Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of these four amendments. My colleague from Virginia a few moments ago asserted that this is, this has been turned into a debate that is a political debate rather than a debate about China. I hope that those who read this account in the Congressional Record will remember and take that remark and put it into perspective. It seems that every time that alleged wrongdoing by this Democrat President is challenged or investigated, it becomes political. There is no person so pure or so consistent enough in his past behavior to investigate this President of the United States in charges that he may have done something that endangers the national security or was in some way corrupt. And given that reality to the Members on the other side of the aisle, they feel absolutely justified in obstructing and dragging out and confusing any type of investigation into this President's activities. It is becoming clear to the American people that something has been done when it comes to our relations with China. Something terrible has happened. Every man, woman and child in this country may have been put in jeopardy because American technology could well have been transferred to the Communist Chinese in order to perfect their nuclear weapons delivery systems. What does that mean to the American people? It means that all of us are going to be put at risk if we are ever to confront the Chinese when they commit aggression or become belligerent or do things that threaten our national security in the future. Now, perhaps because American technology has been transferred to these Communist Chinese that enable them to launch their nuclear weapons at us more effectively, all of us are going to be put in jeopardy. This is not a political issue. This is a national security issue, just as all of those other issues were legitimate in being investigated. I will say this, those other investigations, if they would not have been obstructed, if they would not have, if there was not intentional efforts being made to confuse the issues in those investigations, the public would have understood the importance of those issues as well. But this is too important to let politics get in the way, and it is not politics coming from this side of the aisle. It is politics which is preventing the American people from learning the truth when eight members of the Democratic Party prevent witnesses from testifying in our investigation in one of our own committees. I strongly support this and the American people deserve to know the truth, whether they have been betrayed or not.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, outrage is sweeping the United States of America, and a justifiable outrage. The American people are finding out now that the technology that they paid for with their tax dollars to be developed during the Cold War, that some of that technology has been transferred to the communist Chinese in order to upgrade the capabilities of their nuclear weapons delivery system. When President Clinton became President of the United States, we had a chance to confront any wrongdoing or aggression or belligerency committed by the communist Chinese, knowing that the people of the United States were not at risk. Now, after 5 years, we find almost miraculously that the Chinese have developed the capability of hitting the United States with nuclear weapons. The outrage that I talked about, as I suggested, comes from the fact that we are now learning that it was American corporations, some moguls from the aerospace industry, who decided to take American technology and improve those Chinese rockets. Then we find out that this administration, inside the administration, the watchdogs that noticed that this illegal act and immoral act was taking place, that when the watchdogs tried to create and tried to establish an investigation and to prosecute those people who had transferred that missile technology, that their effort was undercut by no one else but the President of the United States. President Bill Clinton took the steps that were necessary to transfer the authority of blocking some certain transfers of technology from the State Department, which opposed that transfer, to the Commerce Department that was headed by Ron Brown which was interested in facilitating transfers of technology. The President also issued waivers and licenses that undercut those people who were preparing the prosecution of those people in the aerospace industry that transferred that technology to the communist Chinese. And yes, there is one other step in this story of betrayal, and that is the information that now is emerging that the President of the United States, during his reelection effort, received millions of dollars in contributions from those who were transferring this technology, in the same time period that the waivers and licenses were being issued by the Oval Office in order to facilitate those transfers. Bernard Swartz, the CEO of Lorel Corporation, the corporation that transferred much of this technology, is the biggest contributor to the President's reelection campaign, over a million dollars to the President's reelection or to the Democratic party. And then, of course, we hear about money coming from the communist Chinese themselves, filtering it into the President's reelection campaign, Johnny Chung just a few days ago admitting that the $100,000 he tried to funnel into the Democratic campaign came from the People's Liberation Army. I would ask my colleagues to pay attention to this story, because the People's Liberation Army, the source of those funds was not just the army itself, it was that part of the communist Chinese army that deals with missile and rocket development. A lieutenant colonel in the Chinese Army gave that money to Johnny Chung to funnel into the President's campaign. Yes, there is justifiable outrage. The President has a lot of questions to answer, as do these corporations, both on moral grounds and on legal grounds. The President should cancel his trip to China until those questions have been answered, and there should be a moratorium on all presidential actions concerning waivers and licenses and the shipping of technology to communist China until we get to the bottom of this. Every man, woman, and child in the United States now is in jeopardy of nuclear incineration by the communist Chinese if we ever do confront them in their wrongdoing, because of technology that has been transferred to them with the help of this President and with the profit of American companies making profit off technology developed by the taxpayers for the protection of our country. This is the most serious scandal that I have heard. Maybe the American people cannot understand what sex scandal and character has to do with making decisions, but this is very understandable. Our country has been betrayed. We need to get to the bottom of it.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Pennsylvania asks how could we possibly think that a donation of $80,000 could cause the President to do something so terrible as has been suggested here. We are not talking about $80,000. We are not talking about $80,000 at all. We are talking about hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars that were funneled into the President's reelection effort by people involved with these transfers of technology. I have never called to treason and I will not call to treason. I think what we have here is a betrayal of the interest of the people of the United States of America, especially if that had anything to do with those millions of dollars that were funneled into the President's reelection effort from the Red Chinese and the American companies that were involved with transferring the technology. Why do we have to come to the floor to insist that these four individuals who know about these campaign contributions be permitted to testify? It is absolutely ridiculous that we have had to come this far. No one will ever be able to know for sure what is going on if you are saying what is happening here unless we hear their testimony. We need to get to the bottom of this. This is a national security issue as well as a political corruption issue. But no one will ever be perfect enough when a Democrat President is being investigated. Ken Starr had impeccable credentials and now he has been vilified. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) makes one or two verbal mistakes and all of a sudden that is being used as a diversion to pull the public's attention away from these very serious national security charges. We need to get to the bottom of this. We need to make sure, and we are not going to be diverted by some nonsense about the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) made a couple of verbal abuses. That does not cut it with us when we have weapons technology going to improve the Communist Chinese capabilities of launching nuclear weapons against the United States of America. That is that serious.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I will take the Chair's admonition and interest. We recognize that the media has trivialized the charges that have been made against the President and we realize that perhaps the American people are getting sick and tired of hearing about charges that go back to sexual activities that the President may or may not have been engaged in. And if what Ken Starr has been investigating seems complicated and now trivial, let us not lose sight of the fact that something now is emerging in Washington that is not trivial, that does not deal with a sex scandal, that what we are seeing emerge about this administration's dealings with the Red Chinese is both understandable and outrageous. In short, President Clinton's White House has been in collusion with American high tech companies that have transferred to the Communist Chinese missile and rocket technology that increased their capability of successfully launching a nuclear strike against the United States of America. So while the news media was paying attention to charges and investigations that may go back to the President's sex life, let us not ignore or let us focus on something that everybody should be able to understand, the magnitude of which everyone should be able to understand, every man, woman and child in our country has been put at risk by actions of a few profit-oriented aerospace tycoons. Announcement by the Speaker pro Tempore

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, then I will refrain from that and I thank the Chair for pointing that out to me. I thought that referring to an investigation of the President in that area was permitted, and I will refrain from referring to that in the rest of my speech. Instead, I will refer to exactly what this speech is supposed to focus on and as only compared to those other items that I consider to be not understandable and trivial, but instead the fact that actions have been taken by this President that benefit aerospace tycoons that have put our country at risk. The President, this President, may well have squashed attempts to prosecute people who have betrayed the safety and security of our country. This story started for me earlier this year when I first got wind of the assistance being provided to the Communist Chinese missile and rocket program. As chairman of the space subcommittee, it is part of my job to keep track of America's space program. I am, in fact, as chairman of the space subcommittee, the point man in the House of Representatives in overseeing NASA and other space and technology budgets. I have, thus, some understanding of rockets and missiles that perhaps some others of our Members do not have. Several years ago it was argued that American satellites should be permitted to be launched atop foreign rockets; that is, if the foreign customer, which American companies were selling their satellites to, demanded that those launches be made to those foreign, be made on top of those foreign rockets. That request by American satellite manufacturers made sense. We were competitive with the British and French as well as the Russians and, when quality was put into the equation, we were far superior; meaning American rockets were far superior to the Chinese long march rockets, which is their standard rocket for the Chinese arsenal. So, thus, this Congress moved forward with the President of the United States to make legal the launching of American satellites on top of foreign rockets but with great restrictions to be placed on those satellite launches so that there would be no technology transfer. As I say, I agreed with that position because I knew that once the long march rocket, which at that time was blowing up three out of four times, was used to put up an American satellite, people would soon see that it made no economic sense to use long march rockets. At no time did this Congress or anyone else ever suggest that American technology should be used to perfect Chinese long march rockets or to upgrade any Chinese missile system. But that is exactly what happened. When the Chinese rockets failed, as predicted, the Chinese rockets, as I say, would go up and they would explode, reminiscent of the American, early American rockets of the 1950s. And as predicted, they blew up, and at that point most of us believed that the launches of American satellites to set up things like a telephone system in China and such, which are totally justified sales of technology, that they would have to be launched on American rockets. Yet some high rollers in certain American aerospace companies decided to upgrade the capability of the Communist Chinese in their ability to launch those rockets without any consideration of America's national security interests. What may have been given to the Chinese? What is it that we are talking about when we are talking about a rocket system, the long march rocket that used to blow up and was totally unreliable and now is a reliable rocket system? Well, what we gave them, what it looks like we may have given them, I should say, is missile command and control technology, missile guidance systems, stage separation technology and MIRVing technology. Demonstrating just how far things have gone in perfecting the long march rocket, on May 2 of this year, two Motorola satellites were put into orbit with one long march rocket. To explain the importance of this, to understand the importance of this, we need to look at what technology is needed to send two satellites up on the same rocket. First of all, those rockets were exploding. As one Motorola executive told me, Well, Mr. Chairman, as the rockets go up, they did not have the stage separation technology and they were blowing up when they were supposed to separate. My reaction, of course, was, it is a very good thing that Red Chinese rockets blow up. We like them to blow up. We do not want them to have an effective rocket system. What it also tells us, the May 2 launch, is, they have overcome that stage separation problem now. One long march rocket put two satellites up; the important phrase, ``two satellites.'' That means that the Red Chinese now have MIRV capacity. They are utilizing MIRV technology. To put this in perspective, that means that the Chinese, before any policies laid down by the President or in support of these companies, before they had an unreliable rocket system that would blow up three out of four times, now they have a system that will launch into space not only one satellite but two. Now let us change the name. We are no longer talking about satellites. We are talking about nuclear warheads. The Chinese now, because it is the very same technology used to spit out those satellites, is the same technology that is used to spit out nuclear warheads. The Chinese now, using American technology, have the ability to launch, effectively launch nuclear warheads. And not just one warhead per rocket, they now have our MIRV technology that will permit them to launch numerous nuclear warheads at the United States per rocket, using our technology paid for by the American taxpayers. Where were our watchdogs? When all of this was happening, where were our watchdogs? Well, this did not pass the attention of many long-time pros over at the CIA and the State Department and U.S. Customs. Our watchdogs were actually on the job and could not help but notice that the Chinese capability in their launching of their rockets and missiles was improving dramatically. In fact, moves have been made by our watchdogs to bring charges against several corporations that may have transferred this American technology to the Communist Chinese. But in the midst of the preparation for bringing criminal charges, our President, President Bill Clinton, inexplicably issued two licenses that made it legal to sell that same technology to the Communist Chinese, undercutting the potential prosecutions of those who had been engaged in selling the same technology to them before. This might be viewed as almost a retroactive licensing or waiver for past illegal activities. This is something we need to, as a Congress, to look into exactly what was behind that. When examining this issue, we need to also understand that the transfer of technology financed by the American taxpayer is a double betrayal of the American people. First, let us understand that when you transfer American technology like rocket technology, American jobs are being destroyed and, second, our country is being put in jeopardy. First, what about the jobs? I represent an area in Southern California in which aerospace plays a major role in our economy. Tens of thousands of people make their living in the aerospace industry. By transferring technology that was paid for by the taxpayers to the Chinese so that launches will be given to the Chinese rather than to Americans, we are betraying everyone who works in our aerospace industry. When I say ``we,'' it comes down to some of the bigwigs in the aerospace industry who are not considering their employees and some as well in the administration, the Clinton administration that are supposed to be making the decisions as to what is in the interest of our country. But of course, our relations with China over these last five years have been based on transferring jobs and wealth from the United States to Communist China. How many people know that, when our companies are trying to sell a product in China, they have to pay a 30 or 40 percent tariff? The Chinese, on the other end, are flooding our markets with consumer goods and paying a 3 percent or 4 percent tariff. This is no accident. This is no mistake. What does that do? That undercuts the ability of American companies, of American workers to do their job and to earn their living. So we have tariffs that are totally out of whack, and that is no accident. Then we have got OPIC, Export-Import Bank, the World Bank and several other financial institutions that are financed by the American taxpayer. And what do we have? We have the taxpayer, again, subsidizing the building of a manufacturing plant in a Communist country, especially Communist China, which is the biggest human rights abuser on this planet. Again, we have a policy that betrays the American people by taxing them in order to subsidize or guarantee loans to big corporations who will then build a plant in China to use slave labor, which will then be used to transfer goods or to sell goods to the United States, undercutting our own working people and putting them out of a job. This is nonsense. This is bizarre. Who is watching out for the interests of the American people? Even environmental deals that we have been talking about, trying to set up environmental standards internationally, we managed to maneuver them and to work through problems and to negotiate. When all the smoke clears away from the negotiations, we find we have a deal in which China and several other countries are excluded from harsh restrictions that are put on our country, which means that, when people invest in the future, they will invest in China instead of investing in the United States. That is very predictable. No one can deny that. This is what will happen if these Kyoto treaties that we just negotiated, when it is implemented, it is the most massive transfer of wealth from the United States to China. Why not? If you have so many restrictions in the United States and it is so costly to do business here, why not put your investment into China? Let us bend over backwards again and give those involved in this strategy the benefit of the doubt of why it is happening. Let us say that we are going to give everybody the benefit of the doubt that these nonsensical and horrible policies have been brought about by the best of intentions. What they really want to do, or so they say, is to bring China into the family of nations. This is the way to bring China into the family of nations. Let us make China part of the global economy. The more business that we do with China, the more they are going to come and be more like western countries. This is, let us hug a Nazi, and he is going to come along and not be a Nazi any more. Let us trade with Hitler, and then he will not want to invade Poland. Let us make sure that the Communists and the Nazis and the fascists do not feel threatened, do not feel threatened by anything that we do. Let us give them all of our weapons or at least let us not build any new weapons and so they will know they have nothing to fear from the United States. This is the kind of nonsense that is at the basis of one of the worst betrayals of the interests of the American people that I have seen in my lifetime. Massive transfers of wealth and technology, even weapons technology, to the worst human rights abuser and worst potential aggressor on this planet. China, the Chinese dictatorship, could incinerate all of Tibet; and these nincompoops making these arguments would still be arguing that we have got to prove our sincerity and maintain this unequal trade relationship with the Chinese. In fact, the Communist Chinese are, at this moment, engaged in genocide against the people of Tibet, slowly but surely trying to replace them, totally replace them from that kingdom in the mountains overlooking India and China. But even those who espouse this nonsense of encouraging an unequal relationship with China understand that this strategy does not excuse the transfer of weapons technology and technology of mass destruction to the Communist Chinese. One of the most disturbing tidbits of information that has been coming to the surface now that this issue is being focused on by some of us in Congress was the effort of the Loral Corporation to ship other sophisticated weapon systems over to the Communist Chinese. Even beyond the missiles and rockets, when former Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown went to Communist China, he was accompanied by Loral CEO Bernie Schwartz, who carried with him a list that has been compared to a catalog of high-tech weapons put out by the James Defense Publishers. I have a list here of some of the weapons that Loral suggested be sold to the Communist Chinese. They include Airborne Reconnaissance Cameras, Weapon Delivery, Target Acquisition, Missile Guidance, Shipboard Target Acquisition, Radar Warning, Missile Warning, RF Jamming, IR Jamming. Loral's list proposed the sale to Red China, also included some of our most deadly weapons in our inventory, including the AIM-9 Sidewinder, the massive missile artillery weapon MLRS, the Army's newest antimissile missile, the ERINT, the antiaircraft missile Chaparral, and even the advanced unmanned air vehicle called the Predator. Loral also made sure that the list of ever-popular add-ons for jet fighters would include things such as laser bomb targeting pods, FLIR, Forward Looking Infra-Red, night vision and smart bomb targeting gear. This is only a partial list of what Loral apparently would like to have sold to Communist Chinese. Where would those weapons be used? First of all, I do not believe that it is justified for the United States to sell weaponry to any dictatorship. The Cold War is over. It is time for the United States to set a standard that, if a country is not ruled by a democracy, by the people themselves, if there are not democratic rights and people, and you have a small clique of dictators running a country, we should not be selling weapons to that government, because those weapons will be used, among other things, to continue the suppression of their own people. But, also, we know that dictatorships are actually more inclined towards aggression than are democratic countries. So we have here a company and maybe several companies that was seeking to make huge profits by selling sophisticated weapons to the world's worst human rights abuser, what I consider to be one of the world's worst dictatorships, even though it does permit our big boys to come in and make millions of dollars of profit if they can cut the right deal with the ruling clique. Later, when the State Department began pointing out the potential danger to America of transferring these weapons, now, remember, all these weapons, someday we may be in a conflict with the Chinese, and those early defense systems and those radar systems may be used to shoot down American pilots, and that did not escape the attention of some of the people in our government, some of the watchdogs. When some of our watchdogs began to raise questions about the transfer of these weapons, President Clinton, again, inexplicably gave the Commerce Department authority over the approval of certain of these strategic systems. It was no longer the State Department but the Commerce Department under Ron Brown then would have the ability to approve these transfers or at least some of these transfers of weapons. Why did that happen? It made it easier to transfer these weapons, this American technology, because the State Department was taking a harder line than Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown. Why did Loral want to transfer these weapons in the first place? The missile and rocket technology, why did Loral want to provide this to the Chinese? Today, Hughes Technology, Hughes Corporation, that is one of the companies that are being accused of helping the Chinese upgrade their rockets, they vehemently deny that they have ever transferred any technology or that they did anything to upgrade the technology of the Communist Chinese. Hughes Technology has denied that. Unless it is proven otherwise, I would choose to believe that Hughes is telling the truth in this particular case. Loral, on the other hand, Mr. Schwartz has been around Capitol Hill in the last couple of weeks; and from what I understand, he has told people that what he did is not illegal. That is the defense. It was not illegal. Of course, we need to know whether or not it was illegal at the time this transfer of technology took place and the rockets, Chinese Communist rockets and missiles were upgraded. We need to know whether it was legal at that time, and when did it become legal for it to happen, and why did it become legal for us to transfer technology to a Communist dictatorship which enables them to launch nuclear weapons against the United States. But is there not even a question here beyond what is legal? Is it wrong for us to expect that American businessmen have some sort of moral considerations in what they are doing? I fought here for years trying to convince the American business community that we should not be making a fast buck in Communist China while Christians are being persecuted, while you have got massacres going on at Tiananmen Square and the Muslims in the far reaches of China and with the Tibetans. Is it not immoral with us to go over and do business with a Hitler- like regime, even though they are permitting us to set up a company there? Is that not immoral? Should we not have some moral considerations about this? The businessmen always come to me and say, oh, forget that. That is so much hogwash. We are going to make them more liberal because we are going to be there with our values on the scene. That will affect these Chinese decision makers. I want my colleagues to know that over 50 American businessmen have made that argument to me, and I have asked almost all of them the same question: When you have been to China, have you ever raised the human rights issue with the government officials in the area in which you are manufacturing? I have asked that question. Guess how many American businessmen have answered in the affirmative? Oh, I have stepped forward, and I have advocated what Americans should advocate. I have advocated freedom with these people, and I have told these local officials they should not be closing down the local churches. They should not be throwing believers in jail, and they should not be suppressing freedom of speech. I stood up for that with these local officials. Not one American businessman has ever told me that. Not one. Now we have come to the point we have blurred right and wrong. We have blurred the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy so that our businessmen do not even know the difference between giving technology to a Communist Chinese dictatorship that would threaten every man, woman, and child in this country with nuclear incineration. Ladies and gentlemen, make no doubt about it, today we are in greater peril because American technology has been given to a Communist dictatorship which will enable them to deliver nuclear weapons to the United States more effectively. Does someone not have a moral obligation not to do that to his friends and neighbors? I do not say that we always have to run across the street and help someone who is being attacked by thugs. At least we should call the police. But, at the very least, we should not sell the thugs brass knuckles so that they can beat up the fellow even more, so they can beat up our family. Some of these questions are important questions, not only the legal ones but also the moral questions. The moral questions need to be asked as well, and there will be hearings on the subject. Why was this administration greasing the skids for this dastardly activity? As I say, Hughes Corporation denies that there was any transfer on their part and that they did not do anything. So skip back to Bernie Schwartz and Loral who now claim that, well, I did this or I did some of these things, but it was legal. Why did the administration go along with it? Why did the administration act in a way that undercut the investigation, the prosecution of Loral for jeopardizing the American people's safety? It is my sad duty, and I hope that this is permitted, to note that Bernard Schwartz, CEO of Loral Corporation, was the biggest single contributor to President Clinton's reelection effort with over $1 million in direct contribution and soft money being given by Mr. Bernard Schwartz to the Democratic Party. Was this the reason that the President acted in a way that would undercut the prosecution of Loral for transferring weapons technology, nuclear rocket technology to the Communist Chinese? I cannot say that. We can never say absolutely. But it is something that we need to think about, and we need to ask questions about it and need to get to the bottom of it. Then, in the last 2 days, we hear about Johnny Chung. During the election we all remember that name back there somewhere. Republicans were yelling about a guy named Johnny Chung. Now we find out, and from recent articles, that Johnny Chung, this Democrat wheeler and dealer, had $100,000 that he gave to the Democrats. Of course, they gave some of it back after Republicans raised a stink. But this $100,000 that he transferred to Democratic coffers, where did Johnny Chung's money come from? We now find out it came from the People's Liberation Army in Communist China. If you look closer, it was not just the People's Liberation Army in Communist China. That was not just the source of the money. It was a lieutenant colonel in the People's Liberation Army who is deeply involved in the development of their missiles and rockets. That is where Johnny Chung's money came. That is just what we know. That is all we know. We know about that one source. We do not know that there might be other sources, hundreds of thousands of other dollars that were transferred into the President's political coffers by the Communist Chinese during his reelection. This is perhaps one of the most dastardly acts that I have seen in just giving missile technology. That in and of itself is a dastardly act, giving missile technology to the Communist Chinese. But that this administration not only did not act to stop it but seems to have acted in a way that greased the skids should be of concern to all Americans. This is a scandal that will not stop until we know the information. Mr. Speaker, I apologize if earlier that I made reference to some things that I was not supposed to make reference to. I, in fact, was referencing those things to say that what we are talking about today is so much more important and so much more understandable than those other things that the President was accused of. My intent was not to talk about the President's personal life. Instead, it was to focus on the actions of the President, as he has taken actions that affect the life and security of each and every American, the life and security of our country. Nowhere is that more clear than in this issue of technology transfer. Again, let me close now by talking a little bit about what I consider the basic issue. We have already pointed out that, number one, there has been a transfer of technology paid for by the American people through our tax dollars to the Communist Chinese that have helped perfect their nuclear weapons delivery systems, something that goes to the heart of the security and safety of every American. We pointed out that those corporations, that when the watchdogs in our government have begun to try to put together a prosecution of those involved with this breach of our security, perhaps the breaking of our law, that an action taken by the President may have undercut that prosecution. People are concerned about that. We have also shown that at least one major corporate leader involved with this transfer of American technology was the largest contributor to President Clinton's reelection effort and that we have also shown that there is evidence that Communist Chinese money was transferred into that reelection effort as well. But let us get right back to where it comes in. Why is this happening? This President, and people should not forget that, when this President first ran for office, he campaigned saying that President Bush was too soft on the Communist Chinese. Al Gore made statements saying that President Bush had coddled the Chinese. By the way, that quotation by Vice-President Gore was made because President Bush had agreed, and this was before Tiananmen Square, to permit certain satellites to be launched on Chinese rockets. Al Gore characterized that during the election in 1992 as coddling these Communist dictators. I will have to admit that my reaction to President Clinton's election was not as harsh as some of the other Republicans. I, in fact, had been disappointed with President Bush that he did not take a tougher stand against the Communist Chinese. I thought, well, gee, here is one area that I can work with this new President, and maybe he believes in human rights, which is the rhetoric that we were hearing during the election. Mr. Speaker, after becoming President of the United States, President Clinton immediately reversed his position on human rights in China. Most Favored Nation's status, all of a sudden, he has become this city's most potent advocate of Most Favored Nation's status for China. He, in fact, when we were out of session for a week, announced, from now on, there would be no trade negotiations with Communist China in which human rights would even be brought up by the administration as part of those negotiations, something that President Bush and every president had done up until that point. In short, this administration immediately raced in the opposite direction it claimed that it would take when President Clinton was running for reelection. This is not the only example of that, but because we are talking about Chinese policy and the consequences of the Chinese policy, I thought I would bring that up today. What we are really talking about is the fact that our government is not watching out for the interests of the American people. We can talk about changing the rules. I know the fellow who spoke right before I got up today was talking about changing the campaign finance rules. Right now, we have laws governing the election laws that thick. As long as we are relying on laws rather than trying to elect people with character, the American people will still suffer the kind of betrayals that we are talking about today. What we are talking about is a blurring of right and wrong, a blurring of the distinctions between democratic governments and Communist governments, a blurring of the very basic moral fiber of our decision, moral fiber of our people, and the moral basis of our decision making. What we are talking about today also is an idea that, in some way, our elected people should be furthering the cause of some global strategy, rather than watching out for the interests of the American people. When you blur the moral distinctions and you forget the interest of the American people, we are asking for the kind of economic betrayals and, yes, even national security betrayals that are encompassed in my remarks today. The United States of America is the leading force and has been the leading force for democracy and honor and decency since our inception. That is what the founding of our country was all about. Our country was about average people having rights that are given by God and that government having no power except that which was given to the government by the consent of the governed. Our government and our country was supposed to be an example to the rest of the world. When we get away from that, from those concepts that our Founding Fathers wanted us to be, and if we start weakening our own people, instead of being the champion of democracy, our country will be a weak milk cow to the interest, special interests for them to make money in projects all over the world. There is something wrong with that. Our American people do not have the same opportunities. The American middle class do not have the same opportunities as they had because we have intentionally permitted other countries to establish the rules of trade which suck wealth out of the pockets of our middle class and put them into other countries to build those countries. I say that those countries will never, will never rise up and never be part of a worthwhile global economy until they have had the reforms that are necessary for democratic government to exist in their countries. We cannot make Communist China into a democratic China by ignoring the dictatorial nature of their regime that controls that people and shoveling money out of the pockets of our middle class and jobs out of our own cities into the mainland of China. That strategy will not work. It is an immoral strategy. It is a strategy that is a betrayal of our people. I would hope today that, as this crisis and this scandal emerges, and the outrage of the American people, that their safety has just been put at risk, that they have been put at risk and that their safety has not been taken into consideration, that when this outrage sweeps America and they know their children and their families are now in jeopardy and in jeopardy because American technology has been placed in the hands of dictators, I hope that they will take a look a little deeper at some of the coverage of our news media into the frivolous scandals that I talked about earlier. And I am sorry if I made a personal reference to the President, but that is there. They have been turned off, perhaps, at looking at some of the things that we are doing here that are important to their security. America has got to wake up. Americans have got to understand, or we are never going to be able to put a stop to this. This is only the first of many examples of where technology they paid for is being put to use to defeat them, to defeat their security, and to defeat the prosperity of this country. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that, before President Clinton goes to China, that we get to the bottom of this. The leadership in this House have committed themselves to hearings on this issue. I would hope that the American people would call their colleagues or their representatives, my colleagues, and to demand that we get to the bottom of this missile technology transfer before the President goes to China next month.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I was not aware that I was making personal references to the President of the United States but, instead, about investigations into the President's proclivities. I believe that any mention about investigations is certainly possible. I would like to know what Member is objecting to my words.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Even if those personal positions are being investigated by a law enforcement agency?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, what started off as leaks about American corporations upgrading Communist Chinese rockets and missiles is today emerging as one of our country's worst national security scandals. What could be worse than American corporations using technology, paid for by the American taxpayer, to improve Communist Chinese missiles and rockets so they will have a better chance of striking the United States with nuclear weapons? What is worse than having government watchdogs go after companies engaged in this betrayal of the American people, and to have the prosecution of those responsible undercut by an executive action taken by none other than President Bill Clinton? What is worse than to find out that the executive that gave the missile technology to the Communist Chinese, as well as the Communist Chinese themselves, I might add, donated a million dollars to the President's reelection effort at the time the missile deal was in play? Mr. Speaker, the American people have bent over backwards so many times to give their President the benefit of the doubt. Many think the attention paid to sex scandals swirling through this administration are a waste of time, even a joke, never mind that the liberal establishment destroyed the career of Bob Packwood, Senator Bob Packwood from Oregon, just a few short years ago on allegations which were far less than what now face the President; and they also, this same liberal establishment, tried just a few short years ago to destroy the career of Justice Clarence Thomas with charges far less significant than those that are now being made against the President. Also I might add that a number of military careers have been destroyed by such sex scandals. Officers have been thrown out of their job, after serving many, many years with the military, by the claim that they must have the highest level of integrity, they must have the highest level of character, if they are to be trusted with the defense of our country, especially when it concerns nuclear weapons. But the double standard at the very top, of course, is a bit overwhelming, to say the least. Again, of course, the charges against the President now being investigated center on allegations that the President encouraged a young lady to lie under oath on a legal deposition, read that commit perjury. And, okay, it does go back to the sexual proclivities of the President and also, the American people admittedly are getting tired of seeing the pandering of the news media---- Announcement by the Speaker pro Tempore

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would appeal the ruling of the Chair if it says that I am not permitted--I do not know who is telling the Chair that no one is permitted to talk about the policies of the President of the United States and use them as policies of the President of the United States.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise again to discuss one of the most disturbing issues with which I have had to deal since being elected to Congress 10 years ago. The facts are still being uncovered, but it appears now that America has been betrayed, betrayed by several large, high-technology corporations and by the Clinton administration. I do not use the word ``betrayal'' lightly. When Bill Clinton was elected President of the United States 5 years ago, we could confront wrongdoing on the part of the Red Chinese with little direct threat to the United States. This, unfortunately, is no longer true. In the future, should we confront the Communist Chinese over an act of aggression, perhaps against our friends in the Philippines, for example, where the Communist Chinese are trying to occupy some of the Spratly Islands by force, and the Filipinos have no ability to defend themselves, but in the future when the Communist Chinese commit these acts of aggression, they will have the capability of launching a missile from the mainland of China and landing a nuclear weapon in the United States. This puts every man, woman and child in our country in jeopardy. How is it that the Communist Chinese have improved their missile capability? You better sit down, Mr. and Mrs. America, because it appears that several large American high-tech corporations, in collusion with the Clinton administration, provided technology to the Communist Chinese that perfected their nuclear weapons delivery systems, and you can read that, ``missiles.'' American technology is being used to upgrade the capability of the Communist Chinese to launch a nuclear strike against the United States. It takes the wind right out of your lungs, does it not, just to think about it? If this is true, it is the worst technological betrayal of the American people since the Rosenbergs. This is nothing less than a catastrophe for the security of our Nation and the safety of our people. So if it did happen, which there seems to be evidence that it did, how did such a thing happen? First and foremost, pushed by corporate leaders eager for profit and liberal foreign policy polls, America has been walking down a dangerous and counterproductive road with the Communist Chinese for a decade. Yes, reasonable people can disagree. Even I was optimistic before Tiananmen Square. I was optimistic that China would evolve out of its Communist dictatorship and perhaps evolve into a freer society, perhaps even a democracy. And, in the late 1980s, when there were clear signs of an evolution in the right direction, a policy of goodwill, sincerity, and on building the Chinese economy through trade made sense, even if it meant at the time that the trade between us was a little bit unequal; and was unequal, certainly. But all that changed, Mr. Speaker, on June 4, 1989. What happened in Tiananmen Square was not just a massacre of several thousand unarmed Chinese students, it was an internal declaration of war against democracy and human rights and all of those decent people in China who advocate more humane and democratic government. All those who claim that doing business with China will make that country a more open and free society have been proven wrong. That trend, which we saw in the 1980s, was reversed. That trend for the last 10 years has been in the opposite direction, even as massive investments have been made in these last 10 years since Tiananmen Square in China. Ten years ago there was a reform movement in China. There was hope for an evolution in Tibet; there was the growth of Christianity. Today, all the reformers have fled or are in jail or are dead. Christians, Tibetan Buddhists, Muslims, all of the religious believers alike, are being persecuted with increased and renewed intensity. Even as the Chinese regime shoots its prisoners and sells their body organs in order to make money from this gruesome task, during these last 10 years, the investment in China from the United States has accelerated, even as we continue to go in the wrong direction, totally disproving this theory that all we have to do is trade with these people. It is the idea that if we just trade more with Hitler and interact with him socially, we are going to make Hitler into a nice, fuzzy, warm liberal instead of a Nazi. That, of course, was stupid. Hitler and Germany at that time, as well as Italy, were economically advanced countries. The same with Japan, an economically advanced country, yet they had vicious dictatorships in the 1930s. Our businessmen traded with these people. They did their best to establish economic ties with these people. Yet the Japanese militarists, the Nazis and the Fascists, they just drove their tanks right over the hopes and dreams of all of these people who were wishful thinkers. China today is the worst abuser of human rights on this planet. It maintains a 30 to 40 percent tariff on all U.S. imports, while at the same time the Chinese consumer products are flooded into our market with a 3 or 4 percent tariff. So here we have a country that is the worst human rights abuser in the world today, a dictatorship, a country that is belligerent towards the West and has been giving technological secrets to the Iranians and other terrorist states, yet we have given this country the right to import with a flood of imports into the United States of America consumer goods at only 3 or 4 percent tariffs, while their tariffs are 30 or 40 percent at times on American goods. Who negotiated that treaty? Who was watching out for our interests? The Communist Chinese continue to enjoy a $40 to $50 billion trade surplus with us because of this unfair trade relationship. No wonder, when we permit that to keep an unfair trade relationship, to keep a situation where they can charge us tariffs on our goods and they get to flood theirs in here and they make $50 billion a year, no wonder they do not take us seriously when our leaders talk about human rights. They must know that when Bill Clinton, as President of the United States, is talking about human rights, he is only doing it for domestic consumption, because if he really meant it, he would do something that would threaten this $50 billion trade surplus that they have. And what are they doing with their trade surplus? They are building weapons. They are building ships and missiles and military weapons that will someday threaten the United States, and in fact, their missiles already threaten the United States. President Clinton, reversing an election commitment to oppose Most Favored Nation status for China has strenuously pushed Most Favored Nation status for China every year, even though supposedly, we are concerned about human rights and the human rights situation like in Tibet and elsewhere continues to decline. Well, what does MFN really mean, by the way, if there are a lot of free traders in this country who believe that if one is against Most Favored Nation status for China, that means one is against any trade with China? Well, that is just not the truth. That is not what Most Favored Nation status is about. People are perfectly free to trade with a country that does not have Most Favored Nation status. In fact, one is free to do so, but one has to do so at one's own risk. What Most Favored Nation status means is that the taxpayers of this country will guarantee investments made in Communist China and in other countries like Vietnam where we just gave them Most Favored Nation status through the Export-Import Bank or the World Bank or OPIC or many of these other institutions that were set up to utilize American taxpayers' dollars, the IMF and others, so that investments could be made in these brutal dictatorships to build factories there, and they would be guaranteed or they would be subsidized in some way by American tax dollars. That is what goes on when we are talking about Most Favored Nation status. Mr. Speaker, this, in itself, is a betrayal of the American people, using our tax dollars to set up companies overseas that will put our own people out of work. Because those companies then produce products with slave labor, and they are brought into the United States, and they put out of work the same people who pay the taxes to secure the investment made overseas. That is an economic betrayal of our people. Now, this result that our country is in jeopardy today from nuclear weapons is also a result of the blurring of the distinctions that permitted us to have this sort of crazy, unfair trading relationship with a dictatorship. And with us providing taxpayer guarantees for people who want to invest in dictatorships, there has been a blurring in our country of the distinction between what is a free country and what is a dictatorship. Every time we turn around, when we try to condemn Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin, we have these people, and I might say they are modern- day people who are equivalent of the Hitlers and Stalins, we have people who say, yes, but you have race problems in the United States; or how about this or this or that unjustice that exists in this or that democratic country? As if there is no difference between democratic countries and dictatorships. Well, there is a difference and we have our faults. But we are trying to do our best to correct them and we have made major strides in correcting our imperfections. But America at its most imperfect was better than any of these dictatorships and our President, of course, has blurred the distinction between right and wrong. What is morality? What is right and wrong? What is giving your word? These things today with the scandal going on in the White House, and I will not go into any of that because what I am talking about tonight is far worse than that, but the distinctions of right and wrong have been blurred; of truth and honesty on one side, of lies and dishonesty on the other. There is a difference. When people talked about character, that is what we talked about. At the same time, when someone gives their word and pledges they are against Most Favored Nations status for China and asks for a vote and then reverses himself immediately after the election, this creates something in people's mind that says even the President of the United States when giving his word it means nothing. At the same time that we have had these moral distinctions blurred we have been barraged in our country with talk about a global economy. We are not just talking about our economy anymore and the well-being of our people, we are talking about a global economy, about a new world order, and about multinational corporations. Not companies, not American companies anymore. Not what is good for the American people, not policies aimed at building our standard of living, but instead the idea that we have got to go out and work for a global economy. We have got to have a system of stability around the world with economic interchange that the net result is the United States ends up propping up dictators and ends up creating stability for people who live under tyranny, which to them means keeping their tyrants in power and establishing trade relationships that provide those tyrants with weapons and the means to oppress their own people. All of this has blurred, all of these things have blurred the concept of patriotism and loyalty and truth and justice and all of those things that America is supposed to stand for. But, of course, that is old fashioned and to stand for things, they say there is a single standard instead of a subjective standard, that is passe. Well, there are consequences to the blurring of morality. There are consequences to telling people there is no right and wrong and anyone can make an agreement and break it. There is a consequence when the level of patriotism in our society declines. This is what has happened when American businessmen, some very high- tech businessmen, have gone overseas and made decisions that put not only our economic well-being at risk, not only selling out the economic well-being of the American working people who they tax in order to get a guarantee to build their factory in Vietnam or some other dictatorship in China. But some businessmen now we find are making decisions that are putting all of us at risk in order to bolster a business relationship with a communist dictatorship. This story, it is a sad story, and here we are in a different world in which every man, woman, and child may well be in greater risk of nuclear annihilation because American technology was taken by an American citizen and given to the communist Chinese regime. This story started a few years ago which several American aerospace companies pushed to have permission to launch their satellites on foreign rockets. This happened while I was a Member of Congress, and the arguments these companies made were legitimate arguments. They said that there were not enough launchers in the United States. Furthermore, if their satellites could be sold, some countries would demand that their satellites be launched on other rockets, cheaper rockets than could be afforded in the United States. Well, knowing the different rockets and missiles that were available around the world, I agreed with that strategy, because our satellite industry is just as important as our missile industry in southern California. It is part of our aerospace industry. And satellite producers, they hire many, many thousands of people, just as rocket builders do. And so we could not jeopardize our satellite industry, which is in the forefront of technological development, could not sacrifice them because our rocket people were being left behind somewhat. And in fact in the years since then, I might add as chairman of the Subcommittee on Space, I have moved to ensure, and we had a pretty wide coalition behind this, to make sure that America's space delivery systems will outcompete any in the world and we are well on our way to developing new space transportation systems that will leave the old systems and our competitors overseas in the dust. But that is a few years down the road. But even then I might add when our systems are better, we will still be in jeopardy from a missile launched from China at the United States. Mr. Speaker, later, after the satellite manufacturers were able to receive the permission to launch on foreign launchers, they went to what is called the Long March Rocket in China when they wanted to launch in China. The Long March Rocket is the mainstay of the Chinese rocket industry. Unfortunately, the Long March Rocket blew up often. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just ask for one moment. I have been struck with some hay fever or a cold in the last two days and it seems to be getting to my throat so I will try to get through this text. The Long March Rocket was being looked at by the satellite manufacturers of the United States as a way to put up their satellites, but this Long March Rocket blew up; three out of four Long March Rockets ended up blowing up. In fact it blew up more than it went up, as we like to say. And the insurance cost on putting a satellite that costs tens of millions of dollars on a Long March Rocket became prohibitive because the satellite makers could see that the chances of it blowing up were rather high. By the way, those of us in Congress who approved of the idea of launching on foreign rockets understood this when that approval was given. There was never a hint anywhere along the line or in any legislation or by anyone that an American company had a right to transfer technology to the Chinese in order to improve the Long March Rocket. No one had suggested that. Everyone knew that was crossing the line. Yet American satellite manufacturers were faced with that dilemma. If they did not use the Long March, they would have to use the American rockets. The Chinese government supposedly did not want the American rockets and there were not enough American rockets around supposedly. But in my district they make the Delta rocket system. The only thing we are really talking about here is that if the Long March could not be used because it was too unreliable, it meant the cost of a launch would go up because there were more launches bidding for fewer missiles. Well, instead of letting the cost go up, what it appears is that at least one, if not more, U.S. aerospace firms, instead of going to the United States and hiring American aerospace workers to do the job and to provide the rockets, these American companies passed on to the communist Chinese the know-how and the technology they needed to perfect their Long March Rocket. Let us make this very clear. The alternative was using rockets that were produced in the United States, it would cost more money because American aerospace workers have a better product. They work harder. They are more equipped and they have got a better product. But yet instead of choosing the better product built by American workers at a higher price, these several companies, or maybe even just one company, but Americans, it appears may have chosen to perfect the Long March Chinese rocket rather than going with the Americans. Thus, by making the Long March a more reliable space transportation system, these Americans at the same time were making the Chinese more capable of launching and delivering a nuclear weapon to the United States. The Long March Rocket has a history of misfires, explosions and unreliability. Today it is all different. Today there is an advertisement being run by the Chinese in Space News saying use the Long March Rocket and bragging about its reliability. That did not just happen. It was not a gift of the Tooth Fairy that permitted the Chinese to perfect the Long March. They did not just think of it because a ray of wisdom just shown down into their heads from above. The Chinese engineers and rocket builders were not struck with some brilliance that they did not have before. What likely happened was an American, probably an American from a large American aerospace company, helped them upgrade their missile even though that left the people of the United States vulnerable to an attack by a communist Chinese nuclear weapon. I cannot think of anything more despicable. I cannot think of anything in my 10 years in this office, or even before when I was a journalist, that matches this. I cannot believe that an American would dream of doing such a thing. But we have to live with that now because the Chinese rockets now, there is a new generation coming out and we can guess whether or not they are equipped with this same new technology that was transmitted to the Long March. We do not know, but we are going to get what really went on, who made this transfer, we are going to get to the bottom of it. Hughes Electronics denies that it transferred any technology to the communist Chinese, even though Hughes Electronics is involved with launching satellites over China and was involved with one satellite that blew up on top of a rocket. So Hughes Electronics totally denies this and we have to give them the benefit of the doubt until we find out otherwise. Loral Space, however, it appears that they may well have been deeply engaged in this situation. Loral may have, because Loral makes satellites and was involved in this satellite launch in China that blew up, Loral engineers may have just rolled up their sleeves and just looked at it and said to themselves, well, this is an engineering project and looked at it as just an engineering project to help the Chinese and not even thinking about the national security interests of the United States. I hope that no one at Loral thought of the national security interest of the United States when this was done. Because if they did, if it even crossed their mind that the people of the United States might be put in jeopardy, what they were saying to themselves was, to hell with the people of the United States, I do not care if every man, woman and child is in greater danger because of what I am doing. We are going to make sure this project is successful and we are going to make our profit on this Chinese satellite missile deal. So I hope they did not think that way. I hope it never crossed their mind. I hope they just coldly and calculatedly went forward on an engineering project. Of course, and we can be happy for this, this did not escape the attention of American watchdogs when they noticed that the Chinese were being given new technology that enhanced their capability to deliver nuclear weapons. I mean, after all, we have got some Americans whose job it is to see that this does not happen in our government. Well, this is where the story gets really ugly. It even gets worse if we think it could get worse. It appears that an investigation into this illegal transfer was thwarted when permission was granted by the President, that is President Bill Clinton, to export some of the technology in question. Again, we have got to confirm this. We have got to see whether or not that is actually the case. But it appears in short, that our President may have knocked the legs out from under an investigation of this high tech betrayal by an action that, in effect, was retroactively permitting the transfer of this technology by saying that it no longer is illegal to transfer the technology. Again, this has to be confirmed. We need to know if this can be verified or not. Whether it is verified or not or whether Motorola or Loral or any other company transferred this technology, we are going to have to find that out, too. This is something that calls out for clarification. This President may have made it impossible for our people to intervene to prevent the Chinese in the future, prevent them from acts of aggression without risking our entire population. What are we talking about now? The risk to our population. A Chinese missile system before that was antiquated and blew up on the launch pad equipped with American technology, equipped with American guidance systems, control technology, staged separation technology, and even perhaps MIRV technology. MIRV technology. Do you know what MIRV technology is? MIRV technology is a rocket that has gone into space, and our aerospace companies may have said we can get it into space, but it cannot spit out a satellite. So we are going to give them an MIRV technology that, once the rocket is in space, it can spit out the satellite. MIRV technology. It is exactly the same technology that permits a rocket to go into space and spit out a nuclear warhead; not just one nuclear warhead, but multiple nuclear warheads. This is technology built in the United States of America for our protection and to deter war for the Soviet during the Cold War, that may have been given to the Communist Chinese to facilitate the launching of satellites for profit by that company; and, in the end, we find out that it has given them the ability not just to launch the missile to the United States, but launch a missile carrying multiple warheads. We need to know this. One engineer described it to me. He said, Congressman, the Chinese missiles were going up, this launch was going up, and it would explode. It would explode because they did not have the stage separation technology they needed. I looked at him, and I said, you mean it would go up and just explode before it goes into space? He said, that is right. And I looked at him and said, Red Chinese rockets exploding is a good thing. We like that. We like Communist rockets to explode before they get to their target. But I guess it is something that just no one had thought of in these companies, or whoever was giving this technology. Now, this is the same administration, I might add, that thwarted the investigation into this or may have thwarted it; we will see about that. This is the same administration that thwarts our efforts right now to build a missile defense shield so that the United States can shoot down a missile that is launched at our country. The Republicans and I do not want to be political here about it, because there are some Democrats that support an SDI missile shield as well, but Republicans have been trying to do this. This is Reagan's vision: Let us not build more missiles that carry rockets, that carry nuclear weapons. Let us build a system instead, use the money that will build the system that will protect us against incoming rockets and incoming nuclear weapons. That makes all the sense in the world. Let us buy a shield rather than buy a sword. Now it is even more so that we even have a greater chance; it took a little longer than Ronald Reagan thought to build this thing, but we now have the capability. If the Chinese would launch a rocket towards us, we would then have a way of stopping that rocket. Today, because this administration has put its thumb on missile defense time and time again, we do not have the ability to protect ourselves should the Chinese launch a rocket toward the United States. To put this in perspective, there was a conflict about a year and a half ago in the Taiwan Straits, and the Red Chinese were shooting short-range rockets in the area of Taiwan. We took several carrier battle groups down there. A noted Chinese general commented, well, the American people are someday going to have to decide between Taiwan and Los Angeles. His meaning was clear. That statement was never repudiated by the Chinese Government. They could launch one rocket to the United States and blow up Los Angeles, kill millions of people. We do not have the ability to stop that now because the President will not let us build an adequate missile shield. Do you know what we would have to do? We would be faced with a choice of either retaliating and murdering, through a nuclear attack, millions of Chinese, most of whom love, probably love the United States and think of us as a good country, because their Chinese leadership is a dictatorship and holds them in a grip of tyranny. We would end up having to kill, we are going to wipe out Shanghai and all those millions of people because Los Angeles was bombed? That would be our option? That is a terrible option. Number one, the Chinese should not have the capability of hitting us with nuclear weapons. But number two, we should have a shield so that we can defend ourselves so we are not faced with that choice. Yet, the same administration that thwarts our investigation into the Communist Chinese, perfection of Communist Chinese rockets, now prevents us from building a system to protect ourselves against missiles. We are going to face this situation, and this issue will grow and will do nothing but grow until we get these questions answered. But it should not escape the attention of the American people that President Clinton will be visiting Communist China, will be visiting Communist China at the end of June. What has just been announced by the White House? What have they just announced that the President is going to bring to China and offer to the Communist Chinese dictatorship? He is going to offer them a new package of space cooperation. Well, my colleagues, I am the chairman of the Subcommittee on Space in this body. It is my job to oversee American space policy. There is nothing that the United States will benefit from by establishing a cooperative relationship with China over space. They have nothing to share with us. I believe that this is nothing more than an attempt by this administration to hide the fact that there has been even more technological transfers to the Communist Chinese that we do not even know about now. Why else are we going to China to cooperate with them in space? Space missiles, missiles launched that will launch satellites, can launch nuclear weapons to the United States. Who paid for this technology, by the way, that the President wants to share with the Communist Chinese? Who invented it? The American people are being betrayed when their tax dollars are being used to build competing companies overseas. That is to say, the same truth as they are being betrayed when we give somebody who hates us a missile or technology for a missile that is aimed at us and armed with a nuclear weapon. Most people who have been following these late-night speeches know that for 3 years, I have fought to prevent our patent laws in the United States from being changed in a way that would open up our country to wholesale theft. Multinational corporations during this fight that I had, because they were trying to change our patent law, these multinational corporations were lined up in favor of that change. That change in the patent law would have exposed each and every one of our new technological secrets to our economic adversaries, whether it is the Chinese or the Japanese or whoever, even before the patent to our inventors was issued. After 18 months of someone that applied for a patent, his patent was going to be exposed to the whole world, even if he had not been issued the patent. I call it the Steal the American Technologies Act. But do you know what? The American people rose up and we defeated that in this House. When it came to the floor, we were able to stop the worst provisions of that bill from becoming law, and we amended it with the amendment of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). It went on to the Senate where it stuck in the Senate. Thank goodness it stuck over there. I do not know how we were able to do that. As the American people understand, it is technology that has given America the edge over the years to preserve the peace and to establish a place where people can prosper. Ordinary working people can build lives of decency and clean homes and food, and people know that. They understand that it is technology, our technological lead that permits us, because people all over the world work hard. But it is here with technology and freedom that the average man can prosper and live a decent life. In fact, there is no hope for anyone in the world, anyone who suffers under tyranny or deprivation unless America stands tall and America is strong. It is upon our shoulders that the future of mankind depends. We must have strong shoulders. We must have bright minds and strong shoulders. We must use our minds and use our strength to build a great Nation that will be the hope of all mankind, because there is no hope for others unless America stands tall. But the American people, these people on whom we rely and everything, everyone in the world relies, they have been taken for granted, and their interests have been ignored so many times in these last 10 and 20 years. Our economic and government elite in this country act as if they do not have to care about the American people, because after all, we are a prosperous people, and they are the Americans, you know; and they buy into these arguments that we cause all the problems in the world. If we did not exist, the Hitlers and the Stalins and the rest of the petty dictators that still control China would be in charge of this whole planet. Now our economic and government elite are building a new world order, a global economy, a perfect planet run by multinational organizations like the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, et cetera, et cetera. These are the people who should be watching out for our interests but, instead, are building this global vision. For one reason or another, it does not make any sense to me, and I do not think it makes any sense to most people. Count me as a patriot. Our goal should not be to make America like the rest of the world. Our goal should be to stand out from the rest of the world as an example of freedom and justice and opportunity and progress, an example that the rest of the world would want to follow. The last thing, like in the patent law, what do they want to do to the patent law? They wanted to take the high American standards that protect the average person out there when he invents something and lower that standard to the world standard. That is what they wanted to do. They wanted to make lower the American standard so that our people, our people then will see their rights diminished in order to harmonize the rights of all mankind. That is baloney. It is baloney. We should not be lowering our standards. We should be proud of our standards and proud of what we have accomplished as Americans. We should not be signing treaties and trade agreements that let a country, a Communist country in particular, a dictatorship in particular like China, have an unfair trade advantage which yields them $50 billion every year because they flood their goods into our market at a lower tariff and our goods come in at a very high tariff. Who is watching out for our people? It was the commitment to freedom of the American people that saved this planet throughout this century. If people want to talk about globalism, let them start talking about globalism and realize that the foundation of globalism has to be a strong United States of America and a citizenry of our country that is proud of liberty and justice and American traditions and will fight for the right when necessary; not an America, instead, where the American people are stooped and made to believe that our government is secondary to some other world body. World War I, World War II, and the Cold War, if it was not for the Americans who stepped forward during these challenges to mankind, our planet, as I say, would be dominated by tyrants and despots and petty little gangsters. The Cold War and what permitted us to win those wars, yes, it was the courage of our people, the faith that we had, our determination, our belief in freedom, and it was also won, especially the Cold War, was won by American technology and, yes, by the American aerospace worker. We did not take the Communists on man for man. No one ever dreamed of taking the Communists on man for man. We would have lost hands down. We would have been unnerved. But we were technologically superior, not only in the weapons area, but in the production of wealth. I will never forget when I visited the Soviet Union in 1986. I worked for Ronald Reagan in the White House. It was the first thaw during the time when Gorbachev took power in Russia. And I went there and I could not figure out what I wanted to bring, but I decided that I would bring a jar of peanut butter because I found out that they do not manufacture peanut butter in the Soviet Union. Imagine that. We were afraid of a country that could not even make peanut butter. At the right moment, there were a group of young people there, and I took the jar out and I asked them if they would like to have a taste of America; see what America really tastes like. A couple of them stuck their fingers in. Now think about it; they had never tasted peanut butter before. And they said, oh, peanut butter. America is wonderful. Wonderful. Then one came up to me after they huddled and they said, what are those marks on the side of the peanut butter jar? I said, well, that is the bar code. That is where the computer at the food store gives the customer a bill that is itemized, the price of the products on the customer's bill, and then notifies the inventory that an item has been sold. They huddled back up and talked about it, and then the Russian kid came up and said to me, that is why we do not trust Americans. They are always lying. Computers at a food store? Who are you kidding? Well, at the Russian food stores they were using abacuses. They probably still are. And all the computers were used by the military. All of their computers were left for the military use, and that society was going down because they could not produce the wealth that was necessary to sustain after modern technological society. We won the Cold War when those people realized they were going to be left in the dust. Now, the aerospace workers that gave us the edge in weaponry and built the weapon systems that deterred war, well, those people who are still in the aerospace business making rockets to send things into orbit are part of a very honorable profession. They are not building rockets to drop nuclear weapons; they are building rockets to send things into space. And for our companies just to try to bypass them and to go over and use some sort of slave labor in China is again a betrayal of those aerospace workers who saved us during the Cold War. These people build the best product. They do not deserve to be taxed and have our technology given to their adversary. That is exactly what is going on here. This has been a betrayal, however, that does more than put aerospace workers' jobs in jeopardy; it puts us all in harm's way. And as I say, this is the same President who, perhaps, has thwarted, and we are going to find out if he did or not, this investigation into giving away of America's technology. This is the same President that has been thwarting our efforts to build a weapon shield. Well, what we gave China--what we gave? What those people. Not ``we'' anymore. If they gave this away and put us in jeopardy, no American should call them ``we'' anymore, because they put themselves outside this family of people who believe in freedom and democracy if they have done something like that. We will move to protect ourselves. We will build a nuclear shield, because we can never take back this technology that we gave to technology. Technology and freedom are two of our mainstays, and with technology and freedom we will live the dream of our Founding Fathers. We will continue to be the world's greatest democracy. We will continue to live in prosperity, and we will continue to live secure in our homes and families from the threats of foreign tyrants. Now, let me summarize, as I come to a close tonight, and this is coming to the close of my hour, so I will discuss just what have we discussed tonight. It appears that at least one American company, perhaps more, have transferred technology to the Communist Chinese that now permits them to hit the United States with nuclear weapons. President Clinton may have undercut an investigation or a prosecution into this betrayal. The word is getting out, but the American people need to know the facts about this and we need to know the facts about this before the President's upcoming visit to China. The President should not stand in Tiananmen Square and make a joke of human rights by mentioning it at the same time that he completely ignores the massive violations of that regime and pushes for more and more trade and more giveaways to the Communist Chinese. We must put the President on notice that, in his relationship with China, first and foremost he must be consistent with our American ideals of freedom and democracy and human rights. And even beyond that, he must make sure that he is watching out for the safety of our people, for the safety of the people of the United States of America. I know all of what I have said is unnerving, and I can guarantee that there are people in this town who are committed to setting this situation right. I believe and am assured, and others can be assured as well, that the patriots who love this country will prevail.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. This does fit into my special order which is focused on China because one of the things this administration is totally ignoring is the Chinese relationship to the drug lords in Burma. China has become a major distributer of heroin as it takes the heroin from Burma by providing weapons to the Burmese dictatorship, then takes the heroin or the opium out of Burma and takes it down through Vietnam and Cambodia and then out to distribution points in the United States and elsewhere. Tonight I would like to discuss China policy. But before I do, I would like to say that I understand why the American people probably are a little bit frustrated right now when they turn on their TV, as I have over these last few months, and heard more about the sex life of our President than any of us want to know. Yes, there may be a situation where a person was told to lie on a legal deposition, which is somewhat of a serious matter. But I for one, however, have been disappointed with the zeal of our news media in digging ever deeper into the lurid details of this ongoing circus, not to shed light on legal issues but instead to sell newspapers and to boost ratings. Accomplishing this, boosting their ratings or selling newspapers, has meant appealing not to the public sense of justice or even offering a better understanding of the legal issues that underlie this spectacle. No, the exhaustive attention paid to the Monica Lewinsky-Paula Jones maneuverings has nothing to do with the public interest and has everything to do with appealing to the public's purient interest. For those who claim there is nothing else to cover of such a magnitude, of something that could attract the attention of the people, I rise tonight to say nay. We are living in times where decisions are being made that will determine the fundamental safety and prosperity of our people for decades to come. In a way, our President should be grateful that the media has focused on the trivial yet nevertheless inexcusable decisions that he has made in his personal conduct, rather than on some of the horrendous decisions he has made that have mind- boggling implications for our future. Tonight I would like to discuss for the record an issue that has yet to fully make itself present to the American people. It is not now part of the public consciousness but will, I predict, once the public is aware of what is going on, result in widespread rage and ultimately an equally widespread sense of betrayal by our people. Whether purposely or as a result of well intentioned but unforgivably wrong policies, our country has been put in serious jeopardy. First let me say that in my first 10 years that I have been here in the House of Representatives, I have suffered great frustration over our country's China policy, both Republicans and Democrats in charge of the White House. When Clinton was elected in 1992, in fact, I expected at least I would be able to work with our new President from Arkansas on the issues concerning China. After all, candidate Clinton attacked President Bush for kowtowing to the Chinese despots, and when asked in an interview a few weeks before the election, candidate Clinton pledged that he would not support most-favored-nation status for China and that he was appalled by the human rights abuses of the Communist regime in Beijing. But once elected and sworn in as President, Bill Clinton's tune changed. He was different from President Bush, all right. Instead of not being tough enough on the Communist Chinese regime, he decided not to be tough at all. Instead of revoking most-favored-nation status for Communist China as he pledged during his campaign, President Clinton waited till Congress was out of town on a break and then announced that his administration was decoupling Chinese trade issues from any discussion of human rights. In one single stroke, Bill Clinton earned an infamous place in history. In the years since he has done nothing to rectify or correct this horrendous violation of our trust. This act was the worst setback for the cause of human rights at least since the time that I have served in Congress. Not only did we step off the high ground in our relations with the Communist Chinese regime, but we have been wading in the muck with them ever since. The tough guys in Beijing now know darn well that anything this administration says or does about human rights is meant for internal consumption in the United States only. In other words, we are being played for suckers. Every time a pronouncement is made by Bill Clinton's White House about Tibet or the savagery against religious people in China, the regime in Beijing laughs. I mean, Madeleine Albright is over there now, and it was reported that she said something really tough on human rights, and you know she was taken very seriously by, you know, the gangsters in Beijing. Any talk of liberty or justice by the President of the United States or any member of this administration is seen as a joke by Third World despots and Chinese dictators. This has been a tremendous disservice to our country as well as to the oppressed peoples of the world to whom the United States is their only real hope of ever living in freedom and in dignity. So why is this situation? Well, first and foremost, the gangsters who run China cannot help but notice that, while leaders may make noises like Madeleine Albright has just done, little noises, they are still raking in the $50 billion annually from their trade surplus with the United States, and we are not doing anything to stop that. So they are going to listen to our noises while we are giving them a situation where they get $50 billion out of our pockets. Give me a break. We still let them get away with charging 30 to 40 percent tariffs on our goods that are being exported to China, even while we let their products that flood into the United States come here with only 3 or 4 percent tariffs. How can we possibly treat our people, let our people be treated in such an unfair way and just not even go after it, not even try? The trade relationship is so skewed that we let them get away with outrageous demands. For example, when we want to sell some of our products to China, like airplanes, for example, we must build airplane manufacturing parts over there in China. That means that after 10 years from now they will have technology for a modern aerospace industry in order to put our people out of work in order to sell our airplanes today, and we let them get away with those kind of demands, and we even finance the airplane deals. We even use, as I say, taxpayer dollars to subsidize or guarantee the building of manufacturing operations in China and elsewhere in the Third World where dictators reign. I can understand the sale that, you know, subsidizing or in some way trying to subsidize and help along a sale of a product that is just a transfer of a good made here so that they can afford the credit or something over there, but, by and large, that is not what is happening. What is happening is that Most Favored Nation status is really about not the selling of our products but what it is really about is the Federal Government taxing you and me. Then through the Export-Import Bank and other financial institutions supported by our tax dollars they use those dollars to facilitate the building of factories in China and other dictatorships that will be used not just to supply goods for the Chinese market but then it will be turned around and used to provide goods and manufacture goods that will be exported to the United States to put our people out of work who are the ones paying for the taxes that subsidized the deal in the first place. This is the worst violation, the worst violation of trust that I have seen, and this body continually refuses to come to grips with it. Whenever there is a debate on this issue, the issue is skirted, and they talk about selling our goods over there when the real complaint is we are building factories over there that will put our people out of work. And the people on the other side, the Export-Import Bank and these other issues, continually refuse to come to grips with that answer. Then we signed international agreements like the Global Warming Treaty which exempts China from the strict controls we put on ourselves and knowing full well that that will mean that more and more investment into machinery and technology, and plants will go into China, and they will build manufacturing units in China that will outpace our own production in the United States. In other words, we are laying the groundwork for a huge transfer of wealth from the United States to China and other Third World countries. And what are the Communist Chinese bosses doing with this technology? Well, number one, they are not paying any attention to our words that we are concerned that they do not believe in human rights, but what they are doing with it is they are taking that and building a modern military force, a modern Army, Navy, Air Force and missile force to threaten anyone who gets in their way. Has there been any liberalization in the meantime? Any change of thinking? Are there any nicer guys up there in Beijing? Well, to think well of Bill Clinton and the corporate power brokers who are groveling to these Chinese Communist thugs and downplaying their overflow, I might add, we must believe that this strategy of engagement will result in a modification of the behavior by Communist Chinese. These are the same Communist Chinese who now hold their fellow countrymen in a grip of repression and terror. In fact, they are the world's largest and most grandiose human rights abusers. This coddle-a-Nazi-and-he-will-become-a-liberal strategy is as wrongheaded an attitude as the American industrials and bankers had towards Hitler's Germany and Hirohito's Japan in the 1930s. It did not work with those thugs, and it is not going to work with these thugs. As we know, that did not foster peace then but led to war and unfathomable suffering and death in the 1940s. If we do not use our heads and act in strength and insure that we have the strength, we could, with all the best of intentions, stumble into this same type of murderous conflagration as happened in the third and fourth decade of this century; and things will not get better, they will get worse. Well, 10 years ago there was, you know, has it gotten better since we have really been bending over backwards for this last decade to try to work with these people, to engage the Chinese regime? Well, 10 years ago there was an active populist reform movement in China, and now there is none. Although some internal debate is tolerated among the party elite who seek a means of laying out public steam without endangering the party's monopoly of power, by and large the good guys, meaning the non- Communist opposition, have either fled or been murdered or sentenced to prison. So instead of evolving into a freer society, China is going in the opposite direction. Yes, it is more prosperous, but those buildings and those cars and that technology does not mean they are any less dictatorial or repressive or immoral. When you blur the distinctions between right and wrong, between good and evil, which is what our administration and those people who want to deal with the Chinese on an equal basis do, do not be surprised if you find yourself going in the wrong direction. Bill Clinton and the corporate elite who are pushing this Chinese policy on America are, if we trust their words, trying to gradually turn China from a militaristic dictatorship to a hard-driving yet benevolent player in the world economy. They claim to believe that China will evolve. Of course, they are making a lot of money, a lot of money in the process; and, as I pointed out, these people making a lot of money are doing so by being subsidized and protected by the American taxpayer. Let me say that those businessmen who go into China without a government subsidy, without a guarantee, without political insurance provided by the American taxpayer, that is okay, good luck. Good luck, you were taking the risks, and I am not talking about you tonight because you will be paying for the consequences if you were wrong just as you will reap the rewards if China does become the vast market that drives the dreams of so many, and the China dream is what it is all about. You know they said that China is the great market of the future, and it always will be. Well, China has its own national interests and its totalitarian leaders have their own unchallenged personal power that holds western concepts of democracy and the rules of law and equitable political and business relationships in contempt. Tonight I feel compelled to express my skepticism about those who loudly advocate the evolutionary engagement theory of the 50 or so American business leaders who have sat in my office and told me about doing business on the mainland of China and how it is going to make these people more liberal and how they will get some values from us. Not one has ever spoken to a Chinese official near or around his place of business in China about human rights, not one. Many of them have even admitted that they would permit Communist officials to arrest their own employees if that employee belonged to an unrecognized Christian church. This is a pitiful reality. It is a disgrace that any American, it is a total disgrace that any American would stand by as a Christian or a person of any religious faith was dragged out of their offices kicking and screaming by some Gestapo, whether it was a Communist, Nazi or Fascist or whatever type of Gestapo it was. I guess it comes down to this. Just because you are free to do business in a dictatorship like China does not mean you are free from the responsibility of being an American and standing up for our ideals of freedom, and at the very least you are not expected to participate in activities that threaten the security of our country just because you are making money. Tonight I wanted to discuss the inane policies of our government and the activities of some of our corporate citizens that are both deplorable and alarming. Tonight I want to discuss for the record for the first time the possibility that this administration and some powerful high-technology companies may well have put our country in grave danger, perhaps putting in harm's way millions of our citizens. If accurate, the information I have been examining describes one of the worst betrayals of America's security interests since the Rosenbergs. I will go right to the heart of the issue. It appears that several high-tech corporations doing business with the Communist Chinese may have gone not only over the line of propriety but over the line of loyalty to the security interests of our country. These aerospace and technology companies, many have provided the Communist Chinese regime with the technology and know-how to perfect rockets and intercontinental missiles. Because of this assistance from American citizens, the Chinese now have the capability of delivering nuclear weapons to the United States. This puts millions of Americans in danger of nuclear incineration should we ever again confront the Chinese Communists about their belligerent actions or aggressive behavior. Making matters worse, the Clinton administration appears to have been a willing accomplice to this crime against our people; and the President himself may have been involved in actions aimed at preventing legal action by the Justice Department from being taken against the perpetrators of these outrageous impossible crimes. What I am saying is as serious as anything that I have ever said in the 10 years that I have been a Member of Congress. As chairman of the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, it is my responsibility to oversee NASA and America's space effort. Because of this, I have a certain degree of knowledge about missiles and rockets. This expertise allowed me to understand the horrific implications of the cooperation between American companies and the Chinese in the improvement of the Chinese aerospace launch systems which I first heard about several months ago. The story probably began several years ago when I was asked to support an effort then being made by Hughes Electronics to assist in their sales of communication satellites to China. Some countries like China were insisting on launching purchased satellites, satellites that had been purchased from Hughes on their own rockets. It made sense to me that setting up a telecommunication system for China was a good idea. Launching these satellites up there, putting the satellites up so they could have a telephone system and they make long distance calls and such, that was a good idea, would connect them to the rest of the world. It would link them to the world, and our folks would make a profit in doing it, so why not give them permission? It was a good idea. Was it a good idea for our U.S. firms to launch satellites on foreign rockets? Well, yes, they could do so if they were willing to do it at their own risk. I supported the request. But at no time did I or anyone else in Congress support the idea that any American company or any American citizen should be upgrading Chinese rockets to launch those satellites; and that, my friends, looks like what has happened. Americans and American companies using their skill and their technology, some of it developed by American tax dollars during the Cold War, being used to upgrade the capabilities of Chinese rockets and missiles. The Chinese Communist regime who was unable to hit us with rockets and missiles 5 years ago, I am very sad to say, now has the capability of landing nuclear weapons transported by rockets landing those nuclear weapons in the United States, and we are the ones who perfected their rockets. In a nutshell, until last year, the Chinese Long March Rocket had a shaky history of misfires, explosions and unreliability. It took three or four Long March Rocket launches to complete one successful mission. That is why it was a shock to learn a few months ago that the Long March now is more reliable. It has, it seems, been perfected. This became evident when I heard that two satellites from Motorola's iridium project were launched into orbit, and it only took two Long March Rockets to do it. Two out of two successful shots. How could this be, I asked myself? And then I got a sinking feeling in my stomach that I knew the answer. I will tell my colleagues how it could be. After the blow-up of a Long March Rocket, a team of American engineers working for an American firm sat down and rolled up their sleeves in what they treated as nothing more than an engineering project. They thought that what they were doing was just engineering. And when it was all over, the Red Chinese had the ability to reliably put into orbit commercial satellites. That alone was a betrayal of American aerospace workers who built competitive launch systems like the Delta Rocket. And by the way, the Delta Rocket just happens to be built in my congressional district. So for us to upgrade their rocket capability using our technology, that was a betrayal in and of itself of the economic responsibility we have to watch out for our own people. But putting their fellow American aerospace workers out of jobs is not all these companies did by helping the Chinese upgrade their missiles. They put all of us in the crosshairs of a Communist Government, which, thanks to this assistance, now has the ability not just to put satellites into space, but to deliver nuclear weapons to a majority of American cities. When this realization first hit me, it knocked the wind right out of my lungs. I could hardly breathe. And when I queried an executive from one of the corporations who were involved in upgrading this Chinese missile capability, he quickly stated that I should not worry, because he understood that his company was operating with a national security waiver signed by the President of the United States. He did not say that he had seen this waiver personally. The engineering achievement this gentleman talked about was Rocket Stage Separation technology and Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicle technology. If my colleagues cannot understand it, the first one is the stage technology that permits the stages of the rockets to separate; the last one I talked about is called MIRV technology. But before these technologies were given to the Chinese, the Long March would often blow up, and they would blow up when the stages tried to separate, and if it survived the stages' separation and made it into space, there was often a problem with the satellite dispenser. That is where the MIRV technology comes in. So the American companies proceeded to provide stage separation technology as well as technology that enabled the rocket to spit out satellites, or nuclear warheads, whichever the Communist Chinese might want to use on any particular day. About the same time, and perhaps as part of the same team, even perhaps as part of the same effort, two other aerospace firms were involved in a project to upgrade and perfect the Long March Rocket's flight control and guidance systems. Apparently an electrical flaw had caused a malfunction which blew up a Long March Rocket attempting to launch a satellite by Loral Space and Communications of Manhattan. Again, the American technological cavalry came to the rescue. Engineers from Loral, assisted by engineers from Hughes Electronics, and at the direction of their superiors, charged forward to correct the problems in the Long March. It seems what happened was a sterile, coldly calculated decision to fix these problems with no consideration of the national security implications to the United States. One must hope that no consideration was given to our security, because if there was consideration given to our security, it means these company officials said to themselves, to hell with the safety of every man, woman and child in the United States; this is a lucrative contract and we are not going to lose it. Well, where the hell do they think they are going to go home to once the contract is over? A few years ago it was unlikely that the Chinese Communists could threaten us with a nuclear strike. Confronting their misdeeds then could be accomplished with limited risk. Our leaders have tremendous leverage to prevent aggression and to keep the lid on volatile situations. Now, all of that has changed, much of it due perhaps to the assistance to the Chinese Communists by American citizens and American companies. In a recent report by the U.S. National Air Force Intelligence Center, that report indicates that China now has a new three-stage intercontinental ballistic missile that can reach every State in our country, except southern Florida. The report states that these missiles carry only a single warhead. But the Communists are close to producing a new system with multiple independent reentry vehicles, MIRVs. The security of our country will never be the same. The young people who are watching on their televisions or are here with us tonight, their lives will be far less secure than it ever would have been had we not permitted this to happen. The security that people expected that we would take into consideration was not part of the equation. Unfortunately, the young people of our country now will have to live under a cloud that they could be pulverized by nuclear weapons sent from mainland China on a rocket that American technology helped build for our adversaries. In May 1997, the Pentagon produced a classified report on missile expertise transferred to China which concluded that the United States national security was probably damaged by the Loral-Hughes technology transfers I have just described. This was followed by an investigation into the deal by the U.S. Justice Department. Then, only a few weeks ago it was revealed by the press that a Federal grand jury was investigating Loral and Hughes for possible violations of law in this outrageous transfer of weapons know-how to the Communist Chinese. Now comes the kicker of this story. President Clinton and his administration have been doing everything they can to quash the investigation of this possible violation of law, this betrayal of our country. According to press accounts, Justice Department officials claim that 2 months ago, their investigation was seriously undermined when President Clinton quietly approved the export to China of similar rocketry expertise by Loral. Our President cut the legs out right from under the law enforcement agencies trying to investigate this matter, a matter which is obviously of great importance to our national security. This move reflects a horrifyingly cavalier attitude toward the safety of our people from the nuclear weapons capabilities of the Communist Chinese, or it could be even worse. Worse? Yes, worse than a cavalier attitude about the Chinese Communists being able to hit us with nuclear weapons. What is worse than that? An attitude that is not cavalier, but it was a conscious decision. The CEO of Loral is Bernard Schwartz. This gentleman also has the distinction of being one of the largest single contributors to President Clinton's reelection campaign; and unlike other aerospace companies, would strive to have a balanced portfolio of campaign contributions. This company obviously had its man, and his name was Bill Clinton. Mr. Schwartz was the largest individual contributor to the Democratic Party in 1997, and in 1996, together with Loral and Hughes Companies, contributed $2.5 million to the Democratic Party that we know about, almost triple their contributions that they gave to the Republican Party. We are also aware of the likelihood that the Communist Chinese had contributions of their own that made their way into President Clinton's campaign coffers. The total dollar figure is unknown because, it is unknown because those who have that information are currently on the lam. They are hiding so they will not have to testify as to Chinese Communist money going into President Clinton's campaign. Many of them have left the country, and those who have come back are looking for immunity to testify before Congress, but they are now in the process of having their immunity denied by Democrat Members of this body who are part of the investigating committee. They will not grant them immunity, because they do not want that information coming out. What, if any, have these Chinese Communist donations purchased? Direct evidence is sketchy, but we do know that since President Clinton was elected in November 1992, China has violated its nonproliferation commitments no less than 20 times according to the Congressional Research Service. In response, the administration has only twice imposed sanctions in accordance with U.S. law, and in one of these cases, the sanctions were waived in one of these cases after only 1 year. In addition, China has repeatedly transferred or discussed transferring weapons of mass destruction to rogue nations such as Iran and Libya, after assuring our country that all such actions had ceased. Today, it is Israel's 50th anniversary. Fifty years, Israel has been in conflict for 50 years. One of the greatest threats to Israel is what? Rockets that can hit their targets fired at them from extremist countries and terrorist countries like Iran. And yet, President Clinton seems to have undercut the investigations and greased the skids for providing the Communist Chinese technology that, even after the Chinese have repeatedly provided technology to people like the Iranians and others who are enemies not only of the United States, but enemies of Israel. In giving the Iranians guidance system technology for rockets, this is quite a birthday present for Israel, and quite a birthday present for anybody in the Western world who sides with the United States and sides with the Western democracies. And of course now, the administration claims, we are going to reach out again and accept the Chinese Communist word again that they will not do it anymore, they will not give any more information, and in exchange for that agreement not to give any more information, we are going to give them all the rest of our technological secrets. We are going to extend the cooperation with the Communist Chinese to a greater extent than it has ever been. That is a proposal right now going on that the President is preparing to offer when he goes to China next month. This is a travesty, it is a travesty. In this atmosphere, President Clinton will go to China next month, and the papers suggest that he is going to offer the Communist Chinese to share with them our space technology if they just agree not to transfer it to others. This, of course, is nonsense on the face of it. We are going to share our technology with someone who has already given it to our enemies, somebody who themselves are a Communist dictatorship and one of the worst violators of human rights on this planet? People who are torturing Christians and other believers, we are going to give our space technology to them? Well, I suggest that this is nonsense on the face of it, and that is not what this is all about. This proposal by the President, I believe, is trying to do something that he did before when he undercut the investigation into Loral and Hughes. What this is is trying to offer a mask, this new policy the administration is offering, is doing nothing more than trying to give a mask to deeds that have already been done, just as the move in granting Loral approval to transfer rocket technology undercut the investigation into the wrongdoing that they have already done. So in other words, this grandiose plan that we have read about in the newspapers may well be nothing more than a cover for misdeeds that have already taken place because the President knows that this information is going to come out about American technology being used by Chinese Communists to build their rockets which are aimed in our direction. The President knows how volatile that is, and the story has been coming out slowly but surely, and this speech tonight I think will even accelerate the information about this terrible betrayal of America's interests. What seems to have happened is that instead of civilizing the communist Chinese, our engagement with that government has corrupted our democracy. Instead of providing us wealth, it has undercut our domestic production and has transferred our technology to our adversaries. Instead of promoting peace, it has massively extended the raw destructive power of a regime that remains one of this world's worst human rights offenders and a country that threatens the peace and stability of the planet. A recent confirmation of that expanded destructive power comes from General Haber, a commander of the U.S. Strategic Command. General Haber recently stated, and I quote, ``The Chinese do have the deployment of an intercontinental missile that can reach most of the United States, except for southern Florida.'' Because of this new threat from communist China, because it is so overwhelming, this speech is going to be only the first of many I will make on the subject. But let me add one point here. Here we have a President and an administration that is willing to undercut investigations into these companies and he may well, for all we know, by his own attitude have fostered an idea among these companies that they could get away with this type of betrayal of America's interests. Perhaps they saw the President and his dealings with China and how he makes a joke out of human rights, and they thought why should they consider America's national security interests. But this is the same group of people, the President of the United States and his administration, who because of what they have done, now that the communist Chinese have the ability to hit our country with nuclear weapons, this is the same President that has gone out of his way to prevent us from developing a defense system that would defend us against an attack, a missile attack. This is the same administration that has done everything they can to prevent the Republicans from developing a missile defense system for the United States of America and for our allies. The standard is incredible. It is overwhelming. It still almost takes the air out of my lungs when I think about this. I mean, just where is the interest of the American people? Who is concerned about it? Who is protecting us? It certainly is not people who would permit the technology that was developed during the Cold War for our own weapons systems to be handed over to the communist Chinese even before they have had any liberalization of their system. Once the American people realize what has happened, I predict a wave of outrage will sweep across our country, even to Florida, even though they are the only ones who have not been made vulnerable by this. Though the Floridians cannot be hit by land-based missiles, the folks down there understand that being an American is more important that the almighty dollar and they understand that being an American is something special and they would never betray the interests of their country. It seems like some of our citizens, including some prominent individuals, may have forgotten that and may be operating at a much lower level of value than that. Perhaps President Clinton really was converted to the theory and convinced that these gangsters who now control the mainland of China could be civilized by luring them into economic dependency and technological dependency. If we make them economically dependent and so technologically dependent by giving them technology and building their economy up, that that will make things better. Maybe he really believes that. Maybe he believes that once that happens and they have prosperity, that their iron fist can be unclenched because we will have proven to them our sincere desire for peace and, therefore, the insecurity and the vulnerability that the Chinese have, that will be satisfied and they can disarm and they will longer be this monstrous totalitarian regime that they are. Let us give the President the benefit of the doubt. Maybe that is what he believes. That is the most foolish thing that I have ever heard, but I have heard it expressed so many times that we are going to have to give people good motives. But whether they have good motives or not, let us look at what is happening here. These are the same type of assurances and feeling that Neville Chamberlain gave the people of England about the Nazi regime shortly before the bombings of London that caused World War II. World War II was brought on by people trying to prove their sincerity to Hitler. Let him take the Rhineland back. Let us prove to him that he can take these territories. Where there is any question at all, always give him the benefit of the doubt. And our businessmen did business with Hitler and Hirohito up until the day that World War II started. Mr. Speaker, these things did not make Hitler and the dictators in Japan and Italy any less aggressive or less likely to cause war. These things actually are foolishness and nonsense, and trying to prove that we were not a threat did just the opposite to these bosses. We must never forget that the real reason for the communist Chinese and their monstrously bad human rights record, and for their continued military buildup, and for the unrelenting repression in China of Christians and Muslims and Buddhists, and for the continued genocide that is going on in Tibet, the main reason this is happening is the fundamental nature of the communist regime, the vile nature of their own political system. It is meant to be a communist dictatorship. They have never stepped back one inch from the idea that they will control their society with an iron fist. Just the other day we read about what? It came out in the paper, I guess it was today in fact, a rock and roll singer was arrested in Hong Kong. And why? The rock and roll figure was arrested and put into prison because he is a threat to that country's national security. A rock and roll singer. Yes. And Christians, and Muslims, and Buddhists, and the Dalai Lama's followers and anyone else who would speak up against this system. Any artist who would dare to show their work without permission. Anyone who would say anything against the regime outside of the communist party structure. The solution that we need to have is not to try to prove our sincerity to the communist Chinese. We need to work with the people of China to overthrow and eliminate this corrupt, this vile, this tyrannical system and kick out these people who oppress them. The younger people in China do not believe in this, just like the younger people in Russia did not. Our goal should not be trying to give legitimacy and trying to make them not feel threatened by giving them our technology. That will only result in America being placed in jeopardy. It will only result in our people living less prosperous lives and now our people living under a cloud, under a threat of nuclear attack when five years ago they were not. The solution, of course, is ending their system and bringing them in and demanding, demanding, yes demanding that there be real changes for us to have any closer relationships with them. Finally, let me just summarize what we have talked about tonight, what I have talked about tonight. Tonight, we have opened a discussion which I believe will continue and intensify in the weeks ahead. I have given details about a transfer of American technology by American companies to the communist Chinese. This transfer of American technology has perfected communist Chinese rocket systems which now enables these communist Chinese rockets to reach targets in the United States of America. When Bill Clinton was elected President of the United States, the communist Chinese could not launch with a rocket from the mainland of China on a nuclear attack of the United States. They are now capable of that. The MIRV technology which our companies transferred to them also permits these same rockets not to carry a single warhead but to have several warheads. The same technology that spits out a satellite can be used to spit out nuclear warheads. There was an investigation into this transfer of technology, an investigation by government officials who were convinced that America's national security had been put in jeopardy and that the law had been violated. President Clinton took actions that undermined and undercut that investigation. At least one of the heads of the U.S. companies that were providing this technology to the communist Chinese is one of President Clinton's biggest campaign contributors and indeed the biggest campaign contributor to the Democratic Party in 1996. We do not know about the campaign contributions from the communist Chinese to President Clinton's campaign in the last presidential reelection campaign because the witnesses are on the lam, and the Democratic Party Members in the investigating committee are refusing to grant them immunity so that they can tell their story to the American people. I do not like to come to the floor of the House to talk about something so horrendous as this. This has implications about the safety of every one of our families. I hope that everyone who is reading this in the Congressional Record and I hope that everyone who is seeing this on C-SPAN will make sure they contact their Member of Congress and make it clear that we should get to the bottom of this. And I assure my colleagues that this is one Member of Congress that will not stop until we get all of the information about this horrendous transfer of weapons and technology that has put us in jeopardy. Speaker Gingrich and others now are in the process of requesting the information, and if this administration does not cooperate there will be hearings on this subject.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Florida for his presentation. I just came back from Southeast Asia where heroin is being grown, actually it is opium and turned into heroin, especially in Burma and in Afghanistan, and I was informed by the DEA agents there that we know exactly where the fields are that produce about 90 percent of the heroin, and with leadership from the White House we could attack those fields without hurting anybody before they ever got beyond those countries. But like the gentleman stated, since 1992 we have not had leadership from the White House in the area, in that type of interdiction, plus we have not had the moral leadership that Ronald Reagan provided during the 1980s which made the use of illegal drugs something that was socially unacceptable. It was just something that people did not find it acceptable to have that in their presence because it was something that was regarded as insulting and degrading and immoral. Instead, that attitude has now unfortunately changed again without that type of rejection from the leadership in the White House. Unfortunately, we see the trends in heroin use by young people is up. It is just a terrible trend.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this supplemental. Thanks to the diligent efforts of the appropriators, this bill now includes a provision that continues to throw money at one of this administration's better-known foreign policy fiascoes, our partnership with Russia to build the International Space Station. I am chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics that oversees this effort, and that provision that we are talking about was not in either House or Senate bill but was inserted over the strong objection of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics and the Committee on Science chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). This bill contains and continues to give money to pay for Russia's failures; and by covering up those failures, the President and the Vice President can continue to pretend that everything is fine in this grand partnership with Boris Yeltsin. In other words, this bill spends tens of millions of dollars to hide the administration's mistakes. The space station is now estimated to be $7 billion over budget and another 2 to 4 years late. NASA's own independent analysts suggest that Russia's defaults are the biggest problem. The Committee on Science has worked on a bipartisan basis to get the administration to focus on this problem. Instead, the administration keeps dancing away from the tough decisions, and now the appropriators are letting them off the hook by giving them this extra money. Specifically, this supplemental provides $63 million in directed transfer, totaling $90 million in Band-aids for a patient that needs surgery. We need to focus on these problems with Russia or they will continue to drain money and continue to bring the space station down. That is not what this supplemental does. Secondly, I oppose the supplemental because it again represents the shoveling of money at an enduring quagmire that drains our resources and makes us weaker and does not face the decisions that are necessary to get our country unstuck from this situation. I am, of course, referring to almost a half billion dollars in this bill to keep our troops in Bosnia. I had strong reservations about the Bosnian mission to begin with. We were told it would last 1 year and cost $2 billion. Now our troops have been there almost 3 years, and it has already cost between $8 and $10 billion. The mission has escalated from a 1-year mission to now what appears to be an open-ended commitment with no end in sight. The huge financial drain that this represents is coming right out of our taxpayers' hide but also the hides of our defenders who are finding they cannot even maintain their airplanes and ships and ground weaponry because money is being drained away from them for these foolish missions that have nothing to do with our national security, like Bosnia. By passing supplementals like this, what we are doing is permitting the government and this administration to ignore these fundamental problems and not make the decisions that are necessary to do things like ending the Bosnian situation that goes on and on, or correcting the problem with Russia that is putting us behind the eight ball when it comes to the International Space Station. That is why this supplemental should be defeated.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, we should be debating this. I should have more than 1 minute, and I am not complaining to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston). It is a travesty to have this debate so that Dana Rohrabacher has 1 minute to express himself on this issue. And the same with the rest of my colleagues. When are we going to stand up for our own rights in this body? Here we have the violation of the rights of our people to control their destiny, taken away from them by $18 billion and given to some crook or some nincompoop overseas who has basically driven their own financial institutions into bankruptcy, and we cannot debate it for more than an hour. This is ridiculous, and it is as ridiculous as the idea of bailing out the IMF in the first place. I just returned from Asia. There are alternatives in Asia to this bailout. And yet if we force our money over there in this IMF bailout, it will undercut the private efforts in that area to bail out their own problems. And what do they do with this money, this $18 billion and the other money going over to Asia? It is used to finance factories that put out goods and services that put our own people out of work. It is immoral for us to give this money to foreigners after we have cut programs at home. We should not be bailing out the IMF, we should be balancing our budget. And we should have a longer debate.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, it has been long observed that a frog thrown into a pot of boiling water will jump right out, but throw a frog into a pot of tepid water and then slowly turn up the heat under the pot, and the frog will stay there until he is cooked. That boiled frog strategy is how Congress imposed a monstrous tax burden on the American people. Congress did not wake up one day and then pass a law that confiscates more than 20 percent of an American family's income, which is exactly how much in Federal taxes the American people are paying. Many people are paying more than 20 percent. But the heat was turned up on the American taxpayer over the last six decades. That is how we got to this position. In 1934 the Federal Government took just 5 percent of an American family's income. Because of the increase in Federal taxes that we have seen, because that increase has been gradual, the American people have gone along just treading water while the heat was turned up. It made it even easier for Congress to increase taxes on the people, turning up the heat on the people all the time. This has come to a point today where our freedom is threatened by the level of taxation that our people have to bear. We are now at a level of taxation that is totally inconsistent with what our Founding Fathers had in mind and what our Founding Fathers believed was consistent with a free society. We are just servants, unable to choose our servitude, and having the fruits of our labor stolen by the government. We are here today to pass a tax limitation constitutional amendment which would make it harder to turn up the heat on the taxpayers. This resolution would amend the U.S. Constitution to require a two-thirds majority vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate to pass any legislation resulting in a tax increase. Mr. Speaker, one of the arguments we are hearing against this amendment is that it requires more than just a simple majority, which is 50 percent plus one, and that that subverts majority rule. But a supermajority is a majority. It is just a stronger majority, because it is reserved for situations that are important. In fact, there are two dozen instances in which the House of Representatives, or at least, excuse me, one House of Congress, is required to vote by more than a simple majority to get its work done. That is more. What is more, eight of these supermajorities are specifically written into the U.S. Constitution. What we are saying today is let us just add another, a ninth constitutional requirement, that would make it more difficult for Congress to raise the taxes of the American people. Because what we are recognizing today is that by raising taxes, we are diminishing the freedom of the individual American citizen to make decisions with his or her life about the product of their labor. Today we have a chance to vote clearly on the side of the people's freedom against increasing taxes and boiling their freedom down.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, it is sacrilegious, it is a Trojan horse, we are working somehow to gag and to silence the opposition. We are shutting down the opposition, shutting down free speech, and we are trying to silence people and this is a cynical fraud. We hear all of these very pejorative phrases, and Members seem to be trying to do everything they possibly can not to focus on exactly what we are debating here. It is one thing to stand up and call everybody a bunch of names, but it is another thing to try to confront exactly what we are voting on. We are voting here, and what we are supposed to be discussing is whether or not people who are working should be permitted, should be required, before they can take something out of their paycheck and use it for political purposes, that they should have the right to have to have a signoff, that before you can take something from somebody, they should sign a document saying, it is okay for you to take it and use it for political purposes. I do not think calling it sacrilegious, a Trojan horse and talking about we are trying to silence somebody, we are trying to prevent people from being robbed. We are trying to prevent people from saying, you have a right to take something out of your paycheck and use it for something that you do not believe in. We are not the government. We are a private group and we have that right with your money. Well, that is what we are defining here. It is not sacrilegious. It is not trying to silence anybody. It is simply trying to set down, is it proper to give the power to the individual who is working out there in whatever company the right to control his own paycheck so people do not take it away from him without his permission and use it for political purposes that he or she may not agree with. That is very reasonable. This is a very reasonable bill. The hysterics that I am hearing from the other side would indicate that there are other things at work here.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would gladly join with my colleague from Florida, and let me just say that if we are committed to protecting our people from this nuclear catastrophe that could happen, we have the means to prevent this from happening. We have the leverage on the former Soviet Union now. They must deal with this issue if we put it on the top of our list in dealing with Russia. And they have no money in Russia. We have the ability, even right now with just a concerted economic commitment, to tell the Russians they will not do this or we will bring them down, and we could do that even with our economic power. And for us to sit by and let them just transfer this $300 million nuclear plant is unconscionable. And again it is commendable that you, like Paul Revere, are riding through the dark, warning of the coming danger, and the American people have got to wake up. They cannot be lulled to sleep by the images of an old man with a gray beard meeting with the Pope. This is not an old man with a gray beard meeting with the Pope. This is the Pope, unfortunately, meeting with Satan. I mean, Fidel Castro has committed every evil that we can imagine on this planet, and the fact that he is willing to put nuclear reactors that are unsafe for his own people and put them on his island threatening the existence of every man, woman, and child on his island shows you the evil that is still in his heart. There is nothing that motivates Fidel Castro except the hatred of the United States of America, and he is willing to sacrifice even the lives of every man, woman, and child on his island.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would just like to commend my colleague for not only this speech, but the diligence that he has shown over the years in alerting us and the American people to what Fidel Castro is all about. I do not know why, but there seems to be a romance with this bearded fascist down there in Havana, and people do not want to admit the horror that he has brought to the people of freedom all over the world. He has been one of the strongest enemies of freedom anywhere in the planet in the last 40 years, and his dirty deeds; you, know I could see back in the 1960s when people were idealist, they would overlook the fact that when he came to power he just cleared jails out and went out and shot people, you know, just summarily executed people; said those were Batista-ites or something. But as time went on, it seems that the liberal left in this country seems to bend over backwards never to acknowledge the wrongdoing of Fidel Castro. You mentioned, for example, his drug dealings. We know about his drug dealings. I mean, it is clear that this man and his cohorts down there have been involved up to their necks in drug dealings for decades. Robert Vesco, who we know as probably the fellow who went down and organized the modern drug movement in Latin America, where was his headquarters all of these years? It was in Cuba. Yet when we try to confront our administration with facts about who or where, you know, where are the drugs coming from and who are the kingpins, you never hear Fidel Castro mentioned. And some of the things you are bringing up tonight about what he has done, and even a few years ago in Desert Storm, that threaten our national security, put the lives of our young men and women in the military at risk; why is it that Lincoln Diaz-Balart has to be the one talking to an empty Chamber here and trying to gain the attention of the people of the United States? Where is our administration? Where are the people who are supposed to be watching out for our security? Well, they are making overtures to try to think, well, now is the time we should loosen these restrictions on Castro. It is beyond me.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, this administration, if the gentleman will yield, is a horrible record. This is totally consistent with what the administration did the last time we were out on vacation. What did they do? They moved to eliminate the final impediments to any type of trade with Vietnam. This administration which, by the way, has of course been involved in a scandal dealing with campaign donations that may have come from Red China, has done more to eliminate those people, the efforts by people to confront the Red Chinese on their human rights abuses. So, should we be surprised that in this vicious dictatorship in Cuba that they overlook all of the evil that is so apparent to anyone who gives an honest look at the situation? You know, I used to think these people were, you know, they just briefed in peace and they were so blinded by some desire for peace, but this is not a desire of peace. This is something pathological that when Communist countries and enemies of the United States are doing these type of things that you have outlined today, that we in some ways should try to befriend them and in some way that the threat to us is going to be less because we are befriending this type of monstrous regime.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I think that it is vital that we understand that if we do what is right now, and we have the courage, as this man suggested in the reading, that we discipline ourselves and not rush in to try to invest in Cuba before Castro is gone. Castro will some day be gone, whether it is natural causes or otherwise, and the Cuban people will have a chance to be free. But I fear that American businessmen, as they are doing in China and as they are doing in other dictatorships, are rushing not to try to have a positive influence, but instead, are looking at the quick buck and are establishing economic ties with these totalitarian regimes which will give life to those regimes. In other words, I believe that once American businessmen invest in Cuba, we will find that Communist Cuba has a whole new group of advocates in the United States, as we have seen in China, as we have seen people who are supposed to be talking about democracy in China because they are Americans and they are investing in China and up spending all of their time trying to do what? Trying to lobby us not to be tough on China because of the abuses of human rights there. This same thing could happen in Cuba.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would just like to commend my colleague for not only this speech, but the diligence that he has shown over the years in alerting us and the American people to what Fidel Castro is all about. I do not know why, but there seems to be a romance with this bearded fascist down there in Havana, and people do not want to admit the horror that he has brought to the people of freedom all over the world. He has been one of the strongest enemies of freedom anywhere in the planet in the last 40 years, and his dirty deeds; you, know I could see back in the 1960s when people were idealist, they would overlook the fact that when he came to power he just cleared jails out and went out and shot people, you know, just summarily executed people; said those were Batista-ites or something. But as time went on, it seems that the liberal left in this country seems to bend over backwards never to acknowledge the wrongdoing of Fidel Castro. You mentioned, for example, his drug dealings. We know about his drug dealings. I mean, it is clear that this man and his cohorts down there have been involved up to their necks in drug dealings for decades. Robert Vesco, who we know as probably the fellow who went down and organized the modern drug movement in Latin America, where was his headquarters all of these years? It was in Cuba. Yet when we try to confront our administration with facts about who or where, you know, where are the drugs coming from and who are the kingpins, you never hear Fidel Castro mentioned. And some of the things you are bringing up tonight about what he has done, and even a few years ago in Desert Storm, that threaten our national security, put the lives of our young men and women in the military at risk; why is it that Lincoln Diaz-Balart has to be the one talking to an empty Chamber here and trying to gain the attention of the people of the United States? Where is our administration? Where are the people who are supposed to be watching out for our security? Well, they are making overtures to try to think, well, now is the time we should loosen these restrictions on Castro. It is beyond me.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I think that it is vital that we understand that if we do what is right now, and we have the courage, as this man suggested in the reading, that we discipline ourselves and not rush in to try to invest in Cuba before Castro is gone. Castro will some day be gone, whether it is natural causes or otherwise, and the Cuban people will have a chance to be free. But I fear that American businessmen, as they are doing in China and as they are doing in other dictatorships, are rushing not to try to have a positive influence, but instead, are looking at the quick buck and are establishing economic ties with these totalitarian regimes which will give life to those regimes. In other words, I believe that once American businessmen invest in Cuba, we will find that Communist Cuba has a whole new group of advocates in the United States, as we have seen in China, as we have seen people who are supposed to be talking about democracy in China because they are Americans and they are investing in China and up spending all of their time trying to do what? Trying to lobby us not to be tough on China because of the abuses of human rights there. This same thing could happen in Cuba.