Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute, just to summarize what this is all about. I think if someone was paying attention to the last several resolutions that have come to the floor, one will note that there is a relationship between them, and that is, since the end of the cold war and during the cold war, our country had its divisions and they reflected themselves within the political battles that were going on throughout our country during the elections, various elections that took place. But since the end of the cold war, there has been a unanimity of opinion in the United States and a coming together of both conservatives and liberals, of Republican and Democrat, behind those traditional values that our Founding Fathers wanted to be the basis of our decisionmaking. We are supposed to be on the side of the good guys. I mean, it is as simple as that. We should be on the side of the good guys. We should be on the side of the oppressed and those people who want more freedom and democracy and to treat people honestly and decently, and against the tyrants and the thugs of this world. Mr. Speaker, this resolution goes to the heart of that. Whether it is Saddam Hussein or the dictatorship in Vietnam, we are on the side of democracy and human rights. I would ask my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], and thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], who still remains my hero. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], a hero of the Vietnam War and a hero of mine, I might add.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 231) urging the President to make clear to the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam the commitment of the American people in support of democracy and religious and economic freedom for the people of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, as amended.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, this past Tuesday, on our Veterans Day, Vietnamese Communist Party officials in Hanoi confirmed that in the southern province of Dong Nai, 40 miles from Saigon, several thousand people have been involved with clashes, in clashes, with police. Hundreds of women and children have been demonstrating for freedom and human rights outside of government offices, despite a heavily armed police presence in the area. By all accounts, including a report by the Human Rights Watch organization, the clashes started when the Communist Government intensified repression against the Catholic Church and the popular bishop of the Xuan Loc Diocese. In addition, land owned by the church has been confiscated and sold by corrupt Communist Party officials. Demonstrations against the corrupt Communist regime have also been occurring in other areas of the country. In north Vietnam, beginning in May of this year, ongoing demonstrations in the Thai Binh Province and a number of other historic Communist Party strongholds show growing public dissatisfaction with the rampant corruption of that country and the lack of freedom of the Vietnamese people. Recently, new directives and proclamations by the Communist Politburo have tightened State control of all other forms of media and have restricted access to foreign journalists and their translators. The Human Rights Watch/Asia report states, while the Vietnamese Government pursues an open door in terms of their economic policy and continues to woo foreign investments, domestically it is strengthening Communist Party control, repressing dissent, and stifling any development of a civil society. This resolution urges the President to ``make clear to the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam the commitment of the American people in support of democracy and religious and economic freedom for the people of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.'' This resolution calls attention to the proliferation of human rights violations and new policies by the Communist regime that prohibit the 70 million people of Vietnam from achieving a democratic government through free and fair elections. It expresses the strong support of the House of Representatives in support of the rights of all Vietnamese, as well as for the release of all religious and political prisoners. The resolution requests the release from detention of Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award recipients Dr. Win Dan Kway and Prof. Dwon Viet Hwat, as well as other senior religious leaders who have been imprisoned by the regime. My resolution also calls attention to the difficulties that American business people are experiencing in Vietnam, caused by epidemic corruption, and that is exactly what we must expect in a one-party State, as well as the intransigent bureaucracy and the absence of enforceable business law. Of course they are going to have corruption in that situation. It is especially important at a time when Vietnamese leaders are seeking expanded trade relations with the United States that the President and the Congress make clear that, just as our stock market made a strong rebound in recent days from that downturn we experienced, that the foundation of a strong, resilient economy is an open and democratic society. It was not too long ago, Mr. Speaker, that people all over Asia were saying the next big jump in productivity, the next tiger in Southeast Asia, is going to be Vietnam. Now when you go to Southeast Asia and throughout the world and you ask people about Vietnam, they say it is never going to work, it never materialized, and it was a big nothing. Why is this? Why that happened is because there is a relationship, I repeat again there is a relationship, between freedom and peace and between freedom, peace and prosperity. In Vietnam, there was no freedom and there is no freedom. Thus, the prosperity that is desired by the people, and perhaps even by the Communist Party bosses themselves, is unobtainable. They cannot obtain prosperity as long as there is a lack of freedom, because without freedom of the press or an opposition party, corruption will run rampant. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce].

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. ROHRABACHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.Res. 231.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Short of a declaration of war, the gentleman does not think the United States Government should do anything about tyranny?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The gentleman is suggesting, then, that this body should not have condemned Adolf Hitler until he actually attacked the United States, is that what he would suggest? Is that his foreign policy?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. First, would the gentleman suggest that there is not a relationship between freedom and peace?

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Porter amendment to indict Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity and war crimes as well. I voted for the gulf war, and I did so reluctantly but I knew that our national well-being and our national security were at stake. I then cheered the troops when they came home victorious, what seemed to be one of the greatest and most glorious victories in our country's history. Yet the job was not finished. If President Bush has anything to regret, it should be the fact that he sent our troops by the hundreds of thousands to the Persian Gulf and we did not finish the job when our people were there. It is clear that the enemy of the United States was not the people of Iraq. The Porter amendment today focuses on the real enemy of not only the United States but people who believe in democratic rights and human rights, Saddam Hussein and his clique of thugs that control Iraq. During the gulf war we killed hundreds of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of young men, and perhaps some women and children as well, who were not enemies of the United States. Many of those people had just been drafted into the army by a tyrant named Saddam Hussein. This amendment goes straight to the heart of the issue. Saddam Hussein is our enemy. We should indict this man. He should be brought to trial like any other war criminal, whether it was Adolf Hitler or some of the Serbian gangsters who have committed genocide more recently in Bosnia. Again, this underscores and what has happened underscores that there is a relationship between peace and freedom and prosperity. If we go for short-term peace and we try to bring our troops home too soon or we cut deals with tyrants, it will bring us neither peace nor freedom. We cannot compromise the value of freedom because in the end it will bring us to a situation where our security is under attack. Let us not forget, as well, that over 600 Kuwaiti POW's have yet to be accounted for. There are thousands upon thousands of Kuwaiti families who are missing a member of their family who have never been accounted for, who were killed or taken away by the Iraqis when they invaded that country and occupied it for that year. That is the equivalent of millions of Americans who would have a family member lost and unaccounted for. There must be an accounting of the Kuwaiti prisoners of war. There must be an accounting of Saddam Hussein for all of his crimes. Let us remember that when the Soviet Union began to evolve into what is now a democratic Russia or continues to struggle to try to be a democratic Russia, the chances for peace went up. A demand for freedom in Iraq and an elimination of this tyrant, Saddam Hussein, will increase the chances for peace in that entire region and secure the United States of America as well. I strongly support the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] to bring Saddam Hussein to task.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, more than a million Afghans died and 5 million became refugees during the battle that was a turning point in the Cold War. They brought down the Soviet empire. Their courage and sacrifice reaped a harvest of peace and plenty for the Western world. However, in Afghanistan, the war never ended. The social and political fabric of that ancient culture remains in chaos. People today in Afghanistan are dying from both violence and starvation. House Concurrent Resolution 156 introduced by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] urges the President to, No. 1, monitor and condemn ongoing violations of human rights caused by the fanatical Taliban movement who controls about two-thirds of the country as well as abuses by the other factions and other militias. It especially calls attention to the brutal and systematic discrimination that the Taliban have imposed on women and children in Afghanistan. In addition, this bill requests that the President should call upon the government of Pakistan to suspend military and political support of the Taliban and to use its influence with the Taliban to end the abuses that we have been describing tonight. It urges the President to support international efforts intended to create a peaceful resolution to the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan that would ultimately include free and fair elections and the return of human and civil rights for all the people of Afghanistan. Stability in Afghanistan is the key to peace and prosperity in Central Asia. The extremists of the Taliban movement are responsible for the ongoing suffering of the Afghan people, and they pose a great threat of fundamentalist violence in neighboring countries, especially in Pakistan, and their extremism permits Iran to have a greater role in the region. The Taliban currently provides a haven for terrorists such as Ben Ladin of Saudi Arabia, and the training of terrorist organizations now operating in Egypt, the Balkans and the Philippines. According to both the United Nations and the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, they have turned Afghanistan into the world's leading opium producer. The Taliban's war effort is funded by opium profits. According to the United States and international sources, almost all the opium production and processing being conducted in Afghanistan is in the provinces controlled by the Taliban, especially near their stronghold in Kandahar. According to the United Nations Drug Control Program, in 1997, Afghanistan produced a record 3,000 tons of opium. That is a 25 percent increase over the 1996 production. In 1996, the Taliban imposed 10 percent tax on all opium produced in Afghanistan which, according to experts of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency and the CIA, amounts to at least $100 million. That is drug money that they are making which comes straight from the drug producers to the pockets of the Taliban. During the last 10 years, I have had extensive discussions with all factions of Afghanistan as well as ordinary Afghan citizens. Although not spelled out in this legislation before us, I believe it is time for this administration to support recent resolutions by Afghans of all ethnic groups that emphasize that the key to ending the conflict in Afghanistan is the return of King Zahir Shah. As the symbolic head of an interim government, Zahir Shah could remake civil government, form a coalition government of national unity which would represent all factions. This reconciliation government would be responsible to prepare national democratic elections in which the people of Afghanistan would choose their own leaders and democracy. I can assure my colleagues tonight the people of Afghanistan are not fanatics, but they are devout in their religious faith. Most Muslims are embarrassed by the Taliban. But if we would help the true believers in Islam in Afghanistan regain a democratic government, it would lead to peace and it would lead to a restoration of human rights. King Zahir Shah offers that alternative. Although it is not in this resolution, we hope that the President would follow through and do what he can to bring peace and democracy, which are synonymous in Afghanistan. House Concurrent resolution 156 urges the President to support the internal Afghan peace process. It is especially timely, as Secretary of State Madeleine Albright will be departing for South Asia next week, that she express a new administration policy that would compel all neighboring countries involved in supporting the Taliban to immediately stop. Mr. Speaker, we owe a tremendous debt to the people of Afghanistan. It was not our mighty armies in Europe that stopped the Soviet empire from expanding. It was not our missiles, it was not the great expenditure of defense. Yes, they were necessary at the time in order to deter war with the Soviet empire. But it was a group of Muslims on the plains of Afghanistan that courageously stood up and said, you will not impose your atheistic system on us, you will not dominate our country, and with great courage and dying in the hundreds of thousands stood firm against Soviet aggression and broke the will of the Soviet bosses to conquer the world. We owe a great deal to these heroic people. It is sad and tragic that fanatics have taken over their country. It is time for the United States to reach out and do what we can to promote democracy and human rights in Afghanistan. We owe it to them not to forget them. If we do, if we forget the chaos that continues and the bloodshed and we refuse to pay our debt to the people of Afghanistan, in the end it will come back and hurt us. There will be no stability in Central Asia as long as the chaos and killing continues in Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman of the Committee on International Relations and someone who has given us great inspiration to stand up for the higher ideals that America stands for. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Finally in closing, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we have this resolution tonight, and I would hope that those governments in Central Asia and around Afghanistan focus on what we are trying to do in the United States tonight. Tonight we are taking the first steps towards reinvolving ourselves in a part of the world that the United States walked away from 10 years ago. When the Soviet Union was finally defeated in Afghanistan and the last Soviet tanks went across the bridge back into what was then the Soviet Union, the United States breathed a sigh of relief, and we believed that the fighting there would be over very quickly and shortly. Instead, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, the war in Afghanistan which brought peace and prosperity to the Western world, continues in Afghanistan. Today we spend $100 billion a year less on defense because these scraggly, ill-equipped, brave and courageous men in Afghanistan stood up to Soviet tanks and air power, and because they did, the Soviet role to keep control of what they held in the Soviet empire and to expand that empire was broken. Yes, today we are able to spend those hundreds of billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars that we are not spending on defense, we are able to bring that out of our deficit spending. We are able to spend that on education, we are able to spend that on making our own lives, an infrastructure, making the lives of our country better so that our children live better lives. But what has happened in Afghanistan during that time period as we have enjoyed this era of goodwill in the United States? What has happened there, as the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] has suggested, a horrible darkness of oppression has come down on half of their population. Women in Afghanistan are oppressed and treated just as, and I hate to use this example, but the fact is the Taliban are to the women of Afghanistan and the women of the world what Hitler was to the Jews of the world in the 1930's. The Taliban and their philosophy would rally people to repress women and children in their society. We heard examples of that tonight. What else is happening in Afghanistan? Every day a child, if not many children, are blown to bits, their legs are blown off because of landmines that are planted by the millions, and many of those landmines came from the United States of America. Many of them were given by us to the various factions during the war to defeat the Russians. But yet those children are still being blown apart, and chaos still rules the day. In Afghanistan the Taliban militias still fight northern power groups that do not agree with their brand of Islam and refuse to be dominated by a Pushtu versus a Tajik, and the killing goes on and on. It goes on for one reason, because we in the United States, the new superpower that supposedly is going to be the force for power and good in this world, have totally walked away from these people to whom we owe so much, people who permitted us to be spending tens of billions of dollars on our education rather than on defense, people who helped bring down the Soviet empire, thus making it no longer necessary for us to spend money on missiles so we could spend it instead on health care and education and infrastructure and bringing down our level of deficit spending. This resolution tonight underscores that America will no longer close our eyes, that this Congress is no longer closing its eyes to the repression of women and children in Afghanistan, the killing and the maiming of children in Afghanistan, the ongoing chaos. No. 1, that is the moral position to take, and that is what this resolution says; but, No. 2, let us remember the practical end of it. And I found a funny thing in my years in public service: When we do something, when we ignore the moral course of action, we also are going down a road of something that is not practical. There is a relationship between a practical policy and a moral policy. If we walk away from these people and let them fend for themselves with this brutality and tyranny, with maiming of their children and the repression of their women, what will happen? The chaos will continue in Afghanistan, and I can assure all of my friends here today, all of my friends here today, that Central Asia, which should become an intricate part of the economic system of the world will eventually be engulfed in that same chaos. Pakistan, who has been a pillar, a pillar of stability in South Asia, our friend will go under, because if we permit the fanaticism of the Taliban to go on, it will bring down Pakistan just as billions of dollars of drug money going into the hands of narcoterrorists in Afghanistan, in a chaotic Afghanistan, will eventually wreak havoc in the United States. It has already caused the lives of American servicemen and people to be lost. A terrorist trained in Afghanistan helped blow up a building which housed our military people in Saudi Arabia. There was an assassination attempt on the Pope. They found out that the terrorist who was going to assassinate the Pope was trained in Afghanistan. We cannot let this go on, because not only is it immoral to let this go on, but practically speaking, if we do it, it will come back and hurt us. There are many ways that we can try to reach peace. Having been involved in this process, I believe King Zahir Shah, the king in exile, who is a moderate leader of his people, a moderate Muslim leader, a devout Muslim, but not a fanatic, will bring back sanity to his country. Zahir Shah has pledged to his people to restore civil government, rebuild the infrastructure and create the basis for democratic elections. And in democratic elections I believe the courage and the honor of the Afghan people will come out over the fanaticism of the Taliban. I have no doubt about that. And I would like to close with a short story. Many people in this body do not know right after I was elected what I did. Many of my friends and colleagues after they got elected the very first time took off and went golfing or went swimming or went hiking and just got away from it all because the first election is usually the hardest election for this body. I made a pledge to my friends in Afghanistan, because I worked with them when I worked in the White House, that when I left, when I left the White House, if I had a chance and if the battle in Afghanistan was still going on, that I would join them in their struggle. So I had 2 months between the time that I was elected and the time that I would be sworn in as a Congressman, and I knew that that was the only time that I would be free again like that for the rest of my life, or at least the rest of my time when I would be elected in Congress. So I disappeared, and I ended up with a mujahedin unit in Afghanistan fighting in the battle of Jalalabad, which was then under siege. And as I hiked toward this battle, which was one of the most strenuous hikes, I might add, that I have ever made in my entire life, and it was just beyond any endurance that I could ever do today, but a young Afghan boy, it was a full moon, and the artillery shells were exploding in the distance and lighting up the skies, and it was about 15 mujahedin with me armed with AK-47s and RPGs, just lightly armed, and a young boy who was probably 17 years old ran up besides me, AK-47 slung over his shoulder, and said, ``You come from America.'' And I said, ``Yes.'' He said, ``You are in politics in America.'' And I said, ``Yes, I am.'' He said, ``Are you a donkey or an elephant?'' Here is a young man, 17 years old, fighting for his country, fighting for our country, fighting for the people of the West, fighting for his religion, a brave and courageous young man, and I said ``What do you want to do when this is all over?'' He says ``I want to build things. I would like to be an architect.'' I do not know if that young man survived the battle. I do not know if he did or not. But I know if he is given his chance, he will rebuild his country. I know he is a brave and courageous young person who believed so much in the United States that he knew the symbols of our political structure. He wanted democracy for his own country, but when the Soviets were defeated, we walked away. Let us reestablish this commitment to the Afghan people, at the very least, to reach out and provide some leadership, to help them attain their own democracy, and, if they obtain democracy, perhaps through some support and guidance from their former king, it will be just as their struggle against communism, a benefit to us as well. So tonight that is what this resolution is all about. I would ask my colleagues to join me in taking this moral stand and repaying this sacred debt to the people of Afghanistan.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 156) expressing concern for the continued deterioration of human rights in Afghanistan and emphasizing the need for a peaceful political settlement in that country, as amended.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. ROHRABACHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this measure.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this amendment and Radio Free Asia. I would like to compliment the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce], my colleague and fellow Orange Countian, who has done so much over the years on this issue. He has made it real. Ed, congratulations for a job well done. There would not be a Radio Free Asia in the works and heading toward going on the air if it was not for the fact that the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce] put in so much time and effort on this commendable piece of legislation. During the cold war, we must remember that it was not our weapons and technology alone that won the day and ushered the world into a new era of peace and prosperity. And peace and prosperity is yet to prevail, but we have more opportunities for that than we have had during my entire lifetime. While the courage of the Armed Forces and their technological edge was certainly an imperative that we needed during the cold war, our commitment to Radio Free Europe, the Voice of America, and Radio Liberty kept alive the flame of freedom in the hearts of people who were oppressed from the Balkans to the Baltics. This flame was in the hearts of America's greatest allies. Our greatest allies in the cold war were those people who lived in Communist countries. And when they knew that we did not forget them, the flame lived on and eventually that conflagration brought down the Communist empire. With communism we were able to destroy the wills of the leadership by mustering support among the people they repressed. The Good Book tells us that the truth will make you free. Today, with the Soviet collapse, it is our turn now; we must turn to finish the job. We must show the people of Asia that we have as great a commitment to their freedom as we had to the people of Europe. Radio Free Asia will affirm to the good people throughout Asia that we are on their side, and they need this message when they can only see U.S. corporations exploiting their cheap labor, exploiting their environmental laws that permit corporations to come in and exploit the environment. When they see these, they need to be reaffirmed. The people of Asia need a confirmation that we are on their side, and that is what Radio Free Asia will do. The Ughyurs, for example, in East Turkmenistan, now live under the heel of the Communist dictatorship in Beijing. We need to broadcast to those and other people, whether they be in Burma, Vietnam, or elsewhere, we believe in freedom, and if we hold firm to our principles in the United States of America, those principles of our Founding Fathers, we will finish the job of ending the cold war, and indeed the world will have a new era of peace and prosperity and freedom.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We are moving forward.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman must understand, this is a study. What harm has it done to study this issue, so we can be prepared in case what we have already done is not adequate to meet the threats of the future?

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, it was not that long ago when we stood and watched as Red Chinese missiles were flung over the islands of Taiwan in an attempt to intimidate the people who lived there during their first free election. This was an attempt by a regime in Beijing, the last remnants of Communist dictatorships on this planet, to exert their power over the 20 million people of Taiwan, and we stood helplessly. No, we did not just stand helplessly, but we did send aircraft carriers. Is it more important for us to send aircraft carriers? Is that what we want as our only option, is to send offensive weapons into this troubled region, when the Chinese Communists decide to flex their muscles? It would be a travesty for us not to develop a system, a defensive system, with the Taiwanese, that we can exercise when the Communist Chinese are trying to exert their influence in an improper way. We have seen them do it before, and we had no other option but to send those aircraft carriers. Thousands of American lives were at stake in order to prevent aggression upon Taiwan. This resolution that we are discussing today will lead, hopefully, after a study, towards a relationship with Taiwan, where we will be permitted to defend Taiwan, something that is completely within the Taiwan Relations Act. This is an agreement we have had with the Chinese, with the Communist Chinese, over the years, that we could sell them defensive weapons. If we back away from this, if we back away from this alternative, what are the Chinese Communists going to say? Certainly they do not believe we are going to use offensive weapons against them should they move against Taiwan. No. They will say what we have heard here earlier before tonight, and that is, ``Well, you can talk about freedom, you can talk about being against oppression in China, just don't do anything about it.'' Well, here we have an option that we can do something about potential aggression that threatens the peace of the world and puts the democracies of the world on notice and on the line about what their response will be. We can prepare with the Taiwanese a defensive missile system that will protect them against this type of horrible aggression of high-technology missiles aimed at their population centers. We should not back away from this. If we do, we will have no other option but to send offensive weapons into that theater at a time of crisis and chaos. That is the very last thing that we want to do, is leave ourselves with that option, only the offensive option. So I would plead with my colleagues, let us do what is right. We can strike a blow for freedom, but not threaten anyone, because these are defensive systems we are talking about. We can provide ourselves the option that in a future crisis we will have something other than an offensive threat that actually threatens their people in a response to Communist Chinese aggressive acts. It makes all the sense in the world. Those of us who are trying to make sure that we have a more peaceful world, those of us who do not want to send a wrong message to Communist Chinese bosses in Beijing, we want to send them the message that we are strongly behind democracy in Taiwan and will not see them take it out by force, it is good to provide them a missile defense system.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 967, and commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] for the moral leadership that he is providing to the Members of the Committee on International Relations. During my tenure here in this body, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] has been a strong voice for morality in American foreign policy, and a man who I deeply respect. It is no surprise that he would be the author of this piece of legislation. When discussing this bill, we must understand that the Chinese Communist Government is the most egregious persecutor of religious believers in the world. In China there are more Christians, Buddhists, and Muslims as political prisoners, being held as political prisoners, being held in slave labor camps, than in all the other countries of the world combined. Recently the Chinese Government kidnaped a 6-year-old boy in Tibet. What was his crime? He was a 6-year-old boy that was a designated leader in the Dalai Lama's Buddhist faith. The Chinese Communists took this young boy and they tried to replace him with another young boy that is designated by the Communist Party. In other words, the Communist Party in China is trying to replace the Dalai Lama, take over their religion, oppress these people who have a different faith than this atheistic Communist ideology that controls their actions. This bill that we are discussing today will deny American tax dollars to pay for the visits of any member of the Communist Chinese Government involved in persecuting religious believers or leaders in State-created mock religious organizations, so that they cannot visit the United States at taxpayer expense unless the President of the United States certifies that it is in the national interests of the United States to do so. Symbolically, this bill sends a message to both President Clinton and the Chinese Communist leadership that religious freedom does matter to the people of the United States and to our elected representatives. It sends a message to the oppressed people of the world, and especially the repressed believers in China, that we care about freedom of religion and we care about them. This bill prevents certain officials from visiting here at taxpayers' expense. But we are not talking about certain officials, what we are talking about is the worst of all officials on this planet. We are talking about government officials who are engaged in torture and repression of people for their religious convictions. In committee it was argued, and we have just heard argued today on this floor, it is OK to condemn religious persecution, just do not do anything about it. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we do not want Communist jailers and torturers, people who have tortured people for their belief in God, to be visiting this country. At the very least, if we are going to do something about it, at the very least, we should set a standard and say that people who are engaged in this antihuman rights campaign in China and in other countries to oppress people's religious beliefs, that they should not visit our country at taxpayers' expense. It is absurd and nonsensical to argue that these brutal thugs will change their ways if they simply come to the United States and enjoy some chablis and California cuisine with the people here, and our liberalism will just sort of ooze over them and they will change. We do not want the Adolph Eichmanns of this generation visiting the United States at taxpayers' expense. The Nazis would not change their ways because they were horrible people. They were villains, they were evil, they should not have visited the United States at our expense because they were not going to change their ways. The same is true for the people who engage in torture and oppression in Communist China today. We do not want to change their minds, we want to change their position. We want them out of power. If we are going to bring anybody to the United States, it should be members of those religious communities who are being oppressed in China. Our heart goes out to the Christians, to the Muslims, to the Buddhists who are being tortured and brutalized by this clique of thugs in China. Let us bring them here. Let us express our appreciation to those people. Let us socialize with them. Let us send the message that we are on their side, and not the side of these people with blood running off of their hands. We should be on the side of the oppressed wherever in this world there is oppression. We should never be on the side of the oppressor. We should never give the image that that is what we are. Mr. Speaker, it is a tragedy that last month our trade deficit swelled. What was the reason for this in the United States, between the United States and China? Because we were buying Christmas tree decorations from a government, from a country that is dominated by a government that is the worst oppressor of Christians on this planet. This is Kafkaesque, inviting these oppressors here to socialize with us, thinking they will change their ways. Let us stand for morality, let us stand for justice. Let us just not speak cliches about human rights, let us do something about it, so the people of the world will know that America still stands for something. Support the Gilman amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2605. In 1997, Communist China will have a $50 billion trade surplus with the United States of America. That is $50 billion. At the same time, China is the largest recipient of international financial loans and subsidies, including an annual amount of almost $4 billion in U.S. loans and subsidies through international financial institutions. At the same time that all that is going on, China is engaged in a massive buildup of its military capabilities. Who are those military men in the employ of the Communist Chinese dictatorship going to use those weapons against? It makes no sense for us to be financing projects for the Communist Chinese while they are building up their military and they have the weapons to use against us that we are financing by making sure they do not have to pay for other things. They have got the money to pay for those other projects themselves. If they have got the money to build up their military, they can pay for all of their own projects. Sometimes it is argued they say, well, American companies will not get this project or that project in building up some infrastructure or whatever project unless we give them some type of a subsidized loan. Why should we subsidize those projects, those public work projects, in Communist China? We have got lots of public work projects we could finance with that money in the United States. None of this makes any sense. And the money is drawn right out of the pool of money that is available to the American people. Vote ``yes'' on Solomon. Vote to support a sane policy on providing loans to this dictatorship.