Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, in my district we had a gentleman named Fernando Pedrosa who came from El Salvador several years ago. He was a fine man, a wonderful human being, Fernando Pedrosa was a wonderful human being, but he had leukemia. By the time he died at a hospital in my district, hundreds of thousands of dollars had been spent. That is hundreds of thousands of dollars that he had never contributed to whatsoever. We owe it to the people of the United States to see that this problem is dealt with. We cannot have people coming in here from all over the world, no matter how wonderful they are, and they are good people, and getting cancer treated, getting leukemia treated, getting new kidneys, getting new hearts, whatever it is; and event if they are in an automobile accident, yes, they should be taken care of if it is an emergency. We are never going to throw someone out in that situation. But if they are in this country illegally, I have no apologies, we have no apologies, that person should be treated for the emergency and then they should be sent home to their native country, because they are here illegally. In Los Angeles, there was a breakdown in the Los Angeles County public health care system. It required a $364 million bailout of our health care system in Los Angeles, mainly due to the fact that we have been treating so many millions of people who are in this country illegally. We cannot let this go on. We owe it to our own citizens to be responsible, and at the very least, we should say if people are being treated and the taxpayers are being given the bill, that the hospitals provide information to those who are trying to enforce the law so this problem does not get bigger and bigger and bigger. We do not want to encourage people to come from other countries here in order to get hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical treatment. This bill goes a long way. I compliment the gentleman from Tennessee [Ed Bryant] on his diligence and responsibility.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I am rising here today to support the Gallegly amendment. If things are going to be made illegal, we have to provide the means of enforcing that decision. Otherwise we are just philosophizing. Our voters did not send us here to sit down and talk together about ideas. They wanted us to change the way things are in the United States. It is not enough to say you are against illegal immigrants flooding into our country. You have got to be able to do something about it, or that is not what your public life is all about. We are not here to philosophize with one another. We are here to try to solve a problem. In California and elsewhere, we have a mammoth tide, a wave of illegal immigration, sweeping across our country. We should give the people the tools to make sure that those illegal immigrants when they come here are not the recipients of workers' comp, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and all the other government benefits that go with being employed in this country. The fact is that we have made it illegal for an employer to hire these people. Otherwise, let us just take off that ban. If you want to take off that ban, that is fine. Or, if you want to say it is legal for illegal immigrants to get government benefits, fine, make that your position. But do not tell the American people you are against illegal immigration if you are trying to undercut every single attempt that is being made to try to enforce that decision. We are here not to just philosophize, we are here to solve problems and get things done. Please take your heads out of the clouds and make sure your feet are on the ground.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, America is now facing a potential military confrontation in the Straits of Taiwan, or the Taiwan Straits as they are called. We should all come together, and that is what this piece of legislation does, to make certain that the Communist regime on the mainland understands that we are united in our opposition to any use of force by the mainland on Taiwan, and that the United States will respond militarily, if necessary, if force is used against the Republic of China on Taiwan. But this situation was a long time in coming. It was a long time in the making. Mistakes have been made, and let us quit making those mistakes. The official policy of this administration has been strategic ambiguity with the Communist dictatorship on the mainland. Ambiguity with dictatorships does not work. If anything is a lesson we should have learned in the past, it is that. The Chinese communists have mistaken our ambiguity for weakness. When this administration decoupled all consideration of trade policy with our discussions with the Communist regime in China on human rights, they did not take that as a sign of good faith from us we needed to discuss human rights. They took that as a sign of weakness. This President proved himself the worst enemy of human rights to ever serve as President of the United States by decoupling any consideration of human rights with trade discussions with the largest and most heinous opponent and oppressor of people on this planet, the Communist dictatorship in China. What we have to do now is to reassert to those dictators on the mainland of China that we side with the democratic people of the world, especially in the Republic of China, and we will not tolerate their expansionism or their threats or any other activities that threaten their neighbors. We are a country that stands for human rights and peace. We must be strong. That is what Beijing needs to hear. That is what this resolution is all about.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, but with a major reservation. I had planned to offer an amendment which I feel is vital to stem the tide of illegal immigration pounding our Nation, but the Rules Committee did not make this amendment in order. My amendment would have simply applied the employer telephone verification system in title IV of H.R. 2202 to Government agencies and require administrators of federally funded Government assistance programs to use the verification system to check the eligibility of applicants for public benefits. As the bill stands now, only employers can use the telephone verification system to check on the eligibility of job applicants. Why shouldn't public agencies use the same verification system to check on the eligibility of applicants for federally funded benefits? If the bill is left the way it is, it threatens to create a perverse incentive that makes it safer for illegal aliens to apply for welfare than to apply for jobs. This is insane. With our welfare system nearly stretched to the breaking point, why in the world are we making it easier for illegal aliens to get welfare than jobs? We all know that a large number of illegal aliens use fake documents to get jobs. This is why we need a telephone verification system. But what everyone seems to be forgetting is that illegal aliens can use these same fake documents to get billions of dollars in public benefits. I am glad to see that the Senate version of this bill does includes a verification system which is to be used to verify a person's eligibility for both welfare and employment. Hopefully, the House conferees will agree to the Senate's provision. If we truly want to get serious about stemming the tide of illegal immigration, we must eliminate the magnets which draw them here. There are free enterprisers who claim not to care if illegal aliens come here to work. But there is a dynamic at play that needs consideration. Many illegal immigrants work at wages so low even the illegal immigrants wouldn't accept the job--if not for the health care, education and other benefits provided by the taxpayers. Government benefits subsidize the exploitation on illegals. As it turns out American taxpayers and illegal aliens are being exploited by avaricious businessmen who are not offering a living wage. Correcting the error of providing benefits will help solve the job problem as well.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first congratulate the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] for the tremendous job they have done in putting this legislation together. I have been deeply involved in this issue for over 5 years now. While the Democrats controlled this body, we could not get a vote on the illegal immigration issue. We could not bring this Government to come to grips with this problem that was destroying the State of California and threatening to overwhelm the entire country. But in a democracy, if elected officials do not act, the people will. What happened, there is no coincidence that proposition 187 out in California passed at the same time that the people kicked the Democratic majority out of control of the House of Representatives because they want action in their behalf. Who were we representing before? I mean, it was incredible. I could not figure out why people were voting the way they were. Whose interest was being represented? Well, this is a new era in the House of Representatives. Every time we tried to do something before, the Democrats would say, oh these poor suffering people here and these poor suffering people here. We would have to apologize that we were trying to represent the interests of the American people. Well, that is not going to happen anymore. Yes, we are concerned. We care about other people. We care about the children of people who live in foreign countries. But that does not mean we are going to allow everybody in the world to bring their children here and break down our education system so our kids cannot get an education. And yes, Mr. Chairman, some people may be deprived overseas, but we are not going to let criminals come into our society and commit crimes and not have our Government act upon it and see our jails being filled with illegal aliens. Yeah, we love older people from other countries. We love humanity, but we do not want senior citizens coming into America and draining all of the resources that we have saved up for our own citizens, for our own seniors so that our people will not have those programs to rely upon. Yes, we care about sick people wherever they come from. We do not want sick people coming here from all over the world expecting to get free medical care and breaking down our system. We do not want sick people coming here from every corner of the world breaking down our health care system. That is what is happening in California. The difference between this Congress and the last Congress is we are going to come to grips with this problem because we do care. We care about the American people, and we have no apologies for that.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I guess, and am I taking it for granted that the gentleman is denying that the numerous attempts that I tried to make to get legislation on this floor concerning benefit packages going to illegal aliens, that I am just imagining that we tried to put these things through the system and were beaten down every time by the Democrats who controlled the process?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. My remarks were aimed at benefit packages.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, how many of us remember what was going on 4 years ago? Four years ago the American people were told that we were in the worst recession in 50 years. Remember that? The worst recession in 50 years. The news media did not challenge that claim by candidate Clinton, but soon after the election, we found out all the new statistics, economic statistics, that were coming out were exactly the opposite. We were not in the worst recession in 50 years. In fact, the economy was heading up in the last half of that year, of that last election year of 1992. We are now being told, 4 years later, that things are great. The stock market is booming. Inflation remains low. Things are not that great, Mr. Speaker, The American people know that. They can sense that, no matter how many times the news media is trying to tell them otherwise. The growth rate actually went down dramatically from the time President Clinton was inaugurated until this year. Now we are told things are really picking up. Things are not picking up. There is an illusion that things are getting better, but the American people know better. The first item on President Clinton's agenda when he was inaugurated was passing the largest tax increase in American history. Candidate Clinton had promised a middle-class tax cut. Today, 3 years later, the American people understand something is wrong. Something is wrong. They are paying more, but they cannot put their finger on it. That is because every time they go to the gas pump they are paying 5 cents more than they would otherwise. That is because many of our seniors, who are the hardest hit by the Clinton tax cut, know that they are paying more money on their Social Security, more taxes on their Social Security benefits. Our seniors felt that tax increase, and a lot of the rest of us have felt the effects of that tax increase, but a lot of Clinton's rich pals, President Clinton's rich pals, did not feel that. How many of us remember that some of the top contributors to President Clinton's campaign were tipped off by someone, no one knows who, that the tax increases that he would propose as President would be made retroactive? A few super rich contributors, like Mr. Eisner, who owns Disney Corporation, managed to basically do his selling and make his profits between the time President Clinton was elected and the time he was inaugurated. Apparently somebody had tipped him off that those tax increases would be retroactive. He saved himself a cool $100 million, but the average American today is paying higher and higher taxes. We understand that the American people today, as compared to 1992, the average American family actually is earning in take-home pay, take- home pay, over $700 less than they did in 1992. No, Mr. and Mrs. America, you are not experiencing some kind of delusion. I know you have gone to the movie and you have seen ``The American President,'' this multimillion dollar movie that Hollywood made to glorify the presidency. You have heard the news media telling you over and over and over again that things are getting better. But no, you are not suffering some delusion in thinking that something is wrong, that something has gone wrong with your standard of living and that you are not living as well. When the Government takes more money from the people in the form of taxation, it puts a clamp on economic growth and it takes decision making away from them, and freedom away from them, and prosperity away from the people. We cannot create something out of nothing. Many liberals believe over the years that if the Government does something, if the Government pays money or if the Government taxes them, this is coming out of thin air. The fact is Government revenue, Federal revenue, unless it results from higher productivity of the American worker, unless it results from actually more investments, unless it results not from higher tax rates, but from more productivity and more production of wealth in our society, means that the American people are worse off. Today every American family faces the choice of either having a lower standard of living or having two people in the family work. What we have found far too often is that when we examine the statistics, what is happening is that one member of the American family is working full time, and the only thing that happens is that that person's money is paying their Federal taxes. If we are to be a free society, if our people are to be prosperous and to live as they are supposed to, we must lower the tax rate and we must eliminate the Clinton elitists that would like to take more and more money out of our pockets.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, wildlife poaching in Africa has reached such proportions that elephant and endangered rhinoceros populations have been decimated in several countries. The poaching goes on because of the demand for ivory and animal parts used in traditional medicine in Asia. At one time, wildlife conservation groups criticized the Republic of China on Taiwan for not doing enough to stop this traffic into Taiwan. The Government there has long since cracked down with strict enforcement and stiff penalties for offenders. Now, they have opened a new front in the war on wildlife poaching. The Government of the Republic of China on Taiwan has just announced a grant to the nonprofit United States-based Wilderness Conservancy to purchase a special spotter airplane that will be used in Kruger National Park in South Africa, where game rangers will patrol with it to locate poachers before they do their dirty work. The airborne spotters will radio the location of potential poachers to rangers on the ground who will apprehend them. Kruger is one of the world's great game reserves and has only recently begun to feel the threat of poaching. The Wilderness Conservancy is experienced in assisting antipoaching forces throughout Southern Africa, with spotter aircraft and a range of supplies and support services for game rangers and their families. Saving the rhinoceros and elephant from extinction is dangerous, round-the-clock work. This generous gift makes possible a unique three- way cooperative effort between the people of Taiwan, a conservation- minded American organization and the men and women on the antipoaching front lines in South Africa.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, India recently celebrated the anniversary of the adoption of its constitution. While I applaud India's embrace of democratic principles, we should not overlook India's brutal repression of Sikhs, Christians, and Muslims. India and the United States should be friends, but our friendship will become increasingly strained unless India starts to practice the democratic values it claims. Also troubling are India's testing of the Prithvi-II missile. The missile's 156-mile range is a clear threat to Pakistan. In context of this blatant intimidation of Pakistan, India's desire to test another nuclear device can only be seen as an extension of its threats to Pakistan. I share India's suspicion of China's regional intentions, but that mutual suspicion does not give it leeway to threaten force against its other neighbors. According to the United States State Department the Indian Government paid over 41,000 cash bounties to police officers for the killing of Sikhs since 1991. Sikhs are not the only victims of India's state terrorism. In addition to the estimated 150,000 Sikhs who have been murdered by the Indian Government since 1984, tens of thousands of Christians and Muslims have also been killed. In fact, all non-Hindus are at risk, of oppression in India. If India is ``the world's largest democracy,'' as it claims to be, then how can it pile up such a gruesome death toll? If India respects the human rights of the people who live in India, why do so many citizens of India want to get out from under Indian rule? I have criticized the absence of religious freedom in Burma, Vietnam, China, and other totalitarian countries. India's record does not seem much better. Just this week, the Indian Government jailed an 88-year- old Catholic priest and a 50-year-old nun on charges of violating a law outlawing religious conversion. Beyond India's systematic abuse of human rights in Kashmir, Nagaland, and Khalistan, I am deeply concerned with India's growing negative role in Afghanistan. India's support for the Rabbani regime in Kabul troubles me because of Mr. Rabanni's rejection of efforts to return Afghanistan to peace. I have proposed that former King Zahir Shah serve as a transitional Head of State of Afghanistan while the Afghan people write a constitution, organize elections, and ultimately, establish a peaceful and democratic Afghanistan. Unfortunately, Mr. Rabanni has opposed this possible solution in favor of continued fighting and chaos. Indian's support for Rabanni makes him less likely to accept reasonable efforts to end Afghanistan's bloodshed. India should be our friend. But, Mr. Speaker, the more we learn about India, the harder that friendship will be to sustain.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, Gen. Daniel Graham's service to this country has been matched by few Americans. As a tribute to him and his achievements, I would like to submit for the Record, a letter that Speaker Newt Gingrich wrote to General Graham last year, and General Graham's obituary as it appeared in the January 3, 1996, edition of the New York Times. U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, May 10, 1995. Dear Dan: I am sorry I am not able to join you this evening. However, I do not want my appreciation of your achievements to go unstated. Your contributions to U.S. national security and the U.S. space program are exceptionally well known in Congress. As Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, your unflinching analysis of Soviet capabilities and intentions reminded us that the Soviet Union was an unfailing adversary that wished the United States immense harm. Your fortitude in telling elected officials the cold, hard truth, even when they sometimes did not want to hear it, served as a guidepost by which we could reorient U.S. foreign policy and win the Cold War. Even in retirement, General Graham, you were dedicated and forward-thinking which you proved by founding High Frontier, a citizen's organization dedicated to leading the United States towards a secure future in space. Your leadership helped President Reagan launch the Strategic Defense Initiative, which has brought us ever closer to ending the threat of nuclear annihilation. However, you were not satisfied to simply improve national security, but you led High Frontier and its sister organization, the Space Transportation Association, to creatively think about the U.S. future in space. Today, under you care and instruction, these two organizations are among the most creative sources of thinking on developing outer space as a national resource. The X-33 program to create a reusable rocket that dramatically lowers the cost of access to space, for example, would not be happening today without the contributions of you and your colleagues. In closing, I can only say thank you for your past service in the Cold War and your wonderful contributions to America's future. In formulating a vision for space development, you planted, watered, and nurtured a seed that is growing as we speak and will one day surpass our wildest imagination. Thank you Lieutenant General Daniel O. Graham for helping save America. Your friend, Newt Gingrich. [From the New York Times, Jan. 3, 1996] D.O. Graham, 70, Creator of `Star Wars' Defense (By Steve Lohr) Lieut. Gen. Daniel O. Graham, one of the leading architects of President Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, also known as ``Star Wars,'' died on Sunday at his home in Arlington, Va. He was 70. General Graham died of colon cancer, Brig. Gen. Robert Richardson 3d, a friend and longtime colleague, said yesterday. While others, including Dr. Edward Teller, played roles in getting the Reagan Administration to adopt the Star Wars plan to shield the United States from Soviet nuclear attack with space-based missiles, even General Graham's opponents acknowledge that he was probably the most persistent advocate for the approach. ``Dan Graham got it on the national agenda and, though it's been modified recently, the ballistic missile defense concept has remained on the agenda ever since,'' said John Pike, director of the space policy project of the Federation of American Scientists, a research group in Washington. The Strategic Defense Initiative changed its name to the Ballistic Missile Defense Project in 1993, Mr. Pike noted, but the project is still spending more than $3 billion a year on the kind of high-technology programs that General Graham championed A graduate of West Point, General Graham spent 30 years in the military, serving in Germany, Korea and Vietnam. Much of his career was spent in military intelligence as a Soviet specialist, and he became an expert in missile defense systems and satellite surveillance. He rose to become deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency for two years in the 1970's, before he became the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency from 1974 to 1976, when he retired. The general was known as an ardent hawk, even among his Pentagon peers, a man who strongly believed in the 1970's that the rapid growth of the Soviet Union's military was being ignored within the American intelligence community. And it was after General Graham retired from the military that he was able to press his views most effectively. In 1976, General Graham advised Ronald Reagan in his first Presidential campaign, which was unsuccessful. In late 1979, the general was again asked to advise Mr. Reagan on military matters in his bid for the Presidency. Even then, General Graham was enthusiastic about shifting the nation's military resources to an antimissile defense. But as the general recalled later, the invitation from Mr. Reagan prompted him to get ``really busy'' on finding a way to pursue an antimissile defense policy. In his research, General Graham came upon a plan developed in the Eisenhower Administration to destroy Russian missiles early in flight with Ballistic Missile Boost Intercepts, or Bambi, an early blueprint for space-based battle stations. The project was canceled after the Kennedy Administration concluded that it would be costly and unworkable. Yet General Graham came to the view that technical strides in the intervening two decades gave the concept of space- based missile defense new life, according to ``Teller's War,'' a 1992 history of Star Wars by William J. Broad. In 1981, General Graham set up High Frontier Inc., a policy organization intended to study and promote defense systems in space. In the last few years, High Frontier has focused more on space transportation and support systems instead of missiles, said General Richardson, deputy director of High Frontier in Arlington, Va. Born on April 13, 1925, General Graham spent his childhood as the son of farmers near Medford, Ore. He came from a poor family, working in saw mills and orchards as a teen-ager, his son, Douglas, of Arlington, said yesterday. General Graham is survived by his second wife, Adele Piro Graham, whom he married in 1994. His first wife, Ruth Maxwell Graham, died in 1989. Besides his wife and son, General Graham is survived by six other children, Daniel Jr. of Fairfax, Va.; Melanie of Los Angeles; Laurie of Falls Church, Va.; Elizabeth of Falmouth, Va.; Julianne Stovall of Alexandria, and Margaret Cuccinello of Thomaston, Me.; two brothers, Patrick of San Diego and James of Colorado Springs, and one sister, Sharon Martinez of Pacifica, Calif.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I thank the gentleman very much. I was blessed to be born in California and to have lived in California at the time when Ronald Reagan was Governor of that State. In fact, I worked on his very first campaign. I was the Los Angeles County high school chairman of Youth for Reagan. And one little anecdote that might give people a better sense of who we are talking about is that after that campaign, it was a very hard-fought campaign, Ronald Reagan was always told during his entire career that he would lose the election that he was in because he was an extremist. And we have heard that word bandied about here today. Ronald Reagan was always called an extremist and was always told that the American people would never elect him and that he could not win, that was always the argument against him in the Republican primaries. It was a hard-fought primary and Reagan won handily. During that primary in the youth group, in the youth movement that we had there working for Ronald Reagan, there was a conflict between the Young Republicans and the Young Americans for Freedom. And it was a very brutal conflict, even though we had a great man to work for. Everybody was fighting each other and some of us tried to just walk the precincts and pay attention to the job, but everybody seemed to get sucked into this battle. What happened was, the senior staff of the Reagan campaign determined after the primary that what they would do is eliminate Youth for Reagan and then they would just put all the young people into the organization that was based for everybody, for the adult volunteers of the campaign. I just felt terrible about this. I just did not know what to do. I had walked about 20 precincts myself. I had 120 kids in my area that had just worked their hearts out for Ronald Reagan and Youth for Reagan, and I was crestfallen. What was this going to mean? There would be no Youth for Reagan. I decided to talk to Ronald Reagan himself about this problem. And there I was, 17, I guess I was more like 18 years old. I got up one morning and went to Ronald Reagan's home at 2 or 3 in the morning. And I walked up this narrow driveway, and this shows you how different things are, there was not even a guard on the outside of the house. And I went to the backyard and camped out in the backyard. And I had a little sign. And the next morning about 7 in the morning, Nancy stuck her head out of the door and said, Who are you? I had this little sign and it said, Ronald Reagan, please speak to me. And she explained, she said, Now, look, my husband cannot come out; otherwise I know him, he will miss his breakfast or he will be late for the rest of the day. How can you argue with a wife who is concerned about her husband? And so she said, If you will go down and if you will leave now, I will make sure that you get an appointment with one of the top campaign people. You can discuss your problem with him. So OK, I started walking down that long driveway. And then behind me I heard a thump, thump, thump. And it was Ronald Reagan. His shirt was half off. There was shaving cream on his face. He said, Wait a minute, wait a minute. He said, If you can camp out on my back lawn all night, I can at least spend a couple minutes with you. Sure enough, he spent 5 minutes with me. And I would like to think that that was the 5 minutes that saved Youth for Reagan, because the adult organization did not take over. But this is just the type of man Ronald Reagan was. He had a wonderful heart. He thought about young people. We have just been discussing what will happen if we do not set our country on the right path. It will be our young people that suffer. Ronald Reagan knew this. Ronald Reagan's whole goal, when he became President of the United States, was to make sure that we passed onto our children a country that was more prosperous and a world that was more free and a world that was more likely to be at peace than the one that we inherited. President Clinton, by the way, has had an easy job of this. I know that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will not accept this, but the fact is, President Clinton inherited a great economy, an economy that was growing, an economy that had almost no inflation. And in fact, he also inherited a world in which the United States was the supreme power and that the cold war was a memory, the cold war was over. For the first half of Mr. Clinton's Presidency, he had control of both Houses of Congress. His party could have done anything they wanted. This is so different than when Ronald Reagan took over as President. Ronald Reagan inherited a disaster. Our economy, I remember that, because I was a journalist at the time. I remember that in the 2 years prior to Ronald Reagan becoming President, my income was reduced by 25 percent due to inflation. All those people who were not getting raises found out that with an inflation rate of 13 percent and 12 percent a year, that their income was going down, that they could not afford to live. In fact, one of the greatest drops in the economic well-being of minority Americans and less affluent Americans happened in the 2 years just prior to Ronald Reagan taking over as President. And when Reagan came to office, we faced this incredible economic catastrophe. We also faced an enemy intent on destroying the United States of America, an enemy that had been arming itself to the teeth for years, and a situation in which our own Armed Forces had been neglected out of some ideological commitment by the left. I guess the left at that time felt that a strong United States was an enemy of peace and not a friend of peace. Ronald Reagan had to turn that situation around or we would have been at war. He had to turn the situation around or our young people would never have had any chance of prosperity or the economic lives that we lived even in this generation would have continued to decline. On top of that, the Democrats had control of this body, of the House of Representatives, during his entire time as President. In fact, the Democrats did everything they could to undermine President Reagan. I know there is a lot of revisionist history going on these days about the cold war, but I will tell you this right now, that when Ronald Reagan tried to confront Soviet aggression, tried to rebuild America's strength, tried to do what he could to confront this bully that threatened all of mankind, we did not have the liberal wing of the Democratic Party on our side. In fact, they were doing everything they possibly could to undermine our effort. In fact, at the time in the domestic area, when Ronald Reagan proposed cuts, today we hear him blamed for the great deficit increase that happened during his years. I remember very well what happened during those years. What happened was Ronald Reagan was personally attacked. He was villified, not for spending too much, not for creating a bigger deficit. The very same people who today call him those names and blame him for the deficit were the ones in charge of this House who were attacking Ronald Reagan for not spending enough money. They were the ones who pushed Ronald Reagan to the wall in order to get more money put into the budget, not less. It is funny now that we hear the revisionist history about Ronald Reagan being the one responsible for the deficit by the very same people who demanded more and more spending, and villified Ronald Reagan for fighting it. Worse than that, however, When Ronald Reagan tried to confront the Soviet Union, in our efforts, for example, before Ronald Reagan became President, there was a movement by the Soviets to dominate Europe with a buildup of intermediate range missiles. Immediately thereafter, after the Soviet Union expanded its military might, it called for what they call a nuclear freeze, which would have frozen them into a military superiority which would not put them in domination of Europe, and would have put them in a situation where the cold war would never have ended, because they would have been a dominant force on this planet. Ronald Reagan countered that with a proposal saying, ``Look, if we are going to limit nuclear weapons, and we are talking about intermediate range nuclear weapons, let us bring down the levels of nuclear weapons in Europe to zero, so both sides will be able to decrease their spending on the military, and you will not have to have any missiles in Europe on either side.'' The proposal was considered seriously in the Soviet Union. Where it is not considered seriously was by the liberal wing of the Democratic Party who attacked Ronald Reagan publicly for offering this, saying that they knew that the Soviet Union would never seriously consider this, and that Ronald Reagan was just hiding his true intent, which was wasting money on the military. In fact, 5 years later the Soviet Union agreed to that arms control proposal, the zero option, and it was signed by President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev into an agreement, a historic agreement, that signaled a change in the cold war. But that was not, that was not due to bipartisan, as we hear now, bipartisan support from the other side of the aisle. It was due despite the nitpicking and the public disagreement and the public undermining of the President's position. I well remember sitting in the White House when we were discussing having arms control negotiations and what was going on in the arms control negotiations with the Soviet Union, when we had demanded that they live up to their past treaty obligations. The Soviet Union had built a huge radar facility, in total violation of one of its treaty obligations to the United States, but yet, people, liberal Democrats on the other side of the aisle, came forward in this body to defend the Soviet position, and to suggest that it was really the belligerence of Ronald Reagan and we extremists, which we hear all the time, extremists, which was at the heart of the cold war. Liberal Democrats were proclaiming that there was a moral equivalency between the United States and the Soviet Union. This was not the bipartisan support that we hear time and time again, now that the cold war is over. The fact is that there was not bipartisan support. There was some bipartisan support, because there were some Democrats that come over, but by and large, Ronald Reagan had a two-front war to fight in order to end the cold war.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to realize that, when we say 80 percent of people's income will have to be taken from them in taxes in the future in order to pay for government if we leave the situation the way it is, let us remember what that 80 percent will mean. That 80 percent will not be providing those future generations with services. What we are talking about is leaving future generations to pay a majority of their income simply to pay for the interest on the debt that we have left them. Mr. Speaker, we are basically condemning future generations of Americans to slavery. Our fellow Americans should take a look and see what we are talking about here. One is not a free person if one has to work half of one's life simply to pay the interest on the debt that someone else has given. That is what the young people of our country have to look forward to unless we are responsible. Our country will not be a prosperous country in a situation like that, and our people will not be a free people. It is the freedom of our fellow Americans in the future that we are talking about. It is the freedom of our children and our children's children; not only their prosperity but their freedom as well. Let us note this: that we have heard a lot of talk today and a lot of names called. I heard one of our colleagues suggest that we are ``masquerading as Congressmen.'' I heard another colleague say that we are just a ``bunch of extremists.'' This type of name calling should raise the red flag in American homes and say, wait a minute, what is going on here? Why do people have to call these types of names? What about the basic argument at hand? I think we should look at some of the basic things. We have been told today, for example, that 200,000 Federal employees have been cut by this administration. Well, we know almost all of those are a result of a reduction in our military forces. Is that being forthright with the American people, to claim that we have reduced the size of Government when in reality all we have done is reduced the size of the American military? Then we heard about the $500 billion cut in our deficit. Does anyone believe that in the last 2 years we have seen a reduction of $500 billion in our deficit? That is absolutely ludicrous, to say that over these last 2 years we have seen a $500 billion cut in the deficit. Mr. Speaker, what reduction there has been in the deficit, however, might be attributed simply to, No. 1, the good economy that this President inherited, and, No. 2, the fact that the President passed, immediately upon entering office, one of the largest tax increases in American history. Before that has its chance to wreak havoc upon our economy, there seems to be a little bit more revenue coming in because of tax increases. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that this cut in the deficit has anything to do with a reduction in the size of Government or Vice President Gore's plan to reinvent Government. This is not an honest debate when we move forward like this. The American people should understand that what we have today and the reason we are in a budget confrontation, the reason people are talking about default, the reason the Federal Government was closed down is, there is a philosophical struggle going on in Washington, DC. And the democratic process is playing it out, just as our Founding Fathers intended this democratic process to work. The fact is that one group of people is demanding more and more Federal spending and an ever-increasing Government versus a shrinking proportion of take-home pay for the American people. On the other side, we Republicans believe that a free society means that people have a chance to take home some of their hard-earned dollars and make choices for themselves, how they will educate their children, how they will spend the money that they have earned, how they will allocate these limited resources. It is not a free society, as I say, if a greater and greater portion is taken away from someone who has earned that money. We are condemning our children to a future of virtual slavery unless we change that pattern. But changing the pattern is exactly what this is about. This President and the minority, who by the way had a chance to do anything they wanted to do for the last 2 years, they had the Presidency and both Houses of Congress, but the other side is so committed to bigger Government, to taking resources away from the people and giving them to bureaucrats and officials in Washington, who are bestowed, I guess, with some benevolence in that they understand how to use those resources, have a greater understanding than the people themselves who earned them. This is what they would like to do, and they want to do that so much, they are so committed to a bigger and bigger Government that they are willing to shut down the Federal Government. We hear time and time again of all of the consequences of the short shutdown that we faced with the Federal Government. The fact is, I understand that. You understand that. The majority understands that. We did our job. The reason the Government was shut down was that the President of the United States did not do his job because he was committed to bigger Government and higher taxes and more controls and more regulation and Washington, DC, the omnipotent Washington DC, rather than committed to the freedom and prosperity of the people. That is what is going on here. That is what is playing out. When you hear talk of default, the Republicans are forcing no default, just as the Republicans did not force the closing down of the Government. What we are doing, we are doing our very best to turn around a situation where if the United States continues to go in the direction that it is that we will be sacrificing the freedom and prosperity of young Americans and future generations.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, it is such a pleasure to be here with the gentleman, and celebrating the birthday of this great American, who has done so much for my life personally and also for the lives of every American. People would like to know what kind of man Ronald Reagan was. I think I will make this a little personal as well as oriented towards his policy. I worked with him on his campaign in 1976 when he ran for President against Gerald Ford and lost. I remember one day when the President was speaking before a rally at a parking lot in North Carolina, where a young lady grabbed me by the arm and said, ``I am here with a group of blind children. They cannot see. They cannot really get up into this crowd to hear as much as they should be able to, so I have had to keep them back here on the side. I was wondering if it was possible for,'' and they called him Governor Reagan at that time, because he was not elected President yet, ``for Governor Reagan to come here and to shake hands with these young people.'' As the rally was over, the press were getting into their buses, and I mentioned this to Mike Deaver, and Ronald Reagan was in earshot and heard me talking about these young blind children. He said ``Look, I don't want anybody in the press to come over there, because I don't want these young people to think that I'm trying to exploit young people, or blind children, for my candidacy, so do not tell the press anything. Let them get on the bus, and then I will go over there and meet with these young people and talk to them for a moment.'' Sure enough, we jogged over to the side of the parking lot and there were about five children, probably 11 or 12 years old, that were blind. Ronald Reagan was speaking to them. As he spoke to them, he said, would you like to touch my face? I will never forget that, because it would not have dawned on me to say that. It was not a thought that came to my mind. But he was so understanding and so sensitive that he knew that they could not see him unless they touched his face. Of course, they all wanted to touch his face. As they were there, these five blind children touching his face in the corner of that parking lot, I thought to myself, what politician in this country would not give millions of dollars to have his picture on the front of Time magazine or Newsweek magazine to have all of these children touching his face. It was such a heartfelt picture, it would have been a Pulitzer Prize. But, instead, Ronald Reagan knew that this was a private moment, and that he was talking to these young people, and if he was going to keep faith with them, he did not want them ever to have the thought that he was exploiting them for those purposes. I guess that is what our basic challenge was when we were working for Ronald Reagan as President. Before people could really see him, they had to feel Ronald Reagan, and the American people got a feel of Ronald Reagan. During his presidency, they knew that he was a good and decent man. Even though during his entire presidency, and during his campaigns he was maligned over and over again, as if trying to be responsible, trying to say that we cannot spend everything for everybody, that that in some way makes you a malicious person. Reagan was attacked over and over and over again, as if he did not have a good heart. But the American people saw that he had a good heart. They felt that. They knew that about him, just like those little blind children, when they touched his face, knew what this man looked like. Well, the American people knew what Ronald Reagan looked like on the inside. That is why they trusted him. To the degree that he was successful, it had a lot to do with the trust that the American people put in him. He spoke to them. I was Ronald Reagan's speech writer for 7 years. I had never written a speech for anyone else before I wrote a speech for Ronald Reagan as President of the United States. He was the one who taught me how to write. A lot of people, again maligning Ronald Reagan, tried to say that he was some sort of puppet and that he could not do anything without his cards. Well, the fact is, Ronald Reagan was an excellent writer. I always said that if he had not been president, he was a good enough writer to be a presidential speech writer. He taught us that. He was, as you had mentioned, an expert in communication, and that served him well, it served the country well. When Ronald Reagan took over the country, it was in a funk. The country and the American people had been told to lower their expectations. They had been told that all of the problems of the world dealt with our own faults as Americans. They were told that we could not succeed, that we were in a malaise, and Ronald Reagan, with his buoyant optimism and with his great sense of the people themselves and his ability to communicate, turned the American spirit around. People complained that the deficit expanded during Reagan's years. Again, he tried to cut it and the Congress would not do it. But on top of that, just figure out where our country would have been had the same policies been in place that the Democrats had in place before Reagan was elected and those same economic trends would have continued. Our deficit would have been twice as big, and our inflation rate would have destroyed the economic well-being and the standard of living of all of our people. So Ronald Reagan was successful at that. But perhaps what I am most proud of, through it all, Ronald Reagan was called a warmonger, called a militarist. He was portrayed as someone who wanted to spend money on all of these weapons. But in fact, Ronald Reagan was a champion of freedom and liberty, and in doing so, he was a champion of peace in the world. We have a more peaceful world today because of what he did, the stands he took. I remember when Ronald Reagan was castigated; and this side of the aisle, the Democrats who controlled the Congress at the time, did everything they could to undermine his policy of supporting freedom fighters in the various parts of the world who were fighting Soviet aggression. I mean, it made every sense to me that we should arm local people to defend themselves rather than send Americans all over the world to have to fight; and in fact, we drained the Soviet Empire of its military capabilities by forcing them to fight for their gains rather than just giving it to them and letting people surrender without a fight. In Nicaragua, where the Soviet Union was perched and ready to roll up Central America right into Mexico and to the borders of the United States, before Reagan was elected, in Nicaragua, the Communists were ready. The Soviet Union pumped billions of dollars of military aid into that country, and the Democrats on that side of the aisle undermined Reagan's effort over and over and over again to try to give the Nicaraguan people the right to fight for their own freedom. I have no understanding of why that happened, but in today's revisionist history, we are told that a bipartisan effort ended the cold war. There would have been no end to the cold war had there been a major Soviet offensive in Latin America that was victorious, and that would have happened had not Ronald Reagan come in and supported those who were struggling for freedom. Finally, let us not forget that it was Ronald Reagan's speeches and his ability to communicate to the world, his ability to champion the cause of freedom and to condemn communism. Ronald Reagan was the first President of the United States not just to condemn Soviet actions, but to condemn communism as an evil, tyrannical force on the planet. Let us not forget that those words, along with his policies, are what brought an end to the Soviet imperial empire that threatened our freedom and threatened the peace of the world. I will leave you with one last story of Ronald Reagan, because Reagan was called, he was called names, too, about his rhetoric. I have heard speeches over and over again about how he was a warmonger and his speeches were going to get us into trouble. But I remember very well the incident when Ronald Reagan was going to go to Berlin, and Reagan, one of his speech writers went to Berlin before him, and we came back. Ronald Reagan had mentioned that he thought that this was the place to talk about the tearing down of the Berlin Wall. And we speech writers did our job; we gave him text. He approved it, and all of a sudden volcanoes began to erupt all over the world. Diplomats, foreign policy experts, George Shultz, our Secretary of State, you name it, everybody, the National Security Advisor to the President himself, they were just--they were screaming at the top of their lungs, do not do it. Do not tell Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Wall, because it will be an insult to Gorbachev. He is our only hope. It was said by many that Gorbachev was the man who was making the world more peaceful, which is what we hear from the liberal side, and not Reagan and a commitment to freedom that was changing the world. Reagan in fact was told just the day before he gave the speech in Berlin by his own National Security Advisor to take out of his speech that reference to tearing down the Berlin Wall. He was handed another speech draft and told, Mr. President, you should use this draft instead of the one you have. And Ronald Reagan, being the leader that he was said, well, no, I think I will use the one I have. He went to Berlin, and he pointed to the Wall and he said, Mr. Gorbachev, if you believe in democracy and peace, tear down this wall. That strength of purpose and that commitment to freedom sent a shock wave around the world which unnerved the last vestiges of power in the Soviet Union and brought about the end of the cold war. Ronald Reagan made that decision on his own, against the advice of the experts, because he knew in his heart that saying and demanding the tearing down of the Berlin Wall made everything that he had done and everything America stood for real, not only to the people of the world, but to the leaders of the Soviet Union; and within a few days the CIA told us that Gorbachev had had a meeting and had been seriously discussing with his advisors how to move forward in bringing down the Berlin Wall as a symbol of peace. What a magnificent, magnificent victory. Then, one moment, I am going to tell you about my best day at the White House. I remember when Nathan Sharansky came to the White House. Many people do not know who Nathan Sharansky is. He used to be called Anatoly Sharansky and was a true hero of the cause of human liberty. He was a Jewish dissident in Russia, Soviet Russia, and he was thrown into the slammer, thrown into the gulag and told, all you have to do is sign a slip of paper saying that the Soviet Union is really a democracy and does not persecute Jews, and we will let you out of the gulag; and Sharansky refused to do so. When the word of this heroic stand of this individual got around the world, he became one of our heroes. He became in the 1980's not just a Jewish hero; he was a hero to all people who believed in liberty, especially to Ronald Reagan's speech writers. Well, when he was let loose from the gulag, it was because we traded a spy for him, a Russian spy. We got a heroic champion of freedom and they got some low-life spy who was trying to help Soviet tyranny. Boy, did we get the better part of that deal. Sharansky ended up coming to the White House to visit Ronald Reagan, and he told Ronald Reagan, he said, Mr. President, whatever you do, do not tone down your speeches, because apparently when he was at the bottom of despair, in the dark and damp dungeon of a gulag, he was slipped a small piece of paper and on that paper was written, President Reagan has called it an ``evil empire.'' And he said that is what gave him hope. That is what gave the world a reason to resist Soviet tyranny. Not only did Sharansky prevail, but all of the freedom-loving people prevailed, because Ronald Reagan had the courage to speak about the values and the principles of this country at a time of great adversity. So today, I am very pleased to join you and my other colleagues in saying ``happy birthday'' to my old boss, a man who may now have lost his memory, but will never be forgotten. Thank you.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I thank the gentleman very much. I think we should all really tone down our rhetoric, if we could. I have to say, I use a lot of descriptions of my friends, but let me say to my friend from New York, telling us that we are a bunch of extremists and you now are centrists, does not further the debate. You must have used the word ``extremist'' five or six times. We will let the American people determine who is in the extreme and who is in the center and who most closely reflects their point of view. I do not accept the notion that we Republicans closed down the Government. I heard that this morning as well. I believe it was the President of the United States and his refusal to act that resulted in the shutdown of the Federal Government. In fact, if we indeed were putting pressure on the President to do certain things, you might say that we came to the point where we had to put him in a position of shutting down the Government himself before he would come forward with even a semblance of a balanced budget plan. If you remember, the President did not feel compelled even to put a balanced budget plan on the table. So what we are talking about, all of these things, whether you are talking about default or closing the Federal Government, all these things, I do not believe we are doing. We are doing what is responsible and putting the President in the position of saying he will have to make the decision in terms of default or shutting down the Federal Government. One last point. In order to achieve his objective, his objective is opposite from what he ran on. He ran on a balanced budget, he ran on changing welfare as we know it, but now he is willing to shut down the Government, he is willing to default, rather than come forward with an honest discussion and negotiation of how we get to a balanced budget.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. There is nothing standing in the way of a balanced budget, there is nothing standing in the way to bring to an end this policy that we have had of having to increase the debt limit over and over and over again because we are nowhere in sight of a balanced budget. There is no one standing in the way except the President of the United States. The other side had a chance. For 2 years the President controlled both Houses, or his party, controlled both Houses of Congress and every executive department and every executive office. All of those were controlled by the liberal Democrats who control the Democratic Party, and what did we get? We got no reform. We got no reform at all. What do we Republicans get now, after working as hard as we possibly can, passing more reforms in a shorter period of time? We get criticism that we are not working hard enough, when in reality we all know it is the President of the United States that is standing in the way of these reforms, it is the President of the United States standing in the way of a balanced budget, it is the President of the United States who is putting the burden of higher and higher debt onto our children. That is what the problem is. I am proud to be a Member of this body. I am proud to be a reformer in this Republican effort and Newt Gingrich's effort.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, this President has kept all of his promises? I mean, who is kidding whom? This President was the President who campaigned vigorously across America 4 years ago, and what were the issues? He is going to end welfare as we know it, and now we see him vetoing and threatening to veto any piece of legitimate welfare reform. What was the second thing that he campaigned on? That he was going to balance the budget; he is a new Democrat. This President is not a new Democrat, he is just like the old Democrats and the fact is, it is the old Democrats and his philosophy that have gotten America in the position it is in today, that we are going to have to make these tough choices or we will go broke. Now, earlier I heard criticism of how this body is functioning and how much work we are putting out. I happen to have been here, and this is my eighth year as a Member of Congress. We have done more since the Republicans took over a year ago legislatively than in the entire 6 years that I served before the Republicans took over. The reform efforts before that were thwarted time and time again. Let me cite just one example. Our country is going broke, we are being told now we have to borrow more and more money from our children, and we cannot even put any type of restrictions on spending in that process. But let me give one example of a reform that has actually cost the American people tens of billions of dollars since I have been a Member of Congress, and how the other side thwarted our attempts over and over again to get even a vote on the floor. It was mentioned earlier by the gentleman from Florida. Should illegal aliens be consuming scarce dollars when we are going to the poorhouse, we are having to borrow from our children? We tried to get that reform so illegal aliens would not be encouraged to come into this country to consume scarce dollars. We could not even get a vote on it.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I have asked for someone to yield to me on the floor during debate and they have not done it. I would like to express some thoughts about some of the thoughts expressed earlier when your side controlled the floor. Unfortunately, it looks like I will not have time to do that, after being interrupted.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Excuse me, I think I have the floor.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any doubt about it. We all agree that this is no way to run a government. The way to run a government is to set forth a plan, say this is our plan for government, and then negotiate with someone who disagrees and find an area of compromise. That is what the Founding Fathers had in mind. The reason it is not working right now is that the President of the United States has not done his job. We have done our job over here; he has not done his job over there. That is why this is not any way to run a government. That is why everything is messed up, seems to be going in circles, and things are not working now. He has not done his job. Our Founding Fathers thought the President of the United States would do his job because he would be responsible. Instead, we have a President that continues to promise everything to everybody because he must love everybody, because he is promising everything to everybody. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to suggest today that I think the American people can see through that. They know if the President is unwilling to prioritize in the budget, that when he tells them that he is on their side when he is opposed to something in the Republican budget, he may not be telling the truth because he is unwilling to put his ideas forth as juxtaposed against other spending ideas. Mr. Speaker, we are this close, we are this close, at any moment, to making the system work. All it means is that the President of the United States has to reach out and say, ``I have decided to do my part of the job,'' and then things would be working. All of the criticism that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not aimed at us, although they try to make it seem like it is aimed at us. It is aimed at the President of the United States, who has not done his job. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the American people, when they sit there hearing him criticize our budget, are too smart to be taken in thinking that he cares about them. If he cared about the American people, he would present us his budget and the American people understand that.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the first scandal of the Clinton administration was brought on in May of 1993 by the precipitous firing of Billy Dale and six other long-time employees of the White House travel office. Having worked in the White House for 7 years, I was fully aware of the personal tragedy this dismissal represented. Billy Dale and the career civil servants that were sacked by the new White House regime were hard-working professionals who labored for Republicans and Democrats, never taking sides in politics, but only concerned about making the White House run as efficiently as possible. But they were in the way. A relative of the President needed a job, and who cares about if the rules get bent or if some little guy has to be stepped upon? Furthermore, one of the President's big contributors owned a travel agency and wanted the business. Bill Dale and those faithful Federal employees were not just fired. They were ambushed, assaulted, beaten up and left bleeding in the alley. They came to work one day and were simply told after decades of service to get out. This callous and probably illegal termination of loyal employees immediately created a stir. After it was learned that the President's relative and a campaign contributor would be the beneficiaries of this act, it created an uproar. That only made things worse. Dale had to be personally attacked then to protect the administration from criticism. A vulnerability was found and apparently over the many years and decades of Dale's service, he had become complacent about keeping the formal records of petty cash and tips in the office that he oversaw. To put this in perspective, Hazel O'Leary spends hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars gallivanting all over the planet, from plush hotel to plush hotel, but it is the little guy, Billy Dale, that gets investigated. In as shameful an act and political a prosecution as I have ever seen, he was charged with criminal violations, embezzlement. This was, as is clear now, a blatant, ugly assault on a public employee by a power elite trying to protect themselves. The FBI and the prosecutors went along. Why? Well, it not only reflects viciousness and callousness, but this also reflects an unprofessional and questionable use of law enforcement. So why did they go along? Well, when the situation played itself out, Dale not only lost his job, but it cost his life savings to defend himself. He lost everything. Those involved with this travesty, this injustice, should be ashamed. It took a jury here in Washington, DC, all of 2 hours to determine that Dale was innocent of all the charges brought against him. The President did not even have the decency to apologize for what he did to Dale. Whose mean-spirited idea, whose stupid idea was this in the first place? Why did the FBI and the Department of Justice and the White House staff go along with it? Well, these are good questions. Early on, fingers pointed to the First Lady, but the charge was denied over and over and over again. Well, at last, evidence is beginning to surface. A memo written at the time by White House chief administrator David Watkins says and describes First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton as being the driving force behind this heinous attack against Billy Dale. No one was willing to stand up against her. The shenanigans of the Clinton White House are beginning to make the court of MacBeth look tame in comparison. This certainly makes Nancy Reagan's coveting of dresses and dishes a quaint memory of tainted innocence. The First Lady and the President are responsible for their actions. The American people deserve the facts, and the press, in this former reporter's opinion, has not been informing the American people as to the nature of those who hold power. Well, now it is going to become clear to the American people they cannot cover it up any more, as the front page headline of the New York Post says, ``Hillary Did It.'' Well, whether it is Whitewater or the Vincent Foster suicide or the scandalous coverup of illegal activities, of the illegal activities of the health care task force or this Travelgate affair, America needs to get to the bottom of these matters. We need to know the facts so that we can know who is governing this country and what they stand for. If the little guy who keeps this Government going is stepped upon and abused like this, America will not be the same country. We must stand up for America and our ideals.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I remember, and I think the American people remember, that last year when we Republicans tried to pass a balanced budget amendment, we were defeated because the Democrats claimed, ``Oh, my goodness, you don't need a balanced budget amendment, you don't need to amend the Constitution, just present a balanced budget. Why do you have to amend the Constitution?'' OK, we met the challenge. The Republicans came up with a balanced budget. And the very same Democrats who voted against the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, claiming we should just do it here legislatively, are now opposing our balanced budget. For 4 years we have heard this President claim to be a new Democrat. In fact, 4 years ago he was running on a campaign motto of being someone who was going to end welfare as we know it and would balance the budget. Now, after 4 years of rhetoric, we have come to where he cannot dodge anymore. The fact is we have laid upon the table a balanced budget. He claims to have been in favor of the balanced budget. I hope the American people remember that, too. But when the Republicans lay their alternative out, the President refuses to lay out his alternative, and that is the reason the Government is shut down today.