[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 63 (Monday, May 18, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3360-H3365]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           ONE OF AMERICA'S WORST NATIONAL SECURITY SCANDALS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the 
majority leader.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, what started off as leaks about 
American corporations upgrading Communist Chinese rockets and missiles 
is today emerging as one of our country's worst national security 
scandals.
  What could be worse than American corporations using technology, paid 
for by the American taxpayer, to improve Communist Chinese missiles and 
rockets so they will have a better chance of striking the United States 
with nuclear weapons?
  What is worse than having government watchdogs go after companies 
engaged in this betrayal of the American people, and to have the 
prosecution of those responsible undercut by an executive action taken 
by none other than President Bill Clinton?
  What is worse than to find out that the executive that gave the 
missile technology to the Communist Chinese, as well as the Communist 
Chinese themselves, I might add, donated a million dollars to the 
President's reelection effort at the time the missile deal was in play?
  Mr. Speaker, the American people have bent over backwards so many 
times to give their President the benefit of the doubt. Many think the 
attention paid to sex scandals swirling through this administration are 
a waste of time, even a joke, never mind that the liberal establishment 
destroyed the career of Bob Packwood, Senator Bob Packwood from Oregon, 
just a few short years ago on allegations which were far less than what 
now face the President; and they also, this same liberal establishment, 
tried just a few short years ago to destroy the career of Justice 
Clarence Thomas with charges far less significant than those that are 
now being made against the President.

[[Page H3361]]

                              {time}  1230

  Also I might add that a number of military careers have been 
destroyed by such sex scandals. Officers have been thrown out of their 
job, after serving many, many years with the military, by the claim 
that they must have the highest level of integrity, they must have the 
highest level of character, if they are to be trusted with the defense 
of our country, especially when it concerns nuclear weapons. But the 
double standard at the very top, of course, is a bit overwhelming, to 
say the least.
  Again, of course, the charges against the President now being 
investigated center on allegations that the President encouraged a 
young lady to lie under oath on a legal deposition, read that commit 
perjury. And, okay, it does go back to the sexual proclivities of the 
President and also, the American people admittedly are getting tired of 
seeing the pandering of the news media----


                Announcement by the Speaker pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The Chair would 
remind the Member to refrain from making personal references toward the 
President of the United States.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I was not aware that I was making personal 
references to the President of the United States but, instead, about 
investigations into the President's proclivities. I believe that any 
mention about investigations is certainly possible. I would like to 
know what Member is objecting to my words.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair took the initiative in this 
reference to the President.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I will take the Chair's admonition and interest.
  We recognize that the media has trivialized the charges that have 
been made against the President and we realize that perhaps the 
American people are getting sick and tired of hearing about charges 
that go back to sexual activities that the President may or may not 
have been engaged in. And if what Ken Starr has been investigating 
seems complicated and now trivial, let us not lose sight of the fact 
that something now is emerging in Washington that is not trivial, that 
does not deal with a sex scandal, that what we are seeing emerge about 
this administration's dealings with the Red Chinese is both 
understandable and outrageous.
  In short, President Clinton's White House has been in collusion with 
American high tech companies that have transferred to the Communist 
Chinese missile and rocket technology that increased their capability 
of successfully launching a nuclear strike against the United States of 
America. So while the news media was paying attention to charges and 
investigations that may go back to the President's sex life, let us not 
ignore or let us focus on something that everybody should be able to 
understand, the magnitude of which everyone should be able to 
understand, every man, woman and child in our country has been put at 
risk by actions of a few profit-oriented aerospace tycoons.


                Announcement by the Speaker pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentleman would suspend, the Chair 
would like to request that the Member not refer to the President of the 
United States in the personal manner that he just utilized. The 
gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would appeal the ruling of the Chair if it says 
that I am not permitted--I do not know who is telling the Chair that no 
one is permitted to talk about the policies of the President of the 
United States and use them as policies of the President of the United 
States.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It was the references to the President's 
personal conduct rather than the policies of the President.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Even if those personal positions are being 
investigated by a law enforcement agency?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, then I will refrain from that and I thank the 
Chair for pointing that out to me. I thought that referring to an 
investigation of the President in that area was permitted, and I will 
refrain from referring to that in the rest of my speech. Instead, I 
will refer to exactly what this speech is supposed to focus on and as 
only compared to those other items that I consider to be not 
understandable and trivial, but instead the fact that actions have been 
taken by this President that benefit aerospace tycoons that have put 
our country at risk.
  The President, this President, may well have squashed attempts to 
prosecute people who have betrayed the safety and security of our 
country. This story started for me earlier this year when I first got 
wind of the assistance being provided to the Communist Chinese missile 
and rocket program.
  As chairman of the space subcommittee, it is part of my job to keep 
track of America's space program. I am, in fact, as chairman of the 
space subcommittee, the point man in the House of Representatives in 
overseeing NASA and other space and technology budgets. I have, thus, 
some understanding of rockets and missiles that perhaps some others of 
our Members do not have.
  Several years ago it was argued that American satellites should be 
permitted to be launched atop foreign rockets; that is, if the foreign 
customer, which American companies were selling their satellites to, 
demanded that those launches be made to those foreign, be made on top 
of those foreign rockets. That request by American satellite 
manufacturers made sense. We were competitive with the British and 
French as well as the Russians and, when quality was put into the 
equation, we were far superior; meaning American rockets were far 
superior to the Chinese long march rockets, which is their standard 
rocket for the Chinese arsenal.
  So, thus, this Congress moved forward with the President of the 
United States to make legal the launching of American satellites on top 
of foreign rockets but with great restrictions to be placed on those 
satellite launches so that there would be no technology transfer.
  As I say, I agreed with that position because I knew that once the 
long march rocket, which at that time was blowing up three out of four 
times, was used to put up an American satellite, people would soon see 
that it made no economic sense to use long march rockets. At no time 
did this Congress or anyone else ever suggest that American technology 
should be used to perfect Chinese long march rockets or to upgrade any 
Chinese missile system. But that is exactly what happened.
  When the Chinese rockets failed, as predicted, the Chinese rockets, 
as I say, would go up and they would explode, reminiscent of the 
American, early American rockets of the 1950s. And as predicted, they 
blew up, and at that point most of us believed that the launches of 
American satellites to set up things like a telephone system in China 
and such, which are totally justified sales of technology, that they 
would have to be launched on American rockets. Yet some high rollers in 
certain American aerospace companies decided to upgrade the capability 
of the Communist Chinese in their ability to launch those rockets 
without any consideration of America's national security interests.
  What may have been given to the Chinese? What is it that we are 
talking about when we are talking about a rocket system, the long march 
rocket that used to blow up and was totally unreliable and now is a 
reliable rocket system?
  Well, what we gave them, what it looks like we may have given them, I 
should say, is missile command and control technology, missile guidance 
systems, stage separation technology and MIRVing technology. 
Demonstrating just how far things have gone in perfecting the long 
march rocket, on May 2 of this year, two Motorola satellites were put 
into orbit with one long march rocket.
  To explain the importance of this, to understand the importance of 
this, we need to look at what technology is needed to send two 
satellites up on the same rocket.
  First of all, those rockets were exploding. As one Motorola executive 
told me, Well, Mr. Chairman, as the rockets go up, they did not have 
the stage separation technology and they were blowing up when they were 
supposed to separate.
  My reaction, of course, was, it is a very good thing that Red Chinese 
rockets blow up. We like them to blow up.

[[Page H3362]]

 We do not want them to have an effective rocket system.
  What it also tells us, the May 2 launch, is, they have overcome that 
stage separation problem now. One long march rocket put two satellites 
up; the important phrase, ``two satellites.'' That means that the Red 
Chinese now have MIRV capacity. They are utilizing MIRV technology.
  To put this in perspective, that means that the Chinese, before any 
policies laid down by the President or in support of these companies, 
before they had an unreliable rocket system that would blow up three 
out of four times, now they have a system that will launch into space 
not only one satellite but two.
  Now let us change the name. We are no longer talking about 
satellites. We are talking about nuclear warheads. The Chinese now, 
because it is the very same technology used to spit out those 
satellites, is the same technology that is used to spit out nuclear 
warheads. The Chinese now, using American technology, have the ability 
to launch, effectively launch nuclear warheads. And not just one 
warhead per rocket, they now have our MIRV technology that will permit 
them to launch numerous nuclear warheads at the United States per 
rocket, using our technology paid for by the American taxpayers.
  Where were our watchdogs? When all of this was happening, where were 
our watchdogs? Well, this did not pass the attention of many long-time 
pros over at the CIA and the State Department and U.S. Customs. Our 
watchdogs were actually on the job and could not help but notice that 
the Chinese capability in their launching of their rockets and missiles 
was improving dramatically. In fact, moves have been made by our 
watchdogs to bring charges against several corporations that may have 
transferred this American technology to the Communist Chinese.
  But in the midst of the preparation for bringing criminal charges, 
our President, President Bill Clinton, inexplicably issued two licenses 
that made it legal to sell that same technology to the Communist 
Chinese, undercutting the potential prosecutions of those who had been 
engaged in selling the same technology to them before.
  This might be viewed as almost a retroactive licensing or waiver for 
past illegal activities. This is something we need to, as a Congress, 
to look into exactly what was behind that. When examining this issue, 
we need to also understand that the transfer of technology financed by 
the American taxpayer is a double betrayal of the American people.
  First, let us understand that when you transfer American technology 
like rocket technology, American jobs are being destroyed and, second, 
our country is being put in jeopardy.
  First, what about the jobs? I represent an area in Southern 
California in which aerospace plays a major role in our economy. Tens 
of thousands of people make their living in the aerospace industry. By 
transferring technology that was paid for by the taxpayers to the 
Chinese so that launches will be given to the Chinese rather than to 
Americans, we are betraying everyone who works in our aerospace 
industry.
  When I say ``we,'' it comes down to some of the bigwigs in the 
aerospace industry who are not considering their employees and some as 
well in the administration, the Clinton administration that are 
supposed to be making the decisions as to what is in the interest of 
our country. But of course, our relations with China over these last 
five years have been based on transferring jobs and wealth from the 
United States to Communist China.

                              {time}  1245

  How many people know that, when our companies are trying to sell a 
product in China, they have to pay a 30 or 40 percent tariff? The 
Chinese, on the other end, are flooding our markets with consumer goods 
and paying a 3 percent or 4 percent tariff. This is no accident. This 
is no mistake.
  What does that do? That undercuts the ability of American companies, 
of American workers to do their job and to earn their living. So we 
have tariffs that are totally out of whack, and that is no accident.
  Then we have got OPIC, Export-Import Bank, the World Bank and several 
other financial institutions that are financed by the American 
taxpayer. And what do we have? We have the taxpayer, again, subsidizing 
the building of a manufacturing plant in a Communist country, 
especially Communist China, which is the biggest human rights abuser on 
this planet.
  Again, we have a policy that betrays the American people by taxing 
them in order to subsidize or guarantee loans to big corporations who 
will then build a plant in China to use slave labor, which will then be 
used to transfer goods or to sell goods to the United States, 
undercutting our own working people and putting them out of a job.
  This is nonsense. This is bizarre. Who is watching out for the 
interests of the American people? Even environmental deals that we have 
been talking about, trying to set up environmental standards 
internationally, we managed to maneuver them and to work through 
problems and to negotiate.
  When all the smoke clears away from the negotiations, we find we have 
a deal in which China and several other countries are excluded from 
harsh restrictions that are put on our country, which means that, when 
people invest in the future, they will invest in China instead of 
investing in the United States.
  That is very predictable. No one can deny that. This is what will 
happen if these Kyoto treaties that we just negotiated, when it is 
implemented, it is the most massive transfer of wealth from the United 
States to China.
  Why not? If you have so many restrictions in the United States and it 
is so costly to do business here, why not put your investment into 
China? Let us bend over backwards again and give those involved in this 
strategy the benefit of the doubt of why it is happening. Let us say 
that we are going to give everybody the benefit of the doubt that these 
nonsensical and horrible policies have been brought about by the best 
of intentions.
  What they really want to do, or so they say, is to bring China into 
the family of nations. This is the way to bring China into the family 
of nations. Let us make China part of the global economy. The more 
business that we do with China, the more they are going to come and be 
more like western countries.
  This is, let us hug a Nazi, and he is going to come along and not be 
a Nazi any more. Let us trade with Hitler, and then he will not want to 
invade Poland. Let us make sure that the Communists and the Nazis and 
the fascists do not feel threatened, do not feel threatened by anything 
that we do. Let us give them all of our weapons or at least let us not 
build any new weapons and so they will know they have nothing to fear 
from the United States.
  This is the kind of nonsense that is at the basis of one of the worst 
betrayals of the interests of the American people that I have seen in 
my lifetime. Massive transfers of wealth and technology, even weapons 
technology, to the worst human rights abuser and worst potential 
aggressor on this planet.
  China, the Chinese dictatorship, could incinerate all of Tibet; and 
these nincompoops making these arguments would still be arguing that we 
have got to prove our sincerity and maintain this unequal trade 
relationship with the Chinese.
  In fact, the Communist Chinese are, at this moment, engaged in 
genocide against the people of Tibet, slowly but surely trying to 
replace them, totally replace them from that kingdom in the mountains 
overlooking India and China.
  But even those who espouse this nonsense of encouraging an unequal 
relationship with China understand that this strategy does not excuse 
the transfer of weapons technology and technology of mass destruction 
to the Communist Chinese.
  One of the most disturbing tidbits of information that has been 
coming to the surface now that this issue is being focused on by some 
of us in Congress was the effort of the Loral Corporation to ship other 
sophisticated weapon systems over to the Communist Chinese.
  Even beyond the missiles and rockets, when former Secretary of 
Commerce Ron Brown went to Communist China, he was accompanied by Loral 
CEO Bernie Schwartz, who carried with him a list that has been compared 
to a catalog of high-tech weapons put out by the James Defense 
Publishers.

[[Page H3363]]

  I have a list here of some of the weapons that Loral suggested be 
sold to the Communist Chinese. They include Airborne Reconnaissance 
Cameras, Weapon Delivery, Target Acquisition, Missile Guidance, 
Shipboard Target Acquisition, Radar Warning, Missile Warning, RF 
Jamming, IR Jamming.
  Loral's list proposed the sale to Red China, also included some of 
our most deadly weapons in our inventory, including the AIM-9 
Sidewinder, the massive missile artillery weapon MLRS, the Army's 
newest antimissile missile, the ERINT, the antiaircraft missile 
Chaparral, and even the advanced unmanned air vehicle called the 
Predator.
  Loral also made sure that the list of ever-popular add-ons for jet 
fighters would include things such as laser bomb targeting pods, FLIR, 
Forward Looking Infra-Red, night vision and smart bomb targeting gear.
  This is only a partial list of what Loral apparently would like to 
have sold to Communist Chinese.
  Where would those weapons be used? First of all, I do not believe 
that it is justified for the United States to sell weaponry to any 
dictatorship. The Cold War is over.
  It is time for the United States to set a standard that, if a country 
is not ruled by a democracy, by the people themselves, if there are not 
democratic rights and people, and you have a small clique of dictators 
running a country, we should not be selling weapons to that government, 
because those weapons will be used, among other things, to continue the 
suppression of their own people.
  But, also, we know that dictatorships are actually more inclined 
towards aggression than are democratic countries. So we have here a 
company and maybe several companies that was seeking to make huge 
profits by selling sophisticated weapons to the world's worst human 
rights abuser, what I consider to be one of the world's worst 
dictatorships, even though it does permit our big boys to come in and 
make millions of dollars of profit if they can cut the right deal with 
the ruling clique.
  Later, when the State Department began pointing out the potential 
danger to America of transferring these weapons, now, remember, all 
these weapons, someday we may be in a conflict with the Chinese, and 
those early defense systems and those radar systems may be used to 
shoot down American pilots, and that did not escape the attention of 
some of the people in our government, some of the watchdogs.

  When some of our watchdogs began to raise questions about the 
transfer of these weapons, President Clinton, again, inexplicably gave 
the Commerce Department authority over the approval of certain of these 
strategic systems. It was no longer the State Department but the 
Commerce Department under Ron Brown then would have the ability to 
approve these transfers or at least some of these transfers of weapons.
  Why did that happen? It made it easier to transfer these weapons, 
this American technology, because the State Department was taking a 
harder line than Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown.
  Why did Loral want to transfer these weapons in the first place? The 
missile and rocket technology, why did Loral want to provide this to 
the Chinese? Today, Hughes Technology, Hughes Corporation, that is one 
of the companies that are being accused of helping the Chinese upgrade 
their rockets, they vehemently deny that they have ever transferred any 
technology or that they did anything to upgrade the technology of the 
Communist Chinese. Hughes Technology has denied that. Unless it is 
proven otherwise, I would choose to believe that Hughes is telling the 
truth in this particular case.
  Loral, on the other hand, Mr. Schwartz has been around Capitol Hill 
in the last couple of weeks; and from what I understand, he has told 
people that what he did is not illegal. That is the defense. It was not 
illegal.
  Of course, we need to know whether or not it was illegal at the time 
this transfer of technology took place and the rockets, Chinese 
Communist rockets and missiles were upgraded. We need to know whether 
it was legal at that time, and when did it become legal for it to 
happen, and why did it become legal for us to transfer technology to a 
Communist dictatorship which enables them to launch nuclear weapons 
against the United States.
  But is there not even a question here beyond what is legal? Is it 
wrong for us to expect that American businessmen have some sort of 
moral considerations in what they are doing?
  I fought here for years trying to convince the American business 
community that we should not be making a fast buck in Communist China 
while Christians are being persecuted, while you have got massacres 
going on at Tiananmen Square and the Muslims in the far reaches of 
China and with the Tibetans.
  Is it not immoral with us to go over and do business with a Hitler-
like regime, even though they are permitting us to set up a company 
there? Is that not immoral? Should we not have some moral 
considerations about this?
  The businessmen always come to me and say, oh, forget that. That is 
so much hogwash. We are going to make them more liberal because we are 
going to be there with our values on the scene. That will affect these 
Chinese decision makers.
  I want my colleagues to know that over 50 American businessmen have 
made that argument to me, and I have asked almost all of them the same 
question: When you have been to China, have you ever raised the human 
rights issue with the government officials in the area in which you are 
manufacturing? I have asked that question.
  Guess how many American businessmen have answered in the affirmative? 
Oh, I have stepped forward, and I have advocated what Americans should 
advocate. I have advocated freedom with these people, and I have told 
these local officials they should not be closing down the local 
churches. They should not be throwing believers in jail, and they 
should not be suppressing freedom of speech. I stood up for that with 
these local officials.
  Not one American businessman has ever told me that. Not one.
  Now we have come to the point we have blurred right and wrong. We 
have blurred the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy so 
that our businessmen do not even know the difference between giving 
technology to a Communist Chinese dictatorship that would threaten 
every man, woman, and child in this country with nuclear incineration.
  Ladies and gentlemen, make no doubt about it, today we are in greater 
peril because American technology has been given to a Communist 
dictatorship which will enable them to deliver nuclear weapons to the 
United States more effectively.
  Does someone not have a moral obligation not to do that to his 
friends and neighbors? I do not say that we always have to run across 
the street and help someone who is being attacked by thugs. At least we 
should call the police. But, at the very least, we should not sell the 
thugs brass knuckles so that they can beat up the fellow even more, so 
they can beat up our family.
  Some of these questions are important questions, not only the legal 
ones but also the moral questions. The moral questions need to be asked 
as well, and there will be hearings on the subject.
  Why was this administration greasing the skids for this dastardly 
activity? As I say, Hughes Corporation denies that there was any 
transfer on their part and that they did not do anything. So skip back 
to Bernie Schwartz and Loral who now claim that, well, I did this or I 
did some of these things, but it was legal.
  Why did the administration go along with it? Why did the 
administration act in a way that undercut the investigation, the 
prosecution of Loral for jeopardizing the American people's safety?
  It is my sad duty, and I hope that this is permitted, to note that 
Bernard Schwartz, CEO of Loral Corporation, was the biggest single 
contributor to President Clinton's reelection effort with over $1 
million in direct contribution and soft money being given by Mr. 
Bernard Schwartz to the Democratic Party.
  Was this the reason that the President acted in a way that would 
undercut the prosecution of Loral for transferring weapons technology, 
nuclear rocket technology to the Communist Chinese? I cannot say that. 
We can never say absolutely. But it is something that we need to think 
about, and

[[Page H3364]]

we need to ask questions about it and need to get to the bottom of it.
  Then, in the last 2 days, we hear about Johnny Chung. During the 
election we all remember that name back there somewhere. Republicans 
were yelling about a guy named Johnny Chung. Now we find out, and from 
recent articles, that Johnny Chung, this Democrat wheeler and dealer, 
had $100,000 that he gave to the Democrats. Of course, they gave some 
of it back after Republicans raised a stink.
  But this $100,000 that he transferred to Democratic coffers, where 
did Johnny Chung's money come from? We now find out it came from the 
People's Liberation Army in Communist China. If you look closer, it was 
not just the People's Liberation Army in Communist China. That was not 
just the source of the money. It was a lieutenant colonel in the 
People's Liberation Army who is deeply involved in the development of 
their missiles and rockets. That is where Johnny Chung's money came. 
That is just what we know. That is all we know. We know about that one 
source.

  We do not know that there might be other sources, hundreds of 
thousands of other dollars that were transferred into the President's 
political coffers by the Communist Chinese during his reelection. This 
is perhaps one of the most dastardly acts that I have seen in just 
giving missile technology. That in and of itself is a dastardly act, 
giving missile technology to the Communist Chinese.
  But that this administration not only did not act to stop it but 
seems to have acted in a way that greased the skids should be of 
concern to all Americans. This is a scandal that will not stop until we 
know the information.
  Mr. Speaker, I apologize if earlier that I made reference to some 
things that I was not supposed to make reference to. I, in fact, was 
referencing those things to say that what we are talking about today is 
so much more important and so much more understandable than those other 
things that the President was accused of.
  My intent was not to talk about the President's personal life. 
Instead, it was to focus on the actions of the President, as he has 
taken actions that affect the life and security of each and every 
American, the life and security of our country. Nowhere is that more 
clear than in this issue of technology transfer.
  Again, let me close now by talking a little bit about what I consider 
the basic issue. We have already pointed out that, number one, there 
has been a transfer of technology paid for by the American people 
through our tax dollars to the Communist Chinese that have helped 
perfect their nuclear weapons delivery systems, something that goes to 
the heart of the security and safety of every American.
  We pointed out that those corporations, that when the watchdogs in 
our government have begun to try to put together a prosecution of those 
involved with this breach of our security, perhaps the breaking of our 
law, that an action taken by the President may have undercut that 
prosecution. People are concerned about that.
  We have also shown that at least one major corporate leader involved 
with this transfer of American technology was the largest contributor 
to President Clinton's reelection effort and that we have also shown 
that there is evidence that Communist Chinese money was transferred 
into that reelection effort as well.
  But let us get right back to where it comes in. Why is this 
happening? This President, and people should not forget that, when this 
President first ran for office, he campaigned saying that President 
Bush was too soft on the Communist Chinese. Al Gore made statements 
saying that President Bush had coddled the Chinese.
  By the way, that quotation by Vice-President Gore was made because 
President Bush had agreed, and this was before Tiananmen Square, to 
permit certain satellites to be launched on Chinese rockets. Al Gore 
characterized that during the election in 1992 as coddling these 
Communist dictators.
  I will have to admit that my reaction to President Clinton's election 
was not as harsh as some of the other Republicans. I, in fact, had been 
disappointed with President Bush that he did not take a tougher stand 
against the Communist Chinese.
  I thought, well, gee, here is one area that I can work with this new 
President, and maybe he believes in human rights, which is the rhetoric 
that we were hearing during the election.
  Mr. Speaker, after becoming President of the United States, President 
Clinton immediately reversed his position on human rights in China. 
Most Favored Nation's status, all of a sudden, he has become this 
city's most potent advocate of Most Favored Nation's status for China. 
He, in fact, when we were out of session for a week, announced, from 
now on, there would be no trade negotiations with Communist China in 
which human rights would even be brought up by the administration as 
part of those negotiations, something that President Bush and every 
president had done up until that point.
  In short, this administration immediately raced in the opposite 
direction it claimed that it would take when President Clinton was 
running for reelection. This is not the only example of that, but 
because we are talking about Chinese policy and the consequences of the 
Chinese policy, I thought I would bring that up today.
  What we are really talking about is the fact that our government is 
not watching out for the interests of the American people.
  We can talk about changing the rules. I know the fellow who spoke 
right before I got up today was talking about changing the campaign 
finance rules. Right now, we have laws governing the election laws that 
thick. As long as we are relying on laws rather than trying to elect 
people with character, the American people will still suffer the kind 
of betrayals that we are talking about today.
  What we are talking about is a blurring of right and wrong, a 
blurring of the distinctions between democratic governments and 
Communist governments, a blurring of the very basic moral fiber of our 
decision, moral fiber of our people, and the moral basis of our 
decision making.
  What we are talking about today also is an idea that, in some way, 
our elected people should be furthering the cause of some global 
strategy, rather than watching out for the interests of the American 
people.
  When you blur the moral distinctions and you forget the interest of 
the American people, we are asking for the kind of economic betrayals 
and, yes, even national security betrayals that are encompassed in my 
remarks today.
  The United States of America is the leading force and has been the 
leading force for democracy and honor and decency since our inception. 
That is what the founding of our country was all about.
  Our country was about average people having rights that are given by 
God and that government having no power except that which was given to 
the government by the consent of the governed. Our government and our 
country was supposed to be an example to the rest of the world. When we 
get away from that, from those concepts that our Founding Fathers 
wanted us to be, and if we start weakening our own people, instead of 
being the champion of democracy, our country will be a weak milk cow to 
the interest, special interests for them to make money in projects all 
over the world. There is something wrong with that.
  Our American people do not have the same opportunities. The American 
middle class do not have the same opportunities as they had because we 
have intentionally permitted other countries to establish the rules of 
trade which suck wealth out of the pockets of our middle class and put 
them into other countries to build those countries.

  I say that those countries will never, will never rise up and never 
be part of a worthwhile global economy until they have had the reforms 
that are necessary for democratic government to exist in their 
countries.
  We cannot make Communist China into a democratic China by ignoring 
the dictatorial nature of their regime that controls that people and 
shoveling money out of the pockets of our middle class and jobs out of 
our own cities into the mainland of China. That strategy will not work. 
It is an immoral strategy. It is a strategy that is a betrayal of our 
people.
  I would hope today that, as this crisis and this scandal emerges, and 
the outrage of the American people, that their

[[Page H3365]]

safety has just been put at risk, that they have been put at risk and 
that their safety has not been taken into consideration, that when this 
outrage sweeps America and they know their children and their families 
are now in jeopardy and in jeopardy because American technology has 
been placed in the hands of dictators, I hope that they will take a 
look a little deeper at some of the coverage of our news media into the 
frivolous scandals that I talked about earlier. And I am sorry if I 
made a personal reference to the President, but that is there.
  They have been turned off, perhaps, at looking at some of the things 
that we are doing here that are important to their security. America 
has got to wake up. Americans have got to understand, or we are never 
going to be able to put a stop to this. This is only the first of many 
examples of where technology they paid for is being put to use to 
defeat them, to defeat their security, and to defeat the prosperity of 
this country.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that, before President Clinton 
goes to China, that we get to the bottom of this. The leadership in 
this House have committed themselves to hearings on this issue. I would 
hope that the American people would call their colleagues or their 
representatives, my colleagues, and to demand that we get to the bottom 
of this missile technology transfer before the President goes to China 
next month.

                          ____________________