Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], I appreciate the support of others on the committee. This is a truly bipartisan effort as are most of the human rights efforts made in this Congress, and ever increasingly made in this Congress. My bill is a bit tougher than the other amendment that has been offered regarding American support to Cambodia. It is tougher because it puts Congress on record of supporting the denial of U.S. funds appropriated in this act for international lending institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the Asian Development Bank. This measure is essential because while direct United States foreign aid is a small portion of the regime's funding, international donations account for half of the Government of Cambodia's revenues. It is essential that Hun Sen realize that American representatives to these lending institutions will press for withholding of these funds, even if the prohibition of these funds is not immediately possible. If abuses in Cambodia continue the United States position will be strengthened. This provision was requested by exiled members of the elected Cambodian Government, by many members of the Cambodian-American community and in consultation with Steven Solarz, the Clinton administration's special envoy for Cambodia. It is my intention that funding be restored after a democratic government constituted through the framework of the 1991 Paris accords is restored, including: the return of all elected members of government and leaders of democratic opposition parties currently in exile to safely campaign for a free and fair election; the disbanding of all private armies and militias; the creation of national election laws and an independent judiciary system; and certification by the President that adequate safeguards are in place to assure free and fair elections, including penalty provisions for any further abuses.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. My amendment does not prevent us from giving money to the nongovernmental organizations and to other humanitarian efforts. It just prevents us from giving any money to the government directly or indirectly. While, as I say, the Bereuter amendment does make a statement in a positive direction, I think we should go a lot further. The fact is the Government of Cambodia now is controlled by a murderous man named Hun Sen who is in alliance with drug lords, a man who has got blood all the way up to his elbows, who was a Khmer Rouge trigger man, who overthrew an elected government that we struggled so long and hard to put in place back in 1993. Many Members of this body have visited Cambodia and supported the United Nations operation back in 1993 and now we have this dictator, this gangster trying to undo what was done. We need to send a strong message immediately. This is the vehicle to do so. The Bereuter amendment sends a message. It is a positive message. It is a message we need to send. I think it needs to be a little stronger, so I support the Bereuter amendment but will also be offering by own amendment shortly.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it has.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor from H.R. 2200.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, is a Member of this body. She has been seated. That is the rightful course of action. Again, I want to point out, as I did last week, that I have had my disagreements here when the Democrats were in charge, but when they were in charge and there was a contested election where a Republican was declared the victor, as the gentleman just mentioned, the Republican was not seated. In fact, we are not in any way disrupting the right of the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, to act as a Member of Congress, but we owe it to the American people to see that that election was a fair election, and if it was not, if it was determined by illegal votes, it should be overturned. Otherwise, it is a crime against the American people. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are complaining that the contested election task force investigation is going on and has been dragging on too long. The fact is, this reflects something of a pattern. What we see is, on the other side of the aisle and with the administration, a stalling, a stonewalling, and just dragging its feet. No matter how or what way they can do it, they are trying to elongate this, and then coming before the body complaining that we are putting the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, through a travail because it is lasting so long. Mr. Chairman, this is pure politics. I, for one, would hope that we would not be calling each other names and then, especially, trying to suggest that the motives over here are malicious. We need to get to the bottom of this. The task force is working. It is trying to determine how many votes were illegal. Already they have found 300 votes in the 46th district since the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, was seated that were improperly cast. The Secretary of State in California has determined that. The State registrar declared another 120 absentee ballots invalid. Together, that calls into question one-third of the 98-vote margin of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez]. However, with the INS dragging its feet and all the administration representatives out there not going along and trying to stonewall this, we now are faced with having to go through 5,000 votes that appear to be or there is a potential that these votes were cast by people who were not legally entitled to vote. Mr. Chairman, this is, as the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, moves on, and we are not intimidating her, she is a Member of Congress, but it is just and right for us to determine whether that election was stolen, and if it was, she should be removed from that seat, because she did not win it. A Democratic Party activist in Orange County was convicted several years ago, and I come from Orange County, of registering illegal aliens intentionally. He was arrested and convicted of that crime. We cannot have this going on.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I think the Republicans are trying to do their very best job here. We heard a lot of screaming and yelling. I do not know if my colleagues remember exactly what happened, but when the Democrats were in charge, they were not exactly perfect. We had a lot of complaints, too. I think some of the complaints that we had were very legitimate. When I first came here, Jim Wright was the Speaker and Jim Wright had to leave and there were some problems there. We had a House bank scandal. We had a House post office scandal. We had all kinds of things going on. Republicans were screaming and yelling about it. Today I have to tell my colleagues, after all these years, and with all due respect to my colleagues, I think we are working better together right now than we were back in those days. I will have to admit I was frustrated in those days. I was very frustrated and I was probably screaming. In fact most of my colleagues can remember me screaming and yelling in those days. But I think that we are actually working better now than we did when I first became a Member of the House. There is always room for improvement and I hope we will.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add my congratulations to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], to the ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and to all those who are involved in this piece of legislation. It is in keeping with the great tradition, I might add, of Tom Bevill, who did such a terrific job in heading this subcommittee, and Mr. Myers. And, of course, all of these efforts over the years have been marked in this subcommittee by bipartisanship, and that is deeply appreciated on this Congressman's part. I appreciate not only the gentleman's bipartisanship but also the great way he has been handling himself in the expertise behind this bill. As the chairman and other House conferees prepare for conference with the Senate, I would like to call their attention to the water infrastructure restoration study in Huntington Beach, California. This study was initiated by the Corps of Engineers last year to assess the current status of the city's water infrastructure and to identify improvements to withstand an earthquake. I would also like to mention the cost-shared feasibility study to determine the appropriate measures to shore up the coastal bluffs at Blufftop Park in Huntington Beach. Unfortunately funding was not included in the committee bill this year for these projects. I would ask if the chairman would be willing to work during the conference to identify funding to continue these critical studies.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and I thank the ranking member.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, we will be benefiting from his not only generosity, but the standards that he set for us. Henry Salvatori was a man who believed in free enterprise and free speech. He believed in honor, in truth, in decency and hard work and responsibility, and he took these principles to heart and into his hands. With them he built a very successful life, and this success Henry shared with everyone. Henry Salvatori's motto was ``whoever crosses my path, I will leave them at least as well off, or, if possible, better off than he was before.'' Henry's life is an inspiration, and he tried to follow that formula, not through one career, but through three careers. In each one of those he tried to better people's lives. Henry's first career was in the oil business, when as a young man he pioneered a new oil exploration technology of charting geological structures by sending shock waves through the ground. Inspired by the spirit of enterprise that he found in America, Henry invested all of his assets into a company based on the seismic method and the company, Western Geophysical, grew into a multibillion dollar corporation and he became its leader. The business remains a leader today even as Henry passes on. Henry's second career was that of an philanthropist. He believed that the best way to help others is not with Government entitlements, but through the private sector, through caring individuals who are taking the responsibility to help others. In this, he lent a hand to so many people to try to help them get the basics, but at no time trying to make any individual dependent on the Government or someone else's largess. He demonstrated this belief time and again by bestowing gifts on universities and colleges, hospitals, children's clubs, community groups, and the arts. He also supported civic education organizations which put forth ideas of limited Government and expanded individual opportunity, ideas that guide our society today. In particular, Henry supported the youth organizations like the Young Americans for Freedom and the Young Republicans and others. This helped a whole generation of young people meet the responsibility of picking up the torch and caring the torch of American freedom as it was passed from one generation to another. I am a beneficiary of that largess, as was Ronald Reagan and many others, as Henry Salvatori engaged himself in the political process in the United States he loved so much, and it was a tribute to all Americans at all times. It was during his third career--his career in politics--that I was fortunate enough to come to know Henry. He never sought, won or held elected office, but Henry served his fellow Americans honorably by effectively using one of the most powerful rights that the U.S. Constitution bestows upon its citizens: free speech. He engaged in debate on State and national issues, and financially supported candidates who shared his beliefs in freedom. In hindsight, Henry spoke out for some of America's greatest leaders. Henry became a respected and trusted advisor to Barry Goldwater, Gerald Ford, and Richard Nixon. But he was best known for launching the career of the man who has ignited the political spirit of the modern generation: Ronald Reagan. Henry enticed Reagan to enter politics with two simple promises that to this day resonate with courage and integrity. He promised to take care of the campaign funding and promised to take nothing in return: no favor, no office, no appointment. Henry supported Reagan from the Governor's Mansion to the White House, and today the history books show he kept both promises. He remained close to President Reagan as part of a so-called Kitchen Cabinet. Though Reagan entertained all ideas, in the end the President made the decisions. Of course, it was through the support and dedication of patriotic Americans like Henry Salvatori that Ronald Reagan ever had a chance to lead. Henry did himself, his neighbors and this country many great services. He expanded access to our national energy supply. He funded charities that help people in need. He supported political ideas and candidates who brought our country closer to freedom, and expanded the opportunities available to average people. In doing so Henry Salvatori crossed all our paths. And rest assured, we are much better off. As we close this today, I would hope all people on the next Fourth of July will remember the great contributions this man made to our country.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, one of the great opportunities of this job of being a Member of Congress is to officially bid farewell to great people. One such great American recently passed away. He was a teacher, a patriot, and a friend. His name was Henry Salvatori. Many Americans have no idea who Henry Salvatori was, but to many of us who are politically active and followed behind the scenes what has happened in America and some of the great developments in the oil industry and some of the great philanthropic works in California, we know very well who Henry Salvatori was. He was a great American, and it is an honor today for us to say a few nice words about him and to recall him for the American people, because he added so much to our way of life. Henry Salvatori died over the Fourth of July weekend at age 96. That date was fitting, because Henry was a man whose life epitomized what being an American is all about. He was, like many American patriots, a man who came to the United States from another country. Henry came to us from Italy. He came here when he was 5 years old, and during his lifetime, he enthusiastically embraced the ideals that are at the foundation of our country. Thus, he epitomized what being an American is all about, because we have always said that these American values are not just for the people of the United States and people born here, but being an American means those things that our Founding Fathers fought for and sought after.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, there will be a vote on this floor on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] on the amendment that he was kind enough to offer on my behalf a few moments ago. I hope my colleagues would look at this very closely. It is the hope where authorizers who have spent a lot of time trying to determine priorities for America's space program were ignored, and basically one appropriator was able to use his power to change the priorities; where I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], we have a disagreement on what that priority should be in this particular case. I hope those people would stand up for a system that works and a system that is responsible; that is, with the authorizers as part of the process, and support the Rohrabacher amendment when it comes to a vote.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in total support of the Royce amendment to bring some sanity to the spending of taxpayer dollars when it comes to shelling out taxpayers' dollars to huge corporations that make billions of dollars worth of profit. I would, first of all, like to say that I have deep admiration for the speaker who just presented his case before us. The gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] had been the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science for many years. He is the ranking member now. But over the years he was fair to every Republican that ever worked on the Committee on Science, and he is an honest and fair man. And what we have here is an honest and fair disagreement as to a basic philosophy of what government should do and what government should not do. What we have here is the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce] who stands for a philosophy, a more conservative free enterprise philosophy, versus the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] who has presented more of a philosophy of government intervention in the name of benefit to the community and to the country as a whole. I think this is an honest disagreement. I think it is. I respect the opinion of the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], and I respect his motivation. Let me say I believe that he is wrong. I believe the philosophy that he is talking about has been an utter failure over and over and over again. The partnership between powerful government and powerful interest groups like big business and big labor has never worked for the benefit of the average person. Instead these partnerships have tended to freeze out the little guy, have tended to use the taxpayers' money for the benefit wealthy interests and the taxpayers end up footing the bill for all of this. This is no different. What we are arguing about tonight is a $21 million add-on that goes beyond what the Department of Energy has requested from the Congress. That is $21 million extra from what has been requested from the Department of Energy. I even question some of the projects the Department of Energy has proposed. But here we are just talking about, should the Federal Government rush into relationships with companies that they themselves can afford the research and development of the new products or of the new technologies that are being discussed? My friend from Pennsylvania discussed boiler technology. Why should we, for example, support millions of dollars for boiler technology so that some company can make a big profit on it? Why should we do that, when other companies and other people in our society are investing in wind technology for energy, they are investing in solar technology? I just had a conversation with a company that has invested, unlike what the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] has suggested, invested millions of dollars over two decades, not just one decade but two decades, to come up with new solar technology. We are undercutting the entrepreneurs in our society who know best by shoveling government money, scarce government money to people who we, as politicians, think they should succeed as compared to other people in the private sector who are investing their own money, other people who may have just as good a chance of succeeding in developing technology. Quite often we know that the money is going for people who are developing technology who have special connections politically. My friend from Pennsylvania comes from a coal-burning State or a coal- producing State. Is there any question he is looking out for his constituents? He should. But this is not the way to make decisions that will be in the best interest of the people in the long run, especially of the people of the United States of America. In France they have tried this, where you have a partnership between big business and big government. What they have is they have massive unemployment in France that would never be acceptable in the United States. In Japan, Japan has gone through an economic catastrophe in the last few years. Why is that? It is because you have government planning the economy and so when things go wrong, it is not just one company that has miscalculated, it is an entire industrial plan that has gone wrong. We should run away as far as possible from this idea that there should be a partnership between government and the private sector. Although I will say that it is motivated, those who advocate this plan, they have the best of motivations, the best of motivations. They want what is right for America. I do not think it is going to take us in the right direction. It has not taken France in the right direction, did not take Japan in the right direction. I will tell my colleagues, it certainly did not take the socialist countries in the right direction. The socialist countries that were all basically one big industrial plan failed in a big way. So I would ask support of the Royce amendment and a tough stand for the taxpayers.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes my colleague for whom I have deep respect, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], may call for a revote on an issue that was decided the night before last. If indeed this happens, I would hope that my colleagues stand firm to the position that we had the night before last, and that is, it deals with an issue as to whether or not if Russia transfers a weapon that it designed during the cold war, a missile designed specifically to kill American sailors and to sink American ships, whether or not we should continue to pump $200 million a year into a fund for a program that we are involved in with the Russians, by the way a program that has a billion-dollar backlog right now. I would hope that my colleagues think very closely on this issue. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] is a very serious man and sincere, concerned about peace, I have no doubt about that, and concerned about his country. I have a disagreement with him on this issue. I think our colleagues will say it is a good way to send a message to the Russians not to send high technology weapons designed during the cold war to countries that would kill Americans, and I would hope they revote the way they did the night before last.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about severing our trade ties with China, or talking about walking away from China, or talking about isolating China. That rhetoric does not meet the reality. What is being argued today is whether we should extend most-favored-nation status to China. Now we have heard today that we are really talking about normal trade relations with China. Well, I too do not think it is normal trade relations. What we have is an unfair trading relationship with China. But, OK, a normal trading relationship with Communist China, yes, it is an unfair, irrational, unbalanced relationship that is unfair, yes, to the American people and putting our own country at risk. Why our corporate elite keeps pushing to maintain MFN is easy to see, but we have to get a little bit below the surface. This is not about whether we should sell our products to China or corporations can still sell their products to China. Extending MFN means that these corporations will continue to get taxpayer subsidies. That is what it is about. When these big corporations go to China to use their slave labor or near slave labor, what they want is the taxpayers of the United States to guarantee their interests on their loans and guarantee the loans so it is easier for them to set up manufacturing units using slave labor in China than to do it in the United States. This is an abomination, an attack against the well-being of the people of the United States who are paying those taxes. We end up putting them out of work so they can set up these companies and make a bigger profit in China. It is a terrible policy; it is unfair to our own people. By the way, this unfair trading relationship burdens our goods when we want to sell over there that are made by our laboring people with a 35-percent tariff. Their goods flood into the United States of America with a 2-percent tariff. Yes, that is what we are talking about today, not most-favored-nation status. What we are talking about is an unfair trading relationship that we want to end by ending most-favored-nation status with China. The trade deficit with Communist China is expected to be $50 billion this year. What are they using that money for? Again they are using that money directly against the interests of the people of the United States. They are buying weapons that could some day be used to kill Americans. This is an abominable policy. Our policy makers should have their head examined for kowtowing to a Chinese dictatorship that is working against the interests of the American people. Vote for this resolution.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting for the Record an article by Frank Gaffney, executive director of the Center for Security Policy, that appeared in today's Washington Times, titled ``Dealing with China.'' I believe that this insightful article should be read by all Members of Congress and American citizens who are concerned that the United States Government develop a comprehensive strategy to deter aggression by Communist China. [From the Washington Times, June 24, 1997] Dealing With China (By Frank Gaffney, Jr.) As the House of Representatives prepares to vote on President Clinton's decision to renew Most Favored Nation (MFN) status for China, it is being flooded with free advice. Lobbyists representing firms doing business with the People's Republic--or hoping to do so--are aggressively warning Congress of the economic costs of failing to ``re-up''; human rights and religious groups are emphasizing the costs in terms of freedom and religious tolerance for the Chinese people if the United States continues to turn a blind eye to Beijing's repressive policies. Yesterday, five of the finest public servants I have had the privilege of knowing--Jeane Kirkpatrick, Jack Kemp, Lamar Alexander, Steve Forbes and Donald Rumsfeld--weighed in with their own take. Much of what they say should be done with respect to U.S. policy apart from the question of MFN I find compelling, as I am sure, will many members of Congress. I think we could agree, for example, that the following sorts of steps should be taken irrespective of one's views about renewing China's Most Favored Nation status: Intensify efforts to provide truthful information and encouragement of those resisting communist repressing (including greatly expanding the operations of Radio Free Asia; enforcing the existing bans on importing slave-labor- produced goods; imposing penalties for religious intolerance, etc.). After all, how a nation treats its own people is a good indicator of how it is likely to deal with those of other states. Such steps can help make clear that the United States is not an enemy of the Chinese people, but that it steadfastly opposes the totalitarian government that brutally rules them. It can also help undercut the nationalist xenophobia that the Chinese leadership promotes in its bid to retain power. Deny front companies and banks associated with the People's Liberation Army and other inappropriate Chinese borrowing entities the opportunity to sell bonds in the U.S. market. This step can be taken in a non-disruptive fashion (for example, by creating a security-minded screening mechanism for these prospective bond issues) without fear of jeopardizing U.S. exports, jobs or ``people-to-people'' contacts unaffected by such cash transactions. Block Chinese access to strategic facilities--in the United States and elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere, notably at the eastern and western ends of the Panama Canal. Prohibit the sale of American military production facilities and equipment to China. Terminate the ``anything goes'' policy with respect to the export of dual-use technology to Chinese end-users. In the interest of obtaining maximum pressure for change in China, U.S. allies should be offered the same choice they are currently given under the D'Amato legislation on Iran and Libya--foreign companies and nationals must decide whether to export militarily-sensitive equipment and technology to China or risk losing their unfettered access to the American marketplace. Develop and deploy effective global missile defenses to counter China's own growing ballistic missile capabilities and those Beijing is transferring to rogue states like North Korea, Iran and Syria. Rigorously enforce existing U.S. laws penalizing those who engage--as the Chinese government and its ostensibly private companies have been doing--in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and various menacing conventional arms. And increase significantly the resources dedicated to uncovering and thwarting Chinese espionage, technology theft and influence operations in the United States. Where I must respectfully disagree with my friends from Empower America, however, is about the reason why such steps are needed. They declare we ``should not demonize China'' and assert ``there is no new Cold War, and China is not a new Cold War enemy.'' The truth is that the reversion of Hong Kong next week to communist control may prove to be the first battle lost by the force of freedom in a new and far more difficult phase of what Winston Churchill once called ``the Twilight Struggle.'' In any event, as noted in this space two weeks ago, it is not entirely up to us whether China becomes an enemy. The critically acclaimed book ``The Coming Conflict with China'' observes: ``Before, Beijing saw American power as a strategic advantage for the PRC; now it has decided that American power represents a threat, not just to China's security but to China's plans to grow stronger and to play a paramount role in the affairs of Asia.'' What is more, if it is true, strictly speaking, that ``China is not a new Cold War enemy,'' it may not be good news. The level of engagement with China--the many billions of dollars in bilateral trade, the hundreds of PLA companies operating in this country, the tens of thousands of Chinese students and unknown numbers of Overseas Chinese with families still subject to Beijing's control--make the challenge of countering, let alone containing, the PRC infinitely more difficult that any we faced in dealing with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. We disregard or discount this problem at our peril. The bottom line is the bottom line: The massive trade surpluses that MFN status is allowing the PRC to accrue are directly underwriting activities that will enable Beijing to become an even more formidable threat to the United States and American interests down the road. Despite its drawbacks, revoking China's Most Favored Nation status is the only measure now on the table that is fully responsive to this reality--and proportionate to the magnitude of the problem it presents.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me just state for the record this does not cut off Nunn-Lugar funds. There are over a billion dollars of American taxpayer funds in the Nunn-Lugar channel in the pipeline. It does not touch that billion dollars. It simply says that if they sell this missile aimed at killing American sailors to the Chinese in order to kill American sailors, we will not add another $200 million to that fund. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, first of all let me say I respect my colleagues, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] but I disagree with them on this issue. We are making a decision today of what options our leaders will have 20 years from now. That is what is important when the gentleman from California's, Mr. McKeon's, grandson is around and we are not. Twenty years from now we do not want the option of our American political leaders just to be to go nuclear or to put hundreds of thousands of Americans at risk on the ground or to send in aircraft carriers with thousands of Americans on those and putting those people at risk. I was in the White House when President Reagan was forced to bomb Libya. We put thousands of Americans on American aircraft carriers at risk. We had to fly out of American bases in England. We are not going to have those American bases in England throughout the world 20 years from now. We need weapon systems today for our leaders 20 years from now that will project power from the United States of America and put the fewest Americans at risk that can possibly be put at risk. This is a cost-effective weapon when we look at the cost of this as compared to thousands of American lives in an aircraft carrier. We want to give future American leaders the option. I ask to defeat this amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the final 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] for the purpose of an announcement.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the SS-N-22 missile known as the Sunburn was created by the Soviet Union to attack American warships that are equipped with Aegis cruiser radar and battle management systems. This missile system, the Sunburn system, is a system designed to kill American sailors. The supersonic sea skimming missile is extremely difficult to defend against, and a long-range version of the missile is a dangerous threat to our military personnel, especially those on aircraft carriers and other naval personnel. In December 1996 a secret agreement was made between what was the Soviet Union, now it is Russia, and China to transfer from Russia to China this deadly American-killing weapon system. Basically, if the Chinese deploy this in the Straits of Taiwan, it will put our naval personnel in danger. Then if it is put in place to threaten our people in the Straits of Hormuz, American naval operations there will be threatened because China is itself a supplier of weapons to the Iranians. This deadly weapon system, if it is transferred from Russia to China, will have horrible implications for the safety of our naval personnel all over the world and terrible implications for the peace of mankind. The amendment being offered by my friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and I does not cut off the Nunn-Lugar funding. I want to stress that the GAO tells us that there is still more than $1 billion in the Nunn-Lugar pipeline. At current spending rates, that should cover the program for the next 4 years. If this amendment is adopted, it will not affect in the slightest the number of Russian nuclear weapons that will be dismantled in 1998; but what this amendment does do, it says that we will not add another $200 million to the pipeline if this deadly weapon system that the Russians now possess is transferred to the Chinese. We are basically saying that the Russians cannot expect to sell deadly weapons, high-technology weapon systems, aimed at killing Americans and expect us to add another $200 billion to the foreign aid pipe line. I would ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Solomon-Rohrabacher amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.