Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I voted NO on the Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Authorization Bill for a number of reasons, the most pressing is the policy included in the bill under Section 1513, that concerns American satellite and rocket cooperation with communist China. After months of personal investigations, as Chairman of the House Science Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, I disclosed on the House floor evidence indicating that some U.S. aerospace companies had helped China upgrade its rocket system. In a cooperative effort to launch American satellites, technology and knowledge has been transferred that improved China's ability to land a nuclear weapon in the United States, including those with multiple warheads. Since making this charge on the floor of the House, a Select Committee has been appointed to thoroughly investigate the issue. Under Congressman Chris Cox's leadership, that committee is now underway. From what I understand, it has verified much of what I originally charged. This legislation, Section 1513, however, is letting those who betrayed America off the hook by giving them six months to complete their projects and to apply for new export licenses during that period--until March 1999--that would be excluded from national security control under the United States Munitions List. Do we hold U.S. security that lightly that we are willing to give one of the most ruthless communist regimes on this planet the technology to further develop weapons systems that could incinerate our country?

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Cass Ballenger), this is about whether we have 200,000 jobs here for Americans or whether we will have 200,000 jobs given to foreigners who come here. And those jobs will be taken up, yes, but we are taking away, by this law, the incentive for people to retrain people who can fill these jobs if we pass this legislation. So I stand here today to oppose H.R. 3736. This bill is contrary to the interests of hundreds of thousands of American workers, in fact, millions of American workers. It represents an attempt by high-tech corporations to hire cheaper foreign labor. And we cannot really blame them for that. That will add to their profit. That is who they represent, the interest of their stockholders. But we are not supposed to be representing the interest of their stockholders, we are supposed to be representing the interests of the American people and the United States. And rather than hire laid-off, high-tech employees or retrain other unemployed Americans, now these high-tech companies will just bring in cheaper foreign labor. So why retrain people? Why hire older Americans, who might have to use health benefits or retirement benefits? Let us bring in these 25- year-old Indians or Pakistanis. This bill, in short, is a windfall to some companies that are making a profit off bringing in cheaper foreign labor, but it is a kick in the teeth to Americans, hard-working Americans, many of whom have been so loyal to their country and their employer but now are unemployed. Now they need some retraining or they need a job, and Congress is being asked to change the rules so that we can have hundreds of thousands of foreigners to come in here and take those jobs. Because those foreigners will get less money. Now, we can talk about, well, there is some things in the bill that protect that. In the end, we know that this will suppress any type of momentum in the economy to pay people more because there is, quote, a shortage. Thus, loyal Americans, people who have worked real hard for their employer or real hard for their country are going to be unemployed and untrained because those people that are going to be hired are going to be from outside this country. H.R. 3736 will bring in hundreds of thousands and flood the job market. If supply and demand were being adhered to, and those of us on our side of the aisle always talk about supply and demand, we believe in it, that is why we oppose many of these other things, well, if it is being adhered to, it has to be adhered to when it pressures wages up and helps the American people at those times as well as when it helps American companies. If we believe in it, let us stand for it now. Now, what would it mean if we let the supply and demand work at a time like this when they say there is a shortage of labor in the high- tech industries? It means wages would rise or investments would be made for retraining. That is what we are undercutting by passing this bill. We are undercutting increasing wages for our people and retraining. So there are thousands of veterans and aerospace workers, veterans who need jobs and they need retraining, aerospace workers in my area who need retraining, and there are perhaps 200,000 people who have been laid off by high-tech companies themselves, all of these people are the victims of this legislation. And who are we helping? We are helping hundreds of thousands of foreign workers. Who are we loyal to here? This is a maneuver to add to the profit margin of these high-tech companies. And, again, it is good for them. They should be out for their profit. But it is a dagger aimed at loyal employees, especially employees who are over 40 who may have to use health benefits and retirement benefits. We should decide what our standard of immigration is all about, what is best for our country, and it should not be flexible and manipulated and used to subsidize any industry or to keep wages down. What these companies should do is go hire people and train them or get involved in the community but not manipulate the rules in order to keep their profits up and keep wages down. So wages and prices as well should be just like in supply and demand. It should be outside. Wages and prices should not be based on political maneuvers or manipulations. Finally, this bill reflects an attitude I find pervasive in corporate America, and that is many of our executives think of themselves as citizens of the world. This is a global economy; thus, they are globalists. Well, I have news for everybody that makes that argument. We better be loyal to the American people. The freedom of the world, the prosperity of our country, the whole future of mankind depends on these people who have worked hard for our country. They have worked hard for their employer. They have been loyal to us, and they expect us to be loyal to them. And if we sell them out for the profit margin of a couple of high-tech companies, so it will be a little higher, at a time when they are unemployed and out of work, but we are going to flood the job market with foreigners, who are we loyal to and what does that mean to our future? Our high-tech companies and their corporate leaders should be loyal to the United States of America. And if they are not, well, we, at least in the United States Congress, have to be loyal to the American people.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule, but in strong opposition to H.R. 3736, a bill which would raise the annual number of high-tech jobs given to foreign workers. Currently the INS issues 65,000 H-1B visas per year to highly skilled noncitizen technical workers. H.R. 3736, in response to high-tech industry's claim that there is a crisis in the shortage of trained American workers, would increase the H-1B cap to 115,000 jobs in 1999 and 2000, and 107,000 jobs the following year. That is over 200,000 jobs going to foreign workers. Big business' claim that there is a worker shortage curiously comes at a time when our Nation's high-tech companies have laid off over 200,000 American employees, this year. The question is whether those Americans think there is a worker shortage crisis. And that does not even include, I might add, the tens of thousands of aerospace workers who have been laid off and are in need of training before they can get a job in these high-tech companies. Mr. Speaker, let us be honest about H-1B and this issue. This is not about a shortage of qualified American workers; it is about pacifying a powerful big business interest who is trying to secure cheap foreign labor. Mr. Speaker, whom do we represent? Working people who get laid off after having given their service to their industry and to their country are the people we should be most concerned about. Instead of letting the market forces work and seeing the wages rise and the amount of money put into job training increase because there is a supply and demand issue here, instead of letting that market force work to the benefit of our own people, we are being asked to interfere with this market process so we can flood the market with people from overseas who are willing to work for less money. Whom do we care about? Whom do we represent if we are going to do this? There are hundreds of thousands of workers from developing countries, indeed, that are willing to work for less. But the fact that they are importing them will take pressure off people to train our own people or to increase the wages of our people so those people will get their own training. The effect of this bill is to bring down the market wage for our high-tech workers. It is called supply and demand. That is what we believe in. We Republicans especially are supposed to believe in that. It is not just supposed to work for the benefit of big companies; it is supposed to work for the benefit of all of our people. It will also reduce the incentives for companies to reeducate and retrain employees or unemployed Americans. It will provide an incentive for companies to lay off senior employees before they qualify for retirement or if they need health benefits, which people who get older need. Instead, it will bring on people who are from developing countries who are willing to work for a lot less and are a lot younger, and thus will not use the health care or the retirement benefits. To whom are we loyal? Whom do we care about? We are supposed to care about the American people. American business, if they expect loyalty from their employees, have got to be loyal to their employees. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 3736, while supporting the rule, because H-1B was a rotten idea to begin with, and it is a rotten compromise.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. ROHRABACHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), my colleague, for those words. I have reached a different conclusion, but many of the things that the gentleman stated in his talk were right on target. I rise in support of the repeal of 907, which means I must oppose this amendment of my dear friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich). Let us note this, that this war, as the gentleman from Virginia has suggested, is going on and on and on. Mr. Chairman, I have visited Armenia and I have visited Azerbaijan. I have come to the conclusion, the honest conclusion, that the reason the war continues is because there is a perceived tilt in American policy towards Armenia in that part of the world and the Armenians thus are totally inflexible when it comes to negotiations with the Azerbaijanis, the Azerbaijanis who are desperate to make some kind of an agreement. But the Armenians, because it is perceived that the United States will do anything for them because of political pressure because, and let us face it, there are many Armenians that live in the United States, there are many Armenians that live in California, many of them are supporters of mine, they are fine people. But American foreign policy cannot be based on that political consideration. We should consider the cause of peace, the cause of freedom, and we have to consider also the national security interests of the United States of America. In this particular case, our unwillingness to try to be evenhanded in our approach in that area because of our fear of political repercussions from the Armenian community has prevented a peace agreement from being reached. Thus, both sides are suffering. Yes, as we hear about the suffering of the Armenian people in Nagorno-Karabakh, that is exactly correct. Those people are suffering. And equally suffering are the Azeris. Almost a million Azeris, 15 percent of the population, are now displaced and refugees. They are suffering as well. What is preventing the peace from coming about? What is preventing the peace from coming about is the Armenians really believe that they can hold out because America is going to be on their side and we are not going to force them to make any kind of compromise and they are going to get the whole ball of wax. We should be instead trying to be evenhanded, trying to reach a compromise. Now, in both instances when I went to Armenia and Azerbaijan and talked to the leaders of both of these countries, again I find the Azeris anxious to try to discuss and find some solution. And I find the Armenians unwilling to give up an inch. One inch. There is an easy answer to this and it is very recognizable on the map. There is an Armenian enclave in Azerbaijan. We know about that. Nagorno-Karabakh. But also there is an Azeri enclave in Armenia. The Azerbaijanis are open to talking about some kind of a land swap where they would swap the entire Nagorno-Karabakh region which used to be part of their territory, which is major Armenian and should be part of Armenia, they would swap that and give their legitimacy for that in exchange for a corridor to that enclave of Azeri population in Armenia. Mr. Chairman, that deal that is so obvious to those of us on the outside is not being seriously considered because the Armenians believe the United States is on their side, Russia is on their side, all the big boys are on their side, so they do not really have to give up a thing. That attitude is what has prevented peace. If we really love Armenia and love people and are trying to help end suffering, and we love Azeris and Armenians on an equal level, because that is what we are supposed to be, evenhanded in trying to bring about peace and freedom in this world, then we will have the courage to tell our Armenian friends back home that we are going to have to reach a compromise here and they are not going to get every single thing that they want; that there is going to have to be a compromise to reach peace. If there is that kind of compromise, both sides will be better. Let us have the courage to call it as it is here. Let us meet our responsibility as the world's leading power and at the very least not be forced into positions by strong minority groups within our own country to take positions that are contrary to the interest of world peace, contrary to freedom, and contrary to our own long-term national security interests. So, I rise in strong support of the repeal of 907 and thus oppose this amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that more Members on the other side of the aisle this morning have not been condemning the smear job that was done on the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Henry Hyde). Chuck Colson, legal counsel to the President under Richard Nixon, was sent to Federal prison for disclosing one-half of one FBI file. This administration: Hundreds of FBI files ended up in the hands of an opposition researcher for the Democratic Party at the White House. Nixon had an enemies list of people they would not invite to luncheons. This administration has a list of people it has set out to destroy. Mr. Speaker, we have here a pattern of abuse, personal attacks on the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Helen Chenoweth), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Dan Burton) and now the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. This is unconscionable. None of us is perfect, but we will not be intimidated, we will not be blackmailed. This administration is mirroring the worst types of lies, of Watergate lies and abuses, only it is worse. To those who set forth this strategy of trying to disclose decades- old indiscretions in order to intimidate the Members of Congress, it will not work. We will not be intimidated.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, like most if not all Republicans in the House, I have refrained from making speeches or public statements about the current scandal gripping the White House. I have said on numerous occasions that there are more important issues I would rather the public focus on, like, for example, using American technology to upgrade Communist Chinese rockets, thus putting millions of American lives at risk of nuclear incineration. That is something I would like the American people to pay attention to. I would rather see investigative journalists tracking down the details of Communist Chinese money that was laundered into the last presidential campaign. I never did understand how those impoverished Buddhist monks ever got those $5,000 checks to turn over to the President's reelection effort. We never did find that out, did we? I wonder where that came from. Anyway, there are other things that are much more important than the current scandal that seems to be gripping onto everybody's attention. We Republicans have done our best to let the Starr investigation run its course without adding to the shrillness of the voices heard throughout the land. Most of us honestly believe that it is a tragedy that a young lady who asked for an apology for ungentlemanly conduct did not get those words of apology that she sought, and had that happened, had she received the apology she was looking for, there would have been no civil case, there would have been no depositions, there would have been no lying under oath, there would have been no need to seek information to see if the offending actions were or were not part of a pattern of personal abuse. This country would have been spared all the humiliation and the spectacle of it all. Well, except for the fact that arrogance came to play and there was a refusal to apologize for offensive behavior. But for that, this thing would have gone away. But this disgusting scenario has played itself out, and it has been all too public, and it has played itself out without the prodding of Republican Members of Congress. We have, for the most part, tried to maintain decorum, we have tried to maintain our position so that, if necessary, we would be ready to deal with the worst eventuality if we were called to make judgments. One of the most respected leaders of this body admired by Republicans and Democrats alike is Henry Hyde, chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. He, more than any other, has attempted to remain aloof from the bitter rhetoric and accusatory language that swirls throughout the land due to this ever growing scandal. Today many of us were horrified to hear that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) was the target of a vicious personal attack and that that personal attack has all the appearances of an effort to intimidate not only Mr. Hyde, but other Members of Congress. Upset with Mr. Hyde's leadership even before the hearings begin, a media outlet saw fit to disclose an indiscretion, an affair Mr. Hyde committed 30 years ago. The smearing of Republican Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth disclosing an indiscretion of 15 years ago, and now the trashing of the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Henry Hyde, is a blackmail message to every member of Congress. It is an ugly and possibly illegal tactic designed to cower Republicans. Yes, no one is perfect, no one in this body is per, either Republicans or Democrats; we understand that. And there is no jury in the world that ever goes to try someone in court which is composed of perfect individuals either. But there is a difference between an indiscretion or something that someone has an imperfection, and there is a big difference between that and lying under oath and asking others to lie under oath in order to thwart a civil suit that was itself a product of misconduct. The vicious attack on Mr. Hyde underscores that the issue at hand in Washington is the abuse of power, of arrogance and of a willingness to act without shame in having one's own way. Those people who pushed this story of a 30-year-old indiscretion have strengthened the resolve of the Republicans to stand tough. Not one of us is perfect, or not one of us has, you know, has a situation where we do not have something in our past that we would prefer not to be made public. But we will not be intimidated. Years ago in the Nixon administration Charles Colson, a legal counsel to the President, showed one-half of one FBI file to a journalist. That file contained derogatory information about a critic of the administration. For that repulsive and undemocratic personal attack Mr. Colson was convicted of a felony and sent to Federal prison. Now we all know that in this administration hundreds of FBI files made their way into the hands of a democratic opposition researcher who was on the White House staff. No one has ever been held accountable for these hundreds of FBI files that were so abused. And an enormous effort was made to throw dust into the air and confuse the issue and obscure it from public scrutiny until it was forgotten, just like perhaps those $5,000 checks from those Buddhist monks are now forgotten or just a distant memory. By the way, whatever happened to those things? Whatever happened to the FBI files? Who was accountable for that? These are things that have never been answered, but it is forgotten now because so much dust is in the air. We have seen from this administration a willingness to destroy any adversary, far beyond anything that Richard Nixon ever dreamed of. Richard Nixon, yes, had an enemies list. It was a list of names with whom the White House would not cooperate. These were people who, the enemies list were people who would not be invited to luncheons or to special briefings or given any special type of treatment. That is what the enemies list was under Richard Nixon. This administration seems to have a hit list of people who are targeted for personal character assassination. Paula Jones was mistreated and then disparaged and brutalized for asking for an apology. Now we see attacks on Members of Congress. Dan Burton was investigating, Congressman Dan Burton was investigating, campaign corruption, had nothing to do with any other personal things that are going on, any other scandals that are going on, but he was investigating campaign corruption, and his own personal shortcomings of long ago were rubbed in his face. He, too, will not be intimidated. He, too, is standing tough. The public does not expect us to be perfect, it does not expect it. Does not expect Dan Burton to be perfect, does not expect me to be perfect, does not expect any Republican Member or any Democrat Member to be perfect because none of us are. But it is not hypocrisy for those of us who are not perfect to look into the abuses of power, to look into felony obstruction of justice, or perjury, of lying under oath, and we should be able to do that without someone threatening to disclose some information about an indiscretion of years ago. It appears that the House of Representatives may soon be called upon to judge evidence and make determinations. Any attempt to blackmail or intimidate us, to make us cower for fear of personal embarrassment, will not work. And if it is found that these attacks can in any way be traced to those under investigation, it will be the last straw. The American people are tolerant, sometimes to a fault. They are long suffering and slow to anger. But those who would tamper with the jury, blackmail and intimidate and conduct the most vicious type of personal attack on one's adversaries, will feel the wrath of the American people and will unify this Congress. On both sides of the aisle we will come together because we believe, as Members of this body, that this is an American institution that is dedicated to the proposition that we are better than that, better than they that do things in other more totalitarian, less democratic countries. We are better than that here in the United States of America, and in the capital and in the Congress of the United States we will hold to a higher standard. Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of utmost importance. It took my breath away today when I heard that Henry Hyde had been attacked in this way. As I say, we had seen this with Helen Chenoweth and Dan Burton before. We had seen critics of the administration suffer these type of personal attacks, and we have heard stories of things that happened in the past to critics, and it is something that goes beyond the bounds. This cannot be tolerated. It is a crossing of the line. Mr. Hyde is a well-respected, a very well-respected Member of this body, and not only have they shown they can do this to Mr. Hyde, but they have done this to others, and they can do to the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary this? If we let this go by, it is just admitting that our standards of our country have sunk to that level, and we cannot let that happen, and I would yield to my friend from Arizona.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we of course are seeing that is what the issue is. That is to be determined. We are not saying right now that a crime has been committed.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I have not mentioned the President when discussing any particular charge. And in fact, some of the charges, some of the things that we have been discussing have no relationship to the President whatsoever. And, in fact, relate more perhaps to some of the President's staff or perhaps to other people in the executive branch. Or perhaps some of the things that we are discussing are aimed more at people who are liberal activists in the news media. So, although obviously some of the things we are discussing may have some impact on the President, we are not addressing this specifically at the President.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. In conclusion, let me say that I am pleased that my friend from Arizona joined me here tonight. Actually I am sure he saw me on C-SPAN and decided to come over, working late in his office. He was probably working in his office after 11 o'clock at night and came over here, and I know that has happened to me at times as well. Mr. Speaker, we are both concerned, and I think that tomorrow that we will see in this body a great deal of concern about this vicious personal attack on the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). And I would hope that it is a source of unity for this body, that we unify tomorrow and say that this is over. This is beyond the pale. This is over the bounds of acceptability. And we will stand together to uphold the standards of law because that is true, both Democrats and Republicans, we realize that like in that movie about the young boys who were on the island, remember that? Somebody else is going to have to help me with this. Lord of the Flies, in that movie Lord of the Flies, I remember I read the book as well, come to think of it. There was a conch that was the symbol of respect for law. But once that respect for whoever held that conch so the people would be quiet and listen to them and they could discuss the issues, once that was destroyed, there was a degeneration into a type of life, a savagery that came out. We will maintain the comity of this body. We will maintain goodwill. Goodwill among free people, goodwill among people who believe in democracy and constitutional government. What happened with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) was not in keeping with that spirit, and it will not, and let us just state once and for all, we will not be intimidated. Justice will be served. We will make an honest determination of everything that comes before us and personal attacks on us must stop and they will not be tolerated.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman brought up Eisenhower. I think it would be interesting to those reading the Congressional Record, listening over C-SPAN and our colleagues who are listening at home and in the body, to note a quotation from Adlai Stevenson. Mr. Speaker, Eisenhower and Stevenson fought a very tough battle for the presidency, not on 1 occasion, but on 2 occasions. And Adlai Stevenson is quoted as saying, my favorite quote from Mr. Stevenson is, ``He who throws mud will generally lose ground.'' I am afraid that those people who have launched these personal attacks on the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenowith) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and now the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, those people who have tried to destroy Paula Jones when she was asking for an apology for ungentlemanly conduct that was thrown at her, that those people will not be tolerated by other members of the media and other Members of this body. I think that especially now, this attack on the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), tomorrow we will see that our colleagues will rally to the gentleman from Illinois, and we will tomorrow reconfirm to one another that that is unacceptable, and that there shall be no more of this, and that this indeed may be the last straw, but if this tactic continues, and if this tactic is traced back to anyone who is under investigation, that that will be the last straw. There are reports, there are some reports right now that this may well have been something that came out of this White House. Again, just like the charges that we were asked to investigate, let us wait and see. I am not going to state that that is the case because all I have done is hear some television reports. But if the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), as the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, is faced with some sort of conspiratorial action to have a personal, a vile personal attack against him to disclose some information from 30 years ago, while we are trying to investigate, and again, trying to investigate charges of what? Charges that someone lied under oath, charges that someone has asked other people to lie under oath and things such as that, if we cannot look into this seriously and take that job seriously without having it threatened, that we are in some way going to have some little thing that we have done wrong, and all of us have done things that are embarrassing in our lives, then we have let the standards slip. This is the United States of America. We are supposed to be better than that here. There was a movie a few years ago, I do not know if my friend remembers that movie, and it was about somewhere here in Washington, and I think it was the President's choice of a certain ambassadorial job or something, and some personal information was leaked about that person that he had had some homosexual affair or something like that, and the man ended up committing suicide. I forget what the name of that movie is right now. Advice and Consent, that is exactly what it was. In that movie, I think that it really brought home for those of us who had never been in Washington, when I first saw that I had never been in Washington, and of course it was a wonderful book by Mr. Drury, was it? What that brought home was the fact that we are people here. We are human beings, and we have feelings, and certainly we get mad and angry. I know I got mad today and said a couple of things to somebody I did not want to say. But this was not an action of anger. What we are talking about is the activity taken against the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) was cold and calculated and as low as one can get in this town. We are supposed to be above that.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But what we are saying is that that is what the underlying tension in this city today is as we are moving forward to investigate a crime. We have done everything that we can do. My colleagues have not seen me on the floor, and my colleagues have not seen the gentleman from Arizona on the floor. We both would like to speak, and we are politically oriented. We are in the middle of the year. My colleagues have not seen some of the other great, great speakers on the Republican side of the aisle down in the well and making political hay out of this. We are not. We have not been doing that because we know that that this body has to determine, as the gentleman showed in the Constitution, it is up to us to uphold that standard and determine if a crime has been committed. God will judge people's sin and morals. It is up to us to make that judgment if a crime has been committed. To have in the middle of this now, to have this word go out that anybody who gets too tough, even the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is going to find themselves the subject of a smear. Anything they have ever done wrong is going to be spread all over the newspapers. This is unconscionable. We cannot let that be the standard here in Washington, D.C. This is all we are really talking about is upholding the standards, the standards that were written down by our Founding Fathers in that Constitution. There is a lot of talk about moral standards, and I think that is an important issue of discussion; that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the law. By the way, if a simple apology would have been made to someone who was mistreated, and that is all that person was really asking for, everything else had been decided, this need not have come to a head. There did not need to be depositions. There did not need to be someone to be asked an investigation to find out if this kind of conduct was something that was a personal habit that was going on, an ongoing thing rather than just one little incident. That would not have been necessary then. The lying under oath and trying to protect oneself, it would not have happened except the fact that somebody did not get an apology when they asked for it because they were a simple person, just a simple person who believed that she had been treated not like a lady. In this country, even a simple person has a right. No matter who that other individual is, no matter what high office they may hold, they cannot treat a citizen in a way without legal recourse. One note. In Los Angeles, I remember the story of an Arab, rich Arab Sheik that came into town and had lots of money. He was a king or something. Maybe he was a prince or whatever he was. He was a pretty big shot in his own country. He checked into a hotel, and the bellman was late with delivering something by 5 minutes or something, and this man slapped the bellman. The bellman looked at him and he said, you cannot do that. This is the United States of America. He said, you are a bellman. He said, get out of here. No, in the United States of America, that bellman has the rights and can have his dignity protected just like that young lady, Paula Jones, had a right to have her dignity protected. If that prince would have apologized, it probably would have been okay. But he did not, and he was arrogant. In the end, that prince, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps billions of dollars, had to flee this country because of a civil suit filed by that bellman. I am proud to live in the United States of America where these people are protected. But it is only the rule of law that protects them. It is only a certain amount of respect that we have for the average person. Yes, when the average person sues the high and mighty, there are depositions that have to be taken and people have to give testimony under oath in order to investigate personal conduct that may prove that there is some kind of a pattern, a personal pattern in that abuse. If someone lies during that civil matter, that is a violation of the law. We have to determine whether the law has been violated, whether that happened in this case. We take that seriously. I am not saying I am in favor of impeachment or if I believe that there is any crime that absolutely has been committed, but we can say that there is enough evidence for us to look into this matter, and we must look into this matter without outside pressures trying to intimidate us to back away or to cower because someone's going to say something bad about our background. It is wrong. What happened to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) was wrong. What happened to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) was wrong. What happened to the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth) was wrong. We are not going to let it happen. We are not going to be intimidated. We are not going to let that happen. We are going to find out whether this could be traced back to the people who are under investigation. We are going to find that out. Again if it is, if this can be traced back to the person under investigation, this is the straw that breaks the camel's back. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me just note this, if the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) was being accused of perjury and saying that he had committed perjury in the past, how can he now investigate and have a perjury investigation? If the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) was being accused of obstruction of justice, that would be something else. We probably would say maybe there is a point here, and someone has a built-in situation where he should not be that chairman or something. That is not what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), what they brought up. That is not what they brought up on the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). Let us say that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) had been accused of all sorts of campaign violations, and of course he is looking into campaign violations himself, these things. These things, hypocrisy is something that someone can talk about and charge with someone. Someone has a double standard and things such as that. But that is not what has happened here. And, of course, we do know that Mr. Starr, and I have not personally commented on this. This is the first time that I have publicly commented on this. That Mr. Starr, of course, the investigator himself, has been brutalized over and over and again these last few years. When I was in the Reagan White House, Ronald Reagan was committed to seeing that the communists would not take over Central America. And as much as people do not like to admit that, that was the core issue that was going on. Ronald Reagan was going to stop the Sandinista government, which had billions of dollars of military equipment from the Soviet Union, from expanding and put them on the defensive. We did that until the Soviet Union collapsed. Because had the Sandinistas started expanding their role, it would have been a terrible thing. Probably communism would not have collapsed because they would have thought they were going to win. Anyway there were some mistakes made by people in the White House and elsewhere, and we helped the Contras at a time when some Members of Congress felt that it was not legal for us to do so. Let me add, I personally believe that no laws were ever broken in that situation. I personally believe that it was perfectly legal for the President to, although it was not advisable what he did in terms of Iran, but it was perfectly legal for him to try to make those contacts with Iran and there was residual money that was left over that was then transferred to the Contras. Mr. Speaker, that was a big crisis in the Reagan administration. That was as big as a crisis and upsetting of the natural order of things here as what we are going through now, based on this current scandal. But at no time do I remember that the special prosecutor in that case, that we tried to do anything like is being done to Mr. Starr to the special prosecutor that went after Mr. Reagan. And, by the way, that special prosecutor spent more money and had more people working for him, I believe, or at least an equal amount, and a number of people, and I do not remember seeing anything in the paper about whether seeing if people believed in the special prosecutor's words as they do now. They have polling as, ``Who do you believe? Clinton or Starr?" That did not happen during the Reagan years. I think Mr. Starr, and believe me, I do sympathize somewhat with the idea that prosecutors should not just have a blank slate and be able to come in and investigate anything in anybody's life until they find something. I understand that. But that is not what the situation is today. We have some specific things that we have to decide here, very specific things about specific statements made under oath that we believe that may well not have been truthful. Mr. Speaker, we have to investigate that because it was made under oath and involving a civil legal matter. If we do not say that, we just say across the board that it is okay to lie under oath in civil cases. Now we cannot say that. We cannot permit that standard to sink that low. Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, we Americans are rightfully proud that our country is known as the land of opportunity. Unfortunately, Native Americans have not always enjoyed the upward mobility we are so proud of, but obstacles faced by Native Americans can and are being overcome. Prior to 1970, for example, the Choctaw Indians had no industrial development, suffered from high unemployment, and were dependent on assistance from Washington, D.C. for their survival. But since then, under the leadership of Chief Martin, a persistent and entrepreneurial attitude has enabled the Choctaws to break away from Federal dependency. The incredible progress enjoyed by the Choctaws is living proof that self-empowerment, private enterprise, and entrepreneurship are the keys to opening the doors of opportunity for all Americans, especially Native Americans. The governmental and business leadership of Chief Martin has made the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, since his election as chief, a shining example of what self-determination is all about. I am proud to join my colleagues in honoring the Choctaw tribe and Chief Martin's leadership.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honored today to address the House regarding Professor Larry William Heimgartner. For the past twenty-five years, Mr. Heimgartner has served as a distinguished faculty member of the Los Angeles Harbor College Humanities and Fine Arts Division. He has been a tireless, dedicated professional, who has had a profound impact on the thousands of students who have come under his influence as a mentor, advisor, confidant, counselor and teacher. Professor Heimgartner is an accomplished playwright, director, and producer. Over the course of his tenure at Harbor College he has written, produced and directed many original theatrical productions, including the one man show ``Abraham Lincoln''; the Broadway musical ``Grab the Ring''; a musical adaptation of ``Alice in Wonderland''; and ``Bigger Than Bubblegum,'' a musical portrayal of the life and times of the 1970's pop group The Emotions. Professor Heimgartner has long directed his considerable talents and energy toward the education of children. He has written, produced, and directed a series of musical ``plays with a moral'' for children. These plays are presented annually as a part of the U.S. Marine Corps' ``Toys for Tots'' program, and as a feature of Harbor College's Summer Children's Theater events. He has also presented ``America's Youth,'' which addresses the challenges confronting our children today, and ``Don't Get Too Close,'' a hard-edged presentation regarding the dangers of AIDS and HIV. Professor Heimgartner is an educational innovator. He has developed and instituted a variety of laudatory programs for the benefit of his students and the community. He has conducted study programs in Europe through a cooperative exchange program with England's Barnsley College, directed interactive teleconferencing sessions in the state, nation and in the international community, and introduced the More Opportunities for the Developmentally Disabled program. The MODD Squad, as the professor calls it, is an innovative program which provides opportunities for people with disabilities to participate in the College's original dramas. Larry William Heimgartner is an esteemed and respected faculty member of Harbor College. He is the recipient of the Eugene Pimentel Award for Teaching Excellence, and has been named in Outstanding Young Men of America. As an alumnus of Harbor College, it is with great personal pride that I express my thanks and good wishes to Professor Heimgartner on the occasion of his twenty-fifth anniversary with the College. He is an example of the best of America.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives condemning Hun Sen as a war criminal. If he continues his war against Democracy in Cambodia and continues ordering brutality and killing, my fellow Congressmen will pass this legislation Hun Sen is fooling no one. The election was stolen. He now hopes to intimidate freedom loving Cambodians. The attacks on Buddhist monks and peaceful demonstrators serves only to confirm that he is a dictator and an enemy to anyone who loves freedom. As his thugs--whether in uniform or civilian clothing--mercilessly shoot and beat freedom loving Cambodians--including old women and children, it's clear Hun Sen still has the same lack of human morality as when he was a commander in Pol Pot's genocidal army. Hun Sen must not be permitted to become a new Pol Pot. This is a turning point in history. Those young Cambodians in uniforms and their commanders must not support Hun Sen. They should defend those courageous Cambodians who seek Democracy. If Hun Sen is permitted to become Cambodia's new Pol Pot, he will murder Cambodia's future and hand the country over to foreigners who seek to enslave the Cambodian people. Only the courage of the Cambodian people will permit this, but they should know that freedom loving people, especially here in the United States, are praying for them. In spirit, we are on their side. Ultimately, it is the courage and ideals of the Cambodian people that will make the difference. I and all Americans wish you success in this struggle.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the crisis that we are now facing here in the Nation's Capital is unfortunately obstructing the view of a historic struggle that is now going on in southeast Asia and China. So I believed tonight to be the night that I should, instead of getting up and talking about some of the problems and some of the crises and challenges we face here, point to this historic event that is taking place in Southeast Asia so people will understand that, yes, the forces of democracy are on the move, and there are positive things happening around the world as well as some things that may cause us great concern. Asia is at a turning point. Asia will have tyranny and deprivation in the long run, or it will have democracy and free markets. The people in various countries in Southeast Asia and also in China understand that they are at this turning point, and the choices that are being made today will impact on their countries and on this planet for decades to come. We can be grateful here in the United States that what we believe in, a democratic government, free enterprise, individual rights, are the type of ideals that are inspiring young people and are inspiring those folks who would change their systems in Southeast Asia. Although those folks are up against some incredible odds, people in various countries are showing admirable courage as we speak and as we meet. They are confronting dictatorship and cronyism in their countries and putting their lives on the line by doing it. In Indonesia, for example, young people are still in the streets, still facing off with the power structure. And Soeharto himself, the dictator, at long last may be gone, a man whose family looted that country of tens of billions of dollars, he may be gone, but his power structure remains, and the young people of that country are trying to eliminate cronyism and establish democracy for that country. In Cambodia, ordinary people, street vendors, taxi cab drivers, Buddhist monks, people of every stripe and from every walk of life are joining together to sit in front of the American embassy and also in the town square, reminiscent of what happened in the Philippines under Marcos, and telling the dictator Hun Sen, a man who was a trigger man for Pol Pot that he will not rob them of their free elections. This confrontation in Cambodia should have the attention of every freedom-loving person in the world, especially here in the United States. The United States stands with the people who are struggling for democracy in Cambodia, and they should understand that we are on the side of the people, democracy, and free enterprise, and we are opposed to Hun Sen and crooked elections and the use of force and violence. These young people in Cambodia are admirable. These Buddhist monks are people who deserve our admiration and deserve our applause. Similarly, in Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi and her democratic movement is at long last standing up to the SLORC dictatorship. Both in Cambodia and in Burma, those ruthless gangsters who run those countries who are tied in with drug lords and have made international deals with the Communist Chinese should understand that, if they commit murders in order to maintain their power, if Aung San Suu Kyi is hurt or hundreds of people are murdered in Cambodia, those individuals in those governments, like Mr. Hun Sen and the military leaders in Burma, will be held accountable, and they will be treated as war criminals in the United States and the other democracies. Because the struggle for freedom in Southeast Asia is reaching a crescendo, the Burmese people could free themselves. The people of Cambodia, if they remain courageous, could free themselves from Hun Sen and his dictatorship and his iron-fisted rule. The United States, those of us in Congress, while we are going through our own crisis at home, have not lost site of our ideals. And as we speak, we should send a message to the people in Southeast Asia struggling for freedom and the people in China struggling for freedom we are on their side. Have courage. The American people will not let you down. We are on the side of freedom and democracy and opposed to dictatorship just like you.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, when John Adams was inaugurated as the second President of the United States in 1797, President Washington turned to him and said ``I am fairly out and ye are fairly in.'' That inauguration was the most important in American history because it established the precedent of peaceful transitions of power, which are crucial to all democracies. Unfortunately, a contagious trend is catching on in Latin America: Presidents are seeking to extend their reign by working to amend the constitutions that limit their terms. The result is that they are preventing democracy from developing deep roots. What is happening today in Panama exemplifies the problem. Panama's president, Ernesto Perex Balladares, and his ruling PRD party, are attempting to amend the constitution to eliminate its one-term limit on the presidency. On Aug. 30, the people of Panama will vote on the adoption of this amendment. This referendum is a power grab by the PRD, cleverly cloaked as constitutional reform. It should not be forgotten that the PRD is the party of Manuel Noriega. Twice in 30 years the PRD has stolen democracy from the people through military means. The last time this happened, 28 Americans lost their lives in order to restore the democratically elected President, Guillermo Endara. Perez Balladares has hired Democratic party operative James Carville in an effort to ease any pressure that might have come from the White House to put a stop to Balladares' power grab. He should have saved his money. If one looks at the way this Administration has coddled the world's dictators, from Hun Sen in Cambodia to the Politburo in Beijing, from the Taleban in Afghanistan to the North Korean regime, Perex Balladares has little to worry about from the people in the White House who are concerned about democracy. For the sake of the Panamanian people and the tens of thousands of Americans who have served in Panama, especially those who have given their lives in Panama, I ask my colleagues to watch this referendum closely.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, on April 30 of this year, I came to the floor of the House to use 1 hour of time available to me in a special order to discuss a matter of utmost importance to the security of our country and the safety of the American people. In that special order, which I gave on April 30, I disclosed information that indicated that American aerospace firms, with the acquiescence of officials in the Clinton administration, and perhaps the President himself, had facilitated the transfer of sophisticated rocket technology to the Communist Chinese. If true, I stated, Americans have been put in jeopardy and that this could be the worst technological betrayal of our country since the Rosenbergs. For those of my colleagues who do not remember the Rosenbergs, the Rosenbergs were people who worked for the United States in our own program to develop an atomic bomb during World War II; who, for whatever reason, gave the secrets of producing that atomic bomb to Communist Russia, to the Soviet Union when it was under the control of Joseph Stalin. Well, today, unfortunately, it appears that some major American aerospace companies may well have given to the world's worst abuser of human rights, tyrants that are on the par with Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung and other tyrants of the past, may have given them secrets that we developed during the Cold War for our own protection. They have given them those secrets in a way which will increase their capability of building rockets that could hit the United States with nuclear weapons. Mr. Speaker, I take the floor again today to update my colleagues and interested parties on what has happened since my initial disclosure, as well as disclose new information that has come to light concerning the use of technology developed and paid for by the U.S. taxpayers, handed over to the Communist Chinese. First and foremost, since my first address, nothing has emerged that suggests that my original statements were inaccurate. The more information that becomes available, the more certain it becomes that aerospace firms like Loral Space and Communications, Hughes and Motorola, callously disregarded the security of our country. To be fair on this, Hughes Corporation denies that they have done anything to improve Communist Chinese rocket capability, and is taking steps to provide me with information which they believe will demonstrate this fact and will demonstrate the fact they have remained true to the United States. Hughes notwithstanding, there is ample evidence that American technology was transferred to this hostile potential enemy of the United States and that the vast experience of some of our best aerospace engineers provided the Communist Chinese the guidance needed to upgrade and perfect highly sophisticated weapons systems, increasing the reliability and capability of Communist Chinese rockets. This has given what anyone has to admit is at least a potential enemy of the United States, a better ability to deliver nuclear warheads to our country, to American cities, to incinerate millions of our people. Did the Communist Chinese have that capability before? Yes, they did, minimally, have that capability. Perhaps they could have gotten a rocket to us. But now, thanks to American know-how, given them by American aerospace companies, their rockets are more accurate and are more reliable, and now their rockets can kill more than one nuclear warhead, and this, thanks to American know-how. I expected, after my first speech on this issue, that the companies in question would protest that I was wrong, that my fears were unfounded, that my sources had exaggerated the damage being done to our security. That has not been the case. The dangers to our country may, in fact, have been understated. Since disclosing the limited information I uncovered, there have been several hearings in the House and in the Senate looking into this horrific possibility that the money that we Americans spent developing technology to defend us ended up perfecting Communist Chinese rockets, and in the House, a select committee of nine distinguished Members has been appointed. Under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), this select committee is now organizing its efforts to thoroughly investigate the situation. One of the executives in question is Bernard Schwartz of Loral. Schwartz was hell-bent to sell an arsenal of high-tech weapons to the Communist Chinese, weapons that would have put tens of thousands of American military personnel in jeopardy, our military personnel, our sons and daughters on our ships or in our airplanes. In any future confrontation between the United States and China, our military people would have been put in jeopardy of being shot out of the air, blown out of the water, and murdered by Communist Chinese who are being armed with technology that was developed by the United States for our own defense. This is what Bernard Schwartz wanted to sell to the Communist Chinese. We do not know exactly how much of this lethal weapons-related technology Loral was able to transfer. He was stopped in many cases, and he was not given permission in many cases. But what is clear, that when it comes to the upgrading of China's rocket system, which could land a nuclear weapon here, Loral was anxious to help, and in fact there is evidence to indicate that the weapons systems, that these missiles were improved with Loral's help. According to reports, on February 6, 1996, a Chinese long march rocket carrying a $200 million Loral satellite, exploded shortly after its launch from a satellite launch center in China. Loral and the Hughes Corporation went to work on an accident review for the insurance companies who insured that flight and insured the coverage of that loss. First of all, we need to understand that it is illegal for corporations to transfer this weapons technology and to upgrade rockets, so there was no excuse whatsoever for Hughes and Loral to be going through an accident investigation that was involving only the blow-up of a Chinese rocket, not the malfunction of a satellite system. There should have been no discussions whatsoever. The Chinese Government, once Loral and Hughes jumped into analyzing what had gone wrong with this launch, the Chinese Government requested a Chinese-born Loral executive named Dr. Wah Lim, to be put in charge of this report. Loral complied with this request, and replaced an experienced American U.S. Air Force colonel who was at that time responsible for the launch security, and they replaced this man, this American military officer at Loral, they replaced him with Dr. Lim, who had been requested by the Communist Chinese. One wonders why that happened. One wonders what justification there could be in that. In May 1996, the 200-page accident review, this report that dealt with this rocket's performance, was finished and this again had nothing to do with the satellite, it had to do with the explosion of the rocket. This report was unlawfully faxed by Dr. Lim, the man who the Chinese had requested be on this team, this report was faxed to the Communist Chinese themselves without either a State Department or Defense Department approval. One year later, when the Pentagon completed an assessment of what had happened, an assessment of this report, and Dr. Lim's actions taken to provide this report to the Communist Chinese, our Defense Department concluded, and I quote: ``The United States national security has been harmed,'' end of quote. To put that in terms that my colleagues might understand, now millions of Americans live under the threat of being incinerated by a nuclear weapon launched at the United States from China, and made more accurate and made more reliable by our own aerospace industry. Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with a former security monitor for U.S. space launches overseas who has monitored Loral launches in the former Soviet Union and in China. He claims to have witnessed serious lapses in the security of U.S. satellites and these rocket launches in both countries. In addition, the Cox committee will be looking into reports by the Defense Department officials who were present at Loral's launches in China. We are talking especially about that launch in February of 1996. The mass of information is somewhat confusing, but to begin with, the report that we are talking about that went to the Communist Chinese, this was supposedly for insurance companies, and the one that of course ended up going directly to the Chinese Communist rocket builders is not just a general assessment. It turns out that that report that was put together by Loral and Hughes engineers, it is not just a road map, it is kind of a blueprint, if you will, for perfecting the Chinese Communist long march rocket system. That rocket system, before the American intervention, before our experts started talking to the Communist Chinese, had blown up four times in a row. It was one of the world's most unreliable systems. But the suggestions that they were given were so precise that it was not just trying to perfect things and make things better, it was so precise it included such things as make sure, and I will use terms that are not classified terms, turn this widget and replace it with a ``thingamabob.'' Make sure that the settings on the ``what'a-ya-call- it'' panel are turned this way. And even a layman like myself, with very little technological background, but even I could read and see that this was a blueprint for improving a Communist Chinese rocket system and had nothing to do with the satellite itself. It was clearly instructions on how to dramatically improve that Communist Chinese rocket system. And guess what? Think about it. After these meetings and after this report was put in the hands of the Communists, well, guess what? After they got their advice from, their technological advice from their American buddies, this particular Communist Chinese rocket system flew successfully, and has continued to fly successfully. Now it is a reliable rocket system, from the most unreliable in the world to a very reliable system. No more explosions. It is a perfected system. The trouble is, that same system is identical, although it is carrying American satellites now, it is identical to the system that carries nuclear warheads, atomic bombs. The difference between that rocket system and the one that carries the weapons to kill us, the only difference, one is painted a pastel color and is very beautiful and the other may have military painting on it. Mr. Speaker, I say to my fellow colleagues, this is a severe, a severe breach of American security, and has put our country in jeopardy. We are not just talking about American satellites. Again, when we hear the issue discovered, those people who talk about satellites, are trying to confuse the issue. What we are really talking about is the upgrading of a nuclear weapons delivery system in the hands of the Communist Chinese, a weapons system that is designed to hit American cities and vaporize millions of our own people. Shame on Loral and any other American company involved in providing this assistance to a potential enemy of the United States of America. Another aerospace company, Motorola, appears to have been involved in advancing Chinese ballistic missile capabilities as well. In this case, Motorola took a Chinese rocket, not the same one that we are talking about with Loral and Hughes, took a Chinese rocket, called the Chinese long march 2-C rocket and upgraded its capabilities. The long march 2-C was a relatively reliable system, unlike the other one that we are talking about that Hughes and Loral were dealing with. It had in fact flown 14 times before the Americans came around to use it in order to launch a new generation of communication satellites. The problem with launching those satellites was that it was a reliable system, but it really was not as capable as Motorola and other companies wanted it to be. In fact, as long as it saved money and did not enhance the Chinese ability to attack its enemies, meaning the United States, it was okay for Loral to use that system, because it was reliable and they had done that on their own, the Chinese had developed that on their own. What happened was this: In all of the launches of that Chinese long march 2-C rocket before Motorola showed up with its engineering advice and sophisticated technology, in all of those launches, the Chinese rocket that we are talking about only carried one payload. In the launches afterwards, after Loral had 40-some engineering meetings with the Chinese, and after Loral gave them certain technologies, the Chinese rocket that we are talking about went from carrying one payload to carrying two payloads. Now, that may not sound very threatening, but let me put it this way: American technology was then used to double the capacity of a Communist Chinese missile system. This is called MIRVing. When we have only one payload and then we take it to two or more payloads, it is MIRVing. This is the ability to dispense more than one projectile from a rocket, whether it is a satellite or a nuclear warhead. That is from one rocket, more than one payload is MIRVing. And so others will know why that is a threat, instead of just destroying one city, that rocket now could destroy two American cities rather than just one American city. Is that important that we have doubled their capability of this rocket system to destroy American cities and obliterate our countryside with just one missile? Yes, that is really important. The frightening fact screams out at us. China did not have MIRVing capability for this system before the iridium satellite contract was signed with Motorola. However, on September 1, and here is a quote from the Chinese themselves, on September 1, 1997, the official Communist Chinese news agency reported, and I quote: A Chinese long march rocket carrier containing two simulations, two simulations of iridium satellites owned by the American electronic giant Motorola was successfully launched. And here is the hook to it. The carrier, based on the long march 2-C, was the first of its type ever launched. Why was it the first of its type? Because it carried two satellites, two payloads instead of one. An American company essentially doubled the capacity of a Communist Chinese rocket system to carry payloads. Both payloads may be deadly payloads that would put millions of American lives in jeopardy. In addition, Motorola officials confirmed to me that they have provided the Chinese with technology such as exploding bolts. Exploding bolts. That is the technology that facilitates the stage separation of rockets. So that if a rocket is taking off, some of the times the Chinese rockets that were taking off before Loral and Hughes and Motorola got over there, they tried to separate their stages, and they would just explode. That is what was explained to me the first time I heard about this. And I looked at the engineer, the American engineer who was telling me about this, and I said, you know, I think it is a good thing when Chinese rockets explode. We like it when Chinese rockets explode, because those rockets then cannot come over here and kill our loved ones. Well, at first the company was turned down, Motorola, when they wanted to give some of these technologies, these exploding bolts that facilitate MIRVing and stage separation technology, they were turned down. They were turned down in their attempt. Just as perhaps Bernie Schwartz was turned down on some of these requests early on to sell weapons technology to the Chinese, they were turned down to sell these exploding bolts to the Chinese. But through a Clinton administration sleight of hand, by readjusting the paperwork, the licensing process moved forward, and this technology, which helps the rockets, was moved from the rocket category, which is illegal for these companies to transfer to the Communist Chinese, it was moved to the satellite list simply by reworking the paperwork. Now, it is permissible for them to give this technology, before it was illegal. The end result: Communist Chinese, who are infamous copy cats, these people spend billions of dollars trying to copy American ideas and technology and engineering, these famous copy cats ended up with 40 of these incredibly precise and sophisticated pieces of aerospace engineering. We do not expect them to try to copy this when it gives them the ability to perfect their own missile system. Motorola indicated to me that they wanted to provide me with information that would convince me that they were not guilty of betraying the security of our country. Unfortunately, they have not been willing to provide me with any more information and suggesting, instead, well, we are only going to talk to the Cox committee which is, as I said, now just getting organized. Frankly, I look at this as a stall and will let the public and my colleagues determine for themselves whether they think that this is a stall or an attempted coverup. I gave Motorola every opportunity to correct what they said was a false impression on my part. They decided not to provide me with information, knowing that I would be speaking to the House of Representatives as well as to the American people on this issue. I will continue to speak to the House of Representatives and the American people on this issue and continue my investigation of this issue. If Motorola chooses not to make information available, we can only think the worst of them for it. The Hughes Corporation, on the other hand, has tried to be cooperative. The company has some serious questions to answer in regard to three satellite launches in China that did not have U.S. security monitors present. Under U.S. regulations, security monitors were needed. They had to be there. It was required that they be there for all the launches in China. Yet, they were not there at three of these major launches. Why was that? Hughes Aircraft and Hughes Electronics understood the necessity, the legal requirement for these launches to be monitored. Hughes is making, however, as I say, information and personnel available to me so that if mistakes were made, we can talk about them and they can be corrected. I take that as an act of good faith on the part of Hughes. One question I will be asking is why Hughes hired the son of a general, of a Chinese Communist general, to be involved in their own program. In fact, the son of the general they hired is the general who was in charge of China's own military satellite program. We need to know the role that this man played in that company, the son of a Communist Chinese general, as well as whether he has had a hand in some of these sensitive decisions as well as access to this very sensitive U.S. aerospace technology. Hughes must explain the role that they have given to Dr. Wah Lim. They hired Wah Lim, Hughes hired Wah Lim as a senior vice president after the Loral report debacle was made public. I will be reporting back to my fellow Members of Congress and to the American people upon the return from our August break. This issue should not be lost in the headlines of controversy that are now flowing through Washington, D.C. This issue is important to our national survival. The central issue in this egregious breach of America's national security is whether or not China is a threat to America and to the peace of the world. Some people just say, well, I say we give Communist Chinese all this technology. Some people shrug their shoulders and say ``so what,'' because they do not understand the threat that China poses to the world. I believe that Communist China should be the ultimate factor in the determination of U.S. foreign policy today, just as containing communism was our primary factor during the Cold War. The truth is that, despite utilizing some forms of capitalism, China is still a one-party Communist dictatorship. That has become especially evident in the recent attempt by brave democrats across China to officially register as a democratic party during President Clinton's visit to China. As a result, all of the leaders of that movement are currently in jail or under house arrest with constant harassment by State security forces. When China was going in the right direction, I would not have been here complaining that we were too involved in cooperating with Communist China. I would not have been. But China is not going in the right direction. There has been a regression. It is becoming more repressive. Ten years ago, before Tiananmen Square, the Communist Chinese had other elements in their society who were developing alternatives. They seemed to be accepting the fact that alternatives had a right to exist. There was an acceptance of certain kinds of religious activities in China. People, communications were opening up. It is going in the opposite direction. The Communist Chinese, while becoming more totalitarian now, are also becoming more heavily armed and more belligerent. By the way, there is a white paper on China's national defenses. The document is from a leadership document of the Communist Chinese themselves. It was released last week. This white paper details China's own goals. It calls the United States and its alliance with democratic countries in Asia as ``the main threat to world peace and stability.'' It calls our own defense pact, America's defense pact with Japan, ``an infringement on China's internal affairs.'' What, pray tell, might China's national military objective be? Beijing's white paper emphasized China's intention to use force, if necessary, to conquer the free people of Taiwan. These are people that the United States, by treaty, have sworn to protect and defend. China is also staking out its claim to all the territories in the South China Sea, including islands just off the coast of the Philippines, almost within view of the Philippines and Malaysia as well. In partnership with the despicable SLORC regime, this is the Chinese Communists are in partnership with a regime in Burma, the SLORC regime, that is one of the darkest corners of this planet and one of the most malevolent and evil, evil regimes in this world. Human rights organizations all over the world have targeted Burma because of this ugly regime. China is arming the SLORC regime to the teeth in exchange for raw materials, cutting down and destroying their teak forest, as well as having a hand in the drug trade, in the heroin trade coming out of Burma. That is China. Of course it is important. In this, China, while cozying up to this dictatorship, actually supporting the dictatorship in Burma, is building a chain of military naval installations in Burma along the Indian Ocean that, in part, have lead India, have lead India to become more aggressive in developing its own conventional and nuclear weapons policies. While China was assuring the world that it was against this nuclear arms race, and we have seen that in Pakistan and in India and what a threat it is, but while China says it is against that arms race, what has it done? It continues to ship and to smuggle components to Pakistan for their nuclear weapons program and their missile delivery systems. This is really, perhaps, the thing that China is doing that perhaps causes a short-term threat, even greater than the long-term threat of their own missiles. If Pakistan and India began exchanging rockets and atomic bombs, millions of people will die, and it will be a tragedy beyond all description. China is helping people put these weapon systems together. Even worse, during, and this is during and after, President Clinton's stay in China, our new strategic partner, because that is what the President is trying to say China is, our partner, this villainous, evil regime is this strategic partner, even while he was there trying to make friends with them so they would be good guys, the Communist Chinese continued to transfer weapons of mass destruction technology and know-how to Iran and Libya while the President was there. This was confirmed to me by a State Department official last week during a House Committee on International Relations hearing. The Communist Chinese have more than earned their title as the number one on the CIA's list of major proliferators of weapons of mass destruction technology. However, the most egregious demonstration of contempt, contempt for the people of the United States and contempt for President Clinton, was demonstrated when Beijing successfully tested an engine for a whole new generation of long-range ICBMs. This weapon that can hit the United States from mobile missiles launched in China, this engine for this new rocket was tested while President Clinton was right there in Beijing saying, let us be friends. Let us be friends. This is worse than Neville Chamberlain and his efforts to try to befriend Adolf Hitler in order to prevent aggression just prior to World War II. The people in Beijing, these dictators, these gangsters, are laughing at the United States of America and laughing at us. Why not? We are helping them modernize their weapons systems. We are actually giving them the money that they need to do it, as well as the expertise of what they need. Oh, this is the same group of people, the Butchers of Tiananmen Square. Will they show the people of the United States the same kind of mercy they showed their own people when they mowed them down, thousands of young people who wanted democracy 10 years ago, snuffed out? Will they show us the same bed of mercy they showed the people of Tibet? Right now, the people of Tibet are going through a systematic genocide. Communist China could incinerate all of Tibet, and our big corporations will still come to us and say, oh, we are going to make them more moderate and democratic and peaceful if we just simply continue in this trade relationship in which they enrich themselves and get our technology. What do we get? Well, a few corporations get rich, but most Americans end up with a pink slip and out of work because their job is shipped to slave labor in China. Will they demonstrate to the American people the same type of mercy that they have shown to their own women? Women in China, millions of them, are forced to get abortions after they have conceived a baby, an incredible violation of millions of people with an incredible violation of human rights of women. Will we trust the survival of our precious freedom and our peace basically to help this regime that systematically persecutes believers in God, whether they be Muslims or whether they be Christians or Tibetan Buddhists? Should we continue to subsidize a nation with Most Favored Nation status, Most Favored Nation status which gives them an unfair advantage over us; that holds, and this country has a $40 billion annual trade surplus with the United States all the time while breaking every promise to abide by the international standards respecting our own patents and our own intellectual property rights. They are the biggest thieves of America's intellectual property. They are stealing billions of dollars from our creators in Hollywood and in Broadway and our musicians and our filmmakers. Every year, they steal billions of dollars. Even before we can sell it overseas, they are reproducing these things, giving us no royalties, undercutting our own people from getting their just rewards for what they are creating, not to mention the intellectual property rights when they steal our technology and use our ideas to outcompete us and put our people out of work. How does China maintain this huge advantage? Of course we have permitted China to have a 30 or 40 percent tariff on our goods. When our people want to sell over in China, they end up paying 30 or 40 percent tariffs. When they come to sell their goods in our country, they are only charged 3 or 4 percent. They have slave labor there as compared to our free labor, and they flood our markets with these consumer goods, putting our people out of work. These businesses say, oh, we have to maintain the status with China. Why? Because we want to sell our products there. That is baloney. These big businesses do not want to sell our products there because China is demanding, in order to sell products there, we have to build a manufacturing unit. This is not fair trade. We are being saps. We negotiated the well-being of our own people away. Now we are putting our country's security in jeopardy. It is basically what we are engaged in in China economically is little more than corporate welfare subsidized by U.S. taxpayers who end up guaranteeing the investments of these corporations in China through the Export-Import Bank, in other words. Then our taxpayers guarantee the investments there. They set up the companies. They use the slave labor. They do not sell in China. They export them back to the United States, and they put out of work the taxpayers, the working people who are subsidizing and guaranteeing their investments in the first place. It is a sin against our people. This is the kind of China that we are struggling to maintain a good relationship with, and, oh, let us not cause any problems. Let us not say anything. Let us not confront them with the evil doings and the buildup of their nuclear weapons industry or confront them, that they are threatening us or our friends or democracy or undermining the peace of the world interest. We have got to be quiet about these things because of what? Because some huge multinational corporations are making a short-term profit. In the end, what will happen to those corporations? I will tell you. They will be expropriated. They will be expropriated, or the American people will lose out. In order to sell to China, the few companies that are able to sell to China, as I say, are forced to set up these manufacturing units. This has happened in the aerospace industry. What those leaders in the aerospace industry are doing are taking the short term. They are saying, yes, we will make a profit, a huge billion dollars profit this year, even though it means we are setting up a manufacturing unit in China that 2 years from now or 5 years or 10 years from now will be used to outcompete the American aerospace industry. We are selling out the jobs of our people in the long run in order for a short-term profit for these companies. It is wrong. It is wrong. These are unfair advantages of what? They have given the Communist Chinese $40 billion, $50 billion a year to build up their military. Why do we continue with this insane policy? It is an insane policy. It has even led to the point that we are giving them rocket technology which they are aiming their rockets at us. So why do we continue this? How is it possible? This body, my colleagues, ends up voting a majority to provide a trading status for this type of regime. Why is it? Yes, there is a handful of big corporations who are making immense short-term profits but, of course, that would not sell it here. The selling pitch is that by continuing this relationship with China, continuing this relationship with China, we are making them more democratic. We are going to make them liberal. It's the a hug-a-Nazi theory, and the Nazi will become a liberal democrat. It is ridiculous what is actually happening. Instead of making the Communist Chinese more democratic, instead of our corporations over there interacting with the people of China and making them more democratic, what has happened is just the opposite. By the way, the people of China are our friends. We are not talking about the people of China. We are talking about the oppressors and the Fascist government that holds them in a powerful grip. They know they are gangsters. They know they are bad guys. They know they are a clique that is holding a country of a billion people under submission. They think we are saps by playing a game by not confronting them with that. What is actually happening, we are not making them more democratic. The Communist Chinese are corrupting our democratic processes. This corruption is, was epitomized by the millions of dollars that China may well have poured into the 1996 U.S. election campaign of President Clinton and Vice-President Gore and to the Democratic Party. Do you remember, does everyone here remember the impoverished Buddhist monks that supposedly gave $5,000 checks to Vice-President Gore when he was out campaigning in California at that Buddhist temple? Everybody knows we are not supposed to have fund-raisers at a religious institution. Where do those $5,000 checks come from? Those were impoverished Buddhist monks. I mean, our economy is not doing that well that even impoverished Buddhist monks can give $5,000 donations. Where did it come from? We are talking about money being funneled into the American democratic process in order to what? In order to further a policy that is contrary to the interest of our people. They are corrupting us. We are not making them more democratic. What about Loral president, Bernie Schwartz, the man we first talked about, the man who is pushing selling weapons technology that can kill American military personnel, a man who was over there, responsible for overseeing this company that upgraded these Chinese missiles and, as the Defense Department says, put our country's security at risk and has harmed our national security? This was the largest single contributor to the Democratic Party and to President Clinton's reelection effort in the last campaign. The largest single contributor. Again, it is aimed at China policy. China policy. They are corrupting our system. Chinese officials from their own aerospace companies tried to channel hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Clinton campaign. Much of it was discovered and returned. But what is important was this was not just a Chinese aerospace company. We are talking about a Chinese aerospace company that, like most of their companies, are nothing more than a front for the People's Liberation Army. That means the military in China was trying to channel money into our election process. The People's Liberation Army. We do not know if millions of dollars did not end up in the President's reelection campaign. It looks like some did. But that is one thing that we will be looking into. Our policies in regards to China are, at the very best, amoral. At the very best, they are saying set morality aside. Be practical. That is at the best. But more likely, our policies have to be considered by people around the world as immoral as policies based on certain people profiting from activities that they know to be contrary to any standards and values held by the American people. Someday, there will be a price to pay for this type of immorality that is set in policy. There is a symmetry in the universe. When a person or when a country engage in this type of blatant immorality and ignores the standards that have been given to us and the values that we believe in, that our Founding Fathers and their American people believe in, there will be a price to pay. It inevitably leads to the pit of deprivation of defeat and despair. The Adolf Hitlers of the world and the Al Capones of the world always end up in the ash heap of history, in the rogue's gallery. But we Americans should demand a higher standard. If we do not, we will pay the price. Our children will pay the price. Already we are paying the price economically with jobs lost here going to slave labor in China. We won the Cold War, not by compromising with evil. We won the Cold War because we looked at the Soviet Union, and Ronald Reagan called it an evil empire and we sought to contain it and to make sure that it was not in any way assisted as long as it posed this threat to the democratic nations of the world. We never gave Most Favored Nation status to the Soviet Union. Never. Ronald Reagan would have thought it was a joke to give more trade and permit the Russians to have more hard currency through trade with the United States in order to make them nicer. No. We said in order to have a closer relationship with us, you have got to become a freer society. You have got to open up so that religious people and people who disagree with you have rights to speak. You have got to quit the genocide on different peoples in Tibet and elsewhere. And do you know what? Essentially those vicious people who ran the government and the Soviet Union and the Kremlin, they collapsed. They cracked because we took a moral stand. Yes, we played China off against the Soviet Union during the Cold War, just as we played Stalin off against Hitler when Hitler and the Japanese were the major threats to the security and the peace of the world. Yes, we did that. But the Cold War is over. The China card no longer needs to be played. In fact, China has replaced the Soviet Union, as the Soviet Union replaced Hitler, as the country and the people that we need to be concerned about to maintain the peace of the world, the greatest threat to our economic security, the greatest threat to the peace and the greatest threat to freedom. Some people are surprised to see, my gosh, it has even gone so far that we were giving these people nuclear weapons. Why be surprised? Why be surprised at that? What is the result of this? All over the world this is known. Our policies of weakness towards China are known. In Japan, what is going to happen with Japan? Japan is going through a crisis. If we are not strong and we do not provide leadership and we do not stand for the things that give us the strength of a Nation, give us the right to reach out to the rest of the people of the world and say let us lead the way, those people will go in another direction. They will be on their way. Their leadership will cut deals with the gangsters that threaten the world. What will happen in Japan? What would happen if Japan said, uh-oh, this part of the world is now going to be dominated with Communist China. We better cut our deals with Beijing. This will be a far different world 50 to 100 years from now if that happens. It will be a world in which our children and our grandchildren will suffer greatly and the threat will be enormous. What about in India? Why did India have to explode its nuclear weapon? Why did Pakistan move forward? Yes, they have their own problems. But at the same time, India is watching China. India is watching China. They might be able to handle a threat from Pakistan, but China? Maybe the democratic countries of the world, even in Thailand. But let us take this out. What about those people who are struggling to build democracy? What about the former Soviet Union? In Russia, these people are struggling. Any factor can turn Russia this way or that way. The United States is not seen as a powerful strong force for freedom; and, instead, we are letting the Chinese dominate this huge part of the planet. Russia borders on China. What about the bad guys in Russia? What about the evil forces in Russia? They will cut their deals with Beijing and undermine peace and prosperity and the development of freedom in Russia. There are major consequences to these insane policies that we have had with China. We have seen it now with India, as I say, India and Pakistan. It makes it more likely to have a war there. Japan is drifting into an anti-American orbit. In other words, these are significant issues. These are historic issues that we must deal with. The threats to America's national security and our future prosperity, well-being of our people did not end with the end of the Cold War. We have got to pick up the torch. We have got to be diligent. We have got to be strong, just as our Founding Fathers were, just as every generation has had to be strong in order to maintain this American dream. There are many scandals that we are going to hear about in the next 30 days. This titillation is swirling through the capital. All this attention is focused on the so-called scandals. Let the American people not lose sight of what we are, what I am talking about today. Let them not lose sight of what I call Missilegate, if nothing else, the fact that our own weapons, our own technology are being turned against us, and that our policies are skewed toward helping a dictatorship and impoverishing the American people to build up the billions of people in the mainland of China which, in the end, is stolen from them by an oppressive dictatorship. I will continue to investigate this, and I hope the American people will continue through this other scandal to focus on this important issue. We will move forward on it, as I say, and I will give certain updates, especially when I come back after the August break. But in the end, our vigilance as Americans, as the world's last hope, last best hope of all of mankind, it is our vigilance that will save us and save all humankind. We are the keepers of the flame. Let us not share the power of that flame with tyrants and the enemies of freedom.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Does the gentleman believe if a prosecutor, for example, encourages a witness to commit perjury or breaks the law in some other way, that that prosecutor should himself or herself be prosecuted for violating the law for doing something like that?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of information. Under the 5-minute rule, Mr. Chairman, do we have 5 minutes that we can talk on this situation, as well as on the underlying bill or underlying amendment that is before us? We have an amendment to an amendment, now. The 5-minute rule, does that mean that we can ask for 5 minutes on the Conyers proposal to Hutchinson, and then go on as well to speak 5 minutes on Hutchinson?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on the point of order.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, and I understand the passion, I have a little passion myself when I get up and have these discussions, but I think the underlying arguments that the gentlewoman just made are correct. If this is in the appropriations bill, there should be an amendment that is permitted. If we are concerned about the abuse of power of prosecutors, we have to be concerned about the abuse of power of special prosecutors.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Conyers amendment as well as in opposition to the Hutchinson amendment, which would then strike the McDade-Murtha provision of this bill. In essence, McDade-Murtha codifies the long-recognized, but recently- ignored principles that U.S. Attorneys must abide by the same rules of ethics as all other practicing lawyers. The Conyers amendment says that this includes special counsel as well, not just the people who are currently employed by the Department of Justice, and that makes all the sense in the world. Limited government is the prerequisite for liberty and justice. That is what we are talking about today, limiting government power to what is a reasonable power to maintain order in our society. Well, however, over the last three decades, because of the fear of crime we have ended up granting enormous power with very few checks and balances to prosecutors. We have just been expanding their power, and yours truly is just as guilty as anybody else out of fear of crime to give prosecutors power without having any checks and balances. Now we are surprised to see that big government with lots of power, people in that government tend to abuse that power. Our Founding Fathers would not be surprised at that. The fact is every time we expand power we have to put checks in place or there will be abuses of power. For far too many times we have seen out-of-control prosecutors who now have all this more power to attack the bad guys, not seeking truth or not trying to protect the innocent but instead engaging themselves in self-aggrandizing, targeted attacks, often pushing relentlessly for some kind of prosecutorial victory regardless of the cost and, at times, regardless of the cost and, at times, regardless of the actual guilt or innocence of the target. I and other supporters of the McDade-Murtha provision, and we are advocates of law and order, take this stand today to protect freedom and liberty threatened by prosecutors who are not being held to the same standards as other people in the legal profession. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) answered these charges, that there is going to be confusion, that we have different standards at the local level. The fact is that we expect our prosecutors to be at the highest level because we are protecting the rights of our citizens, the freedom of the people of the United States of America. Far too often we have seen cases like the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) where prosecutors are out of control and politically motivated. They go out and destroy public officials and public people. But what about the little guys? The little guys who have no money to defend themselves and are faced by these same abusive prosecutors? No, putting down a code of conduct, if my colleagues will, a standard of ethics for the prosecutors, is something good. It is totally consistent with freedom in our country, with what our Founding Fathers wanted, with the concepts of limited government. Why should prosecutors be exempt from the ethics standards that the rest of us have? Vote yes on the Conyers amendment to make sure all of the people who are involved in prosecution in our country have these standards and no on Hutchinson.