[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.
____________________