Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] I offer an amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, in a few moments we will be discussing on the floor the foreign relations authorization bill. The first vote today will come in a few moments after that, when this body will vote on an amendment that I have proposed. The Rohrabacher amendment is very simple. Russia, who is the recipient of $95 million of foreign aid from the United States, has developed a deadly new missile whose purpose is to kill American sailors. It is a supersonic cruise missile that is almost impossible to defend against, which skims along the ocean at supersonic speeds and is designed to attack Aegis cruisers and American aircraft carriers. It will cause havoc in the Straits of Hormuz, in the Straits of Taiwan. It will lead to situations where our sailors in great numbers, tens of thousands of them, will be vulnerable to be killed by this weapon. The Russians now are proposing to transfer this weapons system to China. My amendment says if they do that, we should cut off the aid that we are giving to Russia. It is that simple. Mr. Speaker, I ask for support for the Rohrabacher amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate this time, from the gentleman from California [Mr. Lantos] in particular, because I am providing a legitimate opposition to this bill. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 1758. I do not do so with any type of situation where I have a problem in disagreeing with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. Mr. Gilman has my respect, and I know he is pushing this bill; the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is pushing for this bill. He has my respect. We worked together on so many issues, but I think that it is important for us to recognize the changes that have taken place in the world and for America to take a realistic view of what is going to be happening, what challenges we will face in the years ahead. NATO did a good job in deterring a Soviet attack on Europe, but what purpose does NATO serve now? Is it worth the expenditure of tens of billions of limited American defense dollars? I do not think so. Europe no longer poses and what is happening in Europe no longer poses a national security threat to the United States of America. We need not spend our limited defense dollars that we have today for the stability of our European friends. They can pay for their own stability. Why we were in NATO was because the Soviet Union, and a war with the Soviet Union, was a threat to our national security. Staying in NATO now wastes limited dollars that should be spent on American weapons systems that will enable the United States to project power from the continental United States. Spending money on NATO rather than spending money on B-2 bombers or American aircraft carriers, or, yes, on a missile defense system is a waste of money. We need not spend our limited resources for stability in Europe, especially when it takes our focus away from the real part of the world where the threat to American security lies. By focusing on Europe, we are taking away our focus from Asia, where a belligerent, totalitarian, expansionist China is fast becoming a threat to our national security and a threat to world peace. Let us focus our efforts on strengthening our alliances in Asia, spending our money so that we can deter war on Asia rather than wasting it on NATO, which is a thing of the past.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again I would like to offer my congratulations to the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney] for the great job that she did in providing this code of conduct legislation. Again, I was very proud to stand by her and work with her in that effort. On this particular amendment, it has something to do with a different part of the world in terms of setting standards just for the United States. This particular amendment that I am offering would deny all $95 million in U.S. foreign assistance funding to Russia during fiscal years 1998 and 1999 if the Russian Federation transfers supersonic SSN- 22 missiles to China. This advanced cruise missile system endangers the lives of countless American service men and women and could alter the balance of power in key strategic areas such as the Straits of Taiwan and the Persian Gulf. This sunburn missile was created by the Russians to attack American ships, especially American ships that are equipped with advanced Aegis sea and air radar battle management systems. The SSN-22, a supersonic sea skimmer missile, can be fired by a ship or from land and it is extremely difficult to defend against. A long-range version of that missile can damage an aircraft carrier. In December 1996 a secret weapon sale agreement was completed in Moscow during the state visit of the Chinese premier. The Chinese began seeking to acquire this missile in direct response to the deployment of U.S. warships in the Straits of Taiwan during China's attempt to militarily intimidate Taiwan during its national elections. The immediate impact of the transfer of SSN-22 missiles will give the Chinese significant offensive advantages over regional navies and further their ambitions in the South China Sea and other areas of the Pacific. A serious long-term effect is the Chinese ability to reverse engineer the SSN-22 technology, thus to develop lethal parity with the United States Navy. Another immediate grave threat is the potential transfer of SSN-22's from China to Iran. China has become the primary arms source for the Iranians, to include the shipments of ballistic missiles and chemical weapons technologies. An SSN-22 mounted on a mobile land platform would be extremely difficult to defend against and would threaten any of the ships in the Straits of Hormuz. The Government of Russia has gone beyond the threshold of acceptability in its conduct by offering to sell this deadly missile to China. My amendment will send a strong message that in return for the generosity shown by American taxpayers to assist Russia during this time of need, the Russian Government must respect the national security of the United States and the lives of our young men and women in uniform. Let me be very clear on this, Mr. Chairman. This missile was designed by Russia during the cold war to kill American sailors and American airmen. This missile, if it is transferred to the Chinese, will lead at least to the situation where our people are being put in jeopardy. If we are giving $95 million in aid to Russia while they are sending that type of weapons system to a potential enemy, we are making a mistake. Shame on us. Not shame on them. My amendment simply says, unless they cease and desist from the transfer of this deadly weapons system to the Chinese, they have gone over the threshold of acceptability and we will be cutting off all of our aid to the former Soviet Union, to Russia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to congratulate my colleague from Vermont for offering this amendment. As my colleagues know, it is how we react not only to statistics of tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of people and even millions of people in China who are suffering the brutality of tyranny and oppression in that country but also how we treat the case of one individual, as we are today, that makes us different as Americans than other countries. We care about the individual, we care about people, and this message is going to be delivered by this amendment. I am very proud to stand with my colleague on this, and I hope that the people at home who are listening to this debate on the foreign policy and foreign aid amendments and such will understand we have got some decisions to make about China. We have got to talk as a country about how we are going to confront this growing threat, the clouds that are massing just over the horizon. The fact is that China and the United States could be at war within 10 years unless we do what is right, and what is right is not to cower. What will lead to a more peaceful world is not to gloss over human rights abuses, but instead to stand forward and step forward with a solid policy of freedom and human rights and let the people of China know that we are on their side and that way encourage the development of democratic institutions, rather than continually backing down, making loud noises about human rights and then backing down. I believe some of our businessmen, if the entire country of Tibet was incinerated by the Chinese, if the Muslims in the western provinces were all slaughtered, if all the Christians were tortured in China, they would still be saying we must maintain the same policy with China because we have to have some influence on them. We need to discuss this as a people, as a free people. We need to talk about the moral implications and decisions we are making, and in my opinion morality and practicality go together, and in the long run if we gloss over these moral issues and forget the individuals that are being tyrannized and going through this oppression, it will not work to the best interests of the United States of America. So I am very grateful today to my colleague from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] talking about an individual who deserves our attention, and let us pray that he is freed and the people of China, all of the people of China, are freed from their oppression.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No, it is not, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that I am very proud to stand with the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney], the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], very proud to stand with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], and people on both sides of the aisle, who are saying that through this code of conduct, this is the way America will be strong, this is the way we will live up to what our Founding Fathers wanted us to be, and it is a bipartisan issue, and together we are standing for the true and democratic principles that our Founding Fathers believed in. I thank the gentlewoman from Georgia.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. First of all, I would like to congratulate the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney] on fighting the leadership on this issue. This is not a left-wing issue. This is not a right-wing issue. I am very proud to be here today to stand with Cynthia McKinney and all the rest of my colleagues who support this moral code of conduct for the United States of America. In the post-cold war, the code of conduct is totally consistent with America's traditions and America's principles. In the long-term, it will not only serve the interest of human freedom, but it will also serve our national security and international stability requirements as well. During the cold war, compromises were necessary. These were compromises that we had to make with nondemocratic regimes because we were defending against even larger gangsters and thugs who wanted to destroy the United States of America and the free world. Today, we should stand for freedom and democracy and we should insist that this be a basis for any relation that we have with other countries and other governments. I served Ronald Reagan in the White House, who altered a fundamental tactic that was being used during the cold war. Before Ronald Reagan, the U.S. Government was always anti-Communist. But during Ronald Reagan's term of office, he changed our position to being profreedom. Today we should continue Ronald Reagan's successful profreedom policy by pulling back from shipping arms to dictatorships and making sure that we are on the side of the people rather than on the side of the oppressors in those countries where dictatorships exist. This will be in the long-term interest of the United States. This was, in this policy that Ronald Reagan articulated during the 1980's, is what ended the cold war. It was not the fact that we had more missiles and more guns, although we did increase our weapons. It was the fact that America began to realistically and seriously talk about the promotion of democracy in the world. And in the end, the people who lived under tyranny hammered away at their walls and pulled those walls down and united themselves with the good and decent and democratic countries of the world. This amendment will in fact strengthen American foreign policy by empowering our diplomats to tell the military dictators that they should liberalize their policies, respect human rights, and join the family of democratic nations, or we will not be their friend and we will not provide them weapons to repress their own people. What does selling weapons to dictatorships really mean? It means that we will give weapons to people who thwart democratic elections, oppress their people, and then we will expect their people to pay us back. Well, is that not something to be proud of. That is something we can no longer accept in the United States of America. The cold war is over. It is time for us to have a new code of conduct that puts democracy and human rights ahead of a fast buck in selling weapons to the dictators around the world who repress people and violate the very principles which this country is supposed to be all about. What will the people of the world think about us if we adopt this kind of type of code of conduct? Well, they will know that we are on their side and not the side of the thugs and gangsters who hold power in too much of the world today. Our Founding Fathers believed that America would be and should be the beacon of liberty, of hope and justice to the whole world. That was our strength. That is what the Founding Fathers believed in. That is what America is supposed to be all about. It is not that we are the toughest guy in the world and have the most weapons, but we can count on the friendship of good and decent people all over the world. That is where America's strength is. That is the type of world we are trying to build. America's strength was not in that we were allied with dictatorships. Let me note that on this floor we have two pictures. We have George Washington over here and we have the Marquis D'Lafayette here. Why do we have a picture of a foreigner on the floor of Congress? This was a man who came to the United States before there was a United States. He stood for the principles of freedom and democracy and helped us win our battle against the most oppressive, imperialistic power of the day, Great Britain. We do not want to betray our Founding Fathers today and side with the oppressors of the world, the people who would use weapons to oppress their own people and stifle democratic institutions. If we do, if this is our policy now that the cold war is over, I can assure my colleagues that if we look at George Washington, the father of our country, and if we look very closely into the eyes of Lafayette, that we will see a tear because they will know that we are no longer the American people that they thought we would be. So I stand here today with people who only years ago were my adversaries on many issues. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. Ewing]. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] has expired. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Rohrabacher was allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I am going to have to reject the idea of putting a waiver into this bill. The bottom line is when we put waivers into these bills, what we do is we are really making them into a sense- of-the-Congress resolution and not changing a darned thing. If we are here to do anything, let us change some things. Let us get down to some real policy decisions and assert the fact that the Congress of the United States should be here protecting the interests of the people of the United States. The McKinney amendment had some real teeth in it and meant something about human rights and democracy. This amendment has something to do really with the security interest of the United States. What we are saying is that there is a threshold over which the Russians have passed, over that threshold that we can no longer tolerate and continue to give them millions upon millions, $95 million in aid to the Russians. It is unacceptable if we are going to give them that kind of aid for them to transfer weapons that are aimed at murdering, at killing American soldiers and American sailors. This amendment would basically prevent us from subsidizing people who are then turning around and giving this horrible weapons system to potential enemies of the United States and perhaps costing the lives of American sailors. Please vote for the Rohrabacher amendment for the long-term interests of peace and of the interests of the Russians as well.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment which is included in the en block amendment would put Congress on record in support of the effort by Taiwan to be admitted to the World Trade Organization. Taiwan, which has a democratically elected government, is currently the eighth largest trading partner of the United States. Taiwan has a population of 20 million people compared to 1.2 billion in China. However, exports from Taiwan substantially total more than U.S. exports to the Communists People's Republic of China, which has surpassed Japan in holding the largest annual trade imbalance with the United States. The executive branch has announced an interest in the admission of the People's Republic of China to the World Trade Organization. It is not only a matter of fundamental fairness, that democratic Taiwan also be admitted. The administration has, in fact, also indicated an interest in Taiwan's admission. This afternoon both the State Department and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative expressed support for my amendment. It is in the economic interest of United States consumers and exporters for Taiwan to complete the requirements for admission to the World Trade Organization at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, there seem to be a lot of waves being created here today. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, but I will have to admit that there have been some arguments presented by the other side that deserve consideration today. One of my central reasons for supporting the rule is that it contains the Gekas amendment, and I know that some of my friends on the opposite side of the aisle oppose the rule for exactly that reason. The Gekas amendment is political insurance for the people of the United States. People have flood insurance and they have fire insurance and they have termite insurance. This is political insurance that the Federal Government will not close down because of the political impasse between the political parties. It makes all the sense in the world to ensure that the Government will continue even if there is a political disagreement of those of us on the floor, as happened in 1995, when we passed our appropriations bills; but because of the President's intransigence, he shut down the Government; and because of his ability to communicate, blamed it on the Republicans. This would prevent that scenario and that finger-pointing from taking place. However, let me add that I am very concerned that we will be providing $8 billion in this bill, $5 billion to flood insurance emergency funds, yes. That is understandable. Some more citizens are in trouble. But another $2 billion for Bosnia, $2 billion for Bosnia at a time when our Secretary of Defense is talking about closing down more military bases in our country? Our troops were supposed to be out of Bosnia a long time ago. Many of us did not want those troops in Bosnia in the first place. So that is very questionable. Of course, we have also questions raised on the floor today about the printing of the currency and whose company will be doing it, and I think those questions should be answered. But I will say that, overall, I will be voting for the rule. I think it is a good rule. But there are some questions that will need to be answered before I will support the bill on the floor.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my friend and colleague Richard W. Carlson. Richard Carlson, president and CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting [CPB], is resigning from this position after 5 years of dedication to the public broadcasting industry. Dick brought to CPB a distinguished background in diplomacy, journalism, public service, and business. From 1991 to 1992, he was the U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Seychelles. He also served as Director of Voice of America and Associate Director of the U.S. Information Agency from 1986 until 1991. He has received 19 major journalism awards, including the prestigious George Foster Peabody Award. Last month he received a 1997 American Broadcast Pioneer Award, presented annually by the Broadcasters' Foundation. This award is given to individuals who have made legendary contributions within their spheres of influence in the broadcasting industry. During his tenure at CPB, Dick guided public broadcasters through an intense time of public scrutiny. He responded to this atmosphere in an articulate, bipartisan fashion. In doing this, he exhibited those characteristics that constitute his genuine personality: Intelligence, leadership, evenhandedness, and commitment. I congratulate my friend Dick Carlson upon this departure and wish him my best as he takes on new challenges.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the American people have car insurance, they have home insurance, they have life insurance. Now what we are offering them in this amendment is insurance against government shutdown, government shutdown insurance. This will prevent excessive politics from disrupting the lives of the citizens of the United States of America. It protects our people, our retirees, every American, when we come into disagreement for whatever the motive. Two years ago we were new here in our roles. We had a majority of Republicans in the House and the Senate, we had a President who was a Democrat, we were getting used to our roles. Who suffered because of that while we were getting used to what we were supposed to do? The American people when the government was shut down for 28 days. There is no finger pointing in that. If we come to some major disagreements because of a difference in philosophy in the future, let us provide a way out so our people will not be hurt while we make up our minds. We have the opportunity to prevent disagreement from hurting our people, from philosophical or political differences. I say let us protect our people, let us give them Gekas insurance.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, later this month on May 21, the Republic of China on Taiwan will mark a historic milestone. It will be the 1-year anniversary of President Lee Teng-hui's inauguration as China's first democratically elected President. President Lee's election was the culmination of a 10-year process of democratization and economic reforms which transformed the Republic of China into an economic powerhouse and a model for other emerging democracies in the world. It was just a year ago that the People's Republic of China was launching missiles across the Taiwan Strait in the vicinity of Taiwan's main ports. This crude attempt to intimidate Taiwan's 21 million people, as they prepared themselves to elect their national leadership and, failed miserably. That failure for the PRC was great triumph for Taiwan. President Lee was overwhelmingly elected with 54 percent of the vote. In doing so, the people of Taiwan demonstrated their commitment and resolve to the democratic values we all share. I was proud to organize the congressional delegation which traveled to Taipei last year to witness President Lee's swearing in. I organized that trip because I respect and admire what President Lee has accomplished, and I am proud to call him my friend. The past 12 months of President Lee's leadership has been a time of continued achievement and success for Taiwan. The Republic of China remains the United States seventh largest trading partner and best ally in Asia. In spite of the PRC's efforts to undermine Taiwan's free market, Taiwan's stock market has soared 36 percent and official reserves in Taiwan now exceed $90 billion. All of these achievements are a testament to the successful policies of President Lee and his government. Mr. Speaker, I also want to take this opportunity to point out that we are also approaching the first anniversary of the appointment of John Chang as the Republic of China's Foreign Minister. Mr. Chang has a long and illustrious career as a diplomat, having served previously as Minister of Overseas Chinese and as head of the North American Division. I and many of my colleagues know about Mr. Chang's work and leadership, and I would like to take this opportunity to salute his success in keeping our bilateral relationship, while not official, for now, as warm and strong as ever. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this month also marks the anniversary of Mr. Jason Hu's first year as the representative of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office [TECRO]. TECRO serves as the ROC's unofficial embassy here in Washington. Ambassador Hu previously served as President Lee's spokesman, and was a vital part of President Lee's team during the election. Since arriving in Washington, Ambassador Hu has developed many warm relationships with Members of this body and has worked tirelessly to insure United States-Republic of China relations continue to improve. Mr. Speaker, the ROC is a beacon of democracy in a region of the world too often shrouded in the darkness of oppression and tyranny. The ROC is our friend and partner, and Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for stopping in Taiwan during your recent trip to Asia. And I want to thank you for speaking for me when you remarked that the United States should defend Taiwan if attacked. Once again, congratulations President Lee, Minister Chang and Ambassador Hu on a successful year of remarkable accomplishments.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1275, the Civilian Space Authorization Act of 1997. This bill authorizes appropriations in fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for and provides policy direction to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Office of Commercial Space Transportation in the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Office of Space Commerce in the Department of Commerce. Mr. Chairman, just as our Nation's efforts are helping to open up America's next frontier, this bill makes pioneering strides in bipartisanship, in funding vital scientific and technological research, and in promoting our Nation's emerging commercial space enterprises. I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], my chairman, for his leadership on the space issues within this bill and his help in my efforts to prepare this bill. I would also like to thank the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], who has been a guidepost for the rest of us and made major contributions as well. The gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] is a good friend and has contributed a great deal to this, as has the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner]. I might add that the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer] and I have developed a relationship that some Members probably thought was impossible for a partisan guy like me to do. But the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer] and I have been working for our country's space efforts to make sure that America has the number one space effort in the world. We have put together a package today, and I am very, very pleased with the cooperation that we have had. I pledge that I will do my very best to keep that level of cooperation going. I would also like to thank, in passing, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon], who is the subcommittee's capable and active vice chairman, who has probably been more active than any vice chairman of any subcommittee that I have ever been a member of. So we thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] as well. Because we do not yet have a budget resolution, this year, this bill's funding levels are based on the Committee on Science's views and estimates which call for strengthening our Nation's research and development investments while pursuing the bipartisan goal of balancing the budget. Actually this bill provides a mere 1.25 percent increase, that is a 1\1/4\ percent increase in the funding for NASA over last year, over fiscal year 1997 levels. That is less than inflation. We do that while holding the other two agencies basically constant. This bill reflects funding priorities set by the Committee on Science and its Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics over the last several years. Over the last several years, obviously, both parties have been in a leadership position in these committees. We strongly support human space flight, space science and the aeronautics and space technology efforts which will keep American industry number one and open the frontier of space to commercial enterprise. With a few exceptions, we have approved the President's budget request for NASA. It is a greatly improved budget submission over the one he made for fiscal year 1997, especially with regard to the outyears. In two areas, we have added the funds necessary to achieve high priority goals. In others, we have made small reductions or limitations on the use of funds. NASA Administrator Goldin has repeatedly stated to the Congress and audiences all over the country that his highest goal after preserving the safety of the space shuttle flight program is dramatically reducing the cost of transporting people and cargo into space. NASA has made an excellent start in that direction with the X-33 Program and its smaller sibling, X-34 Program. We are fully funding those programs and indeed specifically authorizing the X-33 Program. Unfortunately, the NASA budget only has funds to develop and flight test one concept for the X-33. NASA has indicated both in testimony and direct conversations with me and my staff that they wish to pursue additional X-vehicles in the future to continue pushing down the cost of space transportation. This bill uses most of our increase over the President's request to fully fund a different competitively chosen X-vehicle by using the most advanced technologies possible as a complementary follow-on to X-33. This will provide technical redundancy to the X-33 in case that program fails, and it will enable downstream competition in the reusable launch vehicle industry, should the X-33 program succeed. It also will accelerate the drive toward cheap access to space and not in the long run but in the medium run save the taxpayers not only millions of dollars but billions of dollars by bringing down the cost of getting into space and making sure that as we explore and utilize space for national and all the purposes of mankind, that it not be, that the cost is not so high simply because the transportation costs are high. Another goal of the subcommittee for NASA is preserving steady funding for scientific research. We are providing some small increases to the space science accounts in this bill, particularly for the analysis of data coming back from science missions and also for initiatives like asteroid detection and NASA participation in the Air Force's Clementine II asteroid intercept mission. We also increase and specify funding for life and microgravity sciences and applications, an area with tremendous potential to improve our daily lives here on earth and also an area which the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer] in his remarks detailed for us that we learned during our hearings of the tremendous potential of this life and microgravity sciences. Again, I would like to thank the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer] for the positive role he played in those hearings and in relating that potential to us here today. Perhaps the most well-known program in the bill is the International Space Station Program which we are fully funding at the President's request so it will enable vital science and help open new frontiers to American free enterprise. Of course, the space station program is currently facing the challenge of a lack of funding from the Russian Government for their share of the hardware. The Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held an excellent hearing on April 9 which discussed both the problems with the Russian partnership and the great importance of completing the space station on schedule for scientific and commercial reasons. On April 16, the committee adopted without a single opposing vote a bipartisan amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], and the ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], which imposes a responsible decisionmaking process on the administration for solving this problem. Now, this bill does not just fund NASA. As commercial space activities continue to grow, creating high-wage, high-technology jobs here in America, using private capital in doing so, it is vital that the Government can provide a stable and streamlined regulatory and positive business environment for this emerging space industry. That is why President Reagan created the Office of Commercial Space Transportation and the Office of Space Commerce. This bill funds and directs the Office of Commercial Space Transportation, now part of the Federal Aviation Administration, to license commercial space transportation vehicles and spaceports. We also fully fund and permanently establish the Office of Space Commerce in the Department of Commerce, which promotes the growth of current and emerging new commercial space activities. As I said earlier, this bill provides significant policy direction as well as authorizing appropriations. That direction boils down to two important themes: ensuring NASA's accountability in the spending of nearly $14 billion each year in taxpayer funds and improving the cost effectiveness of all Government civil space spending. Regarding accountability, this bill gives NASA four major directives. First, in the International Space Station Program, the Congress should be better informed as to the thinking behind and the commercial impact of the international hardware barter agreements NASA is negotiating with various foreign entities. Second, we want to make sure that as NASA consolidates its nonshuttle operational contracts and moves those activities more into the private sector, that NASA fully consider and inform the Congress regarding the issues of competition and fixed-price versus cost-plus-fee contracting. Third, we direct NASA to pursue independent cost analysis of its programs which include all costs to the taxpayers. Finally, we direct NASA to provide the Congress with a detailed report on the status of the Earth Observing System data information system. Of course, all of us on the committee and in this body want to ensure that our constituents' tax dollars are spent as effectively as possible, particularly as we drive toward a balanced budget in the year 2002. So for civil space, like all other so-called discretionary programs, the Congress and the administration must work hard to continually improve and reform the cost effectiveness of all Federal space activities. To that end, this bill does several things to improve both efficiency and effectiveness of the taxpayers' investment. We include an initiative to improve NASA procurement of new technology. We direct NASA to actively pursue the greatest possible commercial participation and use of the International Space Station Program. We direct NASA to purchase space science data from commercial providers. We fund a continuing program at the Stennis Space Center to purchase commercial remote sensing data to more cheaply meet the needs of the Mission to Planet Earth Program. We strongly state our commitment to move from Government-operated space launch vehicles to the purchase of commercially provided launch services, including the possible option of a privatized shuttle fleet. And we place in statute a very important provision of the President's national space policy, mandating the purchase of, and preventing NASA competition with, commercially available space goods and services. In closing, let me say a few more words about the bipartisanship that we have enjoyed over these last few months and how critical that has been to this legislation. Our Nation's space efforts have been and should remain bipartisan in nature and bipartisan in their support. But the world is changing. The cold war that motivated our earlier space efforts has long since gone. Our space program and our policies concerning space must change as well. Bureaucracies do not like change and they often use partisan differences to keep the legislative branch from promoting positive reforms. We have in these last few months forged a solid bipartisan coalition which will permit us to make sure the taxpayers are getting their money's worth and that America will remain the No. 1 Nation in space, the No. 1 space power on this planet. The great achievement of this bill is that the funding priorities and policy direction we have set are supported by both policies. Together we are saying that the reason we are funding the space station is to do scientific research and to promote commercial opportunities. Together we are saying that the space shuttle should be upgraded to improve safety. Together we are saying that cheap access to space is a critical goal which deserves additional funding. Together we are saying that the space commercialization offers tremendous opportunities for creating new jobs and industries without increasing and in fact in some instances decreasing the actual funding level that we have to deal with. So today I would ask my colleagues to join me in strong support for H.R. 1275. We have found it in our abilities to work together, and I am sure we will continue this cooperation throughout this session.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan manager's amendment was crafted from 3 distinct minor amendments which have no impact on the funding level of this bill and simply fine-tune or add policy provisions. The first part authored by the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics strikes a policy provision relating to freezing Space Station management responsibilities we had included in the bill at the time of the markup, and I support the language of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer]. The second part is a clarification of the range of scientific data we are recommending that NASA purchase from the commercial data providers. There has been a lot of interest in comets and asteroids as of late. We did not want to leave them out. Now the third part is an amendment by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary] which was offered successfully in the last Congress to perfect the language of the Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan Act of 1949 based on technological progress that has been made since 1949, and I support Mr. Hilleary's language. As further evidence of how bipartisan our work in this bill has been, each of these parts were agreed to by the minority side, and so I combined them into a single amendment to save our time here on the floor. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer].

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I also accept the amendment, and I commend both the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] for the work they have put in to insuring as we did work in this committee that we did not overlook the very positive program that both of them believe in, and because of their hard work and diligence we have managed to fund this and make sure that it will continue through the years.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] for yielding the time. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], who again has drawn our attention to the fact that we should not rubberstamp any major programs or even minor programs that go through the House of Representatives. His diligence over the years has prevented us from becoming complacent. His diligence has ensured that we have tried to make this program, to the very best of our ability, to be as cost effective and as efficiently run as possible, if nothing else, to detour the criticism of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] that comes up on the floor every year. To that regard, he is serving a useful function, and this is a very fine example of bipartisan democracy at work in the sense there are people on both sides of the issues and we have people who are very sincere in what they are trying to say. I may have agreed with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] had we been making this decision 10 years ago or 12 years ago. I may have agreed with him perhaps even 8 years ago, perhaps. But today we have gone down the road, and to turn back now after this long journey has only begun but as we are halfway down the road to the destination would be irresponsible on our part and would actually cause more waste than what the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] would save by cutting the program. The gentleman from Indiana suggests that he supports the shuttle program, but many of the savings that he talks about that would be saved as part of slicing off the Space Station Program were achieved only by the fact that the space shuttle would not be used to put the space station up; the shuttle would be used for other things, as well. We will not make savings in that area until we develop a new and less costly way of putting people and payloads into space, which is something we are trying to do in our budget. The international space station will be a magnificent technological achievement of historic proportions. It will be of significance, historical significance. People will remember that it was this generation that stepped forward and placed our first frontier post, manned frontier post into the next frontier. It is from that post, it is from this penetration of that great barrier, that great frontier that now is beyond us and confronts us, that will be the moment that people will say, this is where the conquest of space began for this generation. Whatever great leap forward mankind has ever taken has always had a situation where there were people who, No. 1, said that we should not go, or, No. 2, this is not the right method, or as the program proceeded, they were doubters about the program and doubters about the specific goal that the people had in mind. Six years ago, I sat on this floor and we came very close to canceling the C-17 project. The C-17, which is a magnificent aircraft, an aircraft that now ensures that the United States is the No. 1 aerospace power in the world, that we can project our forces anywhere in the world now, and people all over the world look to us in awe of this great achievement. The C-17 almost went down for the same arguments that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] is now making against the space station. After that vote, my father called me. My father was a pioneer in air transport aviation. He flew DC-3's all over the Pacific in World War II. He reminded me that every time they had come up with a new aircraft, there had been cost overruns, there had been kinks in the program, and there had been problems that were unforeseen and they had to overcome those problems and overcome the naysayers in order to make those achievements. We must overcome our doubters to make this next great achievement for mankind, the great achievement that will be in the history books, a manned space station. This is our job.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered By Mr. Cramer to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would compliment my colleague from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn]. While a short time here, he has become a champion of the taxpayers and watching for these little things that might sneak by the rest of us, and we really appreciate his diligence on this issue and other issues, I might add as well.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to put my strength or my convictions or my words behind my colleague from Oklahoma who is watching out for the taxpayers' interests. As my colleagues know, sometimes we get so involved with the big picture that we miss some of the details, and when talking about the details in Washington, DC, we are talking about hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars that slip right on by and end up being spent on what most Americans would think are looney programs. And I have to say that I honestly believe that this biosphere program is one of those looney programs for which we could have better spending in other NSF research programs, and it would be much better to have this money that is being spent for what I consider also to be. As my colleagues know, one of the things when I came up here, and I will just be very honest about it, is, yes, we have a situation where all political people, we are all elected, and sometimes people are attracted to projects that have a lot of publicity and are trendy projects, and I hate to say this, but it appears to be from what I read about the biosphere program that it is a trendy project, but it does not make any sense to me what I read about it, and I think that there are other ways that we could spend taxpayers' dollars that would be much more beneficial, like making sure no money is spent on this sort of looney program. We are ensuring that those dollars will be spent on something a little bit more substantive. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].