost and then, once their constituents found out how wonderful they really were, would be brought back by their constituents. That means their constituents have to admit they made a mistake in not bringing him back immediately for an immediate reelection. So, Frank endears himself to all of us who work with him. He is someone who is respected and someone who means a lot to me personally. I am very grateful to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) and to my other colleagues today for joining me in this honor and tribute to Frank. I know that over the years we are going to be working on several other issues important to California. Again, I am going to walk around and say, ``I really miss Frank Riggs.'' But I know that out in California, we are going to be doing things for the benefit of our State. I know how much you love California and how much we all love California. So we have got some wonderful things we are going to do in the future, but we are going to miss you when we are walking around down here on the floor.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Safi Qureshey, an individual who exemplifies the diversity, enterprise, spiritual values and personal integrity of a newly emerging California and yes, our nation in the 21st century. Safi immigrated to the United States from his native Pakistan. After finishing his education he went to work in the burgeoning electronics industry. Like the greats of industry who came before him, Safi was not content with the security of working for a large established corporation. Instead Safi joined with two other young immigrant entrepreneurs and started their own computer company in 1980. That company, AST Corporation, went from a garage-based operation to a multi-billion dollar world enterprise in just one decade. Safi's business success has been heralded throughout the country. He was recognized as one of the nation's top 25 executives and has received numerous other well-deserved accolades for his entrepreneurial achievements. While Safi is justifiably proud of the acclaim he has won as a businessman, those of us who know him understand he is most proud of his community activities and other more spiritually based contributions. Safi Qureshey is committed to a high quality of education, from grade school through the university level. He is personally involved in programs aimed at opening new educational opportunities through communications technology and children's programming in his native Pakistan. In his adopted homeland, Safi has supported business and technology programs in universities and colleges across the country. Safi is admired for his generosity and many accomplishments, but he is the first to give credit to his faith in Allah. Safi is, first and foremost, a devout Muslim. He has been a tremendous inspiration to young Muslims and has brought together believers in God from many faiths. His deeply held convictions and respect for the religious rights of others is example of a new Americanism that rests on the foundations of individual freedom and traditional values yet is being practiced by proud citizenry as richly diverse as the world itself. This year Safi is being presented the Muslim Achievement Award. Safi Qureshey thus represents faith and freedom in America, the best of our country.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 533 is intended to help support democracy in Cambodia and prevent a new ``killing fields'' by serving as the first step to bringing the violent dictator and former Pol Pot trigger man, Hun Sen, to justice. This legislation urges the United States Government and other interested countries to create an appropriate international judicial tribunal for the indictment and trial of Hun Sen. For the past 20 years, since he was among a core group of former Khmer Rouge officials installed as leaders during the Vietnamese Communist occupation of Cambodia, Hun Sen has been at the center of massive violations of international human rights law, including murder, torture, and other widespread abuses of the Cambodian people. During the past month, Hun Sen's storm troopers have cracked down on nonviolent pro-democracy demonstrators, including students and Buddhist monks, and tens of thousands of ordinary people. There are numerous reports by United Nations human rights monitors describing shallow graves containing mutilated bodies with hands tied behind their backs, including some people who were known to have been arrested by Hun Sen's security forces. Bodies of other victims have been reportedly seen floating down rivers and streams. Buddhist temples and monasteries have been raided and monks whipped by soldiers and goons carrying electric batons and rifle butts. Amnesty International reports that at least 200 democracy protestors arrested are still unaccounted for. New atrocities continue to emerge. For example, United Nations human rights monitors have been sheltering a 25-year-old woman who was held by Hun Sen's soldiers for 3 weeks in a water-filled fish pen. She saw 5 of 13 fellow prisoners die during that time period from torture, starvation and drowning, including Buddhist monks. During the 1998 election campaign in Cambodia, the United States international Republican Institute, as well as the National Democratic Institute reported widespread incidents of violence, intimidation and deaths of campaigners for the democratic parties who opposed Hun Sen. The electoral process was described as, ``fundamentally flawed.'' Post- election charges of irregularities in ballot counting and an unconstitutional allocation of parliamentary seats led to the pro- democracy uprising and a subsequent repression in Phonm Penh. Many of these pro-democracy demonstrators courageously defied Hun Sen's storm troopers. They were carrying American flags and being broadcast by Voice of America, which they were playing for the rest of the people there through loudspeakers in this short-lived democracy square. The fear, intimidation and violence created by Hun Sen continues. Yesterday, an American investigative reporter named Nate Thayer, he is the one who broke the story of Pol Pot's death, and also the relationship between Hun Sen and reputed international drug dealer Teng Bunma, informed me that his wife, Carol, an American citizen, had been assaulted. That is Nate Thayer, an American citizen, a journalist in Cambodia. His wife has been assaulted and, in fact, a bullet was fired during the assault that grazed her head. This all happened in central Phnom Penh. Nate and Carol have previously received four death threats due to his reporting on corruption and tyranny in Hun Sen's regime. Like many cases of independent reporters in Cambodia, Cambodians themselves, Cambodian reporters and editors who have been shot and bludgeoned to death, the case of Nate and Carol, this whole incident has been shrugged off officially as being called a robbery attempt. This legislation was amended after my staff spent long hours in discussion with the State Department in an effort to find a common position to stopping the violence and to bringing to justice those responsible. The amendment begins with the year 1979 when the Vietnamese communist army installed collaborating Khmer Rouge officers, including Hun Sen, to power in Cambodia. The amendment is an effort to avoid interfering with the State Department's efforts to form a separate tribunal to cover just the Pol Pot years. After the resolution passed through the Committee on International Relations, Hun Sen protested. In response, the U.S. Embassy in Phnom Penh issued a press release just a few days ago to reassure this tyrant and his thugs that this resolution is simply the opinion of Congress, a signal that he need not worry about his ongoing human rights violations and crackdown on democrats. Satisfied with knowing the embassy was kowtowing to his position, a now confident Hun Sen then demanded, after this press release, demanded that the embassy hand over a Cambodian democracy leader, Kem Sokha, who is being provided asylum in the embassy. A ``yes'' vote on this resolution will send a message to Hun Sen that the United States House of Representatives does count and that we are speaking for the American people, and that the House of Representatives will not tolerate murder as a political tool and the denial of democracy by Hun Sen and his thugs. Madam Speaker, dictators such as Hun Sen must understand the United States Congress, whose Members are elected by the American people, represent the ideals of freedom and stand by democrats and ordinary people around the world who are struggling for justice and human rights. There is no excuse for unelected bureaucrats in our State Department to scorn congressional processes in order to appease dictators. As far as tribunals go, we must not permit legal action in Cambodia, which is moving forward, to focus exclusively on a handful of geriatric Khmer Rouge leaders while former Khmer Rouge like Hun Sen are creating today's killing fields by murdering and torturing with impunity. Today's killers must understand that they will be held accountable for their actions and they must permit democracy and a respect for human rights and the rule of law to take place. That is what this legislation is all about. I would ask my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 334, and I rise thus in support of making it the official policy of the United States government that we favor the participation of the Republic of China and Taiwan in the World Health Organization. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the committee, for the leadership he has provided on this. And, of course, the gentleman always provides the leadership and strength on pro-freedom initiatives and initiatives that deal with fundamental fairness. I also want to thank the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) for his cooperation and leadership on that side of the aisle. And, finally, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), who has been a fierce fighter for freedom and justice in this world and in this body. The gentleman will be missed. And on issues just like this, he has always been there for the people struggling for freedom in various parts of the world. Taiwan is, first and foremost, a free and democratic country. In the last few years we have seen an evolution in Taiwan that should serve as a shining example to the rest of Asia. In fact, as the rest of Asia sinks further towards tyranny and repression, Taiwan is reaching new heights, even in the face of threats against it, towards achieving its goal of a freer, more democratic, and more prosperous country. In Taiwan, there are free elections, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and freedom of enterprise. This resolution tells the world that freedom counts to the American people. We should not be on the side of a communist regime's attempt, wherever it is, to in some way intimidate a group of free people. That is the situation we have now in Asia, where one tyrannical government is trying to frighten the people of Taiwan. And we are saying by this that where people have had these reforms, we should be siding with those people, who have at least, or would like to participate in the rest of the free world. And that is what is going on in the Republic of China. This, on the other hand, sends a message that we respect an elected government; the elected government in the Republic of China and Taiwan. And as I say, not only has it a good record in terms of their political record and their economic record, but the Republic of China and Taiwan has an admirable record of public health, which is consistent with any government's commitment to democracy. The foundation of democracy is the respect that all individuals have a right to live in dignity and with a decent and healthy life. So it is consistent, then, that that is what we find in Taiwan. I wish to also take this moment to express something that perhaps some people in this body do not know about. And that is, Taiwan, with its 21 million people, through private foundations and also through government action, have been deeply involved with helping other people who face health crises and humanitarian crises throughout the world. Through the TzuChi Foundation, tons and tons of medicines have been sent to crisis areas throughout Asia. And, in fact, the Republic of Taiwan and the TzuChi Foundation, they even have a free clinic in Southern California for everyone. There is a free clinic that is run by the TzuChi Foundation. These people care about humanity, and we should salute them today by this resolution and say they should be part of the World Health Organization. So I salute the Republic of China and Taiwan and the TzuChi Foundation and those good and decent values those people represent. This resolution is the best way that I can think of for this Congress to salute that type of commitment to the ideals that we share as Americans. I rise in support of the resolution.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I join with my friends today from Illinois and Ohio in supporting the freedom of the Baltic peoples and in memorializing the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is an historic reminder that the forces of evil and tyranny are inevitably attracted to one another. In a world of nazism and communism six decades ago, some unfortunate people in the West, unfortunate because of their wishful thinking, thought that they could play one evil off against another and thus did not just simply state to the world and join in solidarity with the other free people against evil itself. It did not work, and this compromise with evil, trying to play the Nazis off against the Communists and the Communists against the Nazis, led to a world conflagration that destroyed much of the planet and took up to 100 million lives, and, of course, what we saw ending that wishful thinking was an alliance between the Communists and the Nazis. Today we remember the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and declare there is no compromise with evil and tyranny. Consistent with that we focus on the Baltic nations. I recently traveled through Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The people there for the most part are successful in their transition out of Communist tyranny. They are showing their Russian neighbors that democracy, free enterprise and the aspects of our Western society work, and the people of the Baltic States now enjoy prosperity, peace and freedom. The passage of this resolution restates to the world America's commitment to peace, prosperity and democracy for all of the people of the world, especially those brave souls in the Baltics who have suffered so much during the 20th century from the twin evils of communism and nazism.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I find myself on this side of the aisle in order to honor the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Paul McHale) and thank him very much. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox). I think that he summed up the admiration that all of us have for the gentleman from Pennsylvania and an admiration that will go with him in the years ahead. Mr. Speaker, it was 100 years ago this year that Teddy Roosevelt led his Rough Riders in the Battle of San Juan Hill, which was a decisive battle of the Spanish-American War. History has long overlooked the significance of that battle and the significance of that war, as well as the heroism of Colonel Teddy Roosevelt. Had the battle of San Juan Hill been lost, America's expeditionary force would likely have been stuck into a no-win conflict, mired down with thinning ranks, troops being thinned, yes, from disease and from lack of competence on the part of our own country in terms of the art of fighting a war. In fact, at that time we did not know how to transport our troops. We did not know how to supply our troops. And many more of those people who volunteered, those young heroes who volunteered during the Spanish- American War died of eating tainted meat than they did from enemy bullets, because our country did not have the expertise. And if it had not been for the determination and the courage and the gallantry of men like Theodore Roosevelt, that war would have turned out differently. We need to ask ourselves as Americans, as we look back on this long forgotten war in the last century, what would the America that we know have been like had we lost that war? Most certainly had we lost that small war, America's attitude towards involvement in the world would have been totally different. The American ``can do'' consciousness that was so much a part of the 20th century would not have been a part of the decision-making process of our leaders and of our people when the great threats to all mankind emerged in the 20th century. That of Naziism, Fascism, Japanese militarism, and communism. Instead, America faced the 20th century with a positive sense of destiny; that we were meant to be a positive force in the world. This can be tied back to the success of that small war, that forgotten war, the Spanish-American War and Teddy Roosevelt's pivotal moment in American history. Teddy Roosevelt, in leading his troops up San Juan Hill, showed as much gallantry, and we have heard the evidence today, as our Medal of Honor winners. He exposed himself to the withering fire of the enemy and literally led his troops on horseback and making a target out of himself. Yes, Teddy Roosevelt deserved the Nation's highest award and politics, as we heard, got in the way. Let us today pay this long overdue honor to this American President and this American hero. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), and also like to say thanks to my good friend and colleague the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale) who is going to be leaving this House, but he will be with us. Thanks to his efforts, we are expressing the appreciation in this long overdue tribute. Teddy Roosevelt's courage and leadership in this battle, and his indomitable spirit, did much to shape the American character. We are giving him thanks today. It has also been stated by another friend who is also leaving, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) that Teddy Roosevelt was also the winner of the Nobel Prize. And if we succeed today, and I hope we do and I hope this goes through the legislative process, Teddy Roosevelt will be the only individual in history to have earned both the Medal of Honor and the Nobel Peace Prize. I think that is a fitting tribute for a man who represented so much and did so much to shape the 20th century, the American century. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, Jerry Solomon has given a new meaning to the words ``the wisdom of Solomon.'' All of us who have served with him, and I have served with him for the last 10 years, understand what that means. Jerry Solomon, first and foremost, and this is, I think, the word that best describes Jerry, is that Jerry Solomon is a patriot. That is what America has always depended on, the likes of Jerry Solomon. I am very proud to have served at your side, Jerry. Jerry Solomon is a patriot. Jerry Solomon is courageous. He is a man of integrity. To all of us who you are leaving behind, you are leaving behind friends. You are a good friend. We respect you. We admire you. We wish you luck, Jerry. Thank you very much for the service you have done for the United States of America. You have done a good job for our country.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this resolution takes from the Speaker's desk H.R. 1702 as reported back by the Senate and passed with an amendment. The Commercial Space Act of 1998 is a small legislative step that will enable giant leaps for America's commercial space industry. It is the culmination of 3 years of extensive bipartisan consultation and cooperation within the Committee on Science, with the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, and with the administration as well. I support the product of this effort and wish to thank the Members on both sides of the aisle and in the other body for their help in making this possible. H.R. 1702 passed the House last year. The Senate passed an amended H.R. 1702 this July. The House and Senate have negotiated the compromise bill that is before us today. I urge my colleagues to support this commercial space bill so we can send it to the Senate and then to the President for his immediate signature. The compromise bill promotes the continued growth of the United States commercial space industry. It requires an independent market study of and a NASA report on progress in commercializing the international space station. It authorizes the Department of Transportation to license the reentry of space transportation vehicles. It makes permanent a launch voucher demonstration program so that scientists can buy their own launch services instead of being told when and how their experiments can fly into space. It encourages the President to ensure that the United States global positioning system becomes the world standard so that foreign systems will not interfere with the GPS satellite signals. It encourages NASA to buy commercial data for both space science and earth science researchers. It directs NASA to manage its commercial space centers out of NASA headquarters in Washington, D.C. It includes provisions which clarify the regulation of U.S. commercial remote sensing companies. It requires the Federal Government to purchase space transportation services instead of building and operating its own vehicles. It requires NASA to plan for the potential privatization of the space shuttle. It allows the use of access ICBMs as low-cost space transportation vehicles, and it requires that the Department of Defense study our national launch demand and infrastructure capability through the year 2007. At the same time, I am sad to report that one of the most important portions of H.R. 1702, which dealt with commercial remote sensing, had to be abandoned in order to secure the passage of this legislation in the Senate, but some of our government's Cold War bureaucrats seem to want to have the same power that they had and are unwilling to see that change take place for now, but we will fight that battle on another day. I can honestly say that we tried very hard to meet the administration halfway, and after holding two subcommittee hearings on the topic, the committee made several changes to the bill in order to accommodate the administration requests, both in committee markup and later on the House floor. The State Department kept pushing for even more authority than they have now, so rather than give them that authority and make life even harder for our remote sensing industry, we decided simply to strike title II from the bill, and say, we will come back and talk about that issue on another day. Today, however, we should celebrate a legislative glass that is more than half full. The chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown) have offered us a great deal of leadership in this area. I salute both of them. I especially salute the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown), who is with us on the floor at this time. He and the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), have shown in the Committee on Science that we certainly have as bipartisan a committee as anyone on the floor, and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the ranking member on the subcommittee, has been working with me in that spirit. I am very proud to have worked with my friends on the other side of the aisle to come up with this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill moves forward with very few ruffles and flourishes. Yet we should not miss the significance of what it represents and of what is happening here today. Last week on October 1, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a hearing on the occasion of NASA's 40th anniversary. It seems almost like yesterday as Chairman Brown noted when Sputnik went up, but it also seems like generations ago when we saw NASA in its heyday in the early 1960s launching Americans into space. But for the most part, the early part of NASA's history, at least the first two decades, and there has been an evolution since, for the most part, space was a government endeavor. During that early time, much of the impetus during the space race was brought on by a spirit of cooperation, if not a spirit of survival during the Cold War. Our race into space during the Cold War was looked at as something having to do with our national survival. Much of the spending that took place in terms of defense spending was justified and has brought us to this point today. In fact, over the years our space program has benefited greatly, our commercial space program and our civilian space program through NASA has benefited greatly from technological spinoffs from our own defense spending. However, we are now, and this is perhaps what this bill signifies, at a turning point. The Cold War is over. A whole new approach to space is being taken by the United States of America. No longer is space going to be the purview and the arena of government. Instead we are going to through this legislation unleash our greatest asset, and that is the creativity and the entrepreneurial genius and the profit motive of America's private sector. In fact, we can no longer afford a space program that is basically a government program, or a defense-related program. We have to bring in private capital. We have to bring in the private sector. We have to bring in competition and the profit motive to make sure our space program, America's space effort, is done effectively and that we dream big dreams. Unlike in some programs that are controlled by the bureaucracy, those programs quite often are only interested in trying to get enough money for next year's funding level. What is happening with this commercial bill is a good first step. As I mentioned, Chairman Walker and Chairman Brown, who have spent such a considerable amount of time, oversaw this legislation and have brought us to this turning point. I would like to share just a few thoughts and perhaps our ranking member the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) would like to join me as well, just a few thoughts that emerged from our hearing last week when we were celebrating the 40th anniversary of NASA. We had some people who were talking about what the next 40 years of America's space program will be like. It is going to be much different than the first 40 years. In fact, I would expect that some of the investments in the private sector will have spinoffs that will help us in the defense arena. In fact, where before it was defense spending that the spinoffs helped us in the commercial and civilian area, it is going to go just the opposite in the years ahead. In order to spur growth and commercial activity in space, we will be working on another commercial space bill next year, starting next session, and I am sure we will have the same cooperation that we have had this year with both sides of the aisle. There are many ideas that are exciting people about what we can do in space. The 40th anniversary is marking a turning point but it is marking, you might say we have reached a stage from which then we will proceed into outer space, and in the exploration and the utilization of space for the benefit of mankind. The Speaker has mentioned to me his support for these type of approaches. I have spoken to the Speaker about a concept that is close to my heart of trying to declare space a tax-free zone and is something Mr. Walker talked about several years ago. I call it the zero-gravity, zero-tax approach. If we can ensure that people who are investing in space projects, new creative approaches and new projects, not things that have been done in the past but things that, for example, we are having trouble now with the Space Station, it is a big challenge to come up with some of the funds for Space Station. But if we enrich or enliven the private sector, and we give encouragement and incentive to people in the private sector and Wall Street to invest, perhaps there can be some economic activities on the space station with zero gravity and zero taxes to be paid that will bring money out of the private sector. We can also look, for example, to the solution of some of the problems that have seemed intractable in our past. Mr. Speaker, I am very excited about the possibility of using space as a vehicle to transport energy to different parts of the world. We have being studied now in the NASA budget with the support of the ranking member and our friends on the other side of the aisle, NASA is studying the idea of technology that might permit oil rich and gas rich Azerbaijan or Turkmenistan or countries in central Asia for example, Kazakhstan, to be able to use their natural gas to produce electricity there and shoot the electricity into a satellite system; we call it space grid; which could then transmit that electricity anywhere in the planet, and with a zero-gravity zero-tax approach, we might be able to build a space grid without the use of any taxpayers' dollars. We might be able to establish a moon base in the next 10 years perhaps just from the external tanks of the shuttle, that we might be able to get there at very little money. We could have 20 or 30 of these external tanks that are pressurized tanks that future generations of American could put to use as a space colony on the moon. Asteroids. There has been a lot of movies about asteroids lately that talk about the fear of asteroids hitting the earth, but asteroids also present to us a great opportunity. Asteroids are made out of materials that can be very valuable on the earth, and also asteroids can be turned into a space station that already exists and just is there to be exploited by mankind. We are also developing now new propulsion systems, and up until now only rockets have been used to take mankind into space. In the future that will be different. In fact, the rockets that we use, we are developing new reusable rockets that will dramatically bring down the cost of getting into space via rockets, but at the same time we are developing new propulsion systems. For example, there is one that is based on a laser beam that will use the energy of the laser beam to transport an object, a satellite, into space so it does not have to carry its own fuel. When these type of technologies are fully developed and we bring the full strength of the private sector, we will realize a new world, and we will realize a new opportunity on this world, and it is a very exciting time to be the chairman of this committee and to be a member of this committee, and again it represents, this dream represents, the best of bipartisanship in the House of Representatives.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The gentleman raises an excellent point. The report he refers to confirms the need to apply fair and consistent standards in managing and funding important activities like the Commercial Space Center program, which is precisely the intent of section 106 of this bill. I promise the gentleman from Texas that we will continue to work with him and many other Members of the House to ensure that NASA headquarters develops and implements an effective system of administering this program, including providing appropriate funds for those centers which are performing well on the taxpayers' behalf.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is entirely correct. The committee was concerned that when NASA abolished its Office of Space Access and Technology, some of these Commercial Space Centers got lost in the shuffle. Some of them were placed under the management of and funded through NASA's Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, while others were turned over to various NASA field centers but without any money to fund them. While the Congress has no desire to tell NASA which Commercial Space Centers to fund, we do want to make sure that centers are not being harmed or even killed off because of hidden ad hoc decisions on management and funding. Section 106 of the Commercial Space Act requires that NASA headquarters administer, including providing visible and specified funding for, the Commercial Space Centers program.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) for a colloquy about an important provision of this bill.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, we have with us today in the hall the former chairman, now ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown), who I mentioned, but we also have the former chairman of the Committee on Science, Mr. Walker, who spent considerable time and effort on this piece of legislation, and I would like to applaud Mr. Walker's efforts over the years. He has spent many, many years on space commercialization projects, and this piece of legislation reflects that hard work and dedication on his part. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), who has worked long and hard on this piece of legislation.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 572) providing for the consideration of the bill H.R. 1702 and the Senate amendment thereto.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all the Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 572, the resolution just agreed to.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, if the gentleman will further yield, it was just not handled correctly.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4655, and I would like to applaud the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for what I consider to be a well thought out, both philosophically and practically, plan that will get our country out of a situation in which we are now in jeopardy unless we do something. The only thing coming back to haunt us now is that, when the Gulf War was going on, we did not dispatch Saddam Hussein from this planet. We did not finish the job. We should not have gotten involved in that war unless we intended to finish it. Unfortunately, we did not do so, and now we will live with that decision not to finish that job. There is a symmetry to the affairs of State. There can be no peace without freedom, and there can be no prosperity without peace. Our failure in the Gulf War was in not supporting those who oppose Saddam Hussein's tyranny and not to finish the job on Saddam Hussein himself back when we had the power to determine the course of events in the Persian Gulf. Our willingness not to finish the job, our unwillingness, I should say, to finish the job and to stand for our ideals, which are to support those elements in their area who believed in freedom or at least some degree of freedom and were not aggressing upon their neighbors, were opposed to aggression, that is the decision that haunts us today. Saddam Hussein now has a blood feud with us, and he will murder if we give him the opportunity to do so with weapons of mass destruction. He will murder millions of Americans. So like it or not, America's safety is now tied to events in Iraq and in the Persian Gulf. We cannot turn our backs on that region, or we will risk the death of millions of Americans, not to speak of just those people in the Persian Gulf itself. But it is not too late to get ourselves out of this dilemma by supporting the people in the region and in Iraq itself who oppose Saddam Hussein's aggression and his dictatorship. This resolution is exactly the right formula, and we should have used it long ago. If we would have used it while we were there in the Gulf during the Gulf War, we would not have the problems and the threat to our well-being that we face today. Support democracy. Oppose tyranny. Oppose aggression and repression. That is what America's policy should be based on. We should strengthen the victims so they can defend themselves. These things are totally consistent with America's philosophy, and it is a pragmatic approach as well. Furthermore, this resolution calls to hold Saddam Hussein himself accountable. The man is a murderer. The man has murdered large numbers of his own people. The man has invaded his neighbors. It is the dictatorship in Iraq, not the people of Iraq, who are the enemies of the United States and threaten our well-being. That is what this resolution is all about. It is not a declaration of war. It is a declaration that we are on the side of the Iraqi people and the other people of that region who believe in freedom to some degree, whatever degree that is, more than what they have today, and oppose aggression. Let us stand up and stand by our ideals, because we did not do that before, and we left the practical planners to say do not eliminate Saddam Hussein, and now we face this threat. Our support for the Mujahedin collapsed the Soviet Union. Yes, there was a price to pay, because after the Soviet Union collapsed, we walked away, and we did not support those elements in the Mujahedin who were somewhat in favor of the freedom and western values. With those people who oppose this effort of pro democracy foreign policy, a pro freedom foreign policy rather than isolation foreign policy, they would have had us stay out of that war in Afghanistan. They would never have had us confronting Soviet aggression in different parts of the world. Would the world be a better place today? No. But our problem, again, was not in supporting the Mujahedin, not supporting those people who oppose Soviet tyranny, but our failure was not supporting those people who believed in democracy and following through with them to see that the pro freedom elements were supported. That is what this resolution is all about, making sure that we support those people in that region, in the Gulf region, and in Iraq itself who are our natural allies. Let us hold Saddam Hussein accountable rather than putting ourselves in a place where we let the situation go to such a degree that we end up having to kill hundreds of thousands of people in the regions, Iraqis who are not even our enemies. So let us support those people in Iraq who are our friends and in the region who are our friends, and let us push for democracy. Even in Kuwait today, we can be proud that there has been some democratic reform as compared to what the system was before when we were there. So I stand in support of this resolution.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman does not think it is proper for us to offer those people who are struggling for freedoms in Iraq against their dictatorship a helping hand?

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, as the Congress moves forward via the Committee on the Judiciary's impeachment hearings, it is useful to understand that this administration's shortcomings are not confined to extramarital affairs. Six years into this administration, our country is in jeopardy. With little awareness by the public, we are facing a multitude of critical national security threats and foreign policy debacles. My fellow Americans, mistakes being made today imperil our children and future generations. The sad fact is that this administration has no credible foreign policy. Our weakness and vacillation emboldens tyrants throughout the world from China to Afghanistan to North Korea to Serbia to Cambodia to Iraq. It encourages these regimes to, not only brutalize their own people, but to create regional instability, to threaten Americans, and to threaten others as well with terrorism, and, for the first time, to develop and deploy technologies that directly threaten the continental United States. How many Americans know that Communist North Korea is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid in Asia? In fact, Communist North Korea, this brutal regime that starves its own people to develop weapons of mass destruction, this Stalinist regime that threatens the stability of Asia is perhaps one of the top five recipients of foreign aid in the world. How many Americans know this? How many Americans know that we have given into that regime into blackmail from that very same regime, and that is why they are receiving that foreign aid? How many Americans know that, on the day that President Clinton visited Communist China, that that dictatorship tested a new rocket engine for a missile that can hit the United States? There was no response from President Clinton or his entourage, yet they knew that that engine was being tested. This is the same brutal regime that represses religious believers and democratic reformers, the same regime that gets a preferential trade status enabling it to flood our markets to the tune of a $60 billion trade surplus a year, which they then use to build weapons that may someday attack Americans. As I speak, the select committee of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) is finding more and more evidence that the Clinton administration has permitted the transfer of American technology to upgrade Communist Chinese missiles and other weapons systems. How many Americans know that, due to this administration's determined opposition, that our country has no missile defense system to stop a missile whether it is from China or elsewhere from hitting the United States? How many Americans know that the Taliban extremists in Afghanistan, who are like the Nazi's were to Jews, the Taliban are to women throughout the world, how many people know that this group, the Taliban, who are the largest exporters and suppliers of heroin in the world and have made their country into a safe haven for anti-American terrorists, that this bad bunch has had the tacit support of the Clinton administration? How many Americans know that, due to the Clinton's administrations nonsensical military deployment and other policies, that our military is now at its lowest rate of readiness since before World War II? All of this adds up to reckless incompetence or worse. The world economy is sinking. This administration has done everything in its power to tie our national well-being to the crooks and tyrants throughout the world who would drag us down all in the name of creating a global economy. Going into the next Congress, we have got serious work to do. If the President and his staff are incapable of providing the leadership this country needs to keep us safe, to ensure our prosperity, then we must step forward, and Congress must stand up and take the leadership role.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule, but I am opposed to fast track authority. I have long supported free and fair trade among free people. However, I adamantly oppose to giving fast track authority to the President so he can put anything he wishes into legislation implementing a trade agreement, and place it before the Congress for an up-or-down vote. This authority lends itself to abuse. The last time we awarded the President fast track authority, this President betrayed our trust. He included in the GATT implementation legislation a provision that dramatically changed our patent system, and this change was not mandated by the GATT agreement treaty. Mr. Speaker, for 4 years this body has spent considerable time and effort trying to undo what fast track did to us the last time. Knowing good and well that Congress would have only one up-or-down vote and take the package as a whole or leave it, the President just decided to throw this provision into fast track, or into that implementing legislation. With fast track authority, we can expect that implementation legislation in the future for future trade pacts will be buried with time bombs that will sabotage our economy or change substantive law in our country, things that we might even take for granted. One of the provisions of fast track gives the President the right to offset any decrease in revenue that is put forward by a trade agreement. Does that mean that the President can have a tax increase or a ``revenue raiser'' as they claim? Sure. Sure, that is exactly what it means. In the future, we should be far less generous in terms of our giving away our authority in Congress, especially giving the President more authority. We should be less generous in giving him the authority to make international trade agreements, in contrast to what we have heard this morning. Mr. Speaker, the idea of a global economy has been used to take authority out of the hands of the people elected by the American people and giving it to unelected government officials, even foreigners. I urge my colleagues to vote against fast track and for the rule.