Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the cold war is over. The fact is that today we should not be operating under the same rules as when our country was targeted by a very powerful enemy that meant to destroy us. We now can afford to bring the moral questions into play, and we should, the human rights questions, the democracy questions. This is what America can stand for, and if we do, we will have the allegiance of young people around the world, rather than the fear of those young people of their own regimes that might be armed by our people. That is the way America should be. That is the strength. Abraham Lincoln said, ``Right makes might.''

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, I will give you a better example. As you know, both of us have worked together for National Endowment for Democracy. No one has been a stronger supporter for National Endowment for Democracy than I have been. Yet, in the Brownback amendment, I understand they take another $2 million out of the NED budget. Yet we are in a situation where we owe it to our own people, even though we have priorities we would like to spend money on, to cut moneys out to make them more effective. Cutting the budget does not mean it is less effectively spent.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is correct.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Brownback amendment. First of all, we are cutting the budget in order to balance the budget in the long run. And in doing so, we are cutting domestic programs, not drastically, but we are making prudent cuts throughout our domestic programs. What we are suggesting here is that American foreign aid and what we give to others through, for our benevolence and other reasons, should also be reduced to be fair to our own people during this time of domestic budget cuts. Overall, as we put the budget together, we plan to cut 9 percent, that is $1.5 billion, from the spending level from last year, and the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Brownback] is simply adding another 3 percent to that level of cuts, which leaves us $16.7 billion in aid left. In the post-cold-war world that should make sense to the American people. If the American people want us to spend more and more money, more than $16.7 billion on direct foreign aid, let me note in terms of our foreign policy and in terms of foreign aid, in terms of what we are doing overseas, $16.7 billion outside of the military and what we are doing in the military seems like a prudent number. In the post-cold-war world we do not have to spend as much as we did in the cold-war era. That makes sense, and it is not fair to our own people if we do not make prudent cuts. And we are not withdrawing from the world. We are just saying from now on, because we bore the whole burden of the cold war, because we, the American people, decided that we had to protect the world against communism and yes, before that, against fascism and Japanese militarism, and yes, before that, against the Germans invading Western Europe, but the fact of the matter is the American people do not have to bear all of the burdens of the world any longer. What we are saying is not isolationism, but that when we are spending our hard-earned tax dollars we must, No. 1, make sure that all of those dollars are being spent in the interests of the United States, and yes, there is a benevolent interest to the United States, but in essence we want to make sure that we are spending money that is in our interest, and also that the dollars are being spent effectively. We are spending things in this, even left in the budget, we are spending things like for example paying for birth control for India, at a time when India ends up spending their money on developing nuclear weapons. That is not even cut out of this budget. I will tell Members if it was up to this Congressman we would cut a lot more out of the budget. And the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Brownback] has been absolutely responsible. I salute him, and I salute the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. They have done a tremendous job, and I think they are trying to make our foreign aid more effective and they are trying to do what is in the interests of this country.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will make this very brief. I rise in support of the Funderburk amendment. Let me just note that this is not, with all due respect to my colleague from Virginia, Mr. Moran, who characterized this as kicking Federal employees while they are down, this is not kicking Federal employees while they are down. The people that work at the State Department have our deepest respect and they have a very difficult job. To characterize it as kicking Federal employees while they are down is wrong, just as if I would say well, the Democrats have been kicking the American taxpayers around all of these years and the taxpayers are down, yet you are kicking them while we are trying to help them up. That is not really an appropriate analysis, just as I do not think the proper analysis is kicking Federal employees while they are down. We are trying, as we have said over and over again, to make do with a bad situation. We are headed toward economic oblivion with this budget that is totally not only out of balance, but is leading us to an economic catastrophe unless we do something. So we are trying to be effective, make things more effective, to downsize the government that exists. The Funderburk amendment is a fine amendment. All it does is say we are going to kick in this 5-percent reduction in the State Department a year earlier than what we had in and what was presented to us in the budget before. Now, we are in the post-cold-war world. Can we absorb a 5-percent decrease in the State Department budget a year earlier? But of course we can. The fact is that since the cold war is over, perhaps we do not need the same presence that we had and that we needed 10 years ago and 20 years ago. Furthermore, technology, the communications technology that has just exploded in the last 10 years, perhaps makes it less important that we have the same number of people stationed overseas and working for the State Department that we had 10 years ago. In fact, the author of this amendment, Mr. Funderburk, was an American ambassador for 4 years. He understands the necessities of what is needed overseas. Now with increased technological capabilities, the end of the cold war, Mr. Funderburk was in Romania, I believe, perhaps we do not need that same type of staff in Romania that we needed before. He understands that. Furthermore, the most important thing we are talking about, instead of saying we are attacking Federal employees, what we are really trying to do here is say that we need productivity increases in the Federal Government, just like we have had in the private sector. During the 1980's what happened was the private sector learned, our private businesses learned, if they were going to compete and could do a good job, they were going to have to become more productive. They actually downsized their work force and, lo and behold, some of our companies found that by downsizing and not spending so much on upper echelon management and employees at higher levels, what happened was they actually increased productivity and their companies are operating more efficiently. Well, Government can do that. We should expect the same thing from Government that we had in the private sector. Furthermore, we have also asked other areas in the Federal Government, and we are asking that in our budget, to decrease in the amount of money they spend. It is not, it is not then some sort of an assault on people working for the State Department to suggest that they have to be part of this downsizing of Government, increase in productivity as well. That is what this is all about. I applaud the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Funderburk] and I know that every time that we try to have a responsible and minor reduction, that we are going to be attacked as if it is some sort of a malicious intent involved. But I applaud the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Funderburk] and I applaud the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] for the great leadership that they have really shown at a time when we have to decrease the size of the budget. It is a very difficult thing to do and maintain the civility and mutual respect we should have here.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am not sure about the gentleman's figures. It could be true. All I know is spending money for management is not the best thing at certain times. We here have cut our budgets for our committee staffs by one-third, and I would be willing to bet that in the end our Congress is going to be more effective because of that, and we have the same right to expect that same type of increase in productivity from the other Federal Government agencies and departments.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove the name of the gentleman from Washington, [Mr. Nethercutt] as a cosponsor of House Resolution 123. His name was added by error.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, today we are sending a message to the world. We are sending a message to the people of Taiwan. We are sending a message to the people of China. We are sending a message to the dictators in Beijing. Today we are extending a hand of friendship to President Lee of the Republic of China. We are doing so because his government on Taiwan has liberalized, has reached out to the opposition and permitted rights to exist there which are consistent with what we as Americans believe should be the rights of citizens everywhere. We have seen democratization and a respect for human rights in the Republic of China that places that government now in the family of democratic nations. What we do today is the first step in acknowledging that tremendous step forward that the people of the Republic of China have made, and congratulate the leadership of the Republic of China for believing in those values that are at the heart of the American system and at the soul of the American people. We are also sending a message to the people of China. That message is on the mainland of China, those hundreds of millions of people who suffer under dictatorship, that we are on their side and we are not on the side of their oppressor. At the very least, the United States should always be on the side of those who long for freedom, long to live at peace with their neighbors but suffer under oppression and tyranny. The regime in Beijing has sent its message to the world as well. Even though they are trading with the United States, even though their income of their society has increased dramatically, what comes from that kind of trade? We are told liberalization, democracy. But where is it? We have not seen it. Do the people of Tibet feel freer or more secure because the Chinese Government has been permitted to trade and have a $24 billion to $30 billion surplus with us each year? No, the people of Tibet feel the heel of the Chinese Army which is being armed now with the surplus that they have earned from trade with the United States. The Tiananmen Square heroes whom we remember well are now in prison, or of Tiananmen Square still cry out for America's attention. But we do not hear them anymore. And also, what else happens when you permit a dictatorship to make tens of billions of dollars' worth of revenue off of trade with the United States? What we see is a buildup of the Chinese military that is inexcusable. I recently returned from the Philippines, where they themselves felt the intimidation of Chinese militarism when the Chinese have been bullying them on the issue of the Spratly Islands. We are sending a message today simply by reaching our hand out to a friend, President Lee, that American policy recognizes the distinctions that I have just made. To the people of Taiwan, to the Republic of China, we express our congratulations. You are our friends. To the regime in Beijing, we say, ``Clean up your act, respect human rights, or we indeed will move away from you and into a better relationship with people who agree with our values.'' I hope that President Lee will get his chance to come to the United States a friend of the United States. I thus ask my colleagues to join me in supporting House Concurrent Resolution 53. [Mr. BERMAN addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.] Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express the deep-felt concern by many Members of Congress over the health of the king of Thailand, King Rama IX and the enormous sense of relief we all felt on hearing the news that the king's health is improving. A 50-year reign for a king this good is too short. As a member of the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives, I would like to pass along to the king the committee's best wishes for a speedy and a complete recovery. In the last decades, Thailand has been an island of tranquility compared to the strife and war that has visited its neighbors. His majesty's wisdom has been key to Thailand's ability to avoid such dangers and cataclysms. The king is a blessing to Thailand and, yes, to the whole world. Once again, I, my colleagues and my fellow Americans wish him and his family greetings and good health from his friends in the United States of America. As their new year approaches, we would like to wish a happy new year to the king and all the people of Thailand.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It is a bit cynical, I believe, for us not to mention this, and to keep talking about other issues, about how we are trying to bring down the budget deficit. How can we debate bringing down the budget deficit by $100 million here or we are going to cut this benefit over here that is going to bring down the deficit supposedly by $2 billion, when billions and billions of more dollars are actually continuing to flow to bail out Mexico and these Wall Street speculators? It is a sin against our own people. Sign the Stockman discharge petition.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to the fact that since we have been negotiating and working out problems here on the floor, trying to save the taxpayer $100 million here and $1 billion here and $1 billion there, that billions of taxpayers dollars have been ripped off and sent to special interest groups, powerful interest groups, domestically and internationally. We are talking about the Mexican bailout. Yes, in the name of bailing out a country that made horrible decisions, economic decisions, and is governed by a corrupt elite, the American taxpayer has been ripped off to the tune of tens of billions of dollars, and the cash is still flowing. As we speak, every debate that goes on, the cash is still flowing to a corrupt Mexican elite, and to Wall Street speculators that decided instead of investing in the United States of American to create jobs here, they would invest in Mexico, to get a higher rate of return. As soon as they lost their shirt, because it was a risky investment, they come back to the American people and ask us to use our hard-earned money to bail them out. It is a sin. It is a crime against our own people that millions, and yes, billions of dollars are being spent for that purpose. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to join the gentlewoman from Ohio, Marcy Kaptur, and myself and others who are dedicated to stop this flow of billions of dollars. Already tens of billions of dollars have gone. We can stop it before it is $50 billion by signing the Stockman discharge petition. If we can get 218 signatures on a petition from the rest of our colleagues, we can bring this issue to the floor for a vote. I ask my colleagues to join me, and I ask the American people to see if their Congressmen have signed the Stockman discharge petition. How can we in good faith cut the services for the American people? Yes, I think it is important to do that if we are going to bring down the budget deficit, so future generations do not have to pay for those services, but it is immoral for us to cut the benefits and services that our people have paid for over their lives in order not to balance the budget, but instead, to give us revenue to send to people who speculate in foreign countries and to prop up a corrupt Mexican elite, an elite that ends up shooting their own brothers and sisters; an elite that is so corrupt that when they cross the border, their former deputy Attorney General ends up being arrested in this country. We cannot permit the hard-earned dollars of our taxpayers to keep flowing in that direction while we try to balance the budget by just taking a little bit here and saving a little bit there. Let us get to this very serious issue. I think the American people ought to know that while we are debating these types of peripheral issues, that a large chunk of cash, larger than any of the issues we are talking about, is flowing in this direction. Mr. Speaker, I would please ask my colleagues to sign the Stockman discharge petition, and I would ask the American people to see if their Congressman has, indeed, gone along with this righteous attempt to protect the hard-earned taxpayers' dollars that should be going either to bring down the deficit, or providing the services that are necessary for our own people. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, no amount of class warfare can obscure the fact to the American people that the Republicans voted for term limits, the Democrats voted against term limits. But today I would like to speak about another issue. As we are discussing the Contract With America, billions of dollars are being drained from a fund that was established to stabilize our currency. Where are these taxpayer dollars going? They are being sent without so much as a vote of Congress to the bank accounts of Wall Street speculators and to the efforts to prop up a corrupt Mexican elite. While we are trying to balance the budget by cutting spending, President Clinton did an end run around Congress to transfer billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars to this Mexican bailout scheme and ten's of billions of more will be spent unless we put a stop to it. Mr. Speaker, the only way to put a stop to it is to sign a discharge petition, and I hope my colleagues will join me in signing the Stockman discharge petition, and I hope the public will see whether their Congressman's name is on that discharge petition.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to draw public attention to a great miscarriage of justice that will happen to American citizens starting June 8 unless the Congress acts now. Most people do not understand the importance of patent rights for the American people, but let me be concise and just say that as we are entering this information age and this new era of technology unless we guarantee the protection for the creativity and genius of the American people and for the investment of American investors in new technology, America will fall behind. Mr. Speaker, in the past, America has always led the way economically because we protected people's property rights, including their intellectual property rights. In fact, most people do not know the U.S. Constitution includes a strong provision about patent rights. So from the very beginning our Founding Fathers, like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, who were themselves innovators and technicians, ensured that our country would place a great deal of value on the protection of new inventions and intellectual property rights. In fact, for 150 years the tradition has been that American citizens would have 17 years of protection in which they would own any new technology that they invented. Well, that is what has happened for 150 years. Unfortunately, last year during the GATT process, during our negotiations with other powerful interests around the world, a provision was snuck into the GATT implementation legislation that was not mandated by the GATT treaty itself. Let me repeat that. Something was put into the legislation for the GATT which is about an international trade agreement that was not required by what we had agreed to with those other trading partners to be in the GATT legislation. the number of years of patent protection for American citizens. Today, we have 17 years of protection, as we have had for 150 years. If one files a patent, no matter how long it takes that person to be issued a patent, that means when a patent is finally issued the investors will have 17 years to recoup. The change that was snuck into GATT says that once someone files for a patent the clock starts ticking, and he only has 20 years. No matter how long it takes for that patent to be issued, after 20 years that person no longer owns that technology. Mr. Speaker, do you know what that means? That means that our most innovative Americans who created new technologies will see that their patent rights are reduced dramatically, the people producing new technology. What was snuck into the GATT language over my strenuous objection and many others was this law that will mean billions of dollars that would be coming to Americans who invent new technologies now will stay in the corporate bank accounts of multinational corporations and Japanese corporations. Billions and billions of dollars that used to come to Americans are now being kept overseas. Our people were betrayed. Their rights were reduced. Now, if you ask our Patent Office why that happened, why did they sneak that in there, why did they keep Congressman like myself in the dark until 10 days before GATT was actually put before this body and wouldn't tell us what was in there concerning patent rights? Well, we have got to do something to correct the patent system because they have something called the submarine patent in which some patent holders, some people who have applied for patents, maneuver through the system and actually have a longer period than the 17 years of protection because they manage to have the patent not issued. The submarine patent problem can be corrected administratively and should have been. It is like a hangnail on your toe. An infected tow with a hangnail feels really bad, but the last thing you want to do when you have a hangnail is to cut your foot off. Instead of correcting the hangnail problem, what our leaders have done is use a hangnail as an excuse to cut the feet off of the American investor. When that happens, we are not going to be moving forward. We are not going to be able to compete because we are not going to be able to outrun the foreign competition. Mr. Speaker, what will happen when this change takes effect is that American inventors will lose control of their technology after a few short years. I am asking my Members and my colleagues, my friends here in the house, to join me in sponsoring H.R. 359 which will restore to the American people a guaranteed 17 years of protection. We can then move forward to correct some of the problems at the Patent Office. We can do so administratively and without costing the American people billions of dollars. Let us protect American intellectual property rights and join me on H.R. 359.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, we have a chance tonight, ladies and gentlemen, to save $9 million. That is what this is all about. I am sorry for keeping us all here for this small sum of $9 million. I will tell you this much: These choices, and you have heard lots of great arguments of why we should spend money on this mild coal gasification program, I will tell you that in the next 6 months we will be hearing lots of arguments about why this or that program should be financed out of our budget. There will be many, many decisions that we will face that will be much tougher than this. This is a very easy decision. In 1994 the administration, the Department of Energy, and the official position of this administration was that this program was not worth the money and that it should be terminated. That was the official budget request of the administration, and the fact is that this has got through; the reason why it got through at all this far is because last year the chairman of the subcommittee that made the decision came from Illinois, and we passed on to a program that is duplicative. The same type of research is being done elsewhere in Wyoming. It is being done in Wyoming and West Virginia, and the Department of Energy is adamant in that it will never come up with an energy source that is economical. Thus, all the money will be a waste, and they have asked us to terminate it. I ask you to join me in saving $9 million. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, is he sure he is aware of the Department of Energy' position?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, that was a very emotional appeal but the fact is there are many facts that were incorrect in the presentation. Yes indeed, the Department of Energy did solicit on this project in 1991. Shortly thereafter, within a few years after that, it was determined that this was a totally worthless project. The Department of Energy solicited my office, solicited this Member to come here and prevent this money from being wasted. The fact is, yes, there is some experimentation that needs to be done on coal gasification. The Department of Energy's position is this is not that project. This is a wasteful project that if we terminate right now, which we have the chance to do, we will be able to save $9 million dollars. The experts, the scientific experts, Bob Walker, the chairman of the Committee on Science, myself who is the chairman of the authorizations subcommittee, are telling Members this will not be authorized next year, if we do not eliminate the spending now we will have committed, it will have already been committed, as the process goes on the money will have been wasted. The Department of Energy, let me note this, says whatever comes out of this project will not be worth the investment because of low oil prices until the year 2010. This money is a total waste, it is going down one big black hole. the gentleman may be very well intended, he may love his constituents, but the money is wasted; it is not a good expenditure. We have to make priority decisions here. When we have all of the experts telling us it is not a good project, we should cut our losses and save the taxpayers $9 million dollars. That is what this is about. I ask my colleagues to join me. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I am told by the Department of Energy that the funds have not been expended and that $9 million has been spent and that we can save $10 million by acting now.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. $19 million.