[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 24349-24355]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               AMERICA'S LONG-TERM STRATEGIC POSITIONING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to discuss America's 
dependence on NATO, our relations with Russia, today's threat of 
radical Islam, and tomorrow's looming threat of an ever-more-powerful 
Communist China. In other words, tonight we will examine America's 
long-term strategic positioning in the world.
  It is always valuable to look at history as well as the present 
before considering the future. So let's start with the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization. It made sense, NATO made sense when it created it. 
It made sense to strengthen the NATO alliance during the 1950s while 
the Soviet Union was forming its Warsaw Pact and while the fall of 
China to Communist tyranny and the Korean war halted the vision of a 
peaceful world that we had been dreaming of in the aftermath of World 
War II. But in the 1950s, that was a threat.
  But the 1950s are ancient history. The cold war is over. This is the 
21st century. NATO no longer serves its purposes and is, in many ways, 
counterproductive. Ronald Reagan's visionary leadership, coupled with 
the unrelenting commitment and courage of the American people, brought 
an end to the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The people of Eastern 
Europe were freed from a hostile occupation and puppet Marxist 
governments. In the 1990s, the Russians dramatically moved away from 
domestic tyranny and away from a belligerent foreign policy.
  Freed from its Soviet shackles, Russia expected to be embraced. At 
least if they weren't embraced, they certainly expected to be accepted 
as the Russians moved their troops out of occupied nations and opened 
up its political and economic system. It was perhaps the greatest 
peaceful resolution of a hostile confrontation between major global 
powers in history. NATO played an important role in bringing us to that 
point in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
  The armed might of NATO deterred aggression and Soviet adventurism 
that could have resulted in a world conflict. NATO, with American 
leadership, won for Western civilization a new chance at building a 
future of progress, freedom, and tranquility on a global scale.

                              {time}  2130

  In the last 20 years, there's been a change on a massive scale, most 
of it for good, in the former Soviet Union. Certainly, elements of this 
transition have been counterproductive and short of expectations and 
disappointing to the people of Russia, as well as peace-loving people 
in the West who had such high expectations. But by and large, enormous 
positive changes have taken place in Russia over these last 20 years.
  It is in vogue now, in some circles, to suggest the current 
leadership in Russia is similar to the Communist thuggery of those who 
not so long ago ruled that country with an iron fist and threatened 
world peace. Let this Cold Warrior shock you by suggesting that the 
Russian government's flaws, and they have many flaws, do not reflect a 
fundamental, malicious nature, as was the case under communism. And 
while there are examples of heavy-handedness, there is ample evidence 
of freedom of speech, religion and enterprise.
  Within this context, the vilification of Russia by old Cold Warriors, 
my friends, most of them, has been unconscionable and unrelenting. The 
fall of communism, the restructuring of its society, and Russian 
forces, of course, withdrawing from Eastern Europe, this was 
breathtaking. These were breathtaking events. Clearly, the Russian 
people and the Russian government wanted to be part of the Western 
community if they were willing to take such dramatic steps. The door 
was open, and the Russians were not only willing but anxious to leave 
Cold War hostilities behind. They were naive and so were we about the 
transition. This historic opportunity has almost totally been 
squandered.
  During the transition, rotten elements in the West allied themselves 
with nefarious Russian elites, and together they took advantage of 
their country's weakened and vulnerable condition. Russia was looted, 
and much of the loot ended up in Western banks. Vast natural resources 
ended up in the hands of a few power brokers. Billions of dollars of 
Russian wealth, basically mineral wealth, was transferred to private 
hands for a pittance.
  The Russian people, rejected and isolated when they expected to be 
partners in building a new world, sunk into despair. Adding to their 
sense of helplessness, Russia was frozen out of the world market and 
relegated to the fringe market, like Iran. Let us note that today we 
are suffering because of that effort to isolate Russia from the global 
economy. I remember shortly after the Communists fell in Russia, I went 
to my own aerospace industry leaders and said, We've got to let the 
Russians compete with us. This is the one area, high technology, where 
they can compete. And of course, the reaction with our major aerospace 
companies was, no way.
  And for 7 years after the fall of communism, Russia, which had 
invested enormous resources in rocket technology, was not permitted to 
sell their launch services to the West. That was the one area they 
could have really raised some hard currency, and we denied that to 
them.
  While, at the same time, what did our friends in Europe do? Of 
course, Europe, by its very nature, the European Union is a cartel, 
excluding other countries like Russia. But instead of utilizing Russian 
missile and rocket technology to launch satellites, our European allies 
rushed forwards to spend hundreds, maybe $150 billion, in developing 
their own launch capabilities. Again, instead of letting Russia be part 
of the world market, they were frozen out.
  And how does this relate to Iran? Their scientists were earning $50 a 
month, people with Ph.D.'s, the top level of their society, the cream 
of the scientific crop, starving, seeing their families suffering. They 
were looking around, so they were relegated to the fringe, and they 
went to Iran, and Iran agreed to hire them to build a nuclear reactor. 
I remember this very well. During the Clinton administration, I went to 
top people in the Clinton administration and explained, This will 
eventually be a horrible catastrophe, a threat, a huge threat to the 
United States and the West if we permit this nuclear power plant in 
Iran to be finished.
  I said, but we shouldn't be threatening the Russians, which is what 
we did. Our government policy was, don't do it, or you're going to 
suffer, instead of saying, look, we know your people are unemployed. 
We'll get you a contract, financed by the World Bank. It wouldn't have 
cost us anything to build two power plants, maybe one in Turkey, maybe 
one in Malaysia, maybe

[[Page 24350]]

one in another country that needed electric power. Instead, we just 
threatened them, and of course they had no other alternative. We didn't 
give them that alternative. And so now, we face this problem.
  By the way, shortly after George W. Bush was elected, I went to see 
Condoleezza Rice. Made the same argument, We've got to act now--if we 
act now we can give the Russians an alternative in which they do not 
have to build this nuclear reactor for the Iranians. But let's give 
them the alternative.
  Again, it was only threats and talk about punitive actions but no 
willingness to offer the Russians a positive alternative. So, of course 
they had to get their people employed. We're going to find out a lot 
about that in the months and years ahead as our own experts find 
themselves unemployed. And we care about them, just like the Russian 
people cared about their people. But we did not at that time reach out 
to help the Russians, and we are paying a price for that now.
  It's important to look back at the end of the Cold War, and to 
recognize the mistakes that have been made, and it has become clear 
that there were many, many mistakes that were made, by the Russians, 
yes, but also by us and our European allies. Now, however, is not the 
time to just lay blame. I didn't relate that story to blame the Clinton 
administration or the Bush administration or anyone else. But realizing 
what that mistake was, we now should move forward to try to see what we 
can do to make up for that and to try to establish better relations. 
This is not the time to place blame. Now is the time to set things 
right.
  And as President Obama has said and Secretary of State Clinton has 
said, this is time to push the reset button with the Russians. And I 
would add, probably, yes, let's push the reset button with Russia and, 
at the same time, we should think about pulling the plug on NATO. So 
let's look at the future. Let's take actions today that will overcome 
past mistakes and look to a future when Russia and America, which share 
common challenges and common enemies, will be a source of strength to 
each other.
  We have, over the last decade, inexplicably drifted toward a renewed 
adversarial relationship. Let us now take a serious look at what 
happens and recognize Russia to be an invaluable potential ally, an 
alliance that would be far more significant and viable than our current 
NATO alliance, which costs us far more than what NATO member states 
contribute to the international security operations and other type of 
activities that are vital to our country. Reagan gave us 2 decades of 
peace and prosperity because he did the right thing. The consequences 
of our actions since Reagan, however, are becoming more evident and 
more alarming each passing day.
  We must have the wisdom, courage and political will to reconstruct 
our efforts rather than rely on diplomatic and military structures of 
the past. And let us note, Ronald Reagan did have the vision. I 
remember Ronald Reagan, I worked in the White House with Ronald Reagan. 
I remember him quite often making a stand on missile defense, which he 
believed in, but making it very clear to people that this wasn't 
something that should be seen by the Russians as a hostile move. 
Instead, he said that we should offer, if the Russians were willing to 
pull back their forces from their forward belligerent positions in 
Eastern Europe, that we should be willing to have missile defense as a 
joint project with the Russians. It would save us both money, and it 
would cover security for both of our countries.
  Ronald Reagan believed in that. That was not rhetoric. That was 
something he thought we could do. Instead, what we have done is move 
forward with missile defense and put it on Russia's border, not as 
something in cooperation with the Russians, but instead, something that 
the Russians naturally view as a hostile act towards them. Now, this is 
not the way we should go. Ronald Reagan understood that. Ronald Reagan 
stood firm, but he stood firm with a dictatorship in Russia, not with a 
Russia that was longing to be part of the Western world as it is today, 
and at least as it was 10 years ago.
  We are confronted today with enormous foreign policy challenges and 
tasked with prevailing over those forces which will, if they can, 
destroy America and our way of life and murder our countrymen on a 
massive scale in the process. 9/11 was only a taste of the potential 
mayhem radical Islamists can and are willing to commit. By the way, we 
lost 3,000 civilians on 9/11, 3,000 people slaughtered before our eyes. 
That wasn't the intent. The intent was to murder everybody in those 
buildings and perhaps in all of the nearby buildings, as the World 
Trade Center buildings were going to collapse into a busy New York.
  Yes, this was a plot to kill tens of thousands of Americans, and we'd 
better realize that that is the type of evil force we are up against. 
The national security threats before us are real and did not 
materialize out of thin air. But contrary to the dominant paradigm of 
our era, our ongoing relationship with NATO, since the end of the Cold 
War, has not worked to our benefit, nor has it made peace, stability, 
or our Nation's security more likely. NATO has recently engaged in a 
number of operations around the world, from fighting the Taliban to 
combating pirates. But whether one views these missions as relatively 
successful or a failure, one can hardly look at them and not realize 
that the cost of our continued involvement in NATO certainly outweighs 
the benefits.
  In Afghanistan, the other 27 NATO countries sent a combined force of 
fewer than 5,000 troops, many in noncombatant positions. These 5,000 
troops are there as part of a coalition. While a certain number of 
these fighters from our NATO partners are heroic, and we salute them 
and they are helpful, yes, and many of them do take risks, they are 
dwarfed in comparison to the number of American boots on the ground. 
68,000 Americans serve in Afghanistan, and the number is rising. All of 
our allies in NATO: 5,000. And it has not escaped our attention that 
many of our NATO partners don't permit their troops to be placed where 
they might see combat.
  So this contribution, while appreciated, in no way justifies the tens 
of billions of dollars that we pour into the NATO alliance. And now, as 
NATO expands to such countries as Albania, Croatia and Bulgaria, it 
raises other serious questions. One of the primary tenets of NATO and a 
NATO membership is that any member will come to the defense of another 
member if that member is being attacked. But realistically, is the 
United States going to come to the aid of these other countries at any 
time, these slew of small countries, each of whom might have a border 
dispute with another country? And, is the reverse proposition, the 
reverse of that proposition worth the cost to us? Do we really need 
Albania and Croatia to come to our aid if we're attacked?
  The answer is obviously, no. NATO's existence may be unnecessary for 
our interests. Let's also admit that NATO can be counterproductive. 
It's counterproductive to the peace at times. For example, by 
convincing the governments of new or potential member countries to 
aggressively and uncompromisingly deal with territorial disputes, we 
must realize that those disputes won't be settled by diplomatic 
negotiation.
  The government of Georgia is a perfect example. The United States' 
discussion about NATO with the government of Georgia made it less 
willing to make compromises that were absolutely necessary for peace 
and stability in that region. Not only did Georgia not make the 
compromises, these talks about NATO emboldened them to take aggressive 
action. Breaking a 7-year truce with its regional adversaries, the 
Georgians launched a brash, ill-conceived military attack on the two 
breakaway provinces of Abkhazia and Ossetia. The Georgians started it. 
They attacked first. All the while, the people of the United States 
were told over and over again, using the most sinister words, that 
Russia was the aggressor. It was the Russians' fault. We heard

[[Page 24351]]

that over and over again. ``We are all Georgians today,'' Senator 
McCain proclaimed.
  Again and again we were told that Russia was doing something evil and 
villainous. However, in a detailed second look at what happened in 
Georgia, a recent NATO report confirmed that it was Georgian troops 
that broke the truce. It was the Georgian troops that started this 
fight and brought on the confrontation. The point is that the Georgian 
government was emboldened by talks with them about NATO.

                              {time}  2145

  They were the ones that broke the agreement that had kept the peace 
in that area after we talked to them about NATO. They invaded those two 
breakaway regions, which resulted in a considerable loss of life in 
Osettia and Abkhazia, and it also brought on a counterattack from 
Russia, who had made agreements to maintain the peace with the people 
of Osettia and Abkhazia. And the counterattack that was what? A 
reaction to the Georgian invasion. NATO's role was counterproductive, 
clearly.
  Furthermore, do we believe that the American military forces should 
have been involved in that distant conflict? Should they have been 
involved as part of a NATO commitment to Georgia? My goodness, that 
doesn't make any sense to me. That's all the way across the world. Yes, 
it's in Russia's backyard so you know that they would be very involved 
and interested. But the United States is going to engage in a military 
confrontation with a power like Russia over a dispute, territorial 
dispute, between Georgia and some regional governments that don't want 
to be part of Georgia?
  By the way, the people of Georgia, I think they didn't have to be 
part of the Russian federation. I sympathize with their demand after 
the end of the Cold War to be an independent country. They have a right 
to self-determination. But so do the people of Abkhazia and Osettia. 
These two peoples had never been part of Georgia. Joseph Stalin, in his 
dictatorship, put them as part of Georgia.
  Well, does it make sense for us to use our armed might in an 
agreement with the Georgian Government to make sure that we enforce 
their vision of what the world should look like?
  It doesn't make sense also to sour a relationship with Russia, which 
is a country concerned, just as we would be in Mexico or Central 
America or in Canada. It doesn't make any sense to sour a relationship 
with Russia by implementing a NATO alliance with little countries all 
around it. In contrast, treating Russia as a friend would be enormously 
valuable to the security of both of our countries.
  By expanding NATO with tiny countries and, of course, we are; these 
are countries that are right around Russia. How can that not look like 
we have a military alliance, which is what NATO is, threatening Russia? 
Of course, we would think same way.
  Instead of an alliance with Russia, we are seeking an alliance with 
weaklings and Lilliputians rather than forging a strategic relationship 
with a giant. So if Georgia and the other countries like Albania and 
Croatia, countries that I'm very sympathetic with--and, as I say, I'm 
sympathetic with Georgia. I want it to be independent of Russia because 
that's what they want. But if they want to be in NATO, let's let them 
in. But if they're getting into NATO, we should be getting out. Because 
it is not in our interest to commit our military forces to battle all 
over the world in disputes that have nothing to do with our security or 
the overall global stability of the world.
  I'm not suggesting, however, isolationism. That's what people say: 
oh, well, you're an isolationist. Nowhere am I suggesting that we 
should not have bilateral defense-related agreements. I certainly 
believe in involvement and in bilateral defense agreements as well as 
bilateral trade agreements.
  At the outset of the Cold War we saw a clear and present threat in 
the Soviet Union, and we went to work strengthening our existing 
relationships with friendly countries and building new relationships 
with other countries. Well, we should do that today. We should create 
alliances, but we need to be realistic and honest in our assessment of 
the challenges we face and the factors that are in play.
  There are serious challenges to be overcome in the world today, and 
even more serious threats in the future. Radical Islam today, China 
soon. What we built to deter a Soviet invasion of Western Europe will 
not meet our needs of today. And I suggest that structure is, in many 
ways, counterproductive in dealing with today's threats.
  In short, an alliance with Russia and a few other powerful nations is 
in our interest more than a continuance of an obsolete coalition or 
expanding that coalition to a large number of small countries.
  Twenty years ago, I journeyed to Afghanistan. I stood alongside 
Afghan warriors, the mujahadeen, who were engaged in battle against the 
Soviet Army, which was then occupying their country. I was personally 
engaged in combat operations against Soviet troops during the Cold War. 
Very few people can say that.
  My chest swelled with pride every time Ronald Reagan proclaimed our 
goal to be freedom for all subjugated people, including the Russian 
people. I was Ronald Reagan's speech writer, one of them, for 7 years. 
And when the President of the United States, Ronald Reagan, pleaded 
with Gorbachev to tear down the Wall, I was part of the team that broke 
through the foreign policy establishment's blockade that would have 
neutered that great historic statement even before Ronald Reagan gave 
it. And I cried with joy in retrospect when that wall finally came 
crashing down, hammered and chiseled down by freedom-loving people on 
both sides of that grotesquely evil barrier.
  I despised the Soviet Union because I loved freedom, freedom for all 
people, including the Russian people. The Communist government in 
Russia was our worst enemy. Times have changed. We need the Russians as 
trusted allies, if not our best friends.
  I recently visited Russia, and over dinner with a counterpart I 
explained, as I just did, that I had been his worst enemy during the 
Cold War, and he stopped me right in the middle of the sentence. No, 
no, you weren't the Russian people's worst enemy. You were the enemy of 
Communist tyranny. And thank God for that. That's what he said.
  There are many Russians today that fully understand that they have 
left Communist tyranny behind, but when they look around them and look 
forward, they see hostility and they hear Russia vilified for acts of 
natural self-interest. How many times have we heard Russia vilified for 
charging the market price for its resources, namely, natural gas? Over 
and over again, as if charging the world price instead of subsidizing 
the price for the countries around it was a hostile act.
  Would we be expected, our country be expected, to charge well below 
the market price to other countries for our natural resources? Over and 
over again, Russia was described as committing a hostile act when it 
did that. And after all the reform, all the military and strategic 
withdrawals, that hasn't made any difference to us that Russia has done 
this.
  We have kept them isolated and we have magnified every shortcoming 
that we could find in the new Russian Government. And all governments 
have shortcomings. Look, Turkey has human rights and democracy problems 
on par with Russia. In terms of the actual level of human rights 
problems, Turkey and Russia are probably at about the same level.
  Yes, we should stay vigilant in our insistence on an accounting and 
correction of violation of human rights. And that's whether it's Russia 
or Turkey or any other country. But does anyone really want us to treat 
Turkey as a hostile power, try to make them into an enemy just because 
they do have imperfections? And are there some examples of heavy-handed 
use of power and some really questionable incidents there in Turkey? 
Well, yes, there are.
  That doesn't mean we're going to turn them into our enemy and vilify

[[Page 24352]]

everything they do. The Turkish people are wonderful people. They've 
been our friends for so long. But so are the Russians. The Russians are 
wonderful and creative people. They share many personal values with us: 
their sense of humor, love of children, of fun, of drink, and dance 
and, yes, their reverence for God and faith that was never beaten out 
of them by the decades that they suffered under atheistic communism.
  There was openness and vulnerability of these people as the Soviet 
Communist system collapsed. They made mistakes and had societal and 
governmental problems, no doubt about it. All of those mistakes and all 
of these problems weren't all corrected. They needed support. They were 
vulnerable. And even as we applauded the implosion of the Communist 
Government, we did not do what was right by the Russian people. Even as 
they chaotically implemented massive changes and reforms, they were 
forced to, for example, forced to pay off the debt that was built up 
during the Communist dictatorship.
  What country could develop with that huge millstone around their 
neck? In fact, how ironic it was. We went to the Russians and asked 
them to forgive the debt of Iraq that Saddam Hussein had run up when 
that dictatorship controlled Iraq. How ironic we went to the Russians 
to ask them to do what we had pressured policy not to permit them to 
do.
  With that millstone around their neck of that debt, no wonder there 
was economic chaos. How could they have pulled together and averted 
such mass suffering with having to pay the entire debt of a 
dictatorship they did not vote for?
  In the years since, we have been growing apart from Russia, into 
hostile camps, even though our cooperation is paramount to the future 
of both of our countries. As I say, the Russians and the Americans 
share more than cultural traits. We now share some very real common 
threats. And those are radical Islam, which is upon us, and a 
totalitarian China, which is rapidly becoming a negative and 
tremendously powerful force in the world.
  As we have continued to treat Russia as unworthy and with suspicion--
even as they have reformed, we have done this--how is it that we have 
treated China, which has had no political reform, no liberalization, 
with such generosity?
  The totalitarian Government of China is the world's worst human 
rights abuser. Those Chinese Communists in power in Beijing see us as 
their natural enemy. They unmistakably are also a threat to Russia. 
Yet, we still embrace that Chinese Government, the world's worst human 
rights abuser.
  We fueled their economy, the Chinese economy. We have built their 
manufacturing base. We have enhanced their technological capabilities, 
even while simultaneously finding ways to continue hostility and 
noncooperation with Russia with one-way free trade policies with China 
and credits and investment in technology transfers. We have run up a 
massive trade deficit with China. A trillion dollars has shifted from 
the American economy into Chinese coffers, and all this while there 
hasn't been one opportunity for us to even get done the smallest bit of 
reform with our economic relationship with Russia. We weren't even able 
to bring ourselves to officially end the Jackson-Vanik restrictions 
which were placed on Russia during the Cold War--the Cold War, 30 or 40 
years ago.
  It is an insult and a sign of our own incompetence that we have not 
been able to lift the Jackson-Vanik restrictions on Russia, much less 
giving a reformed Russia a free trade agreement or Most Favored Nation 
status, which we bestowed upon the world's worst human rights abuser, 
China. Again, restrictions and hostility on Russia, all of this while 
we give China every benefit: Most Favored Nation status, tech 
transfers, capital investments.
  Well, this relationship with Russia, as well as our relationship with 
China, has been wrongheaded, and gravely so. China, in stark contrast 
to the great changes in Russia, where there's been very visible 
political reform, where religion is not suppressed, where there are 
opposition political parties.
  And, yes, there are imperfections in Russia and shortcomings and some 
heavy-handedness. But you go there and you hear talk radio shows 
complaining about the leadership in Russia. In Russia, you have 
opposition parties. There were two elections. And even the most 
critical of people who criticize Russia concede that those two major 
elections represented the inclination of the Russian people. Others 
were on the ballot, but they weren't elected. They lost.

                              {time}  2200

  Well, there has been reform in Russia. And although it's far from 
perfect, great progress has been made, and it is evident. Otherwise, I 
would not suggest drawing closer to that country. There has been 
reform. That gives us a reason to try to work closer with them rather 
than holding them off.
  But remember, while we hold them off and we treat them in a hostile 
way, there has been no political liberalization at all in China. We've 
let them profit from one-way free trade that has drained our financial 
resources and destroyed our manufacturing base even as we built their 
manufacturing base.
  When President Obama spoke here a short time ago, he noted as of 
late, we've been losing 750,000 jobs a month. We've been losing 750,000 
jobs a month, millions of jobs have been lost, and where did they go? 
They went to China, which is perfectly understandable when you look at 
our policies which created that type of outflow of capital and jobs as 
a small corporate elite--yeah, a very small corporate elite--benefited 
from this China trade and how it was structured.
  But the American people lost, and it's going to get worse. Remember 
who has been paying for months and years now the price for the crazy 
policies that were not in the interest of our people in China. How did 
that come about? I've been in Congress now for 20 years. I was very 
proud to have led the floor fight with Nancy Pelosi on the other side 
of the aisle with me, leading the floor fight on that side of the aisle 
to oppose most favored nation status for China. Look back, find out who 
was behind most favored nation status for China. Who was it? It was 
during the Clinton administration that provided China should have 
permanent most favored nation status, so we didn't even get a chance to 
vote on it every year.
  Now, it was a bipartisan betrayal of American interests here. Who was 
watching out for the American people? Instead, we established a trading 
system with China. I can tell you how it works. I represent the Ports 
of Los Angeles and Long Beach. You go right down there, and you can see 
it. Of all the containers, the massive numbers of containers that come 
in every day, tens of thousands, 90 percent are coming in and only 10 
percent are going out, and almost all the ones coming in are coming 
from China.
  Well, China is not an economic partner. It's exploited us. It's taken 
advantage of our weaknesses. It's not a partner for peace nor is it a 
partner for world stability. China has no reform and has not made 
reform of its political structure, and it is, unfortunately, our most 
likely future enemy. Those words are very hard for me to say. They are 
not our enemy now. They are our adversary. But it is clear that unless 
there is a significant political reform in China, a liberalization of 
their system, a recognition of fundamental rights, the dictatorship 
will continue in power and grow stronger.
  America's most likely future enemy we treat with special privileges. 
The Russians we treat like a pariah, even as they reach out to us even 
after they have had incredible reforms and restructuring in their 
country. China is already a deadly economic competitor of our people 
and is openly hostile to the basic values which make us Americans: a 
respect for human rights, religious freedom, the environmental 
stewardship that we have taken upon ourselves in recent years.
  Our current relationship with China has resulted in an economic and 
security disaster for the United States of America. It is time to have 
the courage to admit this fact, and it is time to reverse poor 
decisions and bad policies. If

[[Page 24353]]

the policies that have led us to this point are not reversed, the 
result will be national and, yes, global catastrophe. A world dominated 
by an authoritarian-controlled China will be a far different world than 
the one we live in today.
  Again, we are talking about the Government of China, a specific 
regime, not the Chinese people themselves. The Chinese people are 
hardworking, family-oriented people. I have tremendous sympathy and 
respect for them. They are, in fact, freedom's greatest ally, our 
greatest hope, potentially our greatest friends who can help us avert a 
conflict between our countries.
  The Chinese Government, however, is a loathsome tyranny, a 
dictatorship, a dictatorial clique that has enslaved their own 
population, intent not just in controlling China but also in dominating 
the rest of the planet. It is a government that, as I speak, is 
shooting down Muslim Uyghurs in East Turkistan, which is in the far 
regions of western provinces of China. Similarly, they are conducting a 
slow motion genocide on the people of Tibet. It's a government that 
arrests and murders Falun Gong religious practitioners.
  And who are they? Who are the Falun Gong? Pay attention, America. Who 
are the Falun Gong? The Falun Gong want nothing more than religious 
freedom that they hold so dear. They are pacifists. What do they 
believe in? They believe in yoga and meditation. Yet thousands of them 
have been picked up by the Chinese Communist dictatorship and thrown 
into prisons, and oftentimes, they never come out of those prisons. And 
too often we find that what is coming out of those prisons--the prisons 
where the Falun Gong members have been deposited--what do we see coming 
out of those prisons? Body parts. Body parts sold to Americans and 
other people as organs to be transplanted; kidneys and other organs of 
the body that have been extracted from people who are put in jail for 
their religious convictions, and then they were murdered. That is the 
type of ghoulish regime that now controls the country of China and the 
Chinese people.
  In China, there are no unions, no workers' rights, no democratically 
elected environmental standards. There are no concerns about human 
rights or consideration for the inherent dignity of all humankind. 
There is no liberty, no independent judiciary, no freedom of the press, 
no rule of law, no opposition parties, no right to criticize the nature 
of their government or to criticize the clique that rules their 
country.
  A billion people are being held in bondage so that goods can be 
manufactured cheaply in China in an unholy relationship between very 
wealthy American and western capitalists and the ghoulish dictators 
that control China. And with one-way free trade that we've established, 
to which we have acquiesced, and the short-term profit desired by 
America's corporate elite, our country has been a partner.
  Considering those factors, our country has been a factor in building 
the Chinese economy into a monstrous threat while at the same time 
weakening and destroying our own manufacturing base. Millions of our 
people are being put out of work. We're going through a huge financial 
crisis.
  One of the major elements that has brought us to this financial 
crisis has been a one-way free trade policy with Communist China. The 
fact that they now have $1 trillion worth of our wealth and our 
manufacturing base has been destroyed should be of no surprise. It was 
predictable.
  Those of us who fought most favored nation status and said we've got 
to have some political reform, liberalization before we give such 
enormous economic power to a government, we were just bypassed and 
treated as if we didn't matter because the business elite of our 
country wanted to have those massive short-term profits. Then they 
could give themselves bonuses, and they could retire here, leaving the 
stockholders and leaving their own employees far worse off in an 
intolerable situation, and now the whole country is in a horrible 
situation.
  Over the last two decades, we have built China from a relatively 
backwards economy into a Frankenstein monster. When I say ``we,'' I 
mean the policies of the United States Government have lifted the 
economic capabilities of a country that has had no political 
liberalization, no political reform of their dictatorial system, and a 
country, yes, that is also engaged in rebuilding its military.
  Now this Frankenstein monster is slowly turning on its creator, 
turning on us. Well, there is a China-related issue that is emerging. 
Not all bad decisions were made in the past. We're about to make 
another bad decision by reversing one of the good decisions that we 
made that has really saved us from an incredible potential harm. The 
issue that is surfacing in Washington is both symbolic and a very real 
threat to America's security and our economic viability. What is the 
issue? It is whether or not America should loosen its controls on the 
exports of our technology. The issue, which will be determined shortly, 
deals specifically with U.S. space technology, satellites, and Chinese 
rocketry.
  About 15 years ago, the Clinton administration and American satellite 
manufacturers were permitted to launch their satellites on Chinese 
rockets. It was a position that they hadn't been permitted before. At 
the time, I talked to our aerospace industry. They thought it might be 
a good idea. This, of course, after being assured by the Clinton 
administration there would be no possibility of a technology transfer. 
Controls and security walls, I was promised, would prevent the Chinese 
from obtaining any space technology that had been paid for by the 
American taxpayers. Of course, American taxpayers had paid billions of 
dollars to develop space technology, like gyroscopes on a chip and all 
kinds of things that permitted rockets to be successful.

                              {time}  2210

  Well, I have to admit I accepted the Clinton administration's word. I 
swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. But within a very short period of 
time after that policy was opened up, I recognized the horrendous 
results of permitting that business relationship with Chinese rocket 
companies, which, I might add, those Chinese rocket companies then and 
are now owned by the People's Liberation Army. The Long March Rocket 
Company is a People's Liberation Army company. In short, American 
aerospace companies ended up perfecting Chinese rockets in order to 
send up our satellites at a cheaper rate.
  By the way, what's the difference between a missile and a rocket? The 
difference between a missile and a rocket is the color of the paint on 
the outside of the projectile. So if it's in camouflage, it must be a 
missile, and if it's white or a different color, it must be a peaceful 
rocket.
  In the end, after we were launching our satellites at that cheaper 
rate, in the end the viability of our own missile and rocket industry 
was undermined. Our own aerospace base, the base of our economy, our 
aerospace jobs and expertise were put in jeopardy. And at the same time 
we improved the Chinese rockets and missiles, we improved their ability 
to launch military as well as civilian payloads. Our transfer of 
technology and know-how thus enabled the People's Liberation Army 
rockets to carry more than one nuclear warhead. They couldn't do that 
before. Our technology. Our people went over there, and now they have 
the technology of having three warheads instead of one warhead, which 
means obliterating all of southern California instead of one part of 
southern California. We provided them the ability to MERVE. That's what 
it's called.
  It was insane then, but now the issue is coming back. And without 
even blushing, the China lobby, the Big Business community that has 
been making all kinds of money off the China trade even as it has hurt 
our own economy, are pushing for us to open up the China rocket 
industry again.
  To make this clear, I am part of the team that is trying to move 
forward legislation to permit our high-tech industries to export to and 
to cooperate with friendly democratic countries. I

[[Page 24354]]

believe in free trade between free people. But I have personally 
insisted on legislation opening up that free trade with free countries, 
and we have worked with other Members of Congress to ensure that this 
tech trade legislation will not loosen the restrictions on using 
Chinese rockets to launch American satellites. We know that launching 
American satellites on Chinese rockets will result in technology 
transfer and the upgrading of those Chinese rockets. It happened 
before; it will happen again. If we open up to the use of Chinese 
rockets, it helps them and it hurts us.
  What will it do to our aerospace industry, like Boeing and Northrop 
Grumman, who are already hard pressed in the production of their own 
rockets and missiles? How about Sealaunch, a Boeing partnership with 
the Ukraine which launches things into space from a floating platform 
which is based in southern California?
  Well, it recently declared bankruptcy, but if we allow the Chinese to 
undercut everybody's price, it will be permanently out of business. It 
will be permanently out of business, of course, if the People's 
Liberation Army is permitted to sell rocket launchers on the cheap 
until all of our companies go bankrupt. Space X and other 
entrepreneurial U.S. space transportation companies that have invested 
hundreds of millions of dollars of private capital in creating a 
private U.S. launch industry will be mortally wounded if we permit the 
Chinese to come in with their subsidized system and their controlled 
economy and undercut the price until our guys go out of business. And 
then, of course, they'll be in complete control of what gets into 
space.
  The whole debate on this issue and the maneuvering on Capitol Hill 
reflects an insidious manipulation of our system by a foreign power 
and, yes, the total absence of any type of moral consideration or 
patriotic consideration on the part of America's financial and 
corporate elite. They have had one-way free trade and a multitude of 
economic building concessions, and it has been American policy to give 
it to them.
  Over the years we have been told over and over again to justify such 
a power that we were giving this monstrous regime, and we were saying, 
if we just get involved with them, let's get more involved with these 
people, let's uplift the economy of the Chinese people, and their 
government will come around. By making their country more profitable 
and making sure their country is more prosperous, we will actually 
bring forces about that will liberalize that country. That's what we 
were told all this time. And has that happened? There has been no 
liberalization in China.
  I call this theory that's been foisted upon us by America's economic 
elite, which are making profit from that thuggery and that dictatorship 
and the control of the Chinese people--yes, those people gave us that 
ideal, that if we just keep going, keep making China more prosperous, 
they will come around and become more peaceful--I call that the ``Hug a 
Nazi, Make a Liberal'' theory, and obviously it has not worked.
  So why have we had this bad policy? I would draw the people's 
attention to this. They are unapologetically trying to implement the 
same policy that failed 15 years ago, the same policy that was a 
tremendous detriment not only to our economy and to our high-tech 
industry but to the security of our country. These same forces now are 
trying to make sure that the legislation going through Congress takes 
out the language that I and other congressmen have put in it to make 
sure that we do not loosen the restrictions that we have on American 
satellites being used in Chinese rockets for launch.
  By the way, what we see in Washington today is perhaps, as I say, 
some of the most insidious examples of some of our own weaknesses. What 
we've got here is tens of millions of dollars being pumped in by China 
and some very elite financial interests in our country to lobby 
Congress to try to change the rules of the game so that what was so 
severely damaging to us 15 years ago, as we improved Chinese rockets, 
which are now capable of launching nuclear weapons into our cities, 
because of what we did for them, they want to go back to those policies 
which nobody can deny will most likely result in even more improving 
the Chinese rocket system and the destruction of America's own 
homegrown rocket and missile industry.
  Yet our corporate elites have enormous influence on policy. They have 
hired the best lobbyists in town, former Members of Congress, former 
Members of the Senate, people who have been inside and outside of 
government. These people have signed on. One Senator who was high up in 
the committees overseeing the Department of Defense, overseeing the 
security of our country, who opposed permitting Chinese rockets to 
launch American satellites over the years, now has been hired by the 
Chinese. To do what? To make sure that the rules and the regulations 
restricting that are lifted so that they can accomplish what he was 
opposing.
  It doesn't get any lower than that, does it? Americans willing to 
accept large financial gains for themselves even as they put the rest 
of us and their children's children in jeopardy.
  Today this isn't going to be turned around unless we have the courage 
to make some very strong choices and tough choices. One is to make sure 
that we call those people to task that are willing to sell out the 
long-term interests of their country for the almighty buck, and 
especially when that buck is coming from the world's worst human rights 
abuser.

                              {time}  2220

  And then finally we need the courage to walk away from the past and 
try to restructure our position in the world. We need to make friends 
and make sure that Russia is our friend because China and that radical 
Islam threaten both of us. There are other countries in the world that 
share our values and share this common threat: Russia, India--and how 
about Japan? Japan, which has been targeted by China, and they know 
they're targeted by China.
  An alliance between the United States, Russia, India, and Japan would 
soon be joined by most of the other free countries of the world. This 
is a type of relationship that will bring about a more peaceful world.
  And if we are going to succeed and our country is to be prosperous, 
if we're going to turn around this economic crisis, we have to have a 
long-run view, and we can't leave the decisionmaking of policies up to 
the financial elite in our country that only has short-term profit in 
mind. That is our biggest vulnerability, and the Chinese have played us 
like a fiddle. They know that the American corporate leaders have no 
loyalty to the long-term interests of the United States of America.
  We must make the policy, and we cannot let China and this business 
elite manipulate these votes in the House of Representatives and the 
Senate of the United States so that policies are put in place that will 
not serve our interest.
  We have not been diligent in the past, and that is why we are 
suffering today. We are suffering because of bad judgment, but also 
because the American people expected us to stand up and fight and we 
did not. We instead let these powerful interests run all over us.
  And as I say, this is a bipartisan talk. I remember Nancy Pelosi 
here, and Dana Rohrabacher here, I remember Barney Frank there, and 
Chris Cox over here fighting Most Favored Nation Status for China, 
saying that we would regret the day when these economic policies come 
back and hurt our country, and they have come back and hurt us 
dramatically.
  And they are now moving on our satellite and our rocket industry to 
make us even more vulnerable and to take away even those advantages, 
that technology advantage that we have.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the American people and my colleagues 
pay close attention to the overwhelmingly financed, heavily financed 
lobbying campaign that is going to try to change the rules that are now 
protecting our launch rocket and missile launch industries from being 
destroyed by cheap Chinese rockets that will in

[[Page 24355]]

the end destroy our industry. And only then when they have us at their 
mercy will we feel the repercussions of the decisions we're making and 
the repercussions of allowing the financial elite with short-term 
profit in mind to make the policies for the United States of America.
  America, we are the only hope in the world. We must stand strong. 
Democracy works if we work at it. We must stand together, and this has 
been the way it has been for 250 years. There would be no hope for 
anyone in the world today or in the past 150 years who longed for 
freedom, who suffered under tyranny. They would have no hope except for 
the courage and conviction of the United States of America. We marched 
out and defeated Japanese militarism and communism. We fought the 
Nazis.
  Well, since the end of the Cold War, we've made some very bad 
mistakes after the fall of communism. Let's look at our decisions. 
Let's have the courage to recognize some bad decisions, correct them; 
and let's create a new alliance in this world that will serve the 
interest of peace, prosperity, and freedom for our people and all the 
peoples of the world.

                          ____________________