Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I, of course, philosophically would believe that the Federal Government should not be involved in taking our taxpayers' dollars and using it for selected companies who are planning to do business overseas. It is particularly repugnant, Mr. Chairman, for us to be loaning any money for people who want to invest in manufacturing units overseas who are receiving benefits from not the Export-Import Bank, but from OPIC and other government institutions. I have two amendments that are coming up on Export-Import Bank, one which would prevent the Export-Import Bank from subsidizing the People's Liberation Army in China or any other government-owned entities and would not permit us to, basically, subsidize business in dictatorships. But this idea that American business needs to have subsidies in big companies in order to sell their products overseas is a misnomer, and certainly we need to clarify that. In many, many cases, what we really are talking about is instead of subsidizing our exports, trying to make it possible facilitating exports. We are actually facilitating the building of manufacturing units which uses low-cost labor to ship things back into the United States. That is why we have such a heinous situation with China. Because our people will go over to China, they will build a manufacturing unit there with subsidization from the Federal Government, the manufacturing unit will then use this basically slave labor over there and import these goods at a 3- or 4-percent tariff. The goods over there, however, when we want to sell our goods directly in China, there is about a 30- or 40-percent tariff when we want to sell our goods over there. The most important thing that we could be doing is not subsidizing big corporations to the Export-Import Bank, or OPIC, or whatever. Instead, what we should be doing is knocking down impediments to our people doing business, like, for example, trying to eliminate their tariffs. So I would oppose this measure. I do believe it does not clarify anything.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce]. Mr. Chairman, I could not disagree with my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce], who stated that this would be a better name because it would more clarify what the Export-Import Bank does. In fact, I would think that if we want to clarify what the Export- Import Bank does, it would be better to call it the American Import Bank or Subsidy of Foreign Imports into the United States Bank. These businesses that are getting subsidized by our tax dollars, they are not saying, please subsidize my company so I can go over there and sell socks or refrigerators or some type of consumer items. That is a total myth that has been perpetuated in this argument, especially in arguments concerning trade with China. What is happening instead are corporations, by and large, who want to set up manufacturing units overseas, especially in dictatorships, I might add, like Communist China and Vietnam and elsewhere, go to the Export-Import Bank and are receiving guaranteed loans and subsidies in order to set up a manufacturing unit, which will take advantage of people who have no right to set up unions, no right to protect their own interests, standards that are way below those of the United States. So we subsidize them, creating a manufacturing unit by using taxpayer dollars. And then what happens? Those manufacturing units produce goods and services that are imported into the United States. Yes, we should clarify that. We should clarify this so that American people know their tax dollars are being used to subsidize the competition for their own jobs in dictatorships overseas. And, yes, there are several companies that, yes, do indeed have their exports subsidized. That is in the aerospace industry. There are some situations where that exists. I acknowledge that. But that is not the majority of what is going on here. Even with those loans to the aerospace industry, quite often demands are made in those other countries that we set up manufacturing units so that part of the airplanes that are being sold in those countries are produced in China and elsewhere. So what we end up doing is subsidizing the development of industries overseas with our tax dollars. This has got to stop. If we want to clarify anything here, it should be the U.S. Government should not be subsidizing anybody who is setting up a manufacturing unit overseas, especially in dictatorships. So let us clarify it, yes, and change the name to not the Export- Import Bank, but to the bank that subsidizes imports into the United States. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Included in this continuing resolution is a 3-week extension of a temporary provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act known as section 245(i). This provision was snuck into the law 3 years ago. If we do not permit it to expire, it will destroy the integrity of the legal immigration process into the United States and nullify the Illegal Immigration Reform Act that we just passed last year. Three years ago the Democrat leadership engaged in an undemocratic tactic to get this provision into law. At that time I begged the Committee on Rules not to waive points of order against putting into our immigration law section 245(i), or what I called the Kennedy loophole. This provision, establishing a 3-year period in which illegal aliens could become legal while staying in the United States, was not considered separately by either House of the Congress, but instead was inserted during conference negotiations on the Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies appropriations bill. To date, there has only been one time in which either Chamber has voted on this provision. That was when the House adopted my amendment last year to repeal 245(i) a year before it was scheduled to expire on September 30, 1997. Ultimately, the conferees dropped my amendment, which, of course, was the only one that was ever voted on in this House, arguing that the other provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform Act were being phased in and that 245(i) would expire anyway. I was stunned to learn that the continuing resolution, this continuing resolution, provides for an extension of 245(i). Mr. Speaker, there are several reasons why 245(i) are bad for this country, and our Members should know about this. Number one, it contradicts the Illegal Immigration Reform Act passed last year by inviting people who are illegally in this country to participate in a system that will encourage even more people to come illegally into this country. Mr. Speaker, 245(i) rewards individuals who either snuck across our borders or who overstayed their visas by allowing them to pay $1,000 to the INS and have their status changed from illegal to legal. This is blatantly unfair to the millions of people around the world who abide by our laws, go through the proper screening process, and they are doing this in their own countries, they are waiting in line there, and wait their turn to become American residents. Mr. Speaker, 245(i) is a slap in the face to these people who are obeying our laws and trying to come here legally. It makes a joke out of our legal immigration system and sends the clear message that if one is abiding by our laws and waiting one's turn in their own country to come here, that person is a fool. Why wait one's turn in one's own country when one can break the laws of the United States, come here and pay $1,000 and basically be moved to the front of the line. Extending 245(i) also raises serious national security questions. Unlike those who enter the United States legally, 245(i) applicants are not required to go through the same criminal history checks as they do go through in their home countries when they are awaiting their turn to come here legally. Consular officers located in the applicant's home country, along with foreign national employees working for the State Department, are in the best position to determine if an applicant has a criminal background or is some kind of a national security risk. Consulates abroad are more knowledgeable. They speak the local language; they know the different criminal justice systems in those countries. They are the ones who should be screening people before they come to the United States, so that we do not have criminals and terrorists coming to the United States, not being screened, and end up paying $1,000 to be put in the front of the line. This is absurd that we are doing this, and again, the only time we voted on this, we voted it down. Those who support the extension of 245(i) maintain that allowing it to expire will force undue hardship on these illegal aliens by breaking up their families. Well, we are also breaking up the families of the people who are standing in line and have families here in the United States, who are waiting their turn and going through the legal processes. There are just as many families being broken up; we are just saying the people who come here illegally, we are going to care about them, but not the ones standing in line who want to come and join their families in the United States. Some of those people have been waiting years to come here legally. Proponents of 245(i) also maintain that the provision only applies to those who are already eligible for permanent resident status. The same millions of people around the world, by the way, we are talking about, they are eligible for permanent residency status. These people have been waiting in line and waiting in line. All we are doing, again, is we are picking the people who have broken the law to move to the head of the line and giving them benefits that we are not giving to people who are obeying the law and waiting their turn in line. It is time to be honest about this provision. The reason 245(i) still exists is because it raises money for the INS. Those are the people who get that $1,000; and it lightens the caseload of our consulates abroad. Funding for the INS, and lightening the State Department's workload, these are separate issues. Sneaking provisions into the law to encourage illegal immigration is not the way that we should raise money for the INS or lighten the workload for the State Department. Mr. Speaker, we are a nation of immigrants and the citizens of this country are a fair people and we welcome newcomers with open arms. This is not about legal immigration; this is about government-sponsored illegal activity so that the INS can make a buck. Last year we promised our constituents that we would no longer take their money to pay for an immigration system that is unfair, randomly applied and contradictory. We told our constituents that we would no longer support a system which rewards those who break our law. That was the essence of what we were trying to do. We promised them that this country's immigration system would embody the principles that have drawn would-be Americans to our country for centuries, meaning fairness and equity. Are we going to extend this provision which makes a mockery of fairness and equity? Are we going to break the promise that we made to the American people and provide this incredible loophole, in which hundreds of thousands if not over 1 million people who are in this country legally will be able to stay in this country at the expense of other people who have been waiting in line, waiting their legal turn? Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to consider voting ``no'' on the concurrent resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from San Diego, CA [Mr. Horn].

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was refused.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from San Diego, [Mr. Duke Cunningham]. Perhaps if he has some other things to say some other Members might yield him another minute or two.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray].

Mr. ROHRABACHER

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. If I could be assured there would be a vote, an up or down vote on this particular issue on the floor, rather than having this included in a larger piece of legislation in which the Members of this body would not be able to express their will on this particular issue, if I could be assured that there will be an up or down vote, I would withdraw my objection.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like to ask the distinguished chairman whether or not in this provision is a provision entitled 245(i), dealing with immigration?

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I would yield to my friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], and ask him whether there have been Members of this body who object to that and raise objections to that particular provision?

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I was notified that this is not a 3 week extension. First of all, I was notified this was not going to be in the bill; it was going to be a clean CR and this was not going to be there. I was informed 5 minutes ago as I was on the road here that it was in the bill.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It was not the gentleman who misinformed me.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. What would then happen?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me accept the idea that people want a proper solution to this. The proper solution was to not sneak this into law in the first place. The proper solution was to have an up or down vote on the floor on this issue. We are not talking about just individual people's lives, we are talking about people who came here and are here illegally in the United States of America. Most of these people were people whose visa had certain restrictions on it, and they decided just to flaunt the law and stay here illegally anyway, which gives everybody who gets a visa to come to the United States an incentive to just violate their visa agreement to come into the United States. So these are not just ordinary citizens. However, and I would address this to the Chair, if the Chair can guarantee me there will be an up or down vote on this issue in the next 3 weeks, I will be very happy to withdraw my objection. But if the Chair, who happens to be the Speaker of the House, and we are very happy to have the Speaker with us today, cannot guarantee me that, I do not understand why I should withdraw my objection.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would ask the Chair whether or not this Member has a commitment that there will be an up or down vote on this issue.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Let me note this. I do have a commitment from the chairman of the Committee on Rules that we will have an up or down vote on this issue. Let me remind my fellow Members, the reason why there is a problem right at this time and these people's lives face disruption is only because this body was prevented from having an up or down vote on the issue. I am not up here to try to prevent the democratic process from working; I want the democratic process to have a chance to work. We have a right, and our constituents have a right, to have a vote on the floor on issues of this magnitude. We are talking about 400,000 people who already stayed, they overstayed their visas, or they snuck into this country, so they are here illegally, and they have applied under this program. I was told when the one debate that we won on the floor, the one vote that there was on this was lost by the other side, that there would only be several thousand, maybe 10,000 people applying. It is a major loophole. Now, if this body wants to do that, I have no objection. Well, I would object, I would vote against it, but that is fine. I am only asking that we put ourselves on the record for our constituents on this particular issue. That is what democracy is all about, and I have some friends here, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] who is totally on the other side on this, who I understand feels very strongly. I just think we should all be on the record in saying that, and with this agreement by the chairman of the Committee on Rules that there will be an up-or-down vote on this within the next 3 weeks.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I will accept that assurance, and I hope everybody understands that we came to this point where people's lives might be disrupted because the democratic process was ignored in the past, and this thing was put into law without a vote on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, this particular provision was only voted on in the House of Representatives once, and when it was voted on it was rejected with a substantial margin. Instead, this was snuck into law based on agreements made behind closed doors in conference meetings, et cetera, that it would be a temporary measure, and that this would be the time when it would sunset. Now here we see another attempt to sneak through a major immigration loophole, which would permit tens of thousands, no, not tens of thousands, not even hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people, to stay in this country illegally.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to join many colleagues in paying tribute to Ambassador Jason Hu, who is leaving Washington to return to Taipei. For the last 15 months, Ambassador Hu has very ably served as the Republic of China's representative in Washington. While there have been many issues, both highly significant and pro forma, between Washington and Taipei, Ambassador Hu has played a positive role in reducing differences between our two countries. Ambassador Hu is a first class diplomat. In his outgoing and warm manner he has helped us greatly in understanding Taiwan as a democratic nation with a strong commitment to a free-market economy. He has also earned the support, confidence, and respect of President Lee Teng-hui, who has given Ambassador Hu a new assignment as the Republic of China's Foreign Minister. Ambassador Hu's new responsibilities will place him in the forefront of the continuing diplomatic, political, and economic development of Taiwan. Ambassador Hu's experience in Washington will ensure that he will continue to be a trusted friend of the United States and to all nations that maintain official or unofficial ties to Taiwan. Congratulations, Ambassador Hu. Please convey my best wishes to the people of Taiwan on their forthcoming National Day.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanders amendment. There is an alarm bell going off all over the United States, and some people can hear it on the right, and some people can hear it on the left, and some people are ignoring the alarm bell. Other people are trying to set the fire. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is we are being rushed time and again into conceding the authority that was vested in us by the Constitution of the United States to multinational organizations in the name of creating some global trading system, in the name of facilitating global and international commerce. Mr. Chairman, I may have my disagreements with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kucinich] on issues of labor and the environment, but the last thing I want to do is grant authority to some international organization, none of whom will be voted on by the American people, to make these decisions. We will rue the day when we have granted authority to someone who has no obligation to the voters of the United States to make these decisions. Big business today may think they are getting something in the environmental area or the labor area, but all the American people will suffer a loss of freedom if we give it away to these international organizations.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

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