Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. If people are going to lose their homes, they should be able to go to court to challenge those people making those decisions. That is what this debate is about.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. In fact, in Laguna Beach, we feel, the way I read it, is they could not.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, if I could just answer that by saying in the particular case you are talking about, that may or may not have been the case. You may be accurate in that sense. We have had lots of brushfires in California, and we are very aware of the nonsense that comes down from regulators in the name of protecting endangered species, maybe not in that particular case, but I will tell you there are numerous cases in the Laguna Beach fire, and I am not sure if that is the one you are referring to or not, the people who have had their homes burned down believed that a nonsensical rulemaking process by unelected officials caused them to lose their homes. We think there should be a judicial application of that.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time to answer, we know how many hundreds of billions of dollars are being wasted right now. We do know in California, because of unreasonable regulation by unelected officials, hundreds of homes were burned down because, why, they were not permitted to clear the brush away from their homes because it might hurt the habitat of a few little birdies, and those birdies, by the way, flew away, and their homes were burned as well. We think that that type of regulation, we need a cost-benefit analysis of that regulation, and if, indeed, that cost-benefit analysis is not given by the agency, that the homeowner who might lose his home has a right to appeal this to the courts, and the fact is, by the way, in terms of O.J., we do expect every citizen in this country to be judged by his peers, and that includes maybe having people who are O.J. Simpsons or whoever it is, peers, to be able to be part of the decisionmaking process. That is what democracy is. That is what our Government has been all about.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what that is is a formula for including the public. What was created by the liberal Democrats when they controlled both Houses of Congress was a regulatory dictatorship. And the reason power has shifted in this House is because the American people have felt oppressed, and they see that their standard of living is declining because there has been no balance to the regulatory process. And their rights have been trampled upon by unelected officials.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. In case my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not seen, our country is being strangled by overregulation. This is coming not from the actions of people who have just now achieved some sort of influence because of the last election but because of actions that have taken place over the last 20 years when Members on that side of that aisle had all the time in the world to act, and the Members on the other side of the aisle did not act. People have been thrown out of work. We have seen billions of dollars of resources wasted. We have seen fundamental concepts of freedom that were always part of the American system just totally negated by this rush for regulation that we have seen in the last two decades. My liberal colleagues have given such power to the bureaucracy to regulate that it has become a major threat not only to the freedom but to the well-being of this country. That is why in the last election, in November, the people turned away from those who had been making the rules before, the people who are making the arguments tonight.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the reason I will not yield is because we were very, very gracious in providing the gentleman the extra time he needed. But at a time when we wanted to ask him questions, he was not gracious, even after we had granted him extra time to open up for questions. If I might finish my statement, I will move forward. What we have in the United States today is far from the freedom that we had years ago and the American people understand that by granting the bureaucracy the powers that the liberal Democrats granted, it has not made us appreciably better off and, in fact, is detracting from our economic well-being Certainly, some lakes were polluted and they have been corrected. There were problems in the past. But what we went on in this regulatory power grab in the last few decades was a situation where the regulators, who were given power to solve some problems, expanded and expanded and expanded their authority to the point that it, indeed, threatened the freedom and well-being of the country. We plan to turn that around. That is what this is all about. When we talk about peer review, as my colleague from Pennsylvania demonstrated, we are talking about opening up the process so that the American people will be able to effect the regulations that are heaped upon them by unelected officials. Our bill has judicial review, which is also a protection of our citizens. Their substitute has no judicial review. We talk about a new way of doing things, because it is necessary now to change the way this government has been acting in order to ensure the well-being of our people. That is what this bill is all about. That is what this substitute is against.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the opponents of this bill would like the American people to believe that their health and safety will be jeopardized if this legislation passes, but nothing could be further from the truth. The American people have had to endure radical environmentalists screaming lies into their face for far too long. This bill insists that government will be basing its decisions on sound science, peer review, and cost-benefit analysis. What really is at issue here is the ability of power-hungry bureaucrats to intimidate the homeowner or the farmer or the small businessman or woman at will. It is a stake in the heart of big brother government. From now on, if local government and small enterprise is going to be driven out of business, it has got to be justified, and it has got to be justified on a reasonable condition, rather than just pandering to the paranoid screams of environmental Chicken Littles. In hearings before the Committee on Science, we watched as bureaucrats shed crocodile tears because this bill would cause unacceptable delays that would cost more and add layers of bureaucracy to their departments. In other words, Mr. Chairman, they are opposed to this bill because it would impose the same burdens on them that they have been imposing on the American people. Perhaps if this bill had been in effect, our public schools would not have been forced to spend $10 billion on a nonexistent asbestos problem, and instead could have used the money for educating our children. There are numerous examples of this monstrously costly nonsense, from cyclamates to alar, from lead paint to cranberries causing cancer. A vote for H.R. 1022 is a vote for rational regulation, sound science, and a vote against Big Brother bureaucracy. It is a vote for prosperity and safety for our people. I urge all of my colleagues to join with me in supporting this bill.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, for the past several years, the great State of California has seen a series of unparalleled disasters, both natural, manmade, and economic. These have included earthquakes, floods, fires, civil unrest, and even bankruptcy. Even my own constituency in Orange County has been dramatically affected by recent floods and economic reversals. All of this has led to the impression that the State and the county's once great image of prosperity and a high quality of life has diminished. Despite all of this, I am pleased to report that my home town of Huntington Beach was recently honored as America's ``Safest City.'' The Morgan Quitno Publishing House of Lawrence, KS, in its book ``City Crime Rankings'' looked at the 100 largest cities in America and discovered that Huntington Beach was the safest place to live. It is with great pride and honor that I commend and applaud each and every citizen and employee in the city of Huntington Beach for their efforts at crime reduction. We are all aware that no one person or event could ever be singled out as a deciding factor in receiving such an award. It takes the patience and commitment of everyone within the community. For several years, now, the city of Huntington Beach has progressed in exciting and new directions. The advent of Community Oriented Policing, downtown redevelopment, and many other progressive concepts have helped to insure a low crime rate and high quality of life. Congratulations to Huntington Beach for your efforts! It is nice to have factual verification of what I have known all along, that the Orange County and Huntington Beach area is a great place to live and work. The police department in Huntington Beach is obviously one of the finest in the Nation. Also important is that the community likes and supports their police and consider law enforcement every citizen's job. So the city, the police, and the people of Huntington Beach have every reason to be proud of their designation as the country's safest city.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, this legislation makes a loud and clear statement to the world. As we have heard earlier, the cold war is over. The United States bore the burden for decades. Our troops were put in harm's way to save the peoples of the world from fascism and then communism. In the postcold war world we will no longer require our people to carry an unfair burden for the sake of the rest of humanity. This is not isolationism. This is America comes first as policy. This is not anti-United Nations. This is pro our national interests. Americans have sacrificed their lives and well-being for an ungrateful world for far too long. Our troops should not be put under U.N. command because the United Nations does not care as much about them as American commanders will care about them. If our President does put them under U.N. command, we should be informed. That is what this legislation says, and, if our troops are sent on long-term, costly operations, Congress should be in on the decisionmaking. We will no longer be making military commitments like we did in Somalia, or Rwanda, or Haiti unless Congress approves. This administration has been depleting our limited defense resources on United Nations and other missions that have little to do with our country's security. The cold war is over. The American people deserve a break. Our military personnel deserve our total support if they are put in harm's way. We will not see the funds for their weapons or their training drained for altruistic international adventurism of a liberal elite. This is our way of saying that we care about others, but our loyalty is first to the American people, then to our defenders, and the United Nations and international benevolence comes in a distant third.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the American people and the Congress oppose the Mexican bailout, yet some power brokers in New York and in the executive branch seem to think they own the U.S. Government, and they have decided that the taxpayers are going to bail out Mexico anyway. Using our own exchange stabilization funds to rescue Mexico from default is the equivalent of selling our own car insurance so that we can pay for the insurance of an irresponsible neighbor who cannot get insurance of his own because his driving record is so bad, and this arrangement may work as long as we do not have an accident. In this situation, our greatest chance of an accident is being hit by our irresponsible neighbor. This bailout for Wall Street and the elite in Mexico is putting our people at risk. What happens then to our own currency if there is an emergency and our stabilization fund is empty? It is a travesty and a crime against our own people to do this. The administration must be held accountable to the Congress and the American people. Please, support, I ask my colleagues, support the Kaptur-Taylor privileged resolution to stop this crime.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. As the gentlewoman knows, many of the businessmen who decided they were going to make a quick buck and an easy buck making a deal with this dictatorship on the mainland are now finding that they are being ripped off by that Government. The fact is that our own business community that was so much in favor of the most favored nation for the Chinese and said forget human rights are now finding that the Government that abuses the human rights of its own people will certainly negate a contract with a foreigner. And millions upon hundreds of millions of dollars are being lost. I predict even billions of dollars will be lost because this is an outlawed gangster regime and America should be on the side of freedom. It is right in the long run, it is beneficial in the long run.Ms. PELOSI. If the gentleman will yield further, once again I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to extend my remarks and those of my colleague. The fact is that we will have another evening to talk about the violations of human rights in China, but in addition to the violations of the intellectual property rights--and in China the piracy is rampant, enforcement is absent and the cost to the United States taxpayer and the American worker is huge. In addition to that, they are violating our trade relations with transshipments, exporting of products made by prison labor, by market barriers to United States products going on into China; the list goes on and on. As my colleague so ably said, there is a connection between human rights and business, and that promoting human rights is good for business because then American businesses going into China will know that their contracts will be honored, that the rule of law will prevail. And that is a lesson they have learned in the last 8 months. They are not as head over heels in love with going into China doing business now. But we still have to fight for human rights, fight the fight to free Wei Jingsheng and his assistants and some hundreds, maybe thousands of political prisoners as well as the millions in the slave labor camps in China.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I thank the Speaker, and I yield to the gentlewoman from northern California [Ms. Pelosi].

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Now $30 billion. Now a $30 billion trade surplus with the United States. And for these people, for the Government of China to be running these factory operations, stealing our intellectual property rights, ripping them off, extracting funds from our pockets to the tune of $1 billion a year, these are the factories that are, as the gentlewoman has just stated, so clearly these are not private sector factors in China, they are factories run by the government and the army themselves. And this adds insult to injury. They are not just satisfied with a $29-billion surplus, they have to rip us off and then even export the intellectual property rights, the CD disks, the software that they are producing. In our State of California hundreds of thousands of people pay for their mortgage, feed their children, clothe their families, educate their children with the money that they get from jobs related to the entertainment industry. We are now on the edge of a new era where ideas and creative instincts become evermore important. This kind of rip-off is incredible and I am very pleased that the gentlewoman has taken the leadership on this.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would just note that the Chinese have a $24 billion trade surplus.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the President's veto power is granted by the Constitution, and we have heard today the question: Why, why, why change this power now or try to have some impact on how this power is being used in this body? Well, I will be very happy to explain it. Something has gone totally haywire, and spending is totally out of control and has been for decades. One of the reasons this system is not working is because there has been a fundamental change, a diminution of the President's veto power. Past legislation, especially spending bills, that went through this body were specific and usually very, very understandable. Today we find massive continuing resolutions and appropriations bills that are hundreds, if not thousands, of pages long that span the issues, that span our whole imagination, and they are very difficult to understand. This is how our President's veto power in this evolution has been devolved along with this. In short, the President's veto power has been neutralized by the evolution of how we do our business, and the reason why our spending situation is out of control is this constitutional authority given by our Founding Fathers is really no longer in effect. That was never made more clear to me than when I worked at the White House for the President of the United States. I remember when President Reagan stood right here and in a State of the Union Message had a huge continuing resolution. Do you remember that? And he threw it down on this table before us and said, ``Something is wrong when we have to consider all of this, all or nothing.'' The President is faced with all or nothing. What kind of veto power does he have left? Well, a little story I would like to share with you: I was in the Oval Office with President Reagan the day after his presentation of the State of the Union Message that time when he actually threw down that continuing resolution showing, demonstrably showing, that his veto power, meaning all or nothing, you know, was irrelevant now, and I notice that his finger was bandaged. President Reagan's finger had a bandage on it. I said, ``Mr. President, what happened to your finger?'' He said, ``Well, Dana, when I was up in front of the Congress last night and I threw that bill down, my finger did not get out from under it and it smashed my finger.'' Now, most people did not understand that he was in pain during the delivery of the rest of the State of the Union Message. There is something wrong when the legislation that we have is so big that it is smashing the President's finger, much less his veto power. I think we should restore the President's finger and restore the veto power to the President of the United States to protect us against unnecessary spending, and that means supporting H.R. 2, the real line- item veto.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, before I get into the subject I had in mind this morning, I would like to just suggest that there has been a great double standard in this Congress for many, many years. Whenever conservative Republicans do anything, it is worthy of attack and all sorts of suspicion is being cast on whatever Republicans would do. Especially now that we are in control, we sense this double standard. For example, Newt Gingrich's book deal comes under tremendous attack while the Vice President's book deal, which is not substantially different, ends up, ``Well, that's just another book deal.'' Now we hear attacks on GOPAC, and the fact is that there are organizations around this city, environmental organizations, lawyer organizations, public employee union organizations which have the same sort of activities. But the focus has to be on GOPAC. I would have to say there is a double standard being applied. I would just ask that when the public hears charges made by political figures, that it be taken into consideration that this is a political city and often charges are made for political reasons. But what I have to discuss today is concerning a specific piece of legislation. Last year I vigorously opposed the GATT implementation legislation because in it was a provision that I and almost every inventor's organization in this country felt would drastically reduce the number of years of patent protection enjoyed by Americans. This provision was not required by the GATT but was placed in the implementing legislation by powerful interests who would profit by ripping off American inventors and investors. Read that Japanese and other multinational corporations as well as megadomestic corporations that use technology rather than create it. Covering this legal larceny, the United States Patent Office and the administration aggressively argued that the changes proposed would not--repeat that--would not decrease patent protection. In fact, they brushed off criticism, claiming terms for most patents would be increased by this change in the law. They used the prestige of their office to lie to us and to dismiss the opposition as not worthy of serious consideration. Well, now that GATT has been passed, a different tune is being heard. On January 16, the New York Times reported an enlightening statement made by Mike Kirk, Deputy Commissioner of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Once the GATT implementation legislation goes into effect on June 8, Kirk now says that filing a patent after that day ``could substantially shorten the term of patent.'' What? ``Shorten the term of patent.'' This is the opposite of what Congress and the American people were being told before the GATT vote. Somebody has been lying, which is known to happen when tens of billions of dollars are at stake. These patent changes, unless corrected will mean billions of dollars in royalties that would be paid to American inventors and investors, will now stay in the bank accounts of foreign corporations. It means technology paid for and invented in the United States will in a few short years be available to our world competitors to use against us for free. This crime against the American people can be prevented. I have introduced legislation that will restore American patent rights to the guaranteed 17-year term that was in place before passage of the GATT implementation legislation. This bill, H.R. 359 has over 108 cosponsors. These people are protectionist, free traders, pro-GATT, anti-GATT, liberals, conservatives, Democrats, and Republicans. But what ties us all together is our commitment to do what is right by the American people. H.R. 359 is on the side of the little guy versus the big guy. We are protecting America's rights. When Americans invest something or they invest in new technology, foreign corporations should not be able to use it without paying royalties to use it to out-compete Americans. This is the travesty that passed through GATT. It was hidden in GATT. Now we are trying to correct that with H.R. 359. I ask my colleague in both parties to join me as cosponsors for H.R. 359 and set the law right to prevent another crime against the American people, against American inventors and investors. On the Senate side I am proud to announce that the majority leader, Bob Dole, has cosponsored similar legislation which will now been known as the Dole-Rohrabacher bill.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge King Rama IX of Thailand on the occasion of the Royal Golden Jubilee celebration which commences this month and continues through 1997. His Majesty will enter his 50th year of reign on June 9th. His Majesty has been an extremely positive influence on his people and continues to be a constructive force in Southeast Asia and the world. His Majesty's influence can be discerned in his numerous projects, his lifelong interest in public health, his efforts to bring peaceful solutions in times of conflict, and his generosity in helping refugees in neighboring countries, especially the Karenni of Burma. His contributions have made King Bhumibol the prime source of inspiration, pride and joy among the Thai people.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, pardon me for talking about legislation for a few moments. Mr. Speaker, I am asking my colleagues today to join with almost 100 Members of this body in cosponsoring H.R. 359. This legislation is aimed at preventing a crime against the American people. That crime was made possible by a provision, not required by GATT but snuck into the GATT implementation legislation, that will have the effect of decreasing the number of years of patent protection enjoyed by American citizens. H.R. 359 ensures that Americans will have the 17 years of protection that has traditionally been our right. Almost 100 Republicans, Democrats, protectionists, free-traders, liberals, and conservatives have joined together to prevent this rip-off that could see billions of dollars that should go to American inventors and investors instead ending up in the bank accounts of foreign and multinational corporations. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members to please join in cosponsoring H.R. 359.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, America is grasping for principles to guide our foreign policy decisionmaking in the post-cold-war world. Let me suggest two simple standards. We should be for freedom, and we should be against aggression. The current administration has decoupled any discussion about trade with any consideration of human rights. This is wrong, and it does not work. By winking at the dictator in Beijing, we have encouraged that gangster regime to go on to even further criminal activities. I am placing into the Record an editorial of the Wall Street Journal detailing the results of an alignment between the gangster regimes in Peking, China, and in Burma. As for America, we should be on the side of those who are struggling for freedom in Burma and China. In the long run, it is not only what is right but it is what will work for the betterment of the entire world. Mr. Speaker, the information from the Wall Street Journal to which I referred is as follows: [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 11, 1995] Asia's Drug War Trade and information aren't the only things that have gone global. Try drug addiction. Around the world, the U.S. is often portrayed as a society sinking under the weight of drug abuse. But where the U.S. has about 600,000 heroin addicts, Thailand probably has that number in Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai provinces alone. According to the Straits Times, Singapore is treating 7,700 addicts (up from 5,700 in 1990). Assuming, improbably, that these are the only ones, Singapore still has an addiction rate 12% higher than the U.S. Malaysia claims about 100,000 addicts, Taiwan about 50,000, and the standard estimate for Vietnam is 500,000. Without much doubt these figures understate the severity of the problem in some countries. When Taiwan seized 1,114 kilos of heroin in 1993, officials claimed the bulk was for domestic consumption. Hong Kong clinics have registered a 50% jump in female addicts since 1993, which they attribute to the price of a gram of heroin plummeting to $40, half the price of three years ago. While the big money is made on the streets of New York and Los Angeles, most of Asia's opium is consumed in Asia. So the explosion in production in the Golden Triangle, especially Burma, is deeply troubling. Opium output has trebled since 1988, to about 3,500 tons, according to Asian officials. Prosecutions are still launched against longtime traffickers in places like Thailand, but in fact the business has rapidly migrated into the hands of new Chinese gangs. The quality has gone up, and the purity has improved by a factor of 1,000% or more. To understand why, look no farther than Burma's emergence as China's economic satellite. In the late 1980s, China began courting the Burmese regime, then in bad odor with the rest of the world for slaughtering hundreds of demonstrators. Beijing dropped its support of the Communist Party of Burma and other ethnic rebel groups and opened the long Sino-Burmese border to trade. That pried the lid from a Pandora's Box whose contents are now spilling out into the world through China. The ex-insurgents, led by the Wa tribal followers of Burma's Communists, nowadays devote themselves to the heroin business. Dozens of refineries have opened along the border, with the drugs moving overland by courier through China and finally out via Hong Kong and Taiwan. These mainland routes have already eclipsed Burmese drug warlord Khun Sa and the Thai export routes under his control. For the time being, the Rangoon government has reached cease-fires with most of the ethic rebels in the north, Rangoon leaves them to their drug trafficking, and probably even rakes off a share of the profit, while concentrating its main energies on building up the army and crushing urban dissent. No doubt these cease-fires are temporary: The Burmese military is reportedly set to renew its offensive against the Khun Sa operation, armed with a fresh supply of weapons from Beijing. In time, the army probably hopes to subdue the rest of Burma's minorities as well. But that goal has eluded the Burmese military for 50 years and for now the local militias still call the shots in the mountainous north, Poppy cultivation has boomed under the spur of competition for buyers. For their part, the Chinese see their Burmese clients as an economic and military bridgehead into Southeast Asia. What they got in the bargain was an opium bridgehead into China. Junkies are suddenly proliferating along the drug routes through Yunnan and Guangxi, in the inland provinces and even among Beijing's yuppies. China recently admitting to having 300,000 ``registered'' addicts and called the situation ``very grim.'' Health officials put the real number at 2.5 million. In 1992, the People's Armed Police was sent in to clean out a smuggling center protected by corrupt Yunnan officials. The battle lasted 11 weeks and netted nearly 1,000 kilos of drugs. China hasn't forgotten that tens of millions were junkies early in the century. Biochemistry being what it is, the simple fact of drugs being available is likely to produce a growing addiction crisis. When Lee Brown of the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy toured the region last June, several governments urged him to restart anti-narcotics cooperation with Burma. But the Burmese regime is still in the doghouse with Congress over its human rights record and the detention of Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi. In any case, the old school, which sees U.S. and European consumers as the main drivers of the heroin trade, may be out of date, Malaysia recently nabbed a high-school-age heroin dealer. Police suspect that pushers are trying to lock in a new clientele among upwardly mobile young users. Asia's wealth is driving a big part of the business these days. And while the U.S. can help, China is the real key to Asia's developing drug crisis.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think what the gentleman is showing are the complexities, but that does not negate the solution. That is, just as in the Santa Monica Bay, it might be better for the people of California and people of southern California in particular to determine what type of regulation they want for the cleanup of the Santa Monica Bay. In the same way with the Mississippi River, it would not be a good thing to tax everyone in the country in order to basically implement a policy along the Mississippi River when a solution might be made among the States that are on the Mississippi River to facilitate that solution.