Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

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. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, it all comes down to this. Those people who are supporting the resolution of the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) believe that the President of the United States should not be able to send our troops all over the world in open-ended commitments unless Congress has some vote on it. The people who are opposing the Campbell amendment have the opposite opinion. Let us note that this conflict that we are talking about today was a long time in coming. For years, many of us in this body shouted to the heavens to try to end what was an immoral arms embargo which prevented the victims of aggression in the Balkans from defending themselves. Those people who maintained this embargo which left the aggressors with all the weapons, those are the same people who now say and told us and came to us, ``We have to send U.S. troops.'' They got what they wanted. What they wanted was not victims being able to defend themselves, helped by the United States to defend themselves, but instead American troops committed on the ground in what is an endless commitment and an endless drain on our resources. American troops, committed to the Balkans, sets a precedent. That means they can be sent everywhere in order to solve all the problems in all the trouble spots, that our troops are now subservient to international interests rather than to national interests. That is what we are seeing, an evolution in the policy. I think that policy is wrong. The United States of America, and we as Americans, should be proud to stand up for what is in our interest, and we will lead the world to a better way by supporting those people in the Balkans and elsewhere to enable them to defend themselves, not to send our troops over to be cannon fodder, not to substitute American lives for the lives of local people, local victims who are opposing aggression. Yes, we oppose that aggression, but that does not mean we have to send our boys all over the world to give their lives or to put their lives on the line. Our country faces a future where our troops may well be deployed, because the Cold War is over now, all over the world. The Campbell resolution says, let us take another look at that. If a President is going to do that, he has to come to Congress. There has to be a check in the system. That should be, and that is a logical check. Yes, the War Powers Act requires us to do something within 60 days or bring the troops out. That makes sense to me. I am not opposed to the War Powers Act. During the Cold War, there was some question about it, but even then, 60 days, we have already had our troops in Bosnia for going on 2\1/2\ years. We were told that they were going to be out of there in 1 year. It has been going on 2\1/2\ years. We have spent $8 billion. Where is that money coming from? It is coming out of the readiness of our troops, it is coming out of our ability to defend ourselves, out of our ability to function throughout the rest of the world, putting our troops in danger at the same time, and for what? I sit on the Committee on International Relations. We asked the leaders, the people who are overseeing this operation, ``When can we pull our troops out?'' What was the answer? The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) heard it as well as I did. ``We don't know when we're going to be able to pull these troops out. We don't know.'' It could go on for 5 years. It could go on for 10 years. We could hear these same arguments 10 years from now after spending $20 billion or $30 billion. This is not in the interest of the people of the United States of America. Yes, it is in our interest to support those who are struggling for peace and freedom and liberty in other parts of the world, but we do so by enabling them, empowering them to do it for themselves, not to send our troops everywhere in the world. There are other trouble spots. We have heard today, our troops have done a magnificent job in stopping the rape, the murder, the mayhem. That is happening all over Africa, in vast stretches of Asia. Does everywhere when these atrocities are being committed mean American troops must go there? Absolutely not. When we do, we send a message to the people of the world: ``Count on Uncle Sammy. Count on the United States. Don't do it yourself.'' To Europe: ``Don't spend your own money. The Americans are going to be willing to do it.'' I say we stand up for our national interests and not expend our Treasury. Vote for the Campbell resolution.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the relationship between the United States, The Republic of China on Taiwan, and the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) was a top issue during last October's summit meeting between President Clinton and Jaing Zemin. Taiwan will be an even bigger topic of discussion at the next summit meeting later this year. I have spent a lot of my time in Congress focusing on America's role in Asia. I believe that one of the most vital elements to promoting America's regional interests, the spread of freedom and prosperity in Asia, hinges on how well we lead on the cross-Strait issue. In 1996, the PRC had ventured into a reckless policy of launching missiles towards the territory of Taiwan in an effort to undermine its plans for democratic Presidential elections. At the urging of Congress, the United States finally deployed two aircraft carriers with assorted escort ships into the Taiwan Strait. That show of commitment and friendship to Taiwan diffused the crisis. I am proud to have played a part during that crisis urging that Taiwan be defended. The missile launchings, or so-called military exercises, were terror tactics designed by the PRC's politburo to frighten and intimidate the Taiwanese people. In those days before the first-ever election a Chinese president, the people on Taiwan braved the intimidation and added another achievement to their long and proud history. Bouyed by America's solidarity, the people of Taiwan flocked to the polls and elected Lee Teng-hui as their president. I was honored to attend President Lee's inauguration and I look forward to seeing him again during my upcoming visit to Taiwan. The U.S. military intervention of 1996 and your remarks, Mr. Speaker, that were made on the occasion of your visit to Taiwan last year, when you said that Taiwan should be defended if attacked, should be the basis of a new consensus concerning our strategic policy regarding the status of Taiwan. Deterrence works. We need to discourage the PRC from using force against Taiwan. The best way to encourage the right to happen in the relationship between Taiwan and the PRC is to ensure that reason rather than brute force play the dominant role in determining the future. Part of deterring PRC aggression should be to allow our friends on Taiwan to have access to the adequate defensive weapons. Mr. Speaker, a prominent Asian scholar who I look forward to meeting someday, Dr. Arthur Waldron has written an essay, ``Back to Basics: The U.S. Perspective on Taiwan-PRC Relations,'' which further illuminates some of the points I've made here. I recommend it to my colleagues.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Solomon amendment. This bill is aimed at admitting a State to the Union that is overwhelmingly populated by Spanish-speaking people who have a proud culture and are proud of their language and view themselves as a separate nation. The people of Puerto Rico have no intention of giving up their language or their culture or their Olympic teams or their Miss Universe contestants, and there is no reason they should have to give these things up if they do not want to become part of a State, residents of a State of the Union. However, if they expect to be residents of a State of the Union and to be Americans first, they must speak the common language and English is the common language; and to become part of our culture, not to maintain their separate culture, to root for our Olympics team and have our Miss Universe contestant as their contestant. Mr. Chairman, I support the Solomon English language amendment to this bill because it takes the appropriate steps to put Puerto Ricans on notice that statehood means becoming part of our Nation and no longer being part of a separate culture and a separate nation, especially as reflected by a separate language. We should make sure that no one is fooled into thinking that the United States is becoming a bilingual society, a bilingual Nation trying to accommodate itself to this nation within a nation. And that nation within a nation, there are people there who believe in independence. In the past we remember when there were independence people who violently wanted independence for Puerto Rico. The fact is they have a proud culture and a proud nation. They are not part of the United States unless they are willing to become part of the United States. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 856 is wrong for the people of Puerto Rico and it is wrong for the people of the United States. ``E pluribus unum.'' We are one people and that is fine. Let us be one people. But if a people expect to be part of the United States, they should be part of the United States.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) for the leadership that he is providing on this issue. We have learned quite often that providing leadership on controversial issues leads one to personal attacks. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) has courageously stepped forward to provide leadership on this issue that is not only important to the people of Puerto Rico but also important to the people of the United States of America as a whole. Mr. Speaker, while I oppose H.R. 856 in its current form, I do support an open rule for its consideration. The number one reason why this bill should be opposed is because it sets up basically, as we have heard in this debate so far, an unfair and undemocratic process that will cause the largest group of Puerto Rican voters to boycott the election, thus producing a phony majority for statehood. Whenever any other territory has come into the Union, they have petitioned for giving their residents the opportunity for an up or down, yes or no vote. That is the normal process that is expected, but it is not good enough for Puerto Rico. Why? Because the Puerto Rican Government is controlled by statehood supporters who know from past balloting and current polling that they would lose a fair up and down vote on statehood. The statehood supporters have maneuvered the Committee on Resources into constructing a ballot that will not reflect the will of the people. This is because the definition of ``commonwealth'' in the bill describes a colonial status that is unacceptable to commonwealthers, leaving them no choice but to boycott the election since they oppose all 3 options offered by the bill. Back in Puerto Rico, statehood supporters are gloating about how the definition being used in the bill will guarantee a victory for statehood even though they know the majority of people do not support statehood. They are right about the outcome of this bill, but they are wrong to do this to the people of Puerto Rico. The phony pro-statehood majority produced by this bill then sets in motion a mandatory statehood vote in Congress next year and two more votes in Puerto Rico. But even then, that far down the road to statehood, H.R. 856 still does not provide the people of Puerto Rico an up or down vote, a yes or no vote as to whether or not they want to become a State. Why are we so afraid to treat the people of Puerto Rico as we have every other State that has entered the Union? This is what we have done to every other people who wanted to join the Union. We have given them a yes or no vote on statehood. Why are people now trying to maneuver it so the people of Puerto Rico do not have this opportunity? Because they know that the people of Puerto Rico, given the opportunity, will vote ``no'' on statehood. Mr. Speaker, the fair way to handle this is the way we have always done it, is to give the people a chance for an up or down vote. If this is a first step toward statehood, if this is a first step toward treating the Puerto Rican people as all other citizens of the United States, they should be treated just as every other group trying to join the United States were treated. H.R. 856 rejects the simple, fair way that was good enough for everybody else and substitutes a skewed ballot with foreordained results. We should not stand for this unfair, undemocratic process. We should reject H.R. 856 while accepting the rule.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, before this House votes on H.R. 856, I want to inform my colleagues of a very recent development concerning one of the status options. One of the most controversial issues in this legislation is the exclusion of an autonomy option that satisfies Puerto Ricans and that complies with the strict criteria of constitutional constraints and public policy imperatives. Under H.R. 856, Puerto Ricans that do not favor either independence or statehood are forced to opt from the equally undesired extremes of plenary territorial subordination or a free association formula that is really so undefined that it is practically indistinguishable from full independence. We must offer the people of Puerto Rico fair and realistic options that are clearly and fully defined. That being the case, I want to bring to the attention of this House a proposal that has recently been circulated in Washington and Puerto Rico. This proposal calls for the development of the present status into a relationship of autonomy within the context of a Treaty of Union between Puerto Rico and the United States. It has been suggested by former Puerto Rico Senate and Popular Democratic Party President, Miguel Hernandez Agosto. Many of you may know Senator Hernandez Agosto as the person in charge of the pro-commonwealth party during the 1993 plebiscite which they won. The Treaty of Union proposal has been endorsed or welcomed in Puerto Rico by prominent pro-commonwealth leaders like the Mayors of Ponce, Carolina, Caguas, San Juan and various other civic groups and legislators. This proposal represents a fresh approach in the attempt to develop commonwealth into a fuller measure of self-government that is compatible with continued ties to the U.S. This association would operate under a nation-to-nation agreement that will encapsulate, among others, the defense, common market, citizenship and currency provisions that are so relevant to both the U.S. and Puerto Rico. It also permits Puerto Rico to retain and affirm its distinct culture and linguistic identity. I sincerely hope that if discussion on political status moves forward, Congress will have the opportunity to properly and seriously analyze this deserving and innovative approach. Amendment #4 (Autonomy Definition) P. 12, Sec. 4: Strike out completely page 12 and in lieu thereof insert the following: A. Autonomy--if you agree, mark here___ The people of Puerto Rico, in the exercise of its natural right, and of its free will as the source of all political power, do hereby establish an autonomous body politic in union with the United States of America under a treaty which cannot be altered unilaterally and subject to the following: (1) Puerto Rico will control and determine its own nationality and citizenship, provided that the United States citizens born in Puerto Rico will retain such citizenship, unless they voluntarily renounce it, and will be entitled to the same rights and privileges as any other United States citizen. (2) Puerto Rico will have the authority and responsibility for its internal and external affairs, including, but not limited to, language, olympic and diplomatic representation, customs, enter into agreements to foster its economic development by joining regional and international trade agreements. Puerto Rico may enter into tax-sparring agreements with other nations which may have an effect on its economy similar to the 936 provision of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, recently abolished. The United States will encourage and support the participation of Puerto Rico in such regional and international organizations. (3) The United States and Puerto Rico will exchange diplomatic representations and will maintain continuous and friendly consultations with the purpose of achieving concerted actions on foreign affairs. (4) A common market will exist between Puerto Rico and the United States which would permit free flow of persons, goods, and services between both nations. (5) The United States will maintain its authority and responsibility over defense matters. This would include: (a) Responsibility for the defense of Puerto Rico and its people in the same manner as to the United States and its people. (b) The United States, at its option, may deny or limit access of any foreign power of facilities in Puerto Rico. (c) The United States, at its option, may own and maintain in Puerto Rico the military bases or installations presently operating in Puerto Rico under the terms of specific agreements. (d) Any Additional needs will be considered and agreed upon on separate and specific accords. (6) Except for property needed for defense purposes, all other property under Federal Ownership will be transferred to Puerto Rico. (7) The official U.S. currency will be the official currency of Puerto Rico and all Federal applicable laws are made part of the compact. (8) With the purpose of assisting the government of Puerto Rico to promote the economic well being of its people and in recognition of the special present and future relations between Puerto Rico and the United States, the United States will provide a block grant in an amount at least equal to the amounts provided to the government of Puerto Rico. Individuals will maintain federal entitlements such as social security, veterans benefits, and others on the same basis as at present. (9) Except for currency and defense, federal laws will cease to apply to Puerto Rico, unless otherwise agreed, effective on the date in which this compact becomes effective. (10) Any dispute as to the interpretation of this compact which cannot be resolved by negotiation between the parties, can be referred by any party to a special Court on the U.S. Puerto Rico Compact, which will be created by separate agreements. Comments: All the formulas should be free and independent one from the other, and not juxtapositioned one with the other as the case of independence and Free Association. The Free Association alternative should be defined in clearer terms, than what the bill does. If it is carefully studied, you will see that the independence and the statehood definitions, are spell out, but Autonomy or Free Association is not. As the bill is a this moment, U.S. Citizenship is only featured in the statehood alternative as a way to obtain more votes in the possible Referendum. There is no legal restriction to feature U.S. Citizenship in Autonomy or Free Association; and, additionally, since Puerto Ricans have had the citizenship for the last 80 years and there has been no problems we believe that the two alternatives should run on a equal footing.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, that is correct. But last night I was given a 5-minute unanimous-consent request.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Appealing the ruling of the Chair, Mr. Speaker, the Chair on many occasions has extended unanimous consent for an extension of 2 minutes.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, we are being warned of possible military action against the Government of Iraq, and I remember well the last time, or should I say the first time, because there have probably been some other military actions against Iraq in the meantime, but back in 1990 when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, and so began our special relationship with the people of Kuwait, let us note that after hundreds of thousands of Americans have spent time in the Persian Gulf and after our Nation has put its entire prestige on the line that we cannot permit Saddam Hussein now to reverse what we won back in 1990 and 1991. If we do that, if we permit Saddam Hussein to, for example, conduct a successful lightening strike against Kuwait, against the people of Kuwait, or if we permit Saddam Hussein to blatantly stockpile weapons of mass destruction, the United States will lose any ability to influence events anywhere in the world. No petty tyrant or no people seeking freedom or no opponent or adversary or friend will trust our word again, because even Saddam Hussein has made a laughing stock of the United States of America. So, first and foremost, let us recognize there is a special relationship with the people of Kuwait that for the rest of our lives we will have, because if that war is reversed, America will lose its ability to determine events around the world, and Americans, when we lose this power as the leading power of the world, we will pay a dear price. But I hope, if military action does take place, that we do not make the mistake that we made last time. Hundreds of thousands of people, or upwards to 200,000 Kuwaitis were killed during the last war. Saddam Hussein managed to escape. And I remember during the planning phases of the last war I said to Dick Cheney and Colin Powell personally that they would have my support because American troops were in harm's way, and I would support them in that effort to protect the lives of Americans and to make sure it was a successful mission. But as I told them at that time, when this is over, make sure Saddam Hussein is dead. And I hope that if have to take further military actions against the people of Iraq that we do not waste our weaponry on ordinary citizens, on people who probably like the United States of America; and I hope that our goal is not simply containing Saddam Hussein or punishing him. Our goal should be the overthrow and elimination, one way or the other, of Saddam Hussein. First and foremost, if we are willing to commit our military to that part of the world, we should at least be able to declare this man a war criminal. After all, he was an environmental criminal, an eco-criminal, for what he did to the environment, the destruction of the oil wells and the seas and the other pollution that he caused back then, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of lives that he caused to die, the people he caused to die because of his aggression. And if he commits other acts of aggression and does not go along with the agreement, we should make sure that we declare him a war criminal and that the goal of our action is not punishing the Iraqi people, but working with the Iraqi people in order to help them establish a government that is responsive to their will. Who knows if it would be an absolute democracy or not, but if the people of Iraq who live under the oppression of Saddam Hussein had the ability to direct their own government, there would be no problem because they would not risk the lives of hundreds of thousands of their family in order to make a point of the way a dictator, the way a brutal egotistical dictator like Saddam Hussein does. As I say, we are tied to the people of Kuwait because the people of Kuwait now, having saved them once, if we permit them again to be taken over by this tyrant, not only will be lose those people, but we will lose our ability to maintain peace throughout the world, a dreadful price that we cannot afford to pay. So I wish the President of the United States guidance from God and support from the United States Congress, as much as this Congressman can do to make sure that we are doing the right thing, only this time I would hope the President of the United States, unlike George Bush, does the job right and completes the job before bringing our troops home. And I would hope that hundreds of thousands of troops do not need to be sent there, but instead, this could be handled in a better way than that perhaps.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, on January 15 of this year, a highly respected defense think-tank, the Center for Security Policy, held a high-level roundtable focusing on the need for American space dominance to promote U.S. national security in the next millennium. Key speakers included former Defense Secretaries Caspar Weinberger and James Schlesinger, who were joined by five retired four-star flag officers and a range of senior military officials and civilian analysts. There was a general consensus at the conference that President Clinton's recent line-item veto of three Congressionally-sponsored programs to create advanced space technology for U.S. national security--the KEASAT, Clementine 2, and military spaceplane--was misguided, inappropriate, and unacceptable because it put U.S. national security at unnecessary risk. The roundtable dealt with a range of issues related to space and built its theme around the growing importance that space plays in ensuring U.S. national security. Secretary Weinberger began the discussion by placing space in the broader context of U.S. national security when he noted, ``since the first ballistic missile rose from the pads, space has had military uses by ourselves, by others, and by those friendly to us and those not friendly to us.'' In reference to the Clinton administration's recent vetoes, the Secretary went on to argue, ``we cannot put the country at risk by deliberate attempts to block us from the use of space or to block any attempts to develop systems that could be helpful to use in space.'' General Edward ``Shy'' Meyer, who served as Army Chief of Staff under President Carter noted that our force structure depends on space for key advantages. Admiral Wesley McDonald, former Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic, stated, ``I can't impress you enough as to how dependent on use of space the Navy is.'' Retired Air Force General Mike Loh, who led the Air Combat Command, stressed how ``very dependent they [the military services] have become on space assets. It is almost frightening when you then turn around and look at how little we have allowed for the protection and the space superiority of those assets. As I look back over the last couple of years, we have become more and more dependent on [space] and we want to become dependent on it because, for those functions, space is a more efficient medium than the way we did it before. It is less costly in the long run, and it is better. I am all for it, provided we can maintain space superiority.'' In addition, conferees considered matters of procurement and policy, discussing the increasing pace of change in the commercial space markets and the impact that the proliferation of civilian space technologies will have on U.S. national security. I want to commend the Center for holding the roundtable and encourage my colleagues to review the summary of the Roundtable's proceedings available from the Center for Security Policy at 1250 24th Street, NW, Suite 350, Washington, DC 20037 and on the Center's home page, ``www.security-policy.org.''

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We, of course, worked together in opposing the American military commitment in Bosnia. But you do believe that America cannot just stand aside and let Saddam Hussein develop stockpiles of weapons, and we need to act in some way because it might then precipitate some type of military action that he might take on Kuwait.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not know where the gentleman got his information that Saddam Hussein was an ally; a close ally, the gentleman says, of the United States. I am sorry that I was in the White House at the time. Saddam Hussein was never a close ally. He was not an enemy, but to label him a close ally is not only misreading history, it is naivete beyond anything. We supplied some support for the Iraqis and sometimes we gave support for the Iranians during that war because during that time there was a strategy of keeping that war going in order to prevent those two powers from themselves individually dominating the region. Having them attack each other was a good strategy at that time, but far from being an Iraqi ally. Saddam Hussein is obviously someone that right now, after we have already gone through this, our futures are linked. If Saddam Hussein ends up negating the results of the last war, who will then listen to us anywhere in the world? I pose that question to both of my colleagues. If he is able to have a lightning strike against Kuwait or stockpile these nuclear weapons, who will believe the United States again after we have made this commitment?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I am certainly not here to oppose any particular plan of legislation; I am here specifically to make sure that people understand that this is a serious issue and that it cannot be negated simply by a misreading of history that Saddam was our friend back in the 1980s or some other type of wishful thinking about the nature of the strategic politics in the world that we have to play.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, when the integrity of our election process is in question, it is certainly something that should be investigated when we have made it more easy for illegal aliens to register to vote with this motor voter program that was put in place several years ago. Of course, we want to make sure that the people who are voting in elections are legally entitled to vote; otherwise we are diminishing the rights of our own people. This is a case that should have been investigated. Something smelled about that election from day one. Hermandad has received a great number, a great amount of Federal funding. Hermandad, an organization that was deeply involved in Loretta Sanchez's campaign, received Federal funds, and they ended up registering to vote people who are not entitled to vote. Sixty percent of the people in that, who are registered by that organization, were not legal voters. This is something that deserved to be looked into, and I think that we have not proven or disproven exactly who won or did not win that election in the 46th.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I have a few thoughts on black history that I thought that I would present tonight, and I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say I am here today to recognize a part of black history that sometimes people forget about, and that is that African Americans, as we all know, African Americans have played a tremendous role in ensuring American prosperity since the founding of our country. But all too long and for all too often, people are just focusing on the labor that was provided by African Americans who began as slaves and then became part of our labor force. It is well-known that they have contributed much, and it is also well-known that in recent years African Americans have become increasingly owners of small businesses and mom and pop shops, all the way to Fortune 500 corporations. But what is less well-known is a subject dear to my heart, and that is that black Americans have made and continue to make a vital contribution to the technological edge that America has and have made tremendous contributions to America's technological success, from the earliest days of our republic. Black Americans have, over the years, benefited from our country's strong patent system, and we have the strongest patent protection of any Nation in the world, but through the invention of black Americans, utilizing this right, by the way, at times their other rights were being totally trampled upon, but their rights for patent protection were being protected. Because of this, they have made tremendous contributions to our country, that sometimes are totally overlooked, and these contributions have added greatly to our way of life, to the quality of life of Americans. I have a list here, quite a few African American inventors that have done things. How many people know that Elijah McCoy, a black American in 1872, had over 57 patents on engines and machinery that were part of the whole steam engine and the basis for the settling of the West and the basis for our whole industrialization of our country? Those steam engines and the parts he invented were so important that when people went back at the turn of the century to ask for parts to an engine, they would say, ``Now, is this the real McCoy?'' That is where that came from. The real McCoy was a black American who was an inventor who played such an important part in the development of the steam engine. Lewis Howard Latimer in 1881 took Thomas Edison's light bulb, and we all know Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, but it was not practical until Howard Latimer, a black American, took that and invented a long-lasting carbon filament that replaced this original bamboo filament that Edison had been working with. How many of our fellow Americans understand that and appreciate these types of contributions?

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, continuing on with regard to the contributions made to America by black inventors, Granville T. Woods developed over 20 patents for engineering the railroad industry, including batteries, I might add, electric brakes and telephone transmitters. January Ernst Matzelinger in 1889 invented an automatic shoe machine. This was part of a process of putting together shoes. Before his invention, shoes cost three or four times as much. This is something Americans forget. Back before this Matzelinger, a black American, invented this process, shoes were so expensive that most Americans did not even own a pair of shoes, or, if they did, they owned one pair of shoes in their entire life. We all know about George Washington Carver. He, of course, is well- known to school children throughout the United States for his great scientific integrity and the work he did, especially in the investigation of food processing and peanuts and the paint industry. We know he made enormous contributions. But there are many, many more black Americans besides George Washington Carver who deserve this credit. For example, more closely to home, James West joined Bell Labs in the late 1950's and was responsible for over 100 patents on microphones and other electronic devices. Dr. Patricia Bath in the 1990's, and here she is one of the big supporters, I might add now, and has been making the rounds in Congress supporting a strong patent system, she is an African-American female physician who earned a patent for a medical device she developed for a technique of removing cataracts from people's eyes. So all of these inventors benefited from the wisdom of our Founding Fathers when they put in our government and in our Constitution laws protecting people's creativity and patent rights. But they also, these individuals, in return, using those rights that were guaranteed them, made enormous contributions to the well-being of the United States of America. A great statesman and, of course, President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, of course, was probably the most well-respected among the African-American community because he did do so much to free the slaves, brought that issue of the stain of our Nation to our people, and we find that after our Civil War were able to remove that stain. Abraham Lincoln was one of the greatest supporters of America's patent system. He himself had a patent for floating boats that had gone up on sandbars, and he said, and I quote, ``The patent system added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius,'' and not only did he give land away to people who wanted to settle the West and free the slaves, but he was a strong believer in patent rights. Now recently, we have seen 26 Noble Laureates join us who are trying to protect the patent rights from changes they are trying to make now join us, and what is interesting, one of the people who played such an important part in the organization of those Noble Laureates and played such an important part in strengthening and keeping strong America's patent system is a black professor named James Chandler, who is the president of the National Intellectual Property Law Institute right here in Washington, D.C., and he has been a champion of this issue because he realizes that it is technological progress that does permit the quality of life of all people to rise, and that black Americans who have been left out in so many cases of the economic well-being of our country, need America to continue to be the leading world economic and technological power. When Professor Chandler speaks, I can tell my colleagues he is one of the great spokesmen for American technology today. So as we honor the African-American community in talking about African-American history and black history and honor people such as Lincoln, let us not forget the black inventors who I think have made such an enormous contribution to our well-being and never been given the proper credit that they are due because often we are focusing on other elements and maybe more political elements of what caused this to change or that to change, but in this case the genius of black America has done so much for the American people that it deserves recognition when we talk about black history. So I am very, very proud to be a part of this honoring black history, and I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that since the introduction of the American Champion ``Super Scout'' spotter aircraft in antipoaching operations in Kruger National Park, South Africa, in September, 1996 by the non-profit United States-based Wilderness Conservancy, not one rhinoceros or elephant has been killed by poachers there. That is a success story that was made possible by a grant to the Wilderness Conservancy from the Forestry Department of the government of the Republic of China on Taiwan. In the past, some conservation groups have criticized the Republic of China's government for what they believed was an insufficient effort to stop the illicit importation of ivory, rhino horn and other wild animal parts into Taiwan. In recent years, however, the ROC government has adopted ever-stronger laws to curb that illicit traffic, has strictly enforced them and has imposed stiff penalties on violators. Beliefs in folk medicine techniques that employed wild animal parts took root over many centuries, and it has not been an easy task for the ROC government to change those beliefs (held especially by older persons). Nevertheless, the ROC has undertaken a concerted effort to end the illicit trade in animal parts in light of both human population growth and the drastic reduction of the wildlife populations upon which the traditional remedies were based. Today, the government of the Republic of China is engaged in a comprehensive environmental education program in its schools to make all of its young people aware of the need to conserve wildlife. The ROC has done more. They have made an additional grant to the Wilderness Conservancy for the purchase of another aircraft, a refurbished Cessna 206. It will undertake a multi-purpose role in southern Africa this year. It will support the spotter aircraft by flying anti-poaching teams to airstrips ahead of fleeing poachers, in order to intercept them before they can reach safe havens. The new aircraft also will resupply game-scout teams deep in the bush, thus permitting longer patrols over larger areas. It will carry scientists of the Wildlife Breeding Research Center and their portable cryogenic laboratory into the field to facilitate Assisted Reproduction Technology (embryo transfer and in-vitro fertilization) and the creation of a Genome Resource Bank (the collection, processing, storage and use of gametes and other biological material from rare and endangered wildlife species). Finally, the aircraft will fill a humanitarian role by transporting volunteer doctors, dentists and nurses to remote villages to administer to those in need. In addition to the Republic of China's grant to purchase the aircraft, the Wilderness Conservancy has received a grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, under the African Elephant Conservation Act of 1988, to provide hand-held aircraft radios, hand-held Garmin GPS units and portable repeater stations to assist the anti-poaching effort. These will be in place this year and will make radio communication between pilots and ground teams possible, greatly enhancing the poacher-interception effort. Saving the rhinoceros and elephant from extinction is dangerous work and requires great dedication by those who do it. These generous grants from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Republic of China will help greatly toward the goal of ending the poaching of large wild animals. In the process, there is a unique four-way cooperative effort between the people of Taiwan, a conservation-minded American organization (with expert knowledge of aviation and anti-poaching), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the men and women on the anti- poaching front lines in South Africa.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to join my colleagues in welcoming Representative Stephen Chen to Washington. Prior to his present assignment, he was a deputy secretary-general in the office of the President, Taiwan. Representative Chen joined the Republic of China's foreign service early in his career and has been a career diplomat, having served in various Republic of China's embassies and consulates throughout the world. Representative Chen brings to his Washington post vast experiences and super knowledge of foreign policy issues affecting the Republic of China such as Taiwan's eventual reunification with the People's Republic and Taiwan's relations with the United States and Japan. I wish Stephen Chen a pleasant tour of duty in Washington. These are trying times for the Republic of China's diplomats. But with patience and wisdom exercised by Taiwan's President Lee Teng-hui and Foreign Minister Jason Hu, I am confident that Taiwan will continue to be respected and recognized worldwide as a free vibrant democracy, deserving admiration from all freedom-loving people everywhere.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown) for leading this discussion and this tribute to Sonny Bono. Obviously, the House lost a star over the break; and I am not referring to Sonny Bono being the star of the entertainment industry. He was a star around here. A star is, what, something in the sky that shines brightly; and Sonny always shined brightly. His eyes sparkled, and he had a smile that was an uplifting smile. Whenever one felt down or was engaged in a controversy or got a little bit too involved and was a little bit captured by the moment and did not see the big picture, Sonny would always bring us down to earth and let us realize that, yes, what we are doing is important but not to be so enrapt by it that we lost sight of the values and the things that we really believe in. Sonny was a star also in the entertainment industry and, as such, when he came here he became a champion of the rights of song writers and other people and for intellectual property issues, which is an issue that is close to my heart. Sonny went out, and he knew this area very well. He knew about song writers and writers and other creative people in our society and made that a point, to be their champion, because that was his area of expertise. But, Mr. Speaker, his involvement and his activity went well beyond that area. Sonny was a patriot. Sonny ran for office because he wanted to make things better. He was someone from the entertainment industry and at times people would underestimate Sonny for that reason. It was easy for me not to underestimate Sonny Bono, especially with the excuse of saying he is just a former rock and roll star or an actor, because I had already worked for someone who had been underestimated his entire political career by people who said, ``Do not worry about him; he is just a former actor.'' But just like Ronald Reagan, Sonny Bono, yes, was a former actor, but he was a patriot who had a gut instinct about the people, people as individuals and people as the general public. Sonny, perhaps one of the reasons he had this gut instinct, the same way Ronald Reagan had this gut instinct, was that he had not been in politics all of his life and he had been in contact with large numbers of people outside of the political context for a number of years. In that, he developed a relationship with people and knew them and appreciated them. So Sonny contributed a lot during his short time period here. He contributed a great deal to the spirit of this body, and we will miss him. And, as has been expressed here today, I will personally miss him. Sonny was a man I respected deeply because he just knew people. He understood people. He understood the situations, and he was trying to do what he could for his country. What more can people ask than that? So, with that, I believe in God and I believe in the hereafter and I believe Sonny, just like as has been expressed today, he is with us today and his spirit will be in this hall today with those people who serve in Congress. Mr. Speaker, he shines brightly now, a star in the heavens overlooking the work that this body does to try to make this a better country to serve our people in the best way we can.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Mr. Speaker, ASEAN has proven a great example for developing countries around the world. It was not that long ago, in fact 30 years ago, when these same countries which we laud today for their 30th anniversary were the ultimate in developing countries. They were no different than the developing countries in Africa and in Latin America and elsewhere. Yet these countries, through a strong support for the economic rights of their people, at the very least the economic rights of their people, have shown that free enterprise and a respect for property rights will indeed bring a fountain of wealth and well-being for the people of the societies that so respect those rights. ASEAN as well, I might add, has been a force for democracy, although the Members of ASEAN, all of the Members are not, of course, totally democratic. But let us take a look at the fact that the Philippines today has evolved from a country that was in a dictatorship for a number of decades, and now has a strong and vibrant economic situation where they are growing at 5 and 6 percent a year, as well as a strong democracy, along with Thailand whose democracy has been put to the maximum stress, but yet has maintained a slow but, yes, steady pace toward a more open and democratic society. These two countries serve as an example for all of Southeast Asia and, yes, serve as an example for all the countries in the developing world. Today, many countries in ASEAN, especially Thailand, are going through, but as well as the other countries of ASEAN, are going through an economic crisis, a crisis dealing with their money system. They are learning a lot through this crisis. We would like this amendment today, our expression of good will toward the countries of ASEAN and congratulations, comes at a unique moment for the United States to let these countries know that we consider them our friends, we consider them our partners, we consider them to be people who in the future will have even stronger and closer ties to the United States of America. So I rise in strong support and ask my colleagues to join me in support of this proposal and this amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring everyone's attention to a provision in this pending bill which will eventually phase out section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 245(i), which is a loophole for the sole benefit of illegal aliens. For the 3 years this provision has existed, 245(i) has allowed anyone in the world to come to the United States illegally, find a sponsor, and then pay the Immigration and Naturalization Service a $1,000 fee to have their illegal status changed to legal. Sixty-two percent, 62 percent, of those who benefited from 245(i) came to the United States by sneaking across our borders. The rest came here on temporary visas and overstayed them. With 245 intact, we have been talking about enforcement of our laws out of one side of our mouth and, with the other side, encouraging people to break our laws. This is what George Orwell called doublespeak in his classic novel ``1984.'' Although I am pleased that the Commerce-Justice-State conference has drafted a bill that will end 245(i) in the future, I still have concerns about the agreement that the conferees have come up with. The new compromise still allows all those who have been living in the United States illegally or those around the world who want to come to the United States illegally to pay $1,000 to become legal. All they have to do is find a sponsor to petition the INS within 60 days of the time this bill is signed into law. I would like to remind my colleagues that there are currently 5 million illegal aliens living in the United States. News of the 60-day grace period has already sent them the message that they must quickly find a sponsor, go to the nearest INS office, and file a petition that puts them on the 245 illegal alien amnesty list. Just last week, crowds of illegal aliens in southern California stood in line for hours at packed INS offices because they heard on television that, for a limited period of time, they can become legal permanent residents. In addition to illegal aliens who are already here, this grace period sends a message to prospective illegal aliens around the world that the U.S. borders are wide open for the next couple of months. All that is required is a sponsor and $1,000. Mr. Speaker, there is also a provision in this conference agreement which allows anyone to come here on a temporary visa and overstay it for up to 6 months. Even after violating the terms of their visa, these people will become permanent legal residents without having to return to their countries and go through the proper process. We are once again compromising the integrity of our immigration process for those who have broken our laws. These provisions do not go far enough with this compromise to uphold the integrity of the Illegal Immigration Reform Act that we passed last year. Let us make sure this is the last time that we have to compromise on this measure. Let us make sure we stick to our guns, because if we ever, ever compromise again on this issue of illegal aliens coming in here and then getting their status adjusted, no immigrant will ever trust our word again. We will have floods of illegal immigrants into our country.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

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