Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the proposed change in intellectual property rights of our Members is bad policy and wrong-headed. If any Member writes a book after this change goes into effect, all it means is that the publisher will get the money that is due to the writer. That is all this means. We are doing nothing but giving the publisher money that deserves to go to a writer. Mr. Speaker, I know that. I am a writer by my profession, and I will say this. Those of my colleagues who claim that a book written by a Congressman is going to be a seller and we are just standing on our job as a Congressman to sell books, there are many books that have been written by Congressmen that have failed, utterly failed, and publishers know that. Some publishers are really hesitant to deal with Congressmen for that reason. Mr. Speaker, I say the decision should be made by the public as to who receives the money and who benefits from writing a book, whether it deals with a Member of Congress or not. That is what the Solomon amendment is all about. Mr. Speaker, it leaves it to the public, and it does not leave it to grandstanding politicians who now are trying to portray themselves to the public as reformers, when in reality all this is is an act of self- flagellation for the sake of presenting a public image. It has nothing to do with the development of policy in this body. This will have no impact whatsoever on policy decisions. Those people who are pushing this reform, by the way, I would like to know the incomes of those people. I happen to be a very poor person. I have hardly any assets. I am a writer by profession. I spent several years in journalism while other people who are now in this body were out making money in real estate or making money in other investments or marrying into money. The fact is, what we are seeing now, those of us who are poor, rather than the millionaires in this body, are seeing their right to write a book and to have some income from our talent, which is our only asset, limited, while other people who are wealthy are not putting any restrictions on their ability to earn money while they are in this body. Mr. Speaker, I reject that totally, and if somebody comes up and says all unearned income will be restricted, I will support it. But it somebody comes up and says my right as a writer and a journalist and an average American is being restricted, I will not. The bottom line is let us leave this up to the American people. let us quit grandstanding. The American people will decide if a book is worth buying or not, and whether a politician's ideas are worth purchasing. Let us not make this a windfall for publishers. Mr. Speaker, all it will mean is that we will not have the incentive and we will not spend the time to write on the airplane, which I have done. I have spent my own private time on the airplane writing this book. And when I come in this door, I check my privacy when I come in this door, and now I cannot write a book about it to explain myself to the American people. It is an insult.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I respectfully disagree with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton]. We have advocated an alternative to this policy for years. We have had a policy in the United States of an arms embargo against the victims of aggression for all of these years. The years go on and on, and yet the architects of that failed policy, which brought genocide, which brought mass killings, which brought aggression, now those architects of that failed policy tell us we have to send our young people into the Balkans, and we have not had an alternative. We have been advocating an alternative all along. The fact is the architects of that failed policy now want to deploy tens of thousands of young Americans into the bloody Balkans when they helped make the bloody Balkans, and they want to put then right in the heart of the conflict. I will be supporting the Dornan bill, which is the only binding legislation that we have to choose from of the three bills that we will choose from today. The other bills, just for the public knowledge, are show bills. They will give Members a chance for cover. The bill offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] is the only that will stop a deployment, if indeed, it was enacted into law. I will have to let my fellow Members know what that means. The House of Representatives should understand that the vote that we will take that is going to take place will be characterized by the President, if the Dornan bill goes down, as support of his deployment of Americans into the Balkans. That is what he has done with the vote in the Senate. When the Senate voted down the Hefley bill today, the White House said, ``That was probably the strongest statement of support they could possibly make. Having voted overwhelmingly not to shut off funding, is in a sense supporting the President's judgement.'' If my colleagues want it on their record that they voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution of the Balkans, go right ahead and vote against the bill offered by the gentleman from California. We do not want to send our young people into that meat grinder that has absolutely no goals in mind, just to have an American presence. That is insane.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the White House and the public will take a vote against Dornan as a vote for Gulf of Tonkin-like powers for a Presidential deployment of American troops to Bosnia. That is what this debate is all about. Should we give the President the power to send these troops to Bosnia? If some nut or ruthless gang unleashes biological or chemical weapons or in some other way kills hundreds if not thousands of young American defenders, those opposed to this bill will bear a share of the responsibility with the President. The President is sending them there. We have a chance to act. We are now in the chain of command. If my colleagues vote against the Dornan proposal, they are sending a message to the President that he can send the troops to the Balkans. The cold war is over. The American people deserve better treatment than this. We should not be sending young Americans all over the world in every conflict. It is not fair to them. It is not good policy, and it will not lead to a more peaceful world.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, here we are on the floor of the House of Representatives talking about someone who languishes on in prison halfway around, on the other side of the world. I would like to point something out here in this Chamber. Here as we stand in this bastion of democracy of the legislative branch, one of the oldest elected legislative branches in the world, we have two pictures on our walls. One is of George Washington; the other is of Lafayette. That suggests something about freedom and the way the American people think of freedom. The fact is that Lafayette heard of our struggle for freedom and democracy in far-off France, a country that was much further away from the United States in those days than we are from China today, and came to our country to help us in our struggle for freedom. We never forgot Lafayette. Years later he returned to the United States and was welcomed as a hero by the American people. Every little city and town and hamlet throughout our country welcomed him as a champion of American freedom. That is because the people who founded our country understood that the concept of freedom and democracy is universal. It is not something that we hold dear just for Americans, but it is, instead, something that unites all peace-loving and freedom-loving people of the world everywhere. Today another hero languishes in far-off China, in a prison in far- off China. We are putting the world on notice that we have remained true to the principles of Washington and of Lafayette and of Jefferson because we are on his side. I ask support of this resolution and ask my colleagues to join us in supporting Wei Jingsheng and his struggle for democracy and the people of China's struggle for democracy.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my personal best regards and the respect and appreciation of all the members of the International Relations Committee on the occasion of the birthday of the King of Thailand, King Rama IX. Earlier this year, all Members of the House of Representatives were relieved when the King made a complete and impressive recovery from surgery and regained his full strength. [[Page E 2295]] As I have said on the floor of the House before, the people of Thailand are blessed to have such a wise leader. We, in the United States are blessed to be able to call King Bhumibol our friend. I am honored, as the spokesman for my colleagues, to wish the King a happy birthday and a long reign. I wish him and his family greetings and good health from his friends in the United States.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, we hear give peace a chance; do not disrupt the negotiations. That is the central argument being offered by this side for us not to act. And I will tell my colleagues that if we do not act and we send 25,000 Americans into the Balkans meat grinder, it will be because we bought that argument that some of our colleagues have presented to us. But that argument is nonsense. Total absolute nonsense. If peace talks are predicated on deploying 25,000 American troops into the Balkans, what is going on in Ohio is not a peace process but a tragic game. We are doing no one a favor. We are not bringing peace 1- inch closer by having the parties of a negotiation in Ohio base their agreement on predicating that 25,000 American troops are going to be sent to the Balkans. What is reality? That is not reality. Ignoring reality and wishful thinking will not bring peace to the Balkans or anywhere else in this world. All it will do is put 25,000 young Americans in harm's way and possibly bringing them back in body bags. What is reality? The American people do not support the deployment of these thousands of young Americans, our young defenders, into this bloody and confusing morass. Mr. Speaker, I worked in the Reagan White House when he made his worst mistake, and that was deploying the Marines to Beirut. This has every small of that same situation. We had very little chance of success. I ran all over the White House saying what are we doing? What are we trying to accomplish? They said, well, if this happens and that happens and this happens, we are eventually going to bring peace to the Middle East. I said, look, the chances of success are 1 in 10. The chances of this turning into a bloody failure are one in two. It makes no sense. Well, that is exactly what we are doing tonight. The situation in Bosnia, our chances of success are maybe 1 in 10, maybe 1 in 100. The chances of a catastrophic failure and the death of many young Americans is very high. It is nonsense. This is a horrible policy. We must do everything we can not to let it happen.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman, is it better for these negotiators that we are trying to protect, and I will assume that the gentleman is absolutely sincere when he says he wants these negotiations to succeed, is it better to have them negotiating on grounds that have nothing to do with reality? Mr. Speaker, if the American people are not willing to send 25,000 troops, does it not hurt the peace process for them to go on and on talking about an agreement predicated on that?

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the Bosnians are not asking for the deployment of American troops. They never have asked for the deployment of American troops. The Croatians are not asking for the deployment of American troops. They have never asked for if deployment of American troops. Whose nutty idea is this to send 25,000 Americans into a meat grinder down in the Balkans? It is the same global strategists who formulated our failed policy that has turned the Balkans problem into a holocaust of historic signifiance and a nightmare to the people of Bosnia. Their policy was an arms embargo which left the victims totally at the mercy of a heavily armed aggressor. This body voted, and we have spoken time and again and pleaded to lift the arms embargo because it does nothing but hurt the victim. Those people that turned down our request, turned a blind ear to our cries as well as the cries for help in Bosnia, are now telling us we are going to send 25,000 Americans there. That is our only option. Baloney. And we should not let it happen. It is a sin against our own people and it is not even what the Bosnians and the Croatians want. Do not tell me give peace a chance. We are playing a game, a cruel game with those people in Dayton if we are letting them move forward on their negotiations based on the idea that 25,000 American young people are going to be deployed there. We should make it clear right now to those people that they should negotiate, they should do whatever they can to bring peace, but in an atmosphere of reality. What if somebody was telling us that the peace plan depends on $250,000 grants to each and every citizen of the Balkans from the people of the United States? Would we be pulling the rug out from under peace negotaitions by saying we are not going to give those grants? Well, we are not going to give those grants and we are not sending those young people there. And we are the ones for reality and peace in the world.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I have heard the analysis and the comparisons between this proposed operation and what happened in Vietnam. I think that the more accurate comparison would be made to Beirut in 1983. In Beirut in 1983, President Reagan made his worst mistake, the worst mistake of his presidency, and sent 2,500 Marines into what was an absolute cauldron of turmoil and bloodshed. When it was over, there was a great deal of American bloodshed on the ground, and we retreated, and our prestige was never lower in that part of the world than when we had to retreat from having lost 240 Americans. That would be the worst blow to American prestige today, would be the introduction of troops and then to have some sort of cataclysmic event, and the resulting American public opinion shift that would force American troops to withdraw under fire, which would then leave us in a position around the world that would really diminish our influence. That is not what we want. What happened in 1983 was possible because we were in the middle of the cold war. During the cold war, we granted the President of the United States, every President of the United States, a great deal of power in terms of commanding troops. After all, there was a hostile power that sought to destroy the United States and western democracies, communism, as centered and in power in Moscow. During that time period we knew we had to meet the threat. We had to cut off maneuvers by this hostile power. It meant that the President had to have extraordinary, extraordinary authority that is extraordinary to the traditions of the United States. The cold war is over. What happened in Beirut unfortunately happened because the President had that authority, and unfortunately, we sent our Marines to places where they should not have gone. The cold war is over, and today when the President makes these decisions, the American people expect that their elected representatives in Congress will scrutinize the decisions and play a part in deciding where the funds that we spend, our funds on national defense, where they will be spent in terms of these foreign commitments. I am not talking about isolationism. This is far different than isolationism. The charge of isolationism is nothing more than an attempt to stifle debate, honest debate, on this issue. What is being proposed in the Balkans is contrary to our national interests. That does not mean we are isolationists for pointing that out. Mr. Speaker, let us note this: Yes, there has been squabbling, there have been hard feelings and fighting going on in that part of the world between the various ethnic groups for many years, many hundreds of years. But the Balkans is not the only place in the world where there have been intractable problems between neighbors, and it is not the only place in the world where the United States may be called to intervene in some way in order to have a presence or exert some sort of force, or to exercise some kind of influence over events in those far- off reaches of the world. The peace plan now being contemplated, which includes 25,000 American troops on the ground in the Balkans for at least a year, is an absolutely insane plan. It will not work. So on top of the 25,000 people that we are putting at risk, the plan itself, which I have looked over, seems to me to be a bad plan, even for those people who are negotiating right now and being pushed into that direction. We have seen for 4 years and heard the screams of agony and horror from the Balkans for 4 years, and yet, those people that were the architects of America's response to this event in history are now the very same people who have presented us this plan of sending 25,000 Americans into this caldron. Well, the fact is, their policy for 4 years has failed. Their policy was basically to label all of those involved in the fighting as morally equivalent to place an arms embargo on everyone, a pox on all of your houses, and in some way with this aloof decisionmaking that we would in some way be able to effect a peace in that area. It was a peace that saw many United Nations troops in the area. I can still remember vividly a United Nations armored personnel carrier in the middle of April, armored column of United Nations troops being stopped by Serbians and Serbians going to the armored personnel carrier, opening the [[Page H 11930]] door in front of heavily armed United Nations troops, hauling out the Vice President of Bosnia, and murdering him right in front of the United Nations troops. This was no coincidence. They understood what the policy was. They understood what the policy of the United States was. They understood what the policy of the United Nations was. Over these last four years we have seen acts of aggression basically coming from Bosnia--excuse me, from Serbia in Bosnia and in Croatia in an attempt to grab land. It has not been a moral equivalency, because we have seen heavy artillery, heavy weapons, heavy tanks from Serbia committing acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing in neighboring countries. Yes, there have been some, there have been some murders and there have been some genocide and unfortunate acts committed by Bosnians as well as Croatians. But by and large there is no question that the aggression has been coming as part of an organized attempt by Serbia to grab land. The peace that has been proposed now basically rewards the gangsters in Serbia who have been committing these horrendous acts against their neighbors. In fact, the peace plan in which 25,000 American lives will be at stake in order to enforce will not work without the goodwill of those very same people who have committed the most horrendous acts of genocide in that conflict. Part of the peace plan, by the way, has been not only to send 25,000 Americans, but also to send 20,000 Russians, Russians, into the area as well. Thus, we will be relying on the goodwill of the Serbians, who have been murdering people, who have been committing acts of mass rape and genocide, we will depend on their goodwill not to get the United States into a conflict with Russian troops who are nearby. It is absolutely insane; it is a plan whose architects are the same architects who said we will have an arms embargo against the victims as well as against the aggressors. Their plan for the last four years has brought heartache and misery and death to the Balkans. Because it left the aggressor, the Serbians with their heavy tanks and heavy artillery, outgunning, overwhelmingly outgunning the victims. And thus, they had an incentive to commit these horrendous acts, because they could get away with it with minimum loss. I am not suggesting now that we should turn our backs on that aggression, but let me note I have been in that area several times, once just about a month ago. I was in Sarajevo, I was in Bosnia, I was in Croatia, I talked to people. The Bosnian people even now, after 4 years and for 4 years they have never asked for American troops. Even now they are not asking for American troops. The people that are asking for American troops are those people who have been the architects of the failed American policy for the last 4 years. The Bosnians have only asked for, as the Croatians, the ability to buy the weapons necessary to defend themselves. This is not isolationism, to suggest that that is the strategy we should be following. If there is any American involvement in that area, and I will close with this thought, if indeed we decide to get involved in that area, besides lifting, just lifting the embargo, we should be using American air power. We have invested in aerospace technology, in smart bombs and planes that we could use or exercise our influence with the use of American might that would minimize the risk of the loss of American lives. By lifting the arms embargo and using American air power, I believe we could force the Serbians aggressors back into Serbia and could bring peace in that way. Let those people bring peace to their own area. Instead, what we have before us is a plan that puts Americans at tremendous risk with very little chance of success. The last time I saw this is when I sat in the White House in 1983, a member of President Reagan's staff, and I remember when the Marines were introduced into Lebanon. I ran from office to office asking, what are we doing? What is this all about? And I was told, and I was given a very convoluted plan, and I bet nobody has even heard of that peace plan now in Lebanon. But it was a plan that depended on, if we introduce American troops down there and we show up, we have a presence there, this is going to happen and that is going to happen and this is going to happen and the result was going to be peace in the Middle East. Not just peace in Lebanon, but peace in the Middle East. And that type of globalistic, just absolutely irrationalism, led to one of America's greatest humiliations and the loss of 240 marines and naval personnel. Now, now, we hear about a plan to send 25,000 Americans to the Balkans and we say, what is this all about? Tell me, why? Why are we doing this? What is this all about? Nobody can give the answers except some nebulous plan of this, this and this, which will eventually lead to peace in the Balkans and peace in that part of the world. I have heard it before. We should not, we should not, give in to the notion that other people are going to solve this problem and will protect the lives of young Americans. It did not happen in Beirut, it is up to us to take care of those young people who defend us. They march off to war or they march off to put themselves in harm's way and they salute and they are willing to do it because they know that we will do our very best in Congress and in the executive branch to make sure that they are not putting their lives on the line for something of little value or something that has little chance of success. Today, we owe it to our defenders and we owe it to those young men and women to do everything we can to prevent them from being deployed to this area with a plan with so little chance of success.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today and urge the support of the conference report which is of immense importance to California and to our Nation's economic and national security, as well as our well- being. This legislation will increase our domestic exploration and production of crude oil. It will mean that our reduced balance-of- payments deficit, the deficit in our balance of payments, will be reduced, and everyone agrees that the United States today is too reliant on the import of crude oil. This legislation will spur domestic production, thereby enhancing our national security. As I have just said, it will also affect in a positive way our balance of payments. Mr. Speaker, this legislation lifts the ban on the export of Alaskan crude. This will contribute to reducing our trade deficit, and this legislation thus is good for job creation in the United States, and it is good for our economy in general. My colleagues should not be swayed by side issues. This bill is not about side issues. It is about things that are fundamental to our economy. The legislation is about enhancing our economy and our national security. These things must be the overriding issues of importance, and we should not be sidetracked by some kind of fight over royalty holidays, holidays and other issues, that may be of importance in and of themselves, but coupled with this there is just no comparison. So today I suggest that we keep our eyes on the prize and we do not defeat this conference report on a side issue, and I would say that we should have a vote today for jobs, a vote for national security and thus I would suggest that we vote ``yes'' on the conference report and ``yes'' on the rule. [[Page H 11857]]

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, November 10 will mark the 220th birthday of the U.S. Marine Corps. I would like to take this opportunity of the Marine birthday to express some thoughts that have come to mind as we consider a long-term commitment of United States ground forces in Bosnia. With the dread of flag-draped coffins arriving back to America from the Balkans in mind, I drove to the Beirut Memorial yesterday, and that is at the Marine base at Camp Lejeune, NC. The Marines have a spirit, and they call it Esprit d'Corps, which bonds all Marines together as they march in lockstep doing their country's bidding overseas. They march forward with a flame in their heart which symbolizes the best of what makes this country great. When I went to the memorial there in North Carolina, next to the Marine base, there is a wall which memorializes the 240 Marines that were blown up in 1983 when a mad bomber burst into their encampment and blew up the building in which they were sleeping. These Marines are heroes. Their names are not on the Vietnam Wall, although many of the Marines who were killed were actually Vietnam veterans. One of the Marine names, Sgt. David Battle, was my brother's best friend and our families were very close. Now as we talk about deploying troops, we should not forget the tragedy of what happened there in Beirut in 1983, over 10 years ago now. It was very similar to what we see in the Balkans. It was a very confusing situation. In fact, very shortly after the arrival, the political situation was so confused, and the Marines became so entangled, that the State Department set down a policy that the Marines were to have no ammunition, no bullets in their guns. And when eventually a bomber came to break through the perimeter to get to the Marines with a truck laden with explosives, the Marine guard did not have a bullet in his gun to stop that truck. We did not do right by the Marines by sending them into that situation, and we should keep them in mind and keep in mind that there are people who sacrifice and lose their lives when we make decisions like sending people to the Balkans. Unless it is in part of America's interest, we should not be putting our people's lives at stake. Looking at that memorial with the 240 names listed, the statue of the fallen Marine and the words ``They Came in Peace'' on the wall of the memorial this weekend at Camp Lejeune, I wrote the following poem which I would now like to read and have inserted into the Record. It is entitled ``Marines in Beirut.'' I am sorry if it sounds schmaltzy to some people, or if it sounds a little too patriotic or whatever, but this reflects my feelings after having visited this memorial to those Marines who died in Beruit. Marines in Beruit (By Dana Rohrabacher) They came in peace to a distant shore. The gallant warriors of the Corps To risk their lives yet once more Always faithful, ever more. It's ``Yes sir, can do'' The Marines salute, and then come through. They landed in Beruit's bloody scene Such is the life of a Marine. On deadly turf confused and mean-- Political pawns in a foolish scheme. But it's, ``Yes sir, can do'' The Marines salute, and then come through. They knew that something had gone wrong When their short mission went on and on With no objective, yet they stayed strong. Courage sometimes means holding on. Holding ground where snipers reign, Hold faith in our country's game, Their bullets pouched. It's insane, but Marines take orders and don't complain. It's ``Yes sir, can do'' The Marines salute, and then come through. For the fools in charge they had to pay And on the dawning of that day Death could not be held at bay By guards whose bullets were stashed away. The explosion killed our gallant men. Yet we know they'd go again if called by country, or country's friend. These heroes, alas, won't fight again. Never send Marines to die Unless it's clear the reasons why. for heroes must know that we will try to take to heart their families' cry. For it's ``Yes sir, can do'' The Marines salute, and then come through. We let them down, but we won't do it again.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, during 1993 and 1994 Congress debated H.R. 3355 of the 103d Congress. Many of us believed that the amount of assistance that this bill was to provide to fight crime was being greatly oversold. None of the provisions were more oversold than the number of additional local police that would be paid for by the so- called ``free'' Federal money provided in the bill. This was because there was a catch to the ``free'' money for additional police. The catch is that after 4 years the local community has to continue to pay the full cost of these ``free'' policemen or the citizens and towns would have to return the grant funds. The Seal Beach, CA City Council in my district has taken a close look at what the real cost of this program will be to them in the outyears. After consideration they voted unanimously not to apply for this ``free'' assistance. I am inserting at this point in the Record a copy of the minutes of the Seal Beach City Council meeting where they unanimously said, ``No thanks.''. Grant Application--Cops Ahead Grant The Interim City Manager reported that the City has been informed of a second round of the COPS Program, the City having previously received authorization for one Police Officer under the COPS FAST Program, this item simply authorization to submit the grant application for the second program. The Manager expressed concern with the future ability to fund the officer if the application were approved, noting that the first three years would be of benefit to the City, the costs would be minimal in terms of cost benefit, however the City would assume all costs upon the fourth year, and if the grant is accepted the City must agree to pay its share of the total cost for the grant period as well as make a good faith effort to keep that position in the budget thereafter with an assurance to the Department of Justice that keeping that position will not eliminate another. He pointed out that the officer obtained through the COPS FAST Program will cover the downtown/pier/beach area and it is understood that the City committed to retaining that officer at the end of the grant period. The Manager asked for direction from the Council as to the desire to file the application, if granted a determination can then be made as to whether or not to accept, or the application could be filed with a notation that the City may not accept for a period of time however that would likely jeopardize any approval. Councilman Brown inquired if the officer acquired through the grant program could be retained as a replacement should another officer resign for one reason or another, or does the personnel contingent need to be maintained. The Manager responded that the requirement is not to keep the individual rather to keep the position, as an example, if there are twenty patrol officers and a twenty-first is obtained through the grant, at the end of the three years the agency must make a good faith effort to keep the twenty-first position. Councilman Laszlo posed questions with regard to the City's costs relative to the grant officer(s). The Manager advised that costs borne by the City under the first grant will be $180,000 for the period of three years which includes salary, benefits, hard costs, there are other costs that are not included in the grant however they are relatively minor, in turn the grant pays $75,000 of that, thus the cost over three years will be $105,000, pointing out that $35,000 was included in this years budget for that officer with the assumption that the officer would be employed by the first of July, however, in actuality will not be employed until about September 22nd or 23rd. As to a second officer should this application be approved the Manager once again expressed concern as to the source of funding after the three year grant period, and with regard to the first officer, the position will be part of the budget process next spring and should there be inadequate revenues the Council will need to make some priority choices. Councilman Laszlo expressed concern as a result of the County losses as well. He offered that the City has good police officers however said they are the second lowest paid in the County, and expressed his opinion that this action could take money away from raises that they are deserving of. The Mayor said it is likely that if the City could not fund the position in the future the officer would probably be cut and the City would need to refund the grant. Hastings moved, second by Forsythe, to not authorize the grant application for a second police officer under the COPS AHEAD Program.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It is sad and an appropriate question to ask, because I was in the White House in the 1980's when Ronald Reagan made the worst decision of his Presidency, which was to introduce U.S. Marines into the Lebanon conflict. I remember during that time when Ronald Reagan issued the order and the Marines landed, I ran all over the White House, asking, pleading with people, why are we there? What are we doing? How can we possibly succeed? I went to every office of the decision-markers in the National Security Council, my friends who are in various positions in the government and they said, ``Dana, here is the formula. If we do this, this, and this, it will eventually lead to peace in the Middle East.'' I said, ``This, this and this. For all of these things to happen, the chances of that happening are very small.'' The chances of this turning into a fiasco, a horrible situation where we lose maybe 100 American lives, the chances are very high. I thought they would take care of it. I thought that some of the people who understood the implications of what was going on would handle the situation. But instead we got mixed up in the Lebanon situation, in the crisis. We were mixed up in local politics. Our Marines were actually, people do not understand this, the political situation was so complicated the Marines were ordered not to have bullets in their rifles. The situation in Bosnia is far more complex than what was in Lebanon. We lost 240 young Marines in Lebanon. Let me say, I will never forget the day when it was announced that this bomb exploded, this care bomb exploded and it was not just 20 Americans, and it was these young Marines and the first name on the list was my brother's best friend from high school, who I grew up with, and I vowed that day that I would never sit back and watch a senseless operation go forward without trying my best to save the lives of those young Americans. Today we have that opportunity. If we try our hardest and we spread the word, this is a democracy, the President is not going to send troops overseas into a risky situation without the support of the U.S. Congress and the American people. We can deter this, we can bring some sense to this, and we can save some American lives. I ask the American people, I hope everyone contacts their Congressman and the White House saying no troops to Bosnia, no American troops to Bosnia, unless the Congress approves of this operation.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed 3 years of failure as far as the policy of the United States concerning the ongoing tragedy in the Balkans. During this 3 years, we have heard the screams of agony and horror. And what has American policy been? An arms embargo against the criminals who are committing the aggression and the victims alike. This formula of treating the victims and the criminal alike had left the aggressor with all of the tanks, all of the heavy artillery, and an overwhelming superiority in arms. It led to 100,000 deaths or more. The aggressor was, naturally, not deterred by an arms embargo that prevented the victims from arming themselves and defending themselves against aggression. We have seen mass rapes, ethnic cleansing and genocide. It has been a tragedy. It has been a fiasco on the part of the Western democracies. It has been a lack of moral leadership from the United States in that we have put the victims and the aggressors in the same category. Yet the victims even though they have been raped and murdered and seen their families destroyed and their homes burned and destroyed have never come to the United States and asked us for ground troops, to put our young people in their place. They have not asked for our ground troops to be deployed, and they still are not asking for our ground troops to be deployed. The plan that we are hearing about today that President Clinton is suggesting of sending 25,000 young Americans to the Balkans has not come as a result of a request from the victims. It is instead a product of the fuzzy thinking and moral relativity of those people who have formulated America's disastrous policy for the past 3 years. They have failed for 3 years, and now they ask us to trust their judgment in sending 25,000 young Americans into a Balkan meat grinder that has been getting nothing but worse due to their leadership. No, no, hell, no. Twenty-five thousand Americans put in the Balkans. Part of their plan is to put 20,000 Russians into the Balkans at the same time. Putting 20,000 Russians and 25,000 Americans into a conflict situation like that? That is total insanity. We have another alternative. We are not talking about isolationism versus international activism here. What we need to do is have a policy that is rational and responsible and not putting our people at maximum risk. We have the alternative. Let us lift the arms embargo on these victims, on the Croatians and on the Bosnians who have been victimized by the aggressor, clearly the aggressor who is grabbing territory in the Balkans. We have invested in smart weapons. We have invested in bombers and aircraft. We have done this to permit us to exercise our influence while minimizing the risk. The idea of sending so many young Americans to the Balkans carries little chance of success and an incredibly high chance of failure. Failure in this case means a major loss of American lives. The screams and agony that we will hear will not just be coming from the Balkans but will be coming from American homes when their loved ones are lost, when they find out that their loved one has been torn apart by a land mine or by some sort of artillery barrage. Thanksgiving dinner with empty seats. Wives without husbands. Children without fathers. We should not be putting Americans at risk for such a fiasco, an adventure that has such little chance of success. I yield to my colleague the gentleman from San Diego.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend Chairman Myers. Chairman Myers has done a terrific job. It is a tough job that we are involved in. I would also like to thank the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill]. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] have worked together as a team. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] has been always fair over the years and worked hard and diligently to see that our tax dollars are being used wisely and in a nonpartisan fashion, and that is what the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] is doing right now. I want to thank both of them for their good job. They have kept the faith with all of us this year, and I appreciate it. On appropriations for energy R&D, the conference report they have brought back looks remarkably like the bill that we passed in September. That means our conferees did a mighty good job in holding to the House position. This is good news for those of us who support funding for both fundamental scientific research and support a balanced budget. This bill reduces overall funding for the energy R&D account by $600 million from the 1995 levels. Yet basic energy sciences and high energy physics accounts are increased by $61 million. Those who do not support the balanced budget say we are cutting science. But, as Members can see by those figures, something else is going on. We get most of our savings from programs that have little to do with scientific research, for example, demonstration projects, foreign assistance programs, market development and promotion programs, these things that belong in the private sector, or perhaps should not be funded at all. For example, we save $40 million off the President's request for something called solar technology transfer. All of the money in this program goes for direct commercialization efforts and educational outreach programs. There is no science or no research to be found in that $40 million. That is how we are saving money in order to make sure we balance the budget while at the same time preserving the basic scientific research programs on which this country depends. The priorities in this bill are the priorities that the House endorsed in passing both the authorization and appropriation bills. Should we be completely satisfied? No, we should not be completely satisfied. Of course not. A conference report is, by definition, a compromise. But this bill is a down payment on a balanced budget that we will have in 7 years. Basically, we are keeping our promises to the American people. We accomplish this without sacrificing our core scientific programs by cutting out the frills and the nonessentials. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Again, I congratulate the ranking member as well as the chairman of this committee for the hard work and good work they have done and the leadership they have provided.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the people of this country should know that the debate on this issue was limited by an objection from the other side, and the reason we cannot wait for a week to discuss this for 2 hours is because the President of the United States at this moment may be in the process of preparing to send young Americans into the meat grinder of the Balkans. We need to discuss this tonight. We need to discuss this in depth, and we are prevented from doing so by the other side of the aisle. American policy has been directed by a foreign policy elite that has failed time and time again in the last 3 years. The screams of horror coming from the Balkans have been met with deaf ears in our own State Department and by our own policy makers. They have failed. There has been a moral equivalency to the victims and the aggressors. They pleaded with us, ``Please, lift the arms embargo, so we can defend ourselves.'' That policy that we have followed has been a failure, and now they plan to send American lives. Mr. Speaker, we have to got to stop the deployment of American troops in the Balkans, and stop the sacrifice of young Americans on the alter of globalism.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill, which will establish an objective standard to determine if biotechnology patent applications involve nonobvious material. This standard is necessary to clarify patent law for one of our Nation's most important growth industries, the biotechnology industry, and I congratulate Chairman Moorhead for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. We need, however, to deal with the fundamental problem, the lack of a minimum guaranteed patent term. For over 100 years, this country had a patent term of 17 years from grant. That term acted to encourage and reward innovation. Unfortunately, the GATT implementing legislation established an uncertain term of 20 years from filing. Many biotech patents take years to be issued, which under the new rules results in a vastly reduced patent term biotech companies and anyone else whose breakthrough technology takes longer than usual to get through the Patent Office are victimized. I have introduced legislation, H.R. 359, which will establish a term of 20 years from filing or 17 years from grant, whichever is longer. That's consistent with the GATT agreement and with our Nation's tradition of strong intellectual property rights. That tradition has fueled the growth of new, dynamic industries in America and will continue to do so as long as this Congress continues to respect the creativity and hard work of the Nation's independent inventors. The subcommittee chairman and I continue to have honest differences on this and other issues, such as unconditional publication of all patent applications 18 months after filing. Such publication will allow unscrupulous people to copy and infringe on the inventions of biotech companies and other innovative industries. I am encouraged that we will have a hearing on November 1 to examine these problems, just as I am encouraged that the chairman has shown concern for the biotechnology industry with H.R. 587. I look forward to the day when the Congress will decide, on this floor, up or down, on whether to restore the fundamental patent rights of all of America's inventors.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. In fact we will be holding hearings on global warming, and these hearings, I can assure all of my colleagues, will be very balanced, which again will probably raise the fur on the back of the Vice President's neck because we are permitting experts in the area of global warming who disagree with his position to actually testify and have a juxtaposed position with those scientists who agree with the Vice President's position in global warming. Mr. Chairman, we need to make sure that we handle our appropriations and authorizations with an eye towards focusing the effort in those areas where they can be most effective. Global warming should not be handled in EPA. We have in the last debate suggested that we both agree that long-term climate research is something that should be done in NOAA. In EPA it is out of place, and the gentlewoman's amendment would take funding away from all the other areas of EPA in order to fund something that it should not be doing.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is correct.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. In fact, Mr. Chairman, these programs that are spread throughout the Federal Government's budget on global warming are a product of basically the Vice President of the United States' zeal for this particular issue. Many of us believe that that zeal is what we would call environmental fanaticism.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. These amendments would restore global warming programs to the Environmental Protection Agency. [[Page H 9942]] Let me just state right off the bat that it is my belief and the belief of the majority that this has nothing to do with the basic mission of the EPA. I mean does really having the EPA studying what will happen to fish after 100 years of global warming, does that really go to the heart of what we want the EPA to do? Is this part of its mission? The answer is no, it is not. The EPA badly needs to prioritize its funds and to get sound science to determine regulatory process. Mr. Chairman, the fact is that, if we put the EPA and keep the EPA involved in global warming research, what we have done has a budgetary impact on each and every other area in which the EPA is involved, some of the other things which are part of the core mission of the EPA. Keep the EPA involved in global warming research, and that means the other functions will have less money to spend, and although there is not a specific amount mentioned in the amendment, frankly it has a major impact on the funding of the various parts of EPA.