Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Solomon resolution disapproving most-favored-nation status for Communist China. Decisions like the one we are making today on this resolution define us as Members and define our Congress and our country as well, what do we hold dear, and for whom do we care and do we have convictions and principles that are transcendent above the monetary personal gain of a few powerful and rich interest groups. And do we have the strength of our convictions and the courage to stand up for our principles. These are all things that will be reflected in the decision we make today on this resolution and debates like the one we are having today. This debate is not about engagement or even about whether or not there should be trade between the United States and the Communist Chinese regime. We will hear that studded in the arguments against this resolution. It is not about engagement and not about whether there should be trade. Whether or not we have most-favored-nation status, big companies can still go over and trade with Communist China. There will still be engagement. Ronald Reagan never suggested that the Soviet Union while controlled by the Communist Party should have most-favored-nation status. That is why communism and tyranny disappeared in the former Soviet Union and they are now struggling for freedom. The question is how we should engage the regime, the regime that we must remember is currently the worst human rights abuser on the planet and a dangerous potential enemy for the United States. The question is what kind of trade rules shall apply. The current rules of engagement with Communist China, this dictatorship with its massive human rights abuses, have made Communist China grow stronger and more powerful and more repressive. A $60 billion annual trade surplus is being used by the Communist Chinese regime to build up its military and build weapons that could someday incinerate the people of the United States and kill, at the very least, kill our defenders. Today in the Washington Times we see a banner headline saying when President Clinton was in China recently talking about peace, even strategic partnership, reaching out his hand to the Communist Chinese, they were testing a new series of rocket engines that threaten the people of the United States. This is a farce. We are being played for suckers. Of course that has happened in the past, has it not? But our current policies toward Communist China have been contrary to our principles, our belief in liberty and justice, it has been contrary to our economic interests and contrary to our national security. Human rights abuses which we will hear about today continue and are far worse today than they were 10 years ago, contrary to what the proponents of most-favored-nation status would tell us. In Tibet, they could incinerate the entire country of Tibet and we would still have big business here trying to tell us we are going to make the Communist Chinese more freedom-loving if we just trade with them, which means a quick buck for these big businessmen and means an out-of-work pink slip for our own workers here in the United States. Yes, and they are still arresting dissidents. Right after our President left China, they rounded up a bunch more dissidents, Christians and Muslims and the Buddhists in Tibet still being repressed and thrown into damp prisons while we sit here in this wonderful body and debate in the coolness of this Chamber this issue. No, our current trade policies have hurt our country. Yes, they have enriched some very major corporations. But this is not about free trade. Again, these companies can still go over there and trade. They can sell their wares. What is most-favored-nation status really about? I believe in free trade. I believe in free trade between free people. Most-favored-nation status is about whether or not these companies will be provided by the American taxpayer guarantees and subsidies for investments that they make in China that will put our own people out of work. Through the Export-Import Bank, through OPIC, the World Bank, IMF and the rest, these companies if we have most most-favored-nation status will put the American taxpayer behind the loans they need to create manufacturing units in China to put our people out of work. That is a betrayal of our own people. The relationship, the rules of the game with China have worked against our national security, our people's interest as well as the fundamental principles of liberty and justice that America stands for.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment of my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller). People should understand what is going on here, and again I will have to say that my understanding is limited as well, but my understanding of what we are talking about is an agreement that was reached with the Northern Mariana Islands as part of a change of their status that they used to be like all the other people who were appendages of the United States but they were not independent, nor were they States. In order to change their status and become not dependent on American welfare programs and not dependent on other social benefit programs, they decided to become somewhat independent and have more of a free enterprise approach to their economy. Part of the agreement that we made with them was to provide them certain infrastructure projects that cost a certain amount of money, and what we are talking about here is breaking an agreement or not setting aside the funds that are necessary or taking advantage of funds that may or may not be available that are in contradiction, and this is in contradiction to an agreement we have reached with these people in the Northern Mariana Islands. This stems from and, again, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) and I have an honest disagreement on this, as do Republicans and Democrats have honest disagreements, as to what labor policy should take place in the United States but also in the Northern Mariana Islands. I happen to believe in a less regulated society and less regulations dealing with labor law, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) believes in more regulations for labor law to protect the interests of labor and protect the interests of various working people. I disagree with that philosophy. That is not the philosophy of the Republican Party, but I respect the concern of the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) about that. Unfortunately, the amendment we are talking about now, however, based on this opposition to this labor policy in the Northern Mariana Islands, is negating an agreement that we have reached with those islanders in order to have a change in their legal status. I would suggest that this is not the fair approach, not a judicious approach. Even though it can be argued that the funds may be better spent someplace else, an agreement has been reached. We would not want to break any other agreement with any other peoples around in order to fulfill these same obligations and opportunities for spending money that have been talked about today. So I reluctantly rise in disagreement, but I understand the honest philosophical motivations that the gentleman has in making his approach.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think it is clear that the gentleman is accomplishing two things with one move, and that the gentleman honestly disagrees with some of the labor practices on the Northern Mariana Islands and is able to express that through this amendment, which also transfers funds to a program that the gentleman appreciates. However, I would say that I oppose this amendment still, but understand my colleague's desire in this attempt. But I would oppose it, because, number one, I do disagree with his theory on labor practices, as is happening in the Northern Marianas; and, number two, I would think we should make sure if we have reached an agreement with the Northern Mariana Islands and it takes a certain amount of money to fulfill that agreement, that we keep that in the budget so we can fulfill our pledge, rather than trying to do other things. There are many other things we can do with this money that we can argue are very beneficial to the people of the United States, but we made an agreement with these people and we should keep it. So I oppose the amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. What we are talking about is the elimination of what we Californians who are aware of what is going on call the illegal alien voter registration act, which was called by this body the motor voter act. This amendment makes real the alleged purpose of the bill that we are talking about. We are talking about reforming the political process to ensure that election results will reflect the will of the American people. Well, there is nothing better that we can do to accomplish this end than to protect the rights of our own people by making sure that the election process and the sanctity of the ballot is protected, to ensure that American votes are not made meaningless by the votes of millions of noncitizens, many of whom have come here illegally. Back in 1993 when the Democratic Party controlled both Houses of Congress, they established rules that went far too far to open up the system, and thus they left the system opened up to incredible abuse. We are trying to bring balance back to that, ensure the sanctity of the ballot for the will of the American people. Support this amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, that was ``the most dynamic,'' not the best surfer in the Surfing Caucus. The most dynamic member of the Surfing Caucus. Mr. Speaker, Mexico is our neighbor and I rise in strong support of this amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) concerning our neighbor and our neighbors in Mexico. Like all neighbors, there are issues that deal with neighborhood effect, whether it is just an American neighborhood or whether it is a neighborhood with people who actually are a part of another Nation. Air and water pollution happens to be within that context of a neighborhood effect, and we must be neighborly, and we have tried to be neighborly with our Mexican neighbors. But we also have to watch out for the interests of our own people. Mr. Speaker, what is unfortunate is that in recent years it seems that we have been treating our own people worse than what we treat people of another country, in this case Mexico. I might add that this is not totally inconsistent with what our government seems to be doing in many areas of the world, which is treating our own people with more restrictions and with a harder hand than we treat people of other countries. I do not know why that is. That seems to be the way it is in many situations. It is only good and proper that the people of Mexico who travel to the United States almost on a daily basis have the same standards, pollution standards, that they have to deal with with their automobiles as we do. Otherwise, what will be the result? I would like to look at one result that the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) has not looked at so far. Yes, we are talking about air pollution and it is wrong that there are cars from another country coming in that do not have the same standards as our own automobiles, and, yes, we do not want to have air pollution, but we also want to maintain an amicable relationship with these people who are our neighbors. How long will people have good will towards someone when they see automobiles coming down their streets pumping pollution? How much longer will the people of the various communities near the border or even further north into Los Angeles and Orange Counties have a spirit of good will towards the people of Mexico if they see a car coming from Mexico spilling this pollution into the air and putting contaminants into the lungs of our children and our families, when they themselves, of course, must go through stringent regulation and go through time and effort and expense to see that their own automobiles are not polluting and not, thus, affecting the health in a detrimental way of their neighbors who are American citizens? No, if we let this go on, there will be a breakdown in the good will of people who are our neighbors, who are our friends, who should be our friends and it is up to us to ensure that this spirit of friendship, as well as neighborliness, is present, and to do that we must be scrupulously fair and must insist on fair and equal not only treatment and not only rights but responsibilities of people who come into our country and do so on a daily basis to work. Finally, I would like to note that the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) has been providing leadership on issues of cross-border pollution control since early in his career. Most people in this body may not realize that he was mayor of Imperial Beach when there was pollution coming down from a stream from Mexico into the United States into his community, and when some bureaucrats got in the way of correcting that situation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) got onto a bulldozer and used that bulldozer to prevent that stream from sending its polluted waters into the American territory. This made him famous among the people of his area and eventually landed him here in Congress. All of us have a chance now to join the gentleman from California in this issue of cross-border pollution and watch out for the interests of the American people, which is after all our primary job as Members of the United States Congress.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the DeLay legislation. Today we are setting straight what exactly is and making clear what exactly is the policy of the United States of America. During the President's recent visit to the mainland of China, he said some things that perhaps he meant, and I am sure he did sincerely mean these things, but they have sent a confusing message, and his misstatements could lead to an unnecessary crisis unless this body reaffirms exactly what American policy is. Let us remember that during the Truman years, when President Truman was President of the United States, Korea was accidentally left outside of the U.S. defense perimeter in a briefing of what our policy was in Asia. In very short order, the communists in North Korea, I might add, aided by the communist regime in Beijing, the Communist Party that still controls the mainland of China, invaded South Korea, and the United States was engulfed in a conflict that cost over 50,000 American lives. That is why it is important for us to state very clearly what the policy of the United States is, and the policy is not just an unfortunate and thoughtless utterance by the President of the United States about reunification and other things that he stated there during his many photo ops. Instead, what the policy of the United States is is a consistent policy and a consensus among the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch, as well as the many different decisionmakers we have in the democratic process. The communist Chinese in Beijing should understand that America remains committed to all the provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act. There has been no evolution out of the Taiwan Relations Act that will permit the communist Chinese, for example, to use force against Taiwan. Through no thoughtless talk of reunification should it be misunderstood that the United States is any less committed to opposition to the use of force in the Taiwan Straits than we were last year, 10 years ago, or 10 years before that. Consistent with that, the DeLay legislation underscores that the people of Taiwan have a right to determine their own destiny, free from the threat of force and violence from the communists on the mainland of China. Thus, the no-use-of-force provision of the Taiwan Relations Act is reaffirmed, and while the mainland of China is still being controlled by a communist dictatorship, America reserves the right to provide the democratic people on Taiwan with the weapons they need to defend themselves; for example, a missile defense system, which is purely a defensive system, which, according to the Taiwan Relations Act, is acceptable. Also part of the DeLay legislation is that we consider that in those bodies, those world bodies, especially the World Health Organization and such where it does not require statehood to be a member, that Taiwan and the democratic people of Taiwan should be included. Mr. Speaker, we must make sure that the communist Chinese do not misunderstand what has happened by a misuse of the words by our President. Already, however, I might add, and in closing, that people all over the world, especially in Asia, are seeing what the President did in China as an act of weakness. In Thailand and elsewhere, in Japan, people are cutting their deals with the communists when they see weakness on the part of the President of the United States. An action now with the DeLay legislation will reaffirm the legislative strength in reaffirming our policies in Asia. I ask for the support of the DeLay legislation.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanders amendment. This amendment prevents the President of the United States from using the Exchange Stabilization Fund to bail out corrupt and incompetent regimes throughout the world without so much as a vote of Congress. We engage in this body in heated debates, heated debates, and we have votes that put us on the record as the elected representatives of the people of the United States on expenditures that just are in the millions of dollars, just in the millions. We expect that each and every one of us, because we are the elected representatives of the people, must accept the responsibility of where those millions of dollars are being spent, and we will call for a vote to make sure that our colleagues are on the record and so that the American people can make their judgment about the job that we are doing in overseeing their resources, the American resources, the use of Federal resources. Those are the resources the American people. That is the way it is supposed to be, that is what our Founding Fathers expected, that is what representative government is all about. Those who oppose the Sanders amendment want the President of the United States to have, yes, a slush fund which he will be able to spend up to $38 billion, as much as he wants, to send that overseas to whatever regimes, whether they are corrupt or incompetent, whether they are friend or foe, whether we believe it is in the best interests of the United States or not, without so much as a vote in Congress by the elected representatives of the people. This is absurd. I am shocked, I think the American people should be shocked, to learn that we have given the President of the United States that power in the past. This is the most antidemocratic element that I have discovered among the current procedures of our government, and I commend the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for trying to do something to put accountability back in this democratic system and make it a democratic system. What we have now with this stabilization fund is an invitation to corruption and sculduggery. No, I cannot give you specific examples, but I am sure they are there. But, often enough, we can rest assured that this bailout money that is going to foreign regimes does not even help the people of the countries who are in crisis. Instead, like in Mexico, where billions of dollars were being spent to supposedly get them out of a crisis, instead it got them further and deeper in debt. And who was helped by that bailout? Much of that money went to very powerful financial interests in this country, perhaps a few powerful financial interests in Mexico as well. The victims are the Mexican people and the people of the United States, who are put on the hook without so much as a vote of the Members of Congress. In recent years we have seen the stabilization fund, this stabilization fund that was meant to protect our currency, used to bail out Mexico to the tune of $12 to 20 billion, Indonesia, $3 billion, South Korea, $5 billion, and, now, how many billions of dollars will they want to take to bail out Russia? And where does this money go? I am a member of the Committee on International Relations, and I can tell you in Russia alone, not to mention Indonesia, we are not talking about honest people over there. We are talking about people that would have a tough time getting elected and reelected here, with freedom of speech and freedom of press and some scrutiny. But, instead, we want to grant the President of the United States the ability to send billions of dollars over to those people, without so much as a vote in Congress? This is absurd. This is a fund, as I say, that is supposed to protect the American dollar. It is not and was never intended to be a slush fund for the whims of the President, so he can send it to people across this world at his discretion. This amendment makes sense. If the President is going to spend more than $250 million of our money, we should have to approve it. I hope the American people who are listening to this debate will take note of who in this body is suggesting that they do not want to have the responsibility to have a vote up and down on where billions of dollars of our money is being spent. And when it goes overseas, these billions of dollars, what does it do and who does it help? We are being told for the stabilization of the world, this global economy requires us to grant this power to the President, this power to give away billions of dollars and to loan billions of dollars without the approval of Congress. Who does it help? It does not help the American people. I agree with the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). In the end, it has helped people who compete with the United States for jobs. This is a total violation and betrayal of the American people. Vote for the Sanders amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I know that all of us are committed, along with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) to a fair census. I am glad to hear that she did not mention the words ``census sampling,'' because of course we know that what that really means is guesstimating. Many people who are talking about the census nowadays are the same ones who suggested that we have a thing called the ``Motor-Voter Bill'' in California, which as we found out was nothing more than the ``Illegal Alien Voter Registration Act.'' So we are all dedicated to an accurate census. That is why we want people specifically counted as they always have been in the past.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, it is called guesstimating.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we do not need some pointy-headed intellectual at some university, who may or may not be an ultra liberal receiving some kind of a grant for study, to tell me that it is more scientific to guesstimate who lives over there, rather than to walk over there and count each person individually as has been the case in every past census. Mr. Speaker, every time we change these rules and allow these standards what we end up with is the average American gets hurt. And what we did with motor-voter is we permitted massive numbers of illegal aliens to vote and degrade the voting of the American population. Mr. Speaker, back to the issue of the day, however. Yesterday, human rights activists came to the United States Capitol and I was privileged to join them in underscoring the support for the people of Tibet, especially in light of the President's upcoming visit to Communist China. Mr. Speaker, many concerns were raised yesterday, and today we finally got the answer to those concerns of yesterday. In a letter published in today's Washington Post, the Communist Chinese Ambassador to the United States claims all the uproar about Tibet is simply based on misunderstandings, misunderstandings of the facts. And he gave us a couple of misconceptions here in his letter to the Washington Post today. This is the Communist Chinese Ambassador. Misconception number one is that China actually occupies Tibet. That this was a region that was liberated peacefully through an agreement reached between the Central Government and the local government in 1951. Those are his words. Misconception number two, that there are a great number of Han Chinese who have immigrated to Tibet. He claims some professionals from the coastal areas do go to Tibet to offer expertise to develop the local economy, but after completing their tenure most return home. And finally there is a misconception that the Tibetan culture and religion are being destroyed. When we have this type of honest dialogue, or the level of honesty in this dialogue, it makes us wonder why our President of the United States is going there to represent the people of the United States to try to give us hope that there is any type of an agreement with gangsters who make a mockery of the truth like that. In fact, what we have got today in Communist China with the President's upcoming visit, here he has chosen the 10th anniversary of the massacre of the democracy movement in Tiananmen Square to go visit these gangsters, even though the human rights record has not improved, even though the belligerence of Communist China is in evidence in its smuggling of technologies of mass destruction to volatile parts of the world, even Libya and Iran. Today in the Capital City's other newspaper, the Washington Times, there is a headline story about the Communist Chinese sending weapons of mass destruction technology to Libya and Iran, these terrorist states. Mr. Speaker, I quote this article, ``Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has said that he would like to have a missile system capable of attacking New York.'' Mr. Speaker, this is not the time to enter into a discussion with these type of gangsters who control the government in China. I would suggest, especially when we have evidence that American companies have been using American technology to upgrade Communist Chinese missiles, that this is bad enough, and now we hear that they are using American technology that could be shifted to terrorists like Gadhafi in Libya who would be even more likely to use this technology to kill millions of Americans. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the President is not watching out for the best interests of our country and he should cancel his trip to China.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, this weekend the communist government of China instructed its official news agency to issue the following statement in regard to its option to use force to conquer the Republic of China on Taiwan: ``Every sovereign state has the right to take all means it deems essential, including military means, to safeguard its territorial integrity.'' Mr. Speaker, this is a rejection by Communist China of the commitments that its government has made to the United States in the past concerning the use of force in the Taiwan Straits. Supposedly we have an understanding with the communists that they will not use force if we recognize China under what is called the one China policy. This statement by the Communist Chinese, coming right before the President's visit, is a warning bell. Some people in the United States are closing their eyes to the brutal suppression of human rights and the increase in military spending by the Communist Chinese government and thinking that will have no effect and that, instead, deals will be made with the communists and the past deals we made with them will suffice to maintain peace in that region. Well, with their increased military power, the Communist Chinese are not only being belligerent to their neighbors, but seem now to be challenging the fundamental agreements that have served as the basis for peace between our countries. This is something the President must bring up, and this is one reason why this body last week passed a resolution insisting that this administration reaffirm that the United States is committed to oppose any violence in the Taiwan Straits and any use of force by the Communist Chinese to solve their differences with the Taiwanese. This contempt for peaceful resolution of the tension in the Taiwan Straits coincides with the White House abandoning its plan to encourage the Communist Chinese to agree to an agreement to control the export of weapons of mass destruction, this during the upcoming Tiananmen Square summit. The President has abandoned the idea altogether of trying to get them to sign an agreement. The Communist Chinese leaders rejected the idea for a second time last week, this in the face of reports that the Communist Chinese continue to send technology to different countries that expands those countries' ability to produce nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. The President is insisting on going to Communist China anyway. The symbolism of this visit could not be worse. At a time when they seem to be reneging, with these statements we just heard, when they are sending weapons of mass destruction and the technology of weapons of mass destruction elsewhere, with the continuing massive violations of human rights on mainland China and Tibet and the belligerence the Chinese are showing, this could not be a worse time for the President to just go as ``Johnny Sunshine" representing whatever to the people of China. In fact, the oppressors in Beijing will laugh at the President, because they realize his presence there and in Tiananmen Square makes a mockery of this country's commitment to human rights and makes a mockery of our commitment to nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction. What it does in terms of to the oppressor, it encourages them to believe we are not serious about these things, to the oppressed it is even worse. A mother of a 17-year-old boy who was killed in the Tiananmen Square massacre recently courageously made a public statement in Beijing urging President Clinton not to go to Tiananmen Square: ``I can't understand why he chooses this inappropriate time,'' ten years, almost ten years to the day, after the massacre, ``this inappropriate time and place,'' this woman says, ``to conduct the visit. To Chinese people the month of June means bloodshed and killing, so why choose June,'' this lady, this mother of the slain human rights activist, states. Again I quote: ``The red carpet he will walk on is soaked with the blood of our relatives. Of course, the state leaders of other countries get the same reception there, but the United States is different as it is a superpower of the free world and it is supposed to uphold justice.'' I call on the President, as many in this body do, to reconsider this trip and to stand for freedom in Tibet and human rights on the mainland of China. Those stands will bring a better chance for peace in the world.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton seems like he is absolutely committed on this upcoming trip to China. We have asked him to reconsider this trip and, no, he will not reconsider the trip. And Congress officially asked him whether or not he would at least attempt not to do something in Tiananmen Square which would then make a mockery of the human rights commitments of this country by holding some sort of meeting with people who murdered hundreds if not thousands of human rights activists at that very same location 10 years ago. But, again, we were rebuffed in that request as well. The President of the United States as the President of the world's leading democracy will visit, then, the world's leading human rights abuser, the world's most powerful totalitarian regime. Well, this President does have an excuse. Yes, in the past President Reagan visited China and so did President Bush. But in the past when Presidents have visited China, I think it is important for us to understand that China at that time was in a transition, or going through changes that made it appear that China would someday evolve out of its dictatorship. And thus it is all right to visit a country that is not free, but it seems to be going in the right direction in that its government is permitting more freedoms. Unfortunately that is not the case for this Presidential visit. China, since the killings at Tiananmen Square, has become even more tyrannical, and more belligerent, and more aggressive and has more power to commit aggression against its neighbors. Spokesmen for the administration say that the President will be calling for a strategic partnership with this Communist regime. Well, naturally calling for a strategic partnership with this totalitarian regime, this powerful totalitarian regime, is causing concern among other countries in that region that are democratic countries. We have already seen the results of the folly of the President's policies. India felt obliged to reaffirm its own nuclear arsenal with an explosion, of a nuclear explosion. The Pakistanis followed. So what we have is an unrest in the subcontinent and a greater chance for conflict, a massive, horrible conflict, between the Pakistanis and the Indians because of this unrest and this proliferation that can be traced right back to the President's China policies. In other words, the world is not as safe as it was. Then we have lesser gangsters in the world like you find in Kosova where you have a murderous regime next door in Serbia thinking that they can go into Kosova and murder people in order to get them to submit. Now why are they doing this? Why does the regime, Milosevic's regime, which was guilty of so many human rights abuses in Bosnia earlier, now feel that they could perhaps do it again? It is because this administration has lost its moral basis, has lost its standing, has lost the principles in which it had so that in which people gave it respect if residing with those principles. There are credible reports from Kosova that indicate that a repeat of the most horrific acts that we have seen in the Balkans is going on right now. Milosevic and his goons, the Serbian dictatorship, the last Communist dictatorship on the continent of Europe, have turned their bloody knives on the people of Kosova especially targeting vulnerable civilian populations for ethnic cleansing, not only in the border areas, but deep into the heartland of Kosova where the people are almost all Albanian, of Albanian extraction. It is incredible that despite the assurances by this administration that their diplomacy is succeeding in calming down Mr. Milosevic and keeping him under control, we are seeing numerous reports of entire villages being wiped out, with the news media discovering pools of blood in the streets of these villages. We have reports from family members of Albanians, men having their throats slit right in front of their families and of indiscriminate artillery bombardment of marketplaces. Mr. Speaker, our government and our European allies should not stand by and wring their hands. We must act forcefully, and we must stand on principle. Unfortunately the pronouncements of this administration as far as tyrants, whether they are big and small, it seems that these pronouncements by this administration are not being taken seriously. We can see in China where they continue their own proliferation of the nuclear technology that we have given them as well as building up their forces, their military forces, and stepping up their opposition and here with a small dictatorship when we face that dictatorship of Milosevic in Serbia. The world is a less safe place because we strayed from our fundamental principles.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, which leaves no doubt on either side of the Taiwan Straits as to just what is American policy. And it was not that long ago that this administration proclaimed strategic ambiguity as its position on certain issues concerning the China-Taiwan situation. More recently we have been told that President Clinton had some intention of proposing a strategic partnership to the Communist Chinese when he will visit Communist China later on this month. What we need to know is what is a strategic partnership; what does that mean? When we talk about a strategic partnership with a Communist dictatorship, no wonder the democratic peoples around the Pacific begin to worry about whether or not the United States will stand strong with them against a belligerent totalitarian government like they have in Beijing. A strategic partnership? Well, I hope that President Clinton has put that one away and decided not to use that. This resolution underscores the Shanghai Declaration that was put in place by President Nixon so long ago during the cold war at a time when it made a great deal of sense to try to make sure that we were not in a conflict with China or with Russia at the same time that that declaration made it very clear that we believe in a One China policy. That was our concession, and their concession was that they would only use peaceful means to settle any dispute with Taiwan. This resolution reconfirms that declaration so long ago. Some people have been trying to suggest this has been an evolution of our policy, that in some way the talk of strategic partnership may well mean that we have not really maintained this same stalwart position on opposing the use of force against Taiwan. No, that is what this resolution is about. We again state for the record in this resolution that as far as the Congress goes, yes, there is one China, and, yes, we insist that no force be used against the free and democratic people of Taiwan. By the way, one note about one China. I believe there is one China, and, just as in the basis of what most Americans believe to be legitimate government, legitimate government is that government that has the consent of the governed. Legitimate government is that government that respects the human rights of its people. That is what our Founding Fathers said, that is what George Washington fought for, and that is what we write in our own founding documents. So if there is one China, which I believe in, that one China has only one elected government, because the government in Beijing is not an elected government. We have one elected government in China and that is in Taiwan. We have a group of gangsters on the mainland. We have to make sure there is not force or violence to make sure that those two do not go into dispute.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor today to rise in support of this resolution remembering the Philippines 100 years as a nation. It was 100 years ago when, during what is known as the Spanish- American War, the Philippines were liberated from their Spanish oppressors. Unfortunately sometimes we like to romanticize our own history and forget what happened a few years immediately after that liberation. Instead of doing what would have been consistent with our own philosophy as a country that believed in the Declaration of Independence, the United States decided instead of freeing the Philippines from foreign oppression, we decided to take control of the Philippines for ourselves, and, in fact, at the turn of the century there was a bloody war that went on in the Philippines that pitted the United States against many of the Filipino people who wanted freedom and independence, justifiably wanted their freedom and independence. In fact, tens of thousands of Filipinos were killed at that time by the superior firepower of American military forces. That is a stain on American history. However, let us say that there were the best of intentions. The people who were involved in that and the decisionmakers felt that this would be a way to lead the Philippines to true democracy. And 50 years later, yes, in 1946, the Philippines were freed. I think it speaks very well of the Filipino people that they have forgotten that blight of what happened at the turn of the century and over the years became perhaps one of America's greatest friends in the Pacific, but also in the world. The Filipino people are good friends and part of the American family and, since 1946, have always had a close relationship to us and during the Cold War stood with us. Unfortunately during the Cold War the Philippines reverted back during the time, and, again, which did not speak well of the United States, we recognized the demise of democracy under the rule of Mr. Marcos. President Marcos they called him, but one is not a President unless one is elected, so I will have to call him dictator Marcos. During that time corruption thrived, and again the United States did not live up to our own ideals, but yet the people of the Philippines know that we are a country of ideals, and, when we could, we stood with those people, Mr. Aquino, of course, who was assassinated by the Marcos gang, and we stood with the people of the Philippines to help reestablish democracy there. I think, as a former member of the Reagan administration, that is one of the moments that I am the most proud of, where Ronald Reagan helped ease this dictatorship out of power in the Philippines and eased into place a more democratically oriented group of people. And then today, under President Ramos they have had a magnificently democratic country. We have had freedom of speech, freedom of the press and a growing economy. Under the past regime, they were so corrupt, they could not even grow. Today the Philippines stands as a jewel in the Pacific in the sense that its people are committed to freedom and democracy as we know it here in the United States. They are our good friends. Unfortunately, here again at times we end up taking the Philippines for granted. We end up trying to give business advantages for our own businessmen to invest in countries like Vietnam that have had no democratic reform whatsoever, or in China, or in other dictatorial countries, even like Indonesia up until this current situation. Why should we ignore those people who are struggling to improve their lives, who are our best friends in the Philippines, and instead direct our people with grants and loans and subsidies for their investments from the IMF and from the Export-Import Bank; why should we direct them towards dictatorships when we should actually be helping our friends in the Philippines? I am very proud to stand here today to say, I am a friend of the Philippines, and the people of the Philippines are good friends of democracy and freedom and good friends of the people of the United States.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for providing me this opportunity to just add a couple of points to the statement that I made earlier about the Philippines. Of course I support the gentleman's position that we should return those bells. It is an insult to the people of the Philippines. There is no reason for a country that is so close to us now that we should not bend over backwards to be sensitive to their pride in those parts of their culture. But let us note when we talk about the Philippines that that is one of the lesser problems and challenges they face. They are working hard to develop their economy, they are working hard and struggling hard to make sure that they maintain a democracy, but one of the greatest threats to the Philippines now comes from mainland China. The Chinese, the Communist Chinese, are in a territorial dispute with the Philippines, and we in the United States who support democracy, we in the United States who believe in a more peaceful world and a peaceful solution to the problems in the Pacific should stand very closely to the Philippines at this time and let the Communist Chinese know that we will not tolerate the use of military force the Chinese seem bent on doing in their intentions to grab the Spratley Islands. Already we have been told that a permanent Chinese presence has been established in the last few years in the Spratley Islands. This is outrageous. We have found after just it seems like a few brief moments of not paying attention that the Communist Chinese have come into the Spratley Islands with their warships and established a presence in the Spratley Islands. This is an act of intimidation, it is an act of a bully, and our best friend in the Pacific, the Philippines, is being bullied by the Communist Chinese. We need to stand by the Philippines by giving them the means that they need at the very least to protect their own interests to their own territory. To deter this type of aggression from China and belligerence from China, we need to move forward to ensure that as we have surplus ships and airplanes that we are taking out of service from the Cold War, we should be providing these to the Philippines, at no cost or at very low cost, because it does not cost us anything, we are just going to store them out in the middle of the desert, let us give these weapons that are surplus weapons, Cold War weapons, to the Philippines and let them defend themselves so that they can make sure that they deter any aggression in the future. This is what friendship is all about. As we are now patting ourselves on the back and patting the Philippines on the back for being a democratic country, let us make sure we remember they are in need of somebody standing beside them in this confrontation with China.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor on April 30 as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. As someone who holds that title, I have the responsibility to oversee NASA and America's space effort. My purpose in that April 30 speech was to disclose what appeared to be a horrible threat to our national well-being. American companies, I charged, may have upgraded Chinese strategic missiles, compromising the safety of the American people, putting every man, woman, and child in our country in greater vulnerability to nuclear attack, a nuclear attack launched from the mainland of China. Technology transfers, at the least, may have undercut our country's ability to deal with an aggressive Chinese Communist regime in the future. Even worse, of course, our gallant defenders in the future may be shot out of the sky or die in their submarines, victims of weapons researched and developed by the American taxpayer and delivered to our potential totalitarian foe by greedy American businessmen. Since my initial warnings in that April 30 speech, information that has emerged suggests the horror story that I described of our country being more vulnerable to nuclear attack from the Communist Chinese and the upgrading of other weapons systems, that horror story that I described is much worse than I originally imagined, as I have continued to look into this matter. That is what I would like to report tonight to my colleagues and the Members in the House, to those people watching on C-Span and reading the Congressional Record. I thought I would give them a little update of what has happened since the last time I gave a special order on the floor of this House concerning this, what I consider to be the worse scandal not only of this administration, but perhaps the worst scandal in terms of the transfer of deadly technology to a potential enemy of the United States since the Rosenbergs transferred the atomic bomb secret to Josef Stalin back in the late 1940s. As I have continued to look into this, I and others have heard testimony and discovered evidence that not only verifies the serious charges that I have made, those charges in general that we have upgraded the missile system and other weapons systems, but suggest that there is even a greater threat to our safety. In that April 30 speech, I suggested, number one, that as a Presidential candidate, Bill Clinton chastised President Bush for coddling Communist China and granting the despots in Beijing most favored trade status, which is what he opposed during the election, coddling the Communist dictators in Beijing and opposing most favored trading nation status. I thought President Clinton would probably be easier to work with than President Bush was. After being sworn in as President, Bill Clinton did an immediate about-face. He boldly, or perhaps the better word is brazenly, decoupled any linkage between human rights and trade negotiations in our dealings with the Communist Chinese. This was the worst single setback to the human rights movement in my lifetime. I remember when it happened, I was out of town. All of us in Congress were out of town. The President expected that all of the controversy would just sort of pass over by the time Congress got back into session. In the years since the decoupling, in the years since he, and we can only use the word ``betrayed,'' the human rights movement and betrayed our fundamental principles in doing so, the brutality against religious believers and against democracy advocates in Communist China has intensified. The regime in Communist China, since the decoupling of trade negotiations with any human rights considerations, the human rights situation has gotten worse. The genocide in Tibet is worse. The killing of the Muslims in the far reaches of the western part of China has gotten worse. President Clinton, even seeing this, has done nothing to rectify his precipitous decision to decouple those negotiations. As a result, the tough guys in Beijing are confident that anything that is said by this administration about human rights is a hollow gesture for domestic consumption only. In fact, the Chinese Communist rulers have used the upcoming presidential visit to China, with its opening ceremonies scheduled to be held in Tiananmen Square, they have used this in their callous campaign to stomp out the memory of those who were slaughtered in 1989, those hundreds of democracy activists who were slaughtered in that very same square. On the recent June 4 anniversary of that tragedy, and it was just 10 years ago June 4 when the gallant democracy advocates were mowed down in Tiananmen Square and their papier-mache copies of the Statue of Liberty crushed under the treads of the tanks. On that anniversary, Communist China claimed the Communist Party and government made a correct conclusion, end of quote, to order that slaughter. And they ruled out any revision of that official judgment. And this morning, this very morning, scoffing at congressional requests that Clinton not be received in Tiananmen Square, the U.S. Ambassador, our Ambassador to China, James Sasser, told the Chinese press that the President, quote, will be pleased to be welcomed in the Great Hall of the People, which of course is right next to Tiananmen Square. And that gesture on the part of our President will further the concept that we have heard recently coming from this administration of a, quote, strategic partnership, end of quote, between our two countries. That is what our Ambassador is suggesting. In that mind-boggling atmosphere, if the President even mentioned human rights there while he is in Tiananmen Square or right next to Tiananmen Square in his upcoming visits, if he mentions human rights it will only be making things worse because the ruling clique in Beijing will know that it is just for show and that even our own President is willing to make a cruel joke, a mockery out of what many of us have been raised to believe is the essence of America, that being a sincere belief in democracy and freedom. Is that not what our country is supposed to be about? Is that not what that flag is supposed to stand for? We are not just a geographic location. We are people who came here from all parts of the world, every race and ethnic background and every religion. We came here because our Founding Fathers and the people who came before us believed in freedom. That is what separated us from the rest of the nations in the world and that was our responsibility, to carry the torch when they put it down that they had so gallantly fought for, this freedom in the last 200 years. Well, that is not what going to Tiananmen Square will signal the world. It will signal the world that America no longer holds that dear to our hearts. And maybe in times of trial and in times of the Cold War we had to compromise and associate ourselves with such dictatorships, but in a time of peace there is no excuse for this. But most alarming, it appears that this administration's flawed strategic partnership view towards this brutal dictatorship in Beijing has even permitted the Communist Chinese to have access to the most sophisticated weapons that we built during the Cold War for our own domestic protection. This idea of a strategic partnership has permitted sophisticated weapons related to aerospace technologies and defense technologies to be made available to a brutally harsh Communist dictatorship, a belligerent country that some day may be our enemy and may kill Americans. And even while making these technologies available, the administration cast a blind eye toward Beijing's role in spreading these weapons of mass destruction and the components of these weapons of mass destruction to other unstable areas of the world, making a mockery not only of America's fundamental beliefs in freedom and democracy and human rights, but also making a shambles out of our efforts to contain the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology so that countries like India and Pakistan do not face each other and possibly ignite a horrific conflagration that could cost millions of lives. So this administration even turns an eye while Chinese Communists ship these weapons to these countries, causing great instability and causing a cycle of violence and a cycle of weapons advancement that will only put the entire world in greater threat. In my April 30 speech, I outlined how our own country's elite has maintained a policy that has steadily shifted resources and power to China at the detriment of our own people. Not only the security of our own people, but to the economic well-being of our people. What are we doing this for? Why are we making the Chinese better off, stronger, more capable of military aggression, more capable of beating us economically, putting our own people in jeopardy not only from nuclear weapons but also from being taken and shoved into the cold without a job, being shoved out of their jobs because of slave labor being used in China? We have been watching a policy, an intentional policy that has been to the detriment of our people and building up China as a competitor and an adversary. Who is watching out for the American people? Is this not the fundamental job that we have as elected representatives? Who is watching out for the interests of our people? First, we have obscured the trade relationship that allows China to charge 30 and 40 percent tariffs on American goods, so when we manufacture something here and want to sell it in China, they charge us 30 and 40 percent tariffs on the goods that are imported from the United States, while under Most Favored Nation status the Chinese goods which they produce over there flood into the United States with a mere 3 percent duty. How unfair is that to our own people? How about those people who are manufacturing those goods in the United States who are put out of work? It is one thing to say then Americans can buy low- cost Chinese commercial goods, but if our companies cannot sell over there without a large or huge tariff, then there are not any other jobs being created for these people who are put out of work. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is a betrayal of the interests of our own people and it has been going on year after year after year. And when we try to fight against Most Favored Nation status, we are being told that it creates jobs. Yet we are using taxpayer dollars to subsidize the building of factories in China that will end up exporting goods to the United States in competition with our own people, the people who pay those tax dollars to begin with. This is the reason that we have this $50 billion annual trade deficit with Communist China. Fifty billion dollars. And that is a minimum every year that we have had for many years now with Communist China. That puts our money into their pockets. Fifty billion dollars a year. What do they do with those $50 billion? First of all, it builds up their own dictatorship. It permits the Communist dictatorship to keep a stranglehold on anybody who would want democracy in that country. We upgrade their police techniques. We have trained their policemen for a totalitarian country. What do those people do when they go back? They throw Christians and other people in jail. They use their techniques to find out who wants democracy and to persecute them. We have them over here training in our country. And that $50 billion, what is it used for? Yes, it pays for some of that training. Perhaps we might charge them a little. And it finances their arms buildup and puts our own people out of work. More than putting dollars in their pockets, the trade relationship is so unbalanced and we have permitted them to have this 30 and 40 percent tariff against our goods, which is unfair to us because their goods come in at 3 and 4 percent. But we have also permitted them to make outrageous demands over and over again of our own business community. And again these demands have been to the horrible detriment of thousands of American working people. For instance, in order to sell airplanes to China, and there will be someone in my office tomorrow from Boeing Corporation, the largest employer in my district, to tell me why we have to make sure that we have those airplane deals to China. But in order to sell those airplanes to China, in the past the Communist Chinese leaders have demanded that we build airplane manufacturing and spare parts factories in Communist China. That means 10 years from now, they will have a modern aerospace industry to rival our own. It is short-term profit and even medium-term selling out our economic interests, not to mention the national security interests. We even use U.S. tax dollars when they make these demands. ``If we are going to buy your planes, you have to set up the wing manufacturing facility here in China,'' and we even use tax dollars through the IMF, through the Export/Import Bank and OPIC and other government subsidized agencies with our tax dollars, we use this tax money to guarantee the deal which builds those manufacturing operations in China. We are building manufacturing units in China that will rival our own and put our own aerospace people out of work. In the medium run, again, a few fat cats may get rich. The Chinese will get a few more freebies. They get the technology and the American people will end up getting the pink slip. With the wealth of technology that Bill Clinton and the corporate power brokers are transferring, China is steadily building a state-of- the-art Army, Navy, and Air Force and strategic missile force. This is a power that will threaten anyone who gets in their way. And we are financing it. We are subsidizing it. We are facilitating it. And this administration is celebrating it. And when the party is over, as I say, a very few rich Americans are going to be better off and a multitude of our own working people will be displaced by low-tariff imports. And something else to consider: Our military personnel will be in grave danger and our country vulnerable to nuclear attack and high-tech warfare attack. All of this from this nonsensical policy. And it goes on and these are easy to calculate. They are easy to see. What spurred my interest in this area was a few months back when I stumbled upon evidence that American technology was being used to upgrade Chinese rockets. It actually took my breath away to learn that U.S. aerospace companies may have flippantly violated lawful safeguards provided by previous administrations by providing the Chinese with technology they needed to upgrade their rockets and interballistic missiles putting millions of Americans in danger of incineration by a nuclear ballistic missile launched from China. Recently, I have had a series of meetings with aerospace workers and I would invite anyone listening to this who has information about this to contact my office, because a number of aerospace workers, patriots in the aerospace industry, had information about this and contacted me and I met with them. They were disgusted that as patriotic Americans, technology was being used, American technology was being used in a way that would put our own country in jeopardy. These workers that I have already talked to have firsthand knowledge of security breaches that put our country in jeopardy. I was told that U.S. technology to ensure stage separation of Chinese rockets had been addressed. Guidance systems and control systems were upgraded. There was MIRVing that was not possible by the Chinese before, and yet on May 2 the Chinese launched a Long March rocket. Three out of four of them used to blow up. This is a perfect launch. And not only did it get up there, but once it was up, it was able to spit out two satellites instead of one because it now has MIRVing technology, the same technology that permits that very same rocket to carry multiple warheads, warheads that could be aimed right at Los Angeles or Chicago or Detroit or anywhere, anywhere in the United States. I was also told about the laser ring magnetic gyroscope, this system that was so important that Americans discovered and built to make us the technological leader of the world, a stabilizing system that is absolutely essential for MIRVing and for submarines and other launch rockets launched from other places, and for airplanes. If these things do not have this type of high-tech gyroscope, they cannot really fire their weapons as accurately, and the fear is that the Chinese Communists now have that gyroscope. All of these items, I was told, of course, are built at taxpayer expense. These aerospace workers knew all along they were working for the taxpayers. This was money that we spent during the Cold War to give us the edge. This was things that we spent billions of, hundreds of billions of dollars we spent to make sure that our people had the qualitative edge. While talking to these aerospace people, I was told that among those involved in this diabolical betrayal of America's security was a senior vice president from Loral Corporation. Some of his fellow workers had been appalled years ago by this very same man's breach of routine security procedures, yet the company had inexplicably sided with the security violator instead of the whistleblower. Now we are told that this same top executive, who is now even higher in the company than he was then, was the point man in getting U.S. missile technology and know-how into the hands of the Communist Chinese. In the investigating of this controversy, much attention has been paid to what occurred after the explosion of the Communist Long March rocket in February of 1996 and the 200-page technical review report given to the Chinese by a U.S. technical team. We have heard the claim that this report concerns a simple soldering problem; a soldering problem, that is what we are being told. Yes, that is it, a few bad solders is what caused two out of every three Chinese rockets to explode at launch, a few bad solders. Some of the aerospace engineers I have been talking to about this told me when they heard that, they almost fell off their chairs laughing. To say that was not a believable explanation to these engineers who spent a lifetime building rockets. After the explosion in 1996, Loral apparently went forward and intentionally and systematically upgraded the Chinese rockets, and we are not just talking about a few bad solders. As is clear in a letter from this very same Loral vice president, who they complained about years ago for not following security procedures, that Loral vice president, a man named Wah Kun, stated in a letter, and I believe that this letter is a smoking gun, if there ever was a smoking gun, of evidence of a crime, in this letter from Dr. Wah Lim the vice president of Loral to Lou Jiyuan, to the chairman of the China Aerospace Corporation, which is a part of their government and a part of their military, that Loral Vice President Lim states that an important goal for this review was, quote, using the failure, that means the 1996 blowup, as an opportunity to ensure that the Long March vehicles have the best reliable record in the future. We at Space Systems Loral would like China to be a strong supplier of launch services, and we will do everything in our power to help you, end of quote. And to ensure that, he says, your company, and I quote, your company will take their share of the world market for satellite launch services, end of quote. Only a week and a half earlier, in a committee strategy report, Lim outlined, that is vice president of Loral Lim outlined the objectives for the review team that has gotten so much attention these last few weeks, including recommending to China Aerospace and its launching subsidiary, the Great Wall, any other areas of improvement. So thus they will give them any advice they need in any areas of improvement for their system so that they can capture a share of the world's launch services. I am including, and I will include in the Congressional Record tomorrow, a copy of the full text of the letter from Mr. Lim to the Chinese aerospace leader. In May of 1996, before the draft committee, this is after the work of this committee, and it had a 200-page report on this blowup of this Chinese missile, but before that report was submitted to the State Department for security review, the security review is mandated under export control law, Vice President Lim of Loral faxed a copy of that report to the Chinese. Lim did this knowing full well that China Aerospace Company, which controls all space launches, is the same military-owned company that builds China's ballistic missiles, the same company that builds the missiles that would land atomic weapons in our country and incinerate our people. It is the same company that builds the satellite launching rockets, almost the same technology. According to U.S. intelligence, at least 14 of these missiles that the Chinese already have are targeted at the United States. That was denied by this administration, of course. And just as the President has sometimes mentioned things that sort of do not make sense and we disagree with, in this particular case the President suggested that there are no missiles aimed at the United States in Communist China. Of course, we all know that it takes about a half an hour to retarget a missile, and I am not so sure how much credence you have to put in a situation like that in terms of people's statements that we do not have much to be worried about. The New York Times published this story that we are talking about in terms of the Loral upgrading of the Chinese missile, and to its credit that paper and several other publications have done a diligent job in providing this all-important information to the American people. This past Sunday, for example, 60 Minutes, the news program on CBS, did a compelling report on a story concerning the transfer of deadly weapons and technology to Communist China. The 60 Minutes program, which was also covered by the Washington Post, described how in 1993, the McDonnell Douglas Company was blackmailed by the Chinese Communists into selling at fire sale prices sophisticated machine tools for the building of jet fighters, the B-1 bomber and the cutting edge C-17 transport airplane. And like a scene out of a movie, the American workers at the Columbus, Ohio, factory who had offered to buy the equipment, they wanted to keep that plant going, and they were willing to buy it for $10 million, twice the price which the Chinese Government offered, those workers were turned down by the company, and like right out of a movie, they were there yelling epithets and attempting to block, quote, dark-suited Chinese officials, end of quote, who came there to inspect these huge machine tools which were used to produce sophisticated weapons. And yes, our working people wanted those jobs, and they deserved the jobs that those tools could provide, but they also knew that those tools were going, Communist China would produce things that would kill Americans. But unlike management, the workers knew, I guess, and that plant, that when you see the term ``U.S.,'' that means not just United States, it also means us. Who is the United States? When we are talking about America, the U.S. security interests, we are talking about us, all of us together, e pluribus unum. We are all together in this, and we believe in freedom. That is what ties us together. They knew they were being betrayed, and their interests were being betrayed. They could not even offer more money than the Communist China expected to get those pieces of equipment that would permit them to earn a decent living. They had only given half their lives in service to building weapons during the Cold War to protect our country. The aerospace workers, the unsung hero of the Cold War, the aerospace workers are the ones who developed the technology we needed to deter war with Russia until it collapsed in its own evil. They were the ones that gave us that technological edge because we could not have matched them man for man. Now when it is all over, we sell our tools to Communist China, and they give their jobs away. Although the sale of these tools was opposed by the Defense Department in the end, it had the support of the Clinton administration, and the Chinese got these tools, of course, and when they were buying the tools, they said they were going to use them to build civilian aircraft. Of course, guess what? Many of these same tools ended up in a Chinese factory that produces Silkworm missiles, missiles that will threaten American ships if we ever try to protect Taiwan again, thousands of our sailors put in jeopardy with American technology. And in 1996, the U.S. Justice Department opened up a criminal investigation into whether McDonnell Douglas knew or should have known that the Chinese commitment to using these tools for civilian use was bogus. To their credit, the McDonnell Douglas officials reported that Chinese treachery immediately upon discovering that the tools had gone to the wrong location. However, neither the administration nor the company should have succumbed to the Chinese blackmail in the first place. Even if the Chinese would not buy the civilian airplanes, we should not have told them we were going to build them a plant to build airplanes themselves. And even if those tools would have been used to build civilian airplanes rather than military planes, we should not have made that as part of our deal in the first place. Even if it did not put our national security in jeopardy, it certainly put our working people in jeopardy. Their jobs were in jeopardy. In the end the Chinese, here is the hook on this whole thing, in the end the Chinese had promised to buy billions of dollars worth of planes from McDonnell Douglas if they sweetened that deal, if they could get their hands on all that defense-related technology, those tools and machine things that would permit them to build these weapons, but as soon as they got their hands on that technology, guess what, the rest of the deal fell apart. McDonnell Douglas did not even get the sale of their airplanes. They cut the deal short and only give them a minor, a minor purchase of McDonnell Douglas airplanes, while at the same time they not only now have all this technology at their disposal, but 1,000 skilled American workers were denied the chance to rescue their factory. They wanted to buy it for $10 million, and they were denied that and denied the decency of earning a living and owning part of the company, which they wanted to do out of some scheme that they thought would bring them untold riches from the China market. Even if the deal was kept, the American workers would have had the shaft in the long run. The company sold out the ability of its own workers to compete by giving that technology to the Communist Chinese. And as I say, even in the short term, that profit was not realized because the Communists reneged on their agreement to buy all those airplanes. In response to the public disclosure of these type of reckless export deals, the Clinton administration has reacted with its typical obfuscation and evasion, and this is what we have come to expect from this administration. This administration and its media allies have turned on the confusion machine now that this missile upgrade situation has reached a national controversy. Their confusion machine is designed to get the American people confused and mixed up. First of all, the first purpose of the administration's strategy for confusing the American people is to minimalize the facts. We have been told, of course, that these technology transfers by Loral and others to the Communist Chinese were a little more than a few solderings, which we have already discussed. So you minimize. ``Don't worry about it. We're just talking about a few solderings.'' This is parallel to the FBI file scandal when President Clinton himself claimed that it was only a few FBI files that were mistakenly sent over to the White House by a Defense Department detailee. Remember those words? We all remember that being said on the White House lawn, only a few FBI files, and it was made by accident by a detailee from the Defense Department. Of course later we found out that that detailee was not just a detailee, after all. He was someone who had been placed at the Defense Department by the Clinton administration and sent back to the White House intentionally, and he was one of their people. He happened to be an opposition researcher for the Democratic Party, and he did not have just a couple of FBI files, he ended up with hundreds of FBI files in his possession. Of course this is all about just a few solders. Remember, just a few solders in a Chinese missile. That is all this is about. Another tactic being used by this administration is to sidetrack the growing public rage over this scandal with an obvious attempt to confuse the public about what is the central issue that we are all upset about. If President Clinton and his apologists, his allies in the media, of course, if they can confuse the people, this incredibly serious issue might just be shrugged off as yet another attempt by Republicans to get this guy, as my good friend Geraldo Rivera implied on television and has implied several times, we are just out to get the President. No matter what, we want to get him. No, that has nothing to do with what is going on in this case. I cannot talk for the other issues because I have not participated in these other scandals that have been talked about over this last year, but I can say this issue is very serious and deals with the survival or perhaps the death of millions of Americans who otherwise would not die, dying at the hands of Communist Chinese tyrants who have American technology. So let me warn everyone about what they are facing, this tactic to try to confuse them. This administration and its liberal allies are trying to get you to believe that what we are upset about is nothing more than a decision to permit U.S. satellites to be launched on Chinese rockets. You will hear that over and over again. U.S. satellites launched on Chinese rockets, that is what everybody is upset about. Any newspaper or radio or television journalist or administration spokesman, or whoever, who starts talking about U.S. satellites on Chinese rockets as being the crisis or the scandal, at that moment, understand that that person is intentionally trying to lie by confusing you. So put that in the back of your head, if you hear someone say that, they are trying to confuse you, they are trying to lie, to get you not to understand the magnitude of what is going on. They know exactly what they are doing. It is called deception. So, please, my friends, do not be deceived. Besides all the administration spokesmen who are trying to use this deceptive tactic, of course, the liberal left media troopers have been mobilized to throw dust into our face. Let me read to my colleagues a story from the Los Angeles Times from Monday, June 8: Republican leaders have charged that Clinton satellite exports may have jeopardized national security by helping China develop its missile capabilities. It goes on. I am also worried if we can continue to play patty cake with China while they continue to be involved in weapons of proliferation, said Senator Majority Leader Trent Lott. It goes on. Administration officials have countered that they were merely continuing the policy of satellite exports initiated by Presidents Reagan and Bush and that the satellites were exported under procedures that protected American technology. Then the last sentence says, The Loral controversy is now the subject of congressional investigations. Oh, all right. So we are talking about satellites here. Listen to the wording. You end up thinking that we are talking about a satellite controversy. And if you listen to the President or his paid spokesmen or his unpaid spokesmen or the spin masters, one thinks the issue is about satellites. And then it was pointed out that the Republicans, including Presidents Reagan and Bush and, by the way, including yours truly, Members of Congress like yours truly, suggested that U.S. satellites could be permitted to be launched on Chinese rockets. Thus if you listen to this and get confused enough by it, you believe that President Clinton is just acting consistently with everybody else and he is being unjustly attacked, that we are just out to get him and that everything is justified in what has happened and there is no grave danger. Reagan and Bush approved it, so forget it. Go to sleep. Have a good night's rest. Don't even ask any questions about it. No, I am afraid that is not it. When the deception brigade starts talking about satellites, keep telling yourself, no, this is not accurate, these people are not concerned about satellites, that is not what they are upset about. In reality the core issue is not satellites. The core issue that people are upset about is the upgrading of Chinese Communist missiles. Let me repeat that. The upgrading of Communist Chinese missiles that can launch nuclear weapons at the United States and upgrading the Communist Chinese missiles puts millions of Americans at risk who would not otherwise have been at risk. All the others trying to talk to you about the satellite deal and the rest are doing their best to confuse the issue. Remember, when they talk about it, to tell yourself that. We are concerned about warheads landing in our country and incinerating our neighborhoods and with the incredible, just incredible thought that this could be happening and made more likely to happen with the use of American technology developed for our own defense. The decision to let American satellites be launched on Chinese rockets may or may not have been a good idea. At the time of Reagan and Bush, they had strict enforcement provisions to ensure that there was no transfer of technology. The Chinese would not even gain any information from that. However, that was also at the time of before Tiananmen Square when China was evolving toward a more democratic society. The fact is that that may or may not have been a good decision, but that is not what is being called into question. Because no one who decided that those American satellites could be launched, no one believed that it was at all permissible and it would ever justify the upgrading of Chinese rockets. No one ever believed that. No one believed that the military capabilities of these rockets and missiles would ever be changed. This idea that we had some knowledge of that or Reagan or Bush thought that that could happen is absurd. I believe that what we have got here is a Chinese nuclear weapons delivery system that has been made more efficient with the use of American technology. Is that enough? Is that not enough? So let us not confuse it by talking about satellites. Even though we did not think that could ever happen, it apparently happened. We also know that some Federal watchdogs, Federal employees that were watching out for our security, they were minimalized during this whole situation. They were not permitted to do their job by pressure from on top. We also know that when an attempt was made to prosecute Loral for illegally transferring this technology, for upgrading this Communist Chinese missile, that President Clinton, against the advice of his own Justice Department, personally signed a waiver that he was warned would undermine any prosecution of Loral. In effect he was signing a retroactive permission for this deadly weapons of mass destruction technology and know-how to be given to the Communist Chinese. It is all a bit mind-boggling. There will soon be a House Select Committee to investigate the issue. It will be chaired by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), a man of impeccable credentials and character. Each and every American is now in greater danger from Communist Chinese missiles and our defenders in military uniforms will find their lives in greater jeopardy. We should, and this will be true if we ever, ever confront the Chinese if they become belligerent, this is something that makes the magnitude of the investigation of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) many degrees more important to our country than any of the other charges that have ever been leveled at President Clinton. But let us not overlook that the upgrading of Communist Chinese nuclear weapons and delivery systems is just the most significant of the betrayals of our country's national interest in this administration's dealings with Communist China. Businessmen, blinded by the prospects of fast megabucks, have been manipulated and used by the Communist Chinese over and over again. Not only Chinese rockets but a widening arsenal of high tech weapons have been provided to the Communist Chinese. These high tech weapons and the machines needed to build those weapons are now in the hands of the Chinese. We are upgrading their entire arsenal one way or the other. Economic cooperation with the Communist Chinese made sense at one time because the Communist Chinese were loosening their grip. It looked like the country might evolve. But that was reversed 10 years ago in the bloody action that took place in Tiananmen Square. That was almost 10 years ago exactly. The country had been seeming to move toward freedom. However, since that Tiananmen Square massacre, China has been sinking deeper into the vice grip of gangsters and thugs who are responsible for more tyranny, more terror, more human rights abuses, more belligerence than ever before. Even as they have broken promise after promise on their weapons of mass destruction program and even as they have transferred technology to other dangerous nations, this administration continues to lavish favors on its buddies in Beijing. For the past 2 months, this administration has been suggesting that President Clinton would be proposing a, quote, strategic partnership and even more aerospace technology deals with this regime during his upcoming visit in Beijing. It was also leaked to the press that the President might even propose a greater cooperation in space efforts. When I heard the administration official at the International Relations Committee call for a strategic partnership, I could not help but ask, Against whom? Who are we going to have this strategic partnership against? Against India that has a democratically elected government? Against Taiwan with a democratically elected government? Against South Korea with a democratically elected government? Thailand with a democratically elected government? The Philippines with a democratically elected government? Or how about Japan with a democratically elected government? We are going to have a strategic partnership with the one massive Communist dictatorship in a region filled with democracies? Give me a break. And then the administration official said, Well, partnership doesn't mean you're against anyone. I said, Well, what does the word strategic mean if it doesn't mean you're putting yourself in juxtaposition with someone else and it has something to do with a military and economic power? We should not be in a strategic partnership with a bloody Communist dictatorship. We should be encouraging people to invest in the democracies of the area instead of giving them an unequal trade relationship and subsidizing our businessmen when they want to do business in those areas. We should be directing them to the Philippines that are struggling for democracy, or some other country. If we are going to direct them anywhere, it should be to a democratic country. But not to a dictatorship where if a union person wants to form a union, he is thrown in jail or he is sent to the gulag, their laogai which is the equivalent of the gulag and worked to death so that they can export products here without any unions and without any labor legislation and without any dignity and without any ability to complain, without any ability to change your job, without any ability to worship God or have a day off. So this administration wants to have a strategic partnership with that kind of regime. So this looks a little bit, what we see happening and seen happening looks a little bit like parallel to what happened and was described in Gerry Aldrich's book, Unlimited Access. The standards have broken down. This administration has blurred the lines, have violated the standards right from the beginning, the standards of being right and wrong, of good and evil, of democracy versus tyranny, of patriotism versus globalism. The standards have been broken down. Unlimited access; there is unlimited access to the White House and unlimited access to American technology, and one cannot, and we must recognize, and this is what we are seeing right now, one cannot give up one's standards, one cannot give up time-honored principles without paying a serious price. And today we are increasingly in jeopardy. American national security has been undermined by political leadership without principles, and of course businessmen are blinded by the dream of a fast buck in the so-called China market. And we have been put in jeopardy because we have left our principles behind. This fantasy of this fast buck in the Chinese market has made idiots out of executives who should have known better. There are cases, the McDonnell-Douglas fire sale and transfer of defense machine toolery to China, where much of it landed in this weapons factory. Motorola built a computer chip factory there, and now there are these chips being used. Guess where? Guess what we found the latest? The latest we found Motorola chips in land mines that have been built by the Chinese and put all over Southeast Asia. In Cambodia we have a U.S. Army team trying to deactivate some of those mines, and they found out that the new mines were blowing up, and they were killing the people who were trying to diffuse them. And why were they blowing up? Because these were different kinds of mines. These were smart mines, and when they finally got them open, what did they find out? They were smart mines; they were killing the people who tried to diffuse them. They were designed that way because they have a computer chip inside these mines, a computer chip made that came from a factory, a Motorola factory that had been built by Motorola in Communist China. Is that what we want? And is that making people in the United States, are the workers at Motorola any better because we built that factory over there? Nobody is any better, nobody is any better. What about airplane wings? They are now being manufactured for transport planes. They were supposed to be, you know, for civilian aircraft. Yes, in order to have a deal to sell more airplanes, we set up the factory to build the airplane fuselages and their wings. And guess what? Now that factory is producing wings and fuselages for cruise missiles and Chinese fighters that will be sent against American forces if we ever have to confront them in the Taiwan Straits again. American military personnel put at risk. We closed our eyes against even as Israel has transferred war technology, and AWACs technology was sent over there as well as other sophisticated radar communications gear has been sent by Israel to the Communist Chinese. We have closed our eyes to that. Over and over again we see our technology paid for by billions of dollars just for our own security, and the American people believed we should give our military a qualitative edge so we would not have to fight, we could deter war. Like the C-17; the C-17 was developed for what? To give our military the most efficient and reliable military transport plane in the world, and now they are talking about turning it into a civilian model and selling it to the Communist Chinese. Of course the civilian model will be painted in pastels rather than that military green. It is absurd. We did not develop the C-17 with all its incredible capacity to fight a war in order to help the Chinese Army move into Tibet, to destroy the Tibetan people, or to fight the Muslims in the far reaches of their country or to put down Christians in some part of their country. We did not do that. We did not build a C-17 for that. We built the C-17 to transport our own military in the defense of our country, and we were willing to put the research and development into that plane. It is not just the C-17, but all of these equipment that we are talking about, all of this gear that we are talking about. We invested in it willingly. The American taxpayers did this because it would give us the edge to preserve our precious freedom, and we wanted our defenders to have that qualitative advantage so they could win and come home safely. Well, today these weapons are being handed over for nothing, for nothing, to the Communist Chinese, and nothing maybe perhaps except for campaign contributions, some political campaign contribution. We will never get to the bottom of that. I wonder where all those Buddhist monks who gave those $5,000 contributions in that Buddhist monastery, where did they get that $5,000 from? They were impoverished Buddhist monks. They did not get it themselves. Where did it come from? We will never find that out. We permitted an unfair trade relationship to provide Communist China with $50 billion in hard surplus and hard currency and their trade surplus to purchase high-tech weapons and tools and machines needed to produce these weapons. At a tiny fraction they are getting them of the cost that we invested in those weapons and those machines in the first place. They are getting the weapons at a bargain-basement rate, and the taxpayers are ending up through the Export-Import Bank financing some of these sales, some of the sales from manufacturing units. And what are the Communist Chinese--this is practically giving them this technology that will put us in danger and endanger the lives, endanger the lives of our military personnel if there is ever a confrontation with this bloody and belligerent Communist regime. I think this is a scandal of monumental importance. America's future is at stake. Our young people will live in a dangerous world, and what will they think when they learn that we made it more dangerous because we provided the world's most dangerous military power with weapons as well as tools and machines to produce their own tools and their own weapons. What will they think? And what will America's military personnel think when they find that their fellows and their brothers and sisters at arms are being wiped out and being torn apart, I mean blown out of the sky with weapons that were perfected by U.S. technology? The 40 pieces of silver in the pockets of our corporate leaders will not just weigh upon their consciousness and their consciences if we let this happen, because it will not be just the corporate elite who is at fault, although they must bear the burden of making immoral decisions as well and decisions that hurt our country. But we ourselves will have to bear some of that responsibility. We ourselves will have to bear that responsibility if we do not put a stop to this, because today we are aware of the erosion of our national security, and if we do nothing to stop it, we must bear some of the blame. We cannot afford to surrender the future of our country, the future of peace, forfeit the survival and freedom of America's next generation. It is impossible that the Chinese military could attack the United States; is that right? It is impossible; that is, we have heard that. It is not going to be impossible. Let me tell you in the future it will not be impossible for them to attack the United States. We could confront, we could confront the Chinese in the Taiwan Straits a few years ago when they were launching the rockets across Taiwan trying to intimidate them. We confronted them with our aircraft carriers, confident that the aircraft carriers could defend themselves, all those thousands of our sailors on those carriers, and confident that our homeland would not be attacked by atomic bombs and missiles launched from the mainland of China. That is not true anymore, and every day what we are seeing is our American technology is making not true, and, if we have to confront them in the future, we will be doing so at great risk and perhaps lose thousands of our military peoples' lives. In 1996, a Chinese publication, in a Chinese publication, a major general of the Chinese, in fact, it was the vice commander of the Academy of Military Services in Beijing, was quoted as saying, and I quote: As for the United States, for a relatively long time it will be absolutely necessary that we quietly nurse our sense of vengeance. We must conceal our abilities and bide our time. End of quote. They are biding their time. They are biding their time until we are vulnerable. Finally, if a decade from now a crazed or power-hungry Chinese general even by mistake or perhaps unintentionally or even intentionally launches a missile attack on the United States, perhaps it will be just one rocket or maybe two, but they launch it over towards our country, millions of our people will be incinerated. The horror of it, and it is unthinkable, and if that happens at that ghastly time, we will have to remember that President Clinton opposed developing a missile defense system, and even worse, we may remember that the upgrades of those Communist Chinese missiles happened with American technology under President Clinton's watch. We cannot defend ourselves, and we have given the technology to kill us.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced a Joint Resolution, co-sponsored by my good friends, Ben Gilman, Chairman of the International Relations Committee and Chris Smith, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Rights, in partnership with Senator Bob Smith and Senator Jesse Helms, to require Vietnam to provide freedom of emigration for its people, under the provisions of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974, before tax dollars from American citizens are used to insure or otherwise further trade with the communist regime in Vietnam. Vietnam remains among the world's last Marxist-Leninist governments, where corrupt cronyism and an absence of credible courts have driven away foreign investors. The freedoms of speech, religion and assembly are denied to average citizens, as well as the freedom of emigration. As a result, Vietnam's economy is lagging, investor disenchantment is growing and, despite continued arrest and persecution of dissidents and religious leaders, protest movements have taken root in northern and southern provinces. It is both unconscionable and unsound for President Clinton to issue waivers in order to permit U.S. financing guarantees and credits to investors through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and Export-Import Bank. In addition to H.J. Res. 120, I have also introduced H.R. 3158 to prevent the President from granting waivers for Ex-Im and OPIC credits and financing guarantees in the absence of true democratic reform, release of all political prisoners, humane working conditions, as well as the Jackson-Vanik emigration criteria. A critical lesson we should learn from the economic collapse of the so-called ``Asian Tigers'' such as Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand is that the U.S. Government should not put tax dollars at risk to subsidize unsound private business deals with corrupt regimes. The Heritage Foundation's 1998 Index of Economic Freedom ranks Vietnam among the six worst economic environments in the world. It would be appalling to make American taxpayers guarantee private business investments before real democratic political reform is in place. We should stand with the people of Vietnam who crave for freedom, and abide firmly by America's principles and laws to require the despotic regime in Hanoi to respect international standards of human rights and labor before giving the Vietnamese regime the benefit of our taxpayer- backed institutions.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) just mentioned about yelling from the corner about one's religious convictions. The fact is that we respect the right of people to raise their voice and shout about political things and we respect people's rights to raise their voice and shout about religious things as well. Certainly we do not want people to get in somebody else's way, nor do we want to force somebody to participate in a chant. But I think that again demonstrates the sort of haywire priority that we have here. That, yes, people have religious convictions and they have a right to express it, but all of a sudden there seems to be this pressure on religious people not to make these public utterances. There is nothing wrong with someone shouting out for the glory of God, if that is how they feel.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, but they do not have a right to have a little group meeting of that.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Istook amendment. Let me say that I have been concerned in recent years that in our society there seems to be a great deal of legal pressure on our people not to express their religious convictions. And I know that some people honestly are afraid that some religion might be imposed on someone officially, and I think that is what is motivating this. But what has really happened, the outcome of this is the nature of our society has changed in that, before, our Founding Fathers thought that the expression of religious faith was a very positive thing. This is something that worked to the benefit of our country throughout our history. It gave a solid foundation to the young people of our country because people, whether it was the President of the United States on down, we have ``In God we trust'' right over here in Congress. These expressions were seen as benevolent and positive things in our society. But, in recent years, we have seen the phrase ``separation of church and State,'' by the way, which is something that is not in our Constitution. That phrase is not in the Constitution. It is ``the establishment of a religion'' is the phrase that is within the Constitution. But that phrase of ``separation of church and State'' has been used to justify all kinds of legal pressures and restrictions on Christians and Jews and other people of religious faith from uttering their belief. This is wrong. This is wrong, and the only people who are being imposed upon are not people who do not believe in religion or God, but the people who are being imposed upon are the people of religious faith, whatever that faith may be. Mr. Speaker, worse than that, we have now evolved into a society where Jesus Christ can be taken and can be put into a bottle of urine and called art and it can be subsidized with tax dollars. With people who are sincerely Christian, this is a violation of their sacred beliefs when they complain they are being told this is separation of church and State and they cannot have anything to say about that. But we actually subsidize a tax of these people's religion while, at the same time, if somebody wants to put a manger scene in front of city hall during Christmas season, they are told, oh, no, that is separation of church and State. The Istook amendment I think goes back to what our country is based on. It is not separation of church and State. No one wants to impose religion on someone else. What we are talking about, the basis of our country is freedom of religion. Freedom of religion, especially freedom of religious expression. And that is what the Istook amendment is all about. We have got all of our priorities haywire here. We are now justifying the separation of religious utterances when it is a benevolent thing and has been throughout the history of our country. Mr. Speaker, I support the Istook amendment and the rule.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I am going to be blunt. The presence of the President in the United States, President Clinton with his record on human rights, in Tiananmen Square makes a mockery of this country's sincere commitment to human rights and democracy. This administration has the worst human rights record of any administration in my lifetime. And any utterance the President of the United States might make about human rights in Tiananmen Square, where thousands of young people struggling for democracy in China were murdered, just takes away from any message that we might have as a people to the peoples of the world that we are serious when we talk about democracy and freedom. In reality, it will be seen as purely posturing by a President that has time and again said making money and making sure that the Chinese can keep that $50 billion trade surplus to be used to build up their own weapons systems which they then use to suppress their people is much more important than human rights. President Clinton said, well, we must have Most Favored Nation status again just recently; and he told the people of the United States that this was because China can help us. It is not good in human rights. At least it can help us in a broader role by bringing peace to Asia or whatever. And further evidence of this, of the role they can play, is the important role that the President said that we can be working with China in some strategic relationship in the 21st century. But what constructive role was he talking about with Beijing as a strategic partner? Since May 26, one week previous to the President's statement, U.S. intelligence has been tracking a Chinese cargo freighter that departed from Shanghai loaded with missiles and electronic components to be used for nuclear weapons steaming for Pakistan. Steaming for Pakistan. With that type of a record I would suggest that China cannot help us with anything, and they are not good for human rights.