Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Chairman Ralph Hall for his leadership on the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology; for his decades of selfless service to our country; and for his dedication to this esteemed body. Today, Chairman Hall became the oldest Member to ever cast a vote in the House of Representatives. He has served in the House for 32 years, occupying the same seat that was once occupied by Speaker Sam Rayburn. Ralph's energy is legendary, second only to his sharp wit, and I hope to have half as much energy as he has when I reach his age. His service to America started when, as a 19-year-old from Texas, he joined the United States Navy in 1942. Lieutenant Hall served as a pilot for the duration of World War II, and he has never stopped vigorously fighting for our nation. I look forward to continuing to work with him in the future, and God- willing, he'll be here for 32 more years, continuing to cast every vote the right way. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and all of the Members of the House join me in honoring Chairman Ralph Hall for his leadership, his service, and his dedication.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The Soviet dictatorship collapsed over two decades ago. Being someone who spent a considerable time of my life opposing Soviet communism, I have been disappointed to see that many of my own colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, have never gotten the Cold War out of their mind. So many of us in this body have been treating democratic Russia as if it is still the Soviet Union. Over the years, we should have established this level of cooperation, especially the economic cooperation that we're codifying today. This should have been established long ago. Instead, what happened was the people stuck in the Cold War kept vilifying the Soviet Union and exaggerating every shortcoming while at the same time ignoring similar flaws, for example, in China. The human rights abuses in China are outrageous, but yet we have moved forward time and again to expand their ability to make money on us, even to steal our technologies with a one-way free trade policy with China. We need to make sure that the people of Russia know what we're saying today: that the Cold War is over, that we need to march forward together to meet the challenges of both of our countries, and that we will open up our economy in economic cooperation with you so that we can stand together and prosper and so that we can also deal with the challenges of an ever more powerful and aggressive China and radical Islam, which is as great a threat and kills as many Russians as they do Americans. The Russian people have to know that after today we have left the Cold War behind; we will quit vilifying the Soviet Union and holding them to a different standard than we do other countries simply because in the past they were our enemies. Madam Speaker, I gladly step forward to endorse this expansion of freedom of trade between our peoples.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I rise in support of the rule and of this legislation, and note that the classified nature of that margarita formula should never be disclosed to an enemy of the United States, of course; but we will be glad to transmit that information to colleagues on the other side of the aisle in a spirit of bipartisanship. I do rise in support of this rule and H.R. 6156, the legislation to grant permanent normal trade relations status to Russia. During the 1980s, as it was just mentioned, I worked for Ronald Reagan in the White House and was part of a team dedicating ourselves to bringing down the Soviet dictatorship. I might add that Dave Dreier was an ex officio member of that team. Today's Russia is not yesterday's Soviet Union. That's the most important message. Over 20 years of reform have created an imperfect country, yes, but also a new Russia with a relative free press and churches that were once closed by the Communists which are now filled with those who would gather to worship God. Many here in the United States have not appreciated the dramatic change and continue to view Russia as if it were the Soviet Union 30 years ago. Well, what we do today is long overdue. Our protracted refusal to grant Russia permanent normal trade relation status has been counterproductive and hypocritical. Counterproductive for years because it's been an unnecessary barrier to better bilateral relations between our two countries. Hypocritical because over a decade ago we had rushed to give most favored nation status to Communist China, which still continues to be the world's worst human rights abuser. All the arguments made to refuse it to Russia have always applied one hundredfold to Communist China. However, I have not heard the critics of this bill calling for an end to our trade status with Communist China, which I might add, human rights in China is worse today than when we granted most favored nation status to them. If we want to have a real debate about trade, the place to start is with Communist China and not be looking at a democratic Russia. PNTR for China has cost millions and millions of jobs over the decade. Our trade relations with Russia will benefit both of us, both the people of the United States, as well as the Russian people. So how then can we justify such a pro-Communist China policy, which has had no political reform, and not giving it to Russia, which has had dramatic political reform? Two decades ago, while I was working in the White House, I was arguably one of the Soviet Union's worse enemies. But my boss, Ronald Reagan, never wanted the people of Russia and the people of the United States to be enemies. He envisioned, once the Communist Party had been discarded, that our two peoples would one day be friends and trading partners and, yes, even allies. Russian society has moved far from the Cold War. It is past time that we do the same. We need to reach out to them, stand together against an alarming rise of power in Communist China and against radical Islamic terror, which targets Russians as well as Americans. Thus, I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting and pass this legislation.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to thank Chairman Hall for the great leadership that he's provided to our committee, and also Mr. Costello, who will be voluntarily leaving this body, and he has done such a fine job. Both of these gentlemen deserve accolades for the wonderful job they've done for America's science and space programs, as well as for our country as a whole. So, thank you both very much. I rise in support of H.R. 6586. It extends the commonsense limitations on liability exposure for commercial space launches. A few years ago when I was the chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, the FAA was directed to provide an ongoing analysis of the rationale for and potential unintended consequences of this indemnification provision. According to the analysis, the two options before us then were to extend this liability provision, which has never cost the American taxpayer a dime, or option number two--though unintended--would be to give a competitive advantage to China and other foreign launch providers. This, of course, is the same choice that we are making today. If we give foreign rocket companies such an advantage, then we are costing American jobs while undermining both our economy and our national security. Back in 2004, I authored the current regulatory regime for human spaceflight, which has worked well beyond our expectations. Recently, in cooperation with our majority whip, Mr. McCarthy, and my friends on both sides of the aisle, we extended that regime as the Science Committee's part of the recent FAA reauthorization bill. It would be very tempting to try to revisit that regulatory issue or some other provisions with this legislation. So, I would like to thank Chairman Palazzo for offering a bill that asks only the critical question before us: do we extend launch indemnification, or do we hand the launch industry completely over to foreign competitors? The choice is clear. The answer is clear. America must remain the preeminent space-going Nation, which means we need to pass H.R. 6586, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the Ethnic Baloch people live in an area of South Asia now claimed by Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan. In Pakistan in particular, they comprise an important segment of the population and live in the least developed province, despite an abundance of natural resources. Until the arrival of the British Empire, the Baloch people organized themselves in a confederation with local tribal chiefs holding power. When India and Pakistan were partitioned the Baloch people desired to return to their own sovereign state, but were prevented by the Pakistani military led government. Baloch aspirations for independence have been checked by force and their basic human rights have been denied by the Pakistani state. The Pakistan government and military is dominated by members of the Punjab ethnic group. The first major Baloch uprising occurred in 1973 and was crushed two years later. The Baloch again resisted their Pakistani Punjabi occupiers by force beginning in 2005. A low-level insurgency continues to this day. Pakistan's elite refuses to release their grip on the strategic coastline or the natural riches of Balochistan which they and their ally, Communist Chinese exploit. The Pakistani security services, which are overwhelmingly made up of Punjabis, use violence against civilians to intimidate the Baloch population. One particular grotesque method of intimidation is called ``kill and dump.'' That is when the body of a man or woman who has disappeared is later dumped in a busy section of a town for all the people to see. Many of the bodies show extreme signs of torture and are badly mutilated. I submit for the Record a document titled, ``Some of the Souls in Traumata'' which reputedly documents 2,251 Baluchis who have been ``disappeared'' by the Pakistani security services or who died while in custody. This abysmal human rights record of the Pakistani government is shameful. It is even worse because American foreign and military aid money contributes to strengthening the security forces which kill innocent Baluchis. The Baluch people have a right to self-determination and not to live under the control of Islamabad, if they choose. Mr. Speaker, a copy of this report can be viewed at: http:// gwank.org/Some%20of%20 the%20souls%20in%20traumata.pdf.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, even though the Science Committee prides itself on bipartisanship, at times, the discussions got a little heated. Luckily, we've had Jerry Costello there to help cool things off. Jerry's business-like approaches and pleasant smile have always been a positive factor in getting things done. Unlike so many of us, Jerry likes to listen as much as he likes to talk. This unique characteristic actually enabled him to disagree in a very agreeable way. In short, even those of us who do not agree on particular issues, respect and like Jerry Costello. He will be missed on both a personal and professional level. I wish him the best because he has been one of the best.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, as we commemorate the monstrous crime committed against America on 9/11, let us remember the plight of a heroic figure who helped us bring justice to those who murdered our fellow citizens on this day 11 years ago. I speak of Dr. Afridi, the man who risked his life to provide the intel our forces needed to locate and eliminate Osama Bin Laden, who now languishes in a jail in Pakistan. There has been no resolution through this Congress nor public effort by the United States government to support Dr. Afridi in this, his hour of need. He has been tortured. His family has been attacked, and he is still in a desperate situation. It behooves us as Americans to state in a unified and loud voice to his Pakistani captors, ``Dr. Afridi should be freed.'' The continued incarceration of Dr. Afridi affirms to all Americans that Pakistan is not our friend but instead is a partner in terrorism of especially those terrorists who are murdering our fellow Americans. Our motto today must be ``Free Dr. Afridi.'' Dr. Afridi was asked why he risked his life to help in the efforts to bring Bin Laden to justice. His answer was that he respects and loves us, the American people. On this 9-11 commemoration we need to express our outrage that Pakistan has incarcerated and tortured this hero in the war against terrorists. Certainly, not one cent should ever be given to Pakistan in American aid, now that they're exposed for their evil terrorist deeds. Free Dr. Afridi should be our cry on this commemoration of 9-11.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, it is fortuitous now that I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida on an issue that deals directly with the C-17, I might add. I rise today to voice my concern over recent and devastating wildfires that have enveloped massive amounts of land throughout our country. The ruin caused by these wildfires has consumed 2.1 million acres, destroyed over 1,600 homes, killed 7 people, and threatened many more. This recurring problem, caused by dry conditions, hot weather, and ample fuel, tests the limits of our current Federal, State, and local firefighting resources. When homes and lives are on the line, I believe we should take all possible action to protect lives and property, including the deployment of Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve resources when appropriate. We oftentimes think of the Department of Defense as an entity that should be aimed at defending our Nation from foes abroad, but the fact is that there are enormous resources held by the Department of Defense, such as cargo planes that are capable of assisting in many other efforts, including firefighting efforts, which threaten the lives and property of our people. For example, one specific concept, named the Precision Container Aerial Delivery System, or PCADS, needs only an additional $2.6 million in funding to complete its already years-long evaluation of this technology. Unfortunately, however, DOD has not committed this meager sum to finish evaluating PCADS, despite the authority to do so. What are PCADS? They essentially allow any military cargo plane that has a ramp in the back--mainly, our C-17s and our C-130s--to assist in wildfire efforts without having to modify the airplane at all. This means the C-17s and the C-130s, of which we have right now many stationed all over the country, could be deployed to help extinguish wildfires at a relatively low cost, creating a new and enormous firefighting capability. As I say, it's at a minimal cost. Basically what we're talking about is a huge container system in the back that is made out of cardboard and a water balloon, which will permit putting them onto the C-17s and the C-130s to rolling right on 1,000 pounds of water per container. These C-130 pilots and C-17 pilots are already trained to drop these things, and without modifying the airplane, they could become an enormous resource to fighting fires throughout our country without adding any extra cost after this $2.6 million for the final test. I, therefore, have one simple request: to the extent that the Department of Defense is capable of exploring new, innovative, cost- effective, and promising firefighting technologies that can be used for our civilian population, but especially for the firefighting capabilities that can aid in support, as I say, firemen's requests throughout our country and from the State and Federal level, I urge the Department of Defense to do so to the degree that it can. I now yield to the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. In the past, in order to achieve the goal that you have outlined, we needed to reconfigure the inside of these C-130s and have special C-130s deployed. This new PCAD system, which we can roll on enormous amounts of water in these little container systems, which is 1,000 pounds of water per container, can be dropped without reconfiguring the C-130s or the C- 17s.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I have one last note. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. There's been a series of tests to show this is very effective. One more series of tests will cost $2.6 million and can deploy these. I believe it will increase the value of our C-130s and C- 17s to the point that we can actually maybe charge a little bit more money when we sell the C-17s, which will be far more than the $2.6 million for this final test. It will pay for itself, not to mention the property damage that we can protect against.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chairman, first of all, let me note that our goal after the vicious terrorist attack on the United States on 9/11 was to eliminate Osama bin Laden and to clear Afghanistan, which had been the staging area of the 9/11 attacks, of Osama bin Laden's allies, who happened to have been the Taliban. My fellow colleagues, Osama bin Laden is dead. The Taliban were cleared from Afghanistan years ago. So it is time for us to declare victory and to bring our troops home. It is not time for us to declare that there is going to be an extension of the deployment of our troops and to leave them there to expend their lives for a cause that has already been decided. They have done their duty. We have accomplished the mission. Let's have a victory parade, not an extension of deployment. Why are we in this predicament? Why are we even discussing $88 billion and perhaps hundreds, if not thousands, of more American lives being sacrificed halfway around the world, in some canyon somewhere, where some young American loses his life or loses his legs? Why are we even discussing the expenditure of the billions of dollars that we really need so much here at home if, for nothing else, than to help bring down this level of deficit spending? Why are we in this position now? Why are we not recognizing this? First of all, let's just note that we are now in a situation where year after year it is taking place after we've actually accomplished our goals in Afghanistan, and our troops are still there losing their lives. It's almost like a ``Twilight Zone'' episode. It is worse than some of the situations that we saw in Vietnam that degenerated year after year after year of America's deployment of forces there. We don't need to spend this money. We don't need to lose their lives. We just need to say we've done our job and come home. Who are we watching out for? The State Department ended up basically stealing victory out of the jaws of defeat. We won this years ago. Years ago the Taliban were cleared out of Afghanistan. Now we find the situation getting worse. I've been in Afghanistan. I fought with the mujahadeen against the Soviets there personally. Over the years, I was deeply involved with Afghan policy, and people know that. The longer we stay there, the more enemies we're going to make for the United States. It's going to be harder for us to get out next year than it is for us right now, and we will have made more enemies out of those people when they see foreign troops. Who cares if there is someone in a canyon far away screaming that he hates America? So what. Our guys are going out there right now and investigating situations like that and putting their lives on the line because someone was heard to say good things about the Taliban in some desolate canyon somewhere. What a waste of American lives. What a waste of our resources. On top of it, our State Department has created a system of government--we created a system of government--for the Afghan people, and we're shoving it down their throats now, the most highly centralized and corrupt system of any government in this world. Mr. Karzai is creating a kleptocracy in Afghanistan. No matter how much we're trying to help, that money is disappearing. We're not able to accomplish it, even though the money is going out. We should recognize that we cannot make history for the Afghan people. They will have to make it for themselves. We have cleared Afghanistan of the Taliban. We have eliminated Osama bin Laden. The Afghan people will now have to shape their own destinies. It is not up to us to expend more of the lives of our young people in order to get the goal that we want, especially when we know now that our government is allied with such a corrupt regime that it will never succeed. It is time for us to cut the spending, get the troops home as soon as we can, and not waste the lives of more of our people. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment that was offered by Congressman Poe, which I understand may well be reintroduced once the wording is worked on a little bit by the end of this discussion. Let me just then move forward with my support for Judge Poe's amendment and the basic concept that he's presented, which is to eliminate funding for Pakistan. Basically, we need to end the charade once and for all that we are buying Pakistani cooperation against terrorist forces in South Asia. Pakistan isn't with us in the war against terrorism. They are at war with us by supporting and funding the very terrorists that we are up against. Pakistan, at best, is a war profiteer, collecting a ransom by taxing our military supply lines that pass through their country. They are laughing all the way to the bank. They are also laughing as their military intelligence, the ISI, takes huge sums of money that they are getting from us and then passing it on to terrorists and radical Islamist elements who are killing their neighbors and killing American military personnel. After our SEALs went to get Osama bin Laden, the Pakistan military took the wreckage of our downed stealth helicopter and gave it for study to the Communist Chinese. Then they arrested and imprisoned the Pakistani doctor who risked his life to help us find bin Laden. Dr. Afridi still languishes in a Pakistani dungeon even as we speak here today. Some of us understand that this Pakistani doctor--and I hope we should all understand this--is an American hero. He risked his life to bring justice to the murderers of 3,000 Americans who died on 9/11. It is a shame that we even consider giving Pakistan billions of dollars of aid while they keep Dr. Afridi in a dungeon. Who else will ever cooperate with us in the future? Who's going to work with our military overseas, knowing that that's the way we treat people who commit heroic acts? We shouldn't give the Pakistanis one penny until Dr. Afridi is free. Just recently, I was contacted by a distraught individual in Pakistan asking for help in locating a missing Baloch leader. Sadly, this Baloch leader is probably already dead--another victim of the Pakistani government's ``kill and dump'' policy by which they repress their own people. We have to understand we have lost over 2,000 American military personnel in Afghanistan. But who has been supporting the side that has been killing our people? The Pakistanis have inspired and supported these very insurgents. They were the creators of the Taliban. And after 9/11, they played us for fools ever since. Yesterday, this House passed a bill that Pakistani's Haqqani Network should be listed as a terrorist organization. That terrorist organization has been helped and supplied by some members of the Pakistani military. We should have quit bankrolling this rotten regime a long time ago. We should end the charade. There are people in South Asia that are our friends. Due to the Cold War, we allied ourselves with Pakistan a long time ago, and we were told they were the bulwark against radical Islam. That was a lie. But during the Cold War, we needed them in the fight against the Soviet Union. The Cold War is over. We should ally ourselves with people who share our values and cherish, as we cherish them, a friendship between free people. As I say, we should go towards India, now that the Cold War is over, to help establish a new type of relationship in South Asia that will preserve the peace and preserve the equilibrium in that part of the world. It is ridiculous for us to continue to support that country, that government that is the basis of support for the most radical elements of radical Islam and the terrorist units that are killing our people and killing their people throughout the world. If we're having trouble getting out of Pakistan, it's because the Pakistanis are on the wrong side. And we all know it. We shouldn't give one more penny thinking we're going to buy their friendship. They disdain us for it. They think we're weaklings for it. Let's stand up for Dr. Afridi. Let's stand up and make sure that we are courageous in what we're doing in our policy and not trying to curry favor with gangsters that run a country like Pakistan. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I submit a speech by former House Member Joseph J. DioGuardi which highlights the disastrous effects Communism had for the Albanian population in the Balkans and the ongoing efforts of the people there to find healing. The following is a copy of those remarks. Victims of Communism Memorial The Honorable Joseph J. DioGuardi I want to thank the leaders of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, especially Dr. Lee Edwards and Ed Priola. And, on behalf of all Albanians and freedom-loving people everywhere, I hasten to commemorate here today the historic deeds of the late Congressman Tom Lantos, who cofounded this Memorial with President George W. Bush, and who was the original architect of the full diplomatic recognition of Albania by the United States in June 1990 and the independence of Kosova in February 2008. I also want to thank my good friend Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, who supported this memorial from the beginning, but could not be with us today. My wife, Shirley Cloyes, a recognized Balkan scholar, is also here. She just wrote an article for this occasion, entitled ``The Denial of Memory: It Is Time for Albania To Confront Its Communist Past.'' Copies will be available for those who are interested at the reception. Let me also introduce Pellumb Lamaj and Rajmond Sejko, survivors who spent years doing hard labor in one of the most brutal prisons in Communist Albania, called Spac. (You can read about their stories in Shirley's article.) Annette Lantos, 22 years ago, almost to the day, your late husband, Tom Lantos, and I were the first U.S. officials in 50 years to enter the State of Albania, then still under the boot of communism. (You were with us on that historic day.) We went with a strong message, after crossing the border from Kosova, which was under the Serbian Communist regime's brutal occupation. We told Communist Dictator Ramiz Alia that the Berlin Wall had been torn down in October (1989), and that it was time to tear down the Communist iron curtain still separating Albania and the Albanian people from democracy, Europe, and the rest of the world. Annette, we started a movement. Within weeks, people were rushing into foreign embassies seeking asylum, and by September 1990, a huge boat loaded with thousands of freedom-seeking Albanians left the port of Durres for the shores of Italy, much like my father's Albanian ancestors did in the 15th century to escape the onslaught of the Ottoman Turks. But here we are today--to pay tribute to the victims of communism all over the world. I want to say a few words about the most brutal atheistic Communist regime that held the Albanian people hostage in their country, which was turned into a prison through state-sponsored terror, with crimes against humanity as its hallmark. The Albanian people had fought hard against the Italian fascist regime under Mussolini and the German Nazis under Hitler. Their honor code of besa (trust/faith) gave them the strength, moral and physical, to save every Jew in Albania and over 2,000 who fled there from Yugoslavia and Western Europe for protection during the Holocaust. Unfortunately, the Albanian people were betrayed during World War II by a new leader, Enver Hoxha, who replaced Nazi occupation with the most brutal Stalinist Communist regime anyone could imagine, for 45 years. Hoxha's aim was to kill the freedom-loving spirit of the Albanian people and to destroy their communal soul in favor of building a totalitarian state under the rule of his Communist Party. His psychopathic regime instilled fear and terror in every household--fear of strangers, fear of authority, and even fear of betrayal by family, friends, and neighbors seeking favor with Communist officials. Hoxha's regime created an inhuman lack of trust in anyone and everything. Husbands could not trust their wives, parents their children, and siblings each other. By breaking the ancient Albanian honor and trust code of besa, communism created a culture where one had to be constantly on watch and on guard, not knowing where the next threat to life, limb, and family might strike. This horrible state of terror was ``formally'' abandoned in Albania in 1992, with the first democratic election. Nevertheless, two decades later, the scars of communism and the twin cultures of fear and corruption still linger in Albania. Political parties openly fight for power, and the spoils of corruption keep the country out of the European Union, while former Communist neighbors, such as Slovenia, Croatia, Romania, Greece, and Serbia, are either already in the EU or on the path to admission. On behalf of the victims of communism in Albania, Mr. Ambassador (addressing Albanian Ambassador Gilbert Galanxhi), I am taking this opportunity to appeal to your government to bring real democracy to Albania, to apologize formally to the victims of communism and their families, to set up a truth and reconciliation commission, and finally to open the Communist archives for all to see, which will allow families to begin the long process of healing and restore trust in the government and its leaders. As Shirley Cloyes DioGuardi, Balkan Affairs Adviser to the Albanian American Civic League, wrote in her October 2011 article, ``The Protracted Fall of Communism in Albania'': ``I have come to the conclusion in recent months that the biggest mistake in post-Communist Albania was that the criminals of the Hoxha era were not brought to trial and that the country never instituted a truth and reconciliation commission. . . . '' Burying the Communist Albanian past has brought neither justice nor healing to those who suffered. If anything, it has continued their suffering. This reminds me of the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust who were forced to suffer in silence for years until Israel sought to fully reveal the traumatic legacy of Nazism and to shock the conscience of the world--beginning with the capture and trial in 1961 of Adolf Eichmann, one of the chief architects of Hitler's plan to exterminate European Jewry. In Albania, I believe that we need to start the process of healing the pain of the past (a past that is very much alive today) by obtaining from the Albanian government as full accounting as possible of the Hoxha era. The names of those persecuted, imprisoned, and executed by the Hoxha regime should be released to both the Albanian public and the international community.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would say that luckily we are coming to our senses and having courage enough to stand up to this obstructionism by setting reasonable time limits for litigation and by setting a total review process for the issuing of permits to 30 months; 30 months is a very reasonable time. The reforms that we put in place will ensure that American mineral mining projects are not indefinitely delayed by frivolous lawsuits or by unwilling bureaucrats, or by activists who, as I say, care more about the habitat of insects and lizards than they do about the well- being of the American people. I come from California. I am a surfer, and I am in the water a lot-- anytime I can get out there. We have had offshore oil and gas reserves in the hundreds of billions of dollars available to us, but denied the people of California. Even as we cut the programs that our seniors and our children need, these radicals will not let us get to those oil and natural gas resources. That is a sin against those older people in California and the young people. We need to clean up that situation. Whose side are we on? We're on the side of ordinary Americans leading a decent life, and that's what this bill is all about.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I rise in support of the rule and rise in support of H.R. 4402. Tomorrow, we will be considering H.R. 4402, that takes significant steps towards making much-needed reforms to our Nation's mineral exploration and mineral permitting process. H.R. 4402 will force the hands of unyielding bureaucrats who seem intent on obstructing any and all mining, despite the detrimental effects that their actions have on the American people. At a time when China threatens to hamstring our military capabilities and cripple American health care, telecommunications, and renewable energy markets by controlling or reducing our access to rare Earth minerals, we must take responsible action to ensure our access to minerals that are vital to our prosperity and security. In short, the timely licensing of mineral applications is critical to our Nation's survival and to preserving the American way of life, which is opportunity for all to live a decent life. While investigating this issue, the Natural Resources Committee found that it often takes over 10 years for agencies to license mineral projects. This is simply unacceptable. But the forces that arrogantly stand in the way of these permits should be of no surprise to us. They are the same gang who routinely stand in the way of technological and scientific advancement. That's right, extreme environmentalists--I remember Ronald Reagan said that some of these people would rather live in a bird nest--some of whom are Federal bureaucrats and some of them, of course, belong to activist organizations that seem to sue for sport and constantly stand in the way of any development of natural resources that were put here by God not to be sitting in the ground, but to help ordinary people live well. The people who are stopping us from getting those minerals are standing in the way of ordinary people having a decent life, which is so important and we're so proud of here, that every American should have those opportunities. This mindset that puts the well-being of insects above the health, safety, and quality of life of human beings has contributed to the 8.2 percent unemployment rate--and that's a low figure, as far as I'm concerned. The real unemployment is far beyond that. But the restrictions that we've had on our people that would like to use these natural resources for the well-being of our people has contributed to that unemployment. Fortunately, however, we are here today to say that we've had enough.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I rise in support of repeal. Mr. Speaker, when Republicans had control of Congress and the White House during the previous decade, we failed to address America's major health care problems, which were rising costs and a lack of access to health care for millions of hardworking Americans. So we Republicans didn't do the job. Never passing up a chance to expand the size and power of government over our lives, the Democrats have seized upon this opportunity to change the fundamental nature of health care in America. Instead of fixing the problem, they chose to change the system. It is significant to remember that even though there were serious issues that needed attention, most Americans at that time were satisfied with their health care coverage. Nevertheless, ObamaCare passed this House by seven votes and the Senate with no votes to spare. And nobody had read the whole bill. What disturbs me the most is the largest percentage of Americans who were satisfied already with their health care are going to find out to their dismay that the quality of their health care under ObamaCare will go down and the costs will go up. President Obama has promised those who are content with their current coverage that they could keep it. We now know that is not true. Mr. Speaker, when Republicans had control of Congress and the White House during the previous decade, we failed to address America's major healthcare problems, which were rising costs and a lack of access to insurance for millions of hardworking Americans. So, we Republicans didn't do the job. Never passing up a chance to expand the size and power of government over our lives, the Democrats have seized upon this opportunity to change the fundamental nature of healthcare in America. Instead of fixing the problem, they chose to change the system. It is significant to remember that, even though there were serious issues that needed attention, most Americans at the time were satisfied with their health coverage. Nevertheless, Obamacare was passed in this House by 7 votes, and passed by the Senate with no votes to spare. What disturbs me most: a large percentage of Americans, especially the ones already satisfied, are going to find out, to their dismay, that the quality of their healthcare under Obamacare will go down and the cost will go up. President Obama promised that those who are content with their current healthcare coverage could keep their insurance under Obamacare. It is now clear that's not true. Obamacare includes a provision imposing a tax on employers who cancel current coverage and dump employees into a government system. That tax is cheaper to the business than providing health insurance. So a large percentage of the American people will end up in the government system. This, then, takes the bulk of America out of a private system that has incentives built-in to bring down costs and improve quality and puts us into a government system, where inefficiency and bureaucracy are rampant. Obamacare is not just a step in the wrong direction. It is a race in the wrong direction. The government, pursuant to Obamacare's dictates, has already hired 16,000 new IRS agents to intimidate small business. Is that a good use of healthcare dollars? Let's commit ourselves to fixing the problems that confront us, by first undoing this behemoth bureaucratic nightmare that has been foisted upon us as a supposed solution.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I have a policy in my office that every time anyone from my district actually comes to the Capitol, they have a right to see me and talk to me, especially young people. And I have, over the years, seen hundreds and hundreds, maybe thousands of young people from my home district in southern California. And I let them talk to me and ask any questions that they would like to ask. And I have a question that I always ask them, and I thought it would be interesting for my colleagues and perhaps any of those who are watching C-SPAN or reading this in the Congressional Record to know the answer that I get when I ask a question of the young high school students from my district. Mr. Speaker, when our kids come in to my office and are talking to me, I note that I was actually in high school in southern California 47 years ago. And I always ask the kids, is the air better quality today, or is it worse today than when I was going to high school in southern California 47 years ago? And 90 percent of the students, over the years, whom I've asked that question to have had exactly the wrong answer. Their answer is, oh, you were so lucky to live at a time when the air quality in southern California and around the Nation was so good, and it's so terrible that we have to put up today with air quality that's killing us. They've been told that the air quality when I was in high school was so much better than it is today, which is 180 degrees wrong. But this is a general attitude among today's young people because our young people are being lied to. They are intentionally being given misinformation. Now, their teachers may not be intentionally lying to them, but their teachers maybe are given information from scientists and other sources that is an exact lie from people who know that, yes, the air quality back when I went to school, and I go into description about how the air quality was so bad at times we couldn't even go out on the playground. They wouldn't even let us out of the classroom on to the sports field because the air was so bad. Today that happens maybe once a year or twice a year in southern California. Back then it happened once a week at times during the summer and during the school year. So our kids have this view that their generation is being poisoned, and they're willing to accept stringent measures in order to protect the environment that take away a great deal of the opportunity that they should have in their lives in order to correct this horrible problem that they're told that they've got. Well, when I tell them it's just the opposite, they're so surprised. Well, the truth is, our Nation's environment is no longer the disaster that it was 50 years ago. And 50 years ago we did have a problem. Fifty years ago I remember that when my dad was a Marine down in Quantico, when I was a child I came up here several times and my dad would say, whatever you do, don't put your finger in the Potomac River or your finger will fall off. Well, it wasn't quite that bad, but it was really bad. We've made tremendous progress over the years on the Potomac River. I can't help but notice there are people water-skiing and sailing and fishing in the Potomac now. Well, we don't live in the same time of 50 years ago. The air today has never been cleaner than at any time in my lifetime. The water has never been cleaner in any time in my lifetime than it is today. And I am hopeful that my children will never have to experience the pollution that was rampant when I was their age. So, let's take a look and give credit where credit's due. That progress is, in large part, because of the efforts of the government, well, and the EPA, yes, which came in under President Nixon, and others who have used science to fight for environmental reforms and to improve the quality of life of our people. And while I am thankful, I also would like to heed the warning that President Eisenhower left with us in his farewell address. And I quote, ``that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.'' He was warning us about government-funded research becoming so intertwined with public policy and the creation of regulations it would compromise the integrity of both. Well, in recent years, we've seen political agendas being driven by scientific-sounding claims being used to frighten the general public again and again and again. An unjustified fear has been used, for example, to ban DDT. I remember when I was a kid, and I used to run through these clouds of DDT--again, when my father was in the military down in North Carolina. Yes, it was killing millions of mosquitos in North Carolina, but when they banned that DDT, I seem to remember it had something to do with the thickness of shells of certain birds. Well, they banned DDT, and because of that we have had millions of deaths due to malaria in Africa. Millions of young African children, because they don't have a good diet, succumb to a disease like malaria and die because of it. These children are dead--make no mistake about it--because we were frightened into an irrational position on DDT, banning that and thus destroying the lives of millions of children in the Third World. We've seen alarmism with ``The Population Bomb.'' Do you remember that in 1968? It was a book claiming that increasing populations and decreasing agricultural yield would lead to cannibalism and global warfare over scarce resources by the mid-1970s. Here we are a long way from the 1970s, and I'm afraid Malthus, who 150 years ago started this type of scarism, was wrong, wrong, wrong. Right now, there are a lot of scientists, unfortunately, who are molding themselves after the Malthus mistakes that were made 150 years ago. Today's environmental alarmists use faulty and, in some cases, deceitful computer models to ``prove'' that the world is being destroyed one way or the other, quite often, in the ones they've been using in the last 10 years, of course, was that the world was being destroyed by manmade carbon emissions. This is proven by their computer models, even though the Earth has seen significantly higher atmospheric carbon levels many times before. Those were not necessarily bad times for this planet, but those computer models were suggesting, because of carbon emissions, we were going to face a catastrophe. In fact, I remember very well the predictions of 10 and 15 years ago that, by now, we would have reached a tipping point in the temperature of the world-- that we'd have reached a temperature of about now--and then it would go up 5 to 10 degrees, which is a big jump, but we haven't seen that big jump. The alarmists, of course, are not interested when they make mistakes, and they're not really interested in solving real problems. They are part of a coalition that wants to change our way of life--that's their goal--with their computerizations showing that just horrible times are ahead of us unless we change. The idea isn't to stop those horrible times, because those horrible times are just a product of what they put into their computers. Of course we all know what ``garbage in, garbage out'' means. If you put into a computer that you're going to have some kind of disaster, that's what you're going to get out of your computer, but what they have in mind, of course, and what they want to do is to change the way of life--our life--which requires us to acquiesce, or better yet, they frighten us into submission. Make no mistake: manmade global warming, as a theory, is being pushed by people who believe in global government. They have been looking for an excuse for an incredible freedom-busting centralization of power, and this global warming is just the latest in a long line of such scares. This was recently acknowledged by the godfather of the global warming theory, a man who over the years has been given such credit for laying the intellectual foundation and the scientific foundation for the theory of manmade global warming. His name is James Lovelock. James Lovelock, however, has changed his mind. James Lovelock now concedes-- and after a longtime dialogue with Burt Rutan, one of the great engineers of our day--has come around to understand that he was not being totally honest about things when he was accepting information that bolstered his position, and was rejecting the consideration of other information. He has changed his mind about the real threat that global warming poses to the Earth--not that there wouldn't be any global warming but that it has been totally exaggerated by the scientific community, and that he, himself, played a major role in that exaggeration. Dr. James Lovelock is in an article in the Toronto Sun, which is entitled, ``Green 'drivel' exposed: The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria,'' which is what we have been hearing over these last few years. Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce for the Record this article that was just recently in the Toronto Sun, and I would like to put this in the Record at this point. [From the Toronto Sun, June 23, 2012] Green `Drivel' Exposed The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria (By Lorrie Goldstein) Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly ``alarmist'' about climate change. The implications were extraordinary. Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory--that the Earth operates as a single, living organism--has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory. Unlike many ``environmentalists,'' who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic. His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other scientific organizations. Lovelock's invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern environmental movement. Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, ``the problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.'' Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK's Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century. Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it's now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore's) were incorrect. He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he's never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that's how science advances. Among his observations to the Guardian: (1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal. As Lovelock observes, ``Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They've gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it . . . Let's be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.'' (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.) (2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion. ``It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,'' Lovelock observed. ``I don't think people have noticed that, but it's got all the sort of terms that religions use . . . The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can't win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.'' (3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines. As he puts it, ``so-called 'sustainable development' . . . is meaningless drivel . . . We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can't stand windmills at any price.'' (4) Finally, about claims ``the science is settled'' on global warming: ``One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don't know it.'' For those who are listening or who are reading this specifically in the Congressional Record, I would like to quote from that article now. That article reads: Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, ``The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.'' The sign of a very intelligent person, really, is to admit the things that he doesn't know. I mean I've always said I'm not the smartest guy on the block, but I know what I don't know. Thus, when I'm talking to people, I can have an honest discussion to try to expand my knowledge. We've had too many people claiming that they know it all and that we have to give up our freedom because they know it, and they don't even have to engage in a debate with us over the details of something like global warming. Let me know who has heard the words ``case closed.'' I mean, 3 years ago, that's what they were saying here. What does that mean? When you hear people in government and when you hear scientists saying, ``the case is closed,'' well, that must mean there is going to be no further debate on this issue. I've been here as a Member of Congress for 24 years. Before that, I served in the White House for 7 years under President Reagan. I have never seen a time when there was such an effort made to cut off debate on an important subject than has been done on global warming. Never have I heard over and over again people being told to shut up and that the case is closed. Never have I seen so many research projects canceled because they in some way challenged the theory of global warming. Never have I seen so many scientists fired from their positions because they believe that the global warming theory may not be accurate. So what we need to do is to make sure that we have an honest discussion of the issue, when even some of the promoters--some of the people who have been the strongest advocates, like the individual, the doctor, I just quoted--have changed their positions, if not totally reversed them. At least they've been open to have said, We really don't know what we've been advocating for these last few years. Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce into the Record a letter from an esteemed physicist, Gordon Fulks. This is a letter and some communication between this physicist and aerospace pioneer legend Burt Rutan. I would like to put that into the Record at this point. June 23, 2012. Re Bravo on your courage! Dear Burt: I think you deserve much of the credit for helping James Lovelock understand the AGW phenomenon. You patiently provided him with the pertinent data and logic. As with most of us, it took some time to digest the enormity of the necessary shift in perspective. He had to give up a faith in the honesty of government agencies and most of the scientists they are supporting. For Jim Lovelock the transition apparently involved two steps. That lessened the need for a complete about face. He first figured out the Chlorofluorocarbon-Ozone Hole scam by discovering that some scientists were cheating on the data, apparently to further their careers. He probably also knew that the chemists who received the Nobel Prize for their work had overestimated the effect by a large factor. It was not such a huge step to then realize that climate scientists might be doing the same. But Lovelock, to his credit, wanted to be sure and took his time examining the information that you and others sent to him. My own recognition of what was going on was likewise a two step process. During the ``Nuclear Winter'' scare about 25 years ago, we redid Carl Sagan's original calculations to discover that he had carefully chosen the inputs to his climate code to produce the result he wanted. When we realized that a highly respected physicist would prostitute himself to support his politics, his stature, and his income, we, in principle, understood all the other scams of the post World War Two era. From 1946 Nobel Laureate Hermann Joseph Muller hiding evidence of a threshold phenomenon in human radiation exposure to Rachael Carson promoting half truths about DDT, to unfounded scares about Acid Rain, Ozone Depletion, Magnetic Fields, Global Warming, Ocean Acidification, Diesel Particulates, and more, we have been victimized by continuous hysteria that has led to disastrous public policies. Far too many scientists and their fellow travelers have supported a grand bilking of American taxpayers for their own selfish and political interests. Many thanks for your efforts to convince one very important individual to re-examine the logic and evidence. Now we need to figure out how to avoid falling victim to these scams in the first place. As you know, that must involve fundamental reform of the reward process that funnels vast amounts of money to those who play along. Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics), Corbett, Oregon USA. Now let me read, in part, what that letter says: During the ``Nuclear Winter'' scare about 25 years ago, we redid Carl Sagan's original calculations to discover that he had carefully chosen the inputs to his climate code to produce the result he wanted. When we realized that a highly respected physicist would prostitute himself to support his politics, his stature and his income, we, in principle, understood all the other scams of the post World War II era. Whoever looked up to Carl Sagan, and when they realized he was cheating on the information and the analysis, they realized that this was so widespread it was something to be concerned about. And I continue: From 1946 Nobel Laureate Hermann Joseph Muller hiding evidence of a threshold phenomenon in human radiation exposure to Rachel Carson promoting half-truths about DDT, to unfounded scares about acid rain, ozone depletion, magnetic fields, global warming, ocean acidification, diesel particulates, and more, we have been victimized by continuous hysteria that has led to disastrous public policies. Far too many scientists and their fellow travelers have supported a grand bilking of American taxpayers for their own selfish and political interests. That is the end of that quotation from that letter to Burt Rutan from this world famous physicist. It's clear that our current system, fueled by the horrific waste of borrowed money, isn't working. Perhaps it's time that we acted on President Eisenhower's warning and find a better way to separate research and the creation of regulations. Otherwise, we will find ourselves held truly captive with no access to inexpensive energy, reduced access to food and water, and we might find ourselves also with none of our basic freedoms because we've given them away because someone has frightened us into giving away our freedom and giving away the opportunity for a better life for our children. Mr. Speaker, I am someone who is very optimistic about the future. We have great possibilities. There are other people who look to the future and think that the technological revolutions that we have faced are actually a detriment to humankind. People did not live good lives 100 years ago. As I mentioned, my father was a marine. Before that, he grew up on a dirt-poor farm in North Dakota, as did my mother. In those days, ordinary Americans did not live well. It was a struggle. The longevity of these people was not that long because of the struggle they were in. We need to make sure that we continue our technological development so that we can have, yes, a clean environment, which I have indicated was a product of the good technology and, yes, the research that came from honest and hardworking scientists and engineers, quite often on a government contract. But we need to make sure that we don't back off, because we know there is a group of people in our society, and perhaps around the world, who for some reason believe that back before the industrial age that people lived better than they live today. Some of them have tried their best to fight modernism. They have declared war, for example, on the internal combustion engine. This global warming thing, that was the motive here. The internal combustion engine is supposedly putting out carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide they believe is changing the climate of the planet. I told you what I have asked young students who come into my office. I asked: Is the air better or worse than it was 50 years ago? I even ask Members of Congress and I ask people all the time, the ones who buy into global warming, who are saying they're advocates of global warming caused by mankind--basically the internal combustion engine--what percentage of the Earth's atmosphere is carbon dioxide, is CO2. I hope that everyone who is focusing on these comments now ask themselves how much CO2 there is, because CO2 is being blamed for changing the entire climate of the planet. It would be an enormous undertaking to change the climate of the whole planet, so it must be a pretty good part of our atmosphere. With that question, Members of Congress tell me that they believe it's 25 percent. Some people say 10 percent. Others say 20 percent. I have never had a Member of Congress come anywhere close to what it really is. It's not 10 percent or 20 percent. It's not 5 percent. It's not 1 percent. It's less than one-half of one-tenth of 1 percent. Have you got that? It's not just 1 percent. It's less than one-half of one- tenth of 1 percent. Of that, humankind is only responsible for 10 percent of that CO2. That makes it so minuscule that it would be like putting a string across a football field and believing that was going to create changes in the entire football field. The fact that people are unaware, even at this level, of how small the CO2 impact is causes them to buy onto these scare tactics. This is a challenge for those of us here because that threatens our freedom. It threatens us and our children in being able to have the opportunities that we had and that we hope that all Americans and all people throughout the world will have. Let us go back on one thing. I am planning a trip this year across the country, even though the gas prices are pretty high. I'm hopefully going to drive across the country with my children. It's a wonderful thing. What a wonderful vacation. We're going to have 2 weeks to do it. I'm really looking forward to that. We're going to go in an automobile, and it will cost us. The price of gas is up and I'm not a wealthy man, but we do have this opportunity, and it's a wonderful thing. What about 150 years ago? Did people have an opportunity like this? No. What was the biggest challenge that we faced to the health and safety of the people of this country 150 years ago? Or, let's say just at the beginning of the last century, when we turned from the 19th to the 20th century. Do you know what it was? It was horse manure. Horse manure and horse urine was enveloping our cities and the water and created health hazards for people. And the flies and the stench and the internal combustion engine came along, and it has been a great factor in providing health for human beings. All over the world we got rid of the massive animal droppings that were a threat to our health. Also, there is the fact that we couldn't produce a lot of wealth based on animal strength and we couldn't go on long trips with our families and we didn't have a good quality of life, but the internal combustion engine provided that for people of the United States and humankind. There is no doubt that we have needed to improve the efficiency of the internal combustion engine, and we have. Here's the thought we'll leave with. In southern California, when I was a kid, there was so much pollution--although our young people don't know about that today. But today, when they think the air is polluted in southern California, we have twice as many cars on the road and we've reduced pollution into the 90s. It's probably 95 percent. This is a tremendous accomplishment. And yes, some of the regulations that we have had from the Federal Government have motivated this change. We need to accept that. But we need to also accept that it is our technological advances, and it has been not cancelling out technology for fear of things like CO2, which are not a threat to our health. That's how we have kept America on an upward course, even though we've been dragged down scare after scare after scare. I remember when we had Meryl Streep come to this Congress and testify about Alar in apples. What happened was, for 2 years apple farmers went broke throughout the United States. There were thousands of families who suffered because their product was not being bought because they were afraid of Alar. What happened to that? Alar, it was found 2 years later that it was all a scare. There was nothing to it. The same thing with cranberries. When I was a kid, we couldn't eat cranberries for Thanksgiving. The gentleman that I quoted here, that I mentioned, who is the godfather of the global warming theory, James Lovelock, he is also the man who discovered fluoro hydrocarbons, which gave people the analysis of the ozone hole. Well, guess what? The ozone hole, as we have found out--and as it was mentioned in passing there--the ozone hole was overrated as a threat. In fact, it went away, and it's a natural cycle. What we have had on this planet is a natural cycle of weather, of temperatures, and that will continue. But what's happened is, we've had people step forward, trying to create hysteria for their own political ends, trying to frighten people into accepting policies they otherwise would never accept. So today, I'm hoping that as we celebrate the Fourth of July, we, again, reaffirm that we will never give up our liberty. We will never be frightened out of our liberty by foreigners who threaten us with weapons, and we will not be frightened out of our liberty by people who do not believe in the same type of freedom that we believe in but are using scare tactics to create hysteria among our people that are phony scare tactics to try to frighten us into giving up our freedom. So on this Fourth of July, I hope we all reconfirm that guarantee of our commitment in this Nation to freedom, to opportunity for ordinary people so that ordinary people can live decent lives with liberty and justice, prosperity for all. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for H.R. 4480, a bill that promises to open up more public land to energy development and to streamline burdensome rules and heavy-handed regulations that now thwart new domestic energy development in the United States. The President and the Democratic-led Senate continue to obstruct the utilization of America's enormous natural resources. What are they? These resources are a God-given asset that has elevated the well-being and prosperity of our people ever since the time of our Nation's founding. Now, when we need the wealth of those resources more than ever, we suffer the obstructionism of our own government. The President has prevented the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The President has shut down oil and gas production offshore. And most recently, this administration--and perhaps most heinously-- this administration has moved forward with plans to add onerous rules and regulations on a new and emerging technology. The efforts of this administration are mind-boggling because there is no evidence that this technology has done any harm to our people, and there is ample evidence that this technology would produce significant economic growth, thus jobs. And I am referring to, of course, fracking, which has clearly been targeted by the President and by his environmental gestapo friends. While we are talking today and while we are trying to determine whether or not we are going to be using more resources, gasoline prices are changing the lifestyle of the American people. We're talking about people who are paying $3.50 a gallon and, in my State, $4 a gallon. Why are we allowing our people--13 million people who are currently out of work and suffering under these conditions--why are we adding such costs for them to bear?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. What we need, Mr. Chair, is we need to make sure that we move forward, as this bill will do, to ensure that we are fulfilling our commitment to the American people to do everything we can to make sure that they will live in prosperity and freedom and hope for a better life for their children. This has always been tied to the utilization of natural resources, and this bill will ensure that our people will benefit from those gifts that God gave us underneath our ground and public lands.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, there are many heroic people among us who have been involved in making our quality of life in America the best the world has ever seen and, at the same time, uplifting all of humankind. While we oftentimes focus our gratitude and our adoration on politicians and athletes and movie stars, we need to acknowledge the many innovators, inventors, and technology entrepreneurs who have played a significant role in overcoming the many challenges we humans face together, challenges to our health and limitations to our physical well-being. One of the most heroic of these special people is Dr. Al Mann. He flew in B 29s during World War II; and upon his return home, Al decided, instead of pursuing a career in the armaments industry, which could have been very lucrative, he would dedicate his life to building technologies that would improve the human condition. Among his many achievements are the following: a vast improvement over pacemaker technology, which then made that available to so many millions of people whose lives have been changed because of it and extended because of it. He also was involved in inventing, and it was his invention, a diabetic pump, a small mechanism that attaches to the body and allows patients to escape some of the worst ravages of diabetes. He perfected the fully implantable cochlear implant, an electronic device that provides patients, some of whom have never been able to hear, with the ability to hear sound almost as well as those of us who hear naturally. His latest invention and innovation would allow diabetics to receive their insulin through an inhaler rather than a syringe, a huge breakthrough that could be so meaningful to so many people who are suffering. His achievements ought to serve as an example of the power of innovation in our country. Just as incredible as his inventions themselves, Dr. Mann accomplished all of this with private funds. And instead of relying on government grants or contracts, Dr. Mann made the risky investments of his own and those of his investors; and then, with his labor and genius, when it paid off, he reaped the benefits, which he then plowed back into more research to help even more people eliminate even more suffering. Instead of receiving assistance from his government, Dr. Mann has, instead, run into bureaucratic obstacles time and again. As legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure that the Federal Government's actions, at the very least, do not thwart the heroic innovators such as Dr. Al Mann. For this reason, I submit for the Congressional Record a letter Al Mann recently penned. I encourage all of my colleagues to read what he has to say and to take seriously the disturbing observations with our current system, as well as his recommendations on how we can ensure that the incredible potential of human innovation can be and will be brought to play in improving the lives of the American people and people everywhere. Letter from Al Mann: The Senate has just passed a bill to speed the availability of generic drugs. Hopefully that bill will die in the House. I say that the problem is not the pricing of drugs but the cost. What are needed are means for effectively lowering the expense and time to get a new drug approved. That would lower the costs and hopefully the pricing of drugs, and that would certainly be a worthwhile objective. I am shocked and disappointed at the lack of understanding of this issue by the Congress. I certainly agree that we must seek ways to lower health care expense. I say that to do so we must focus on ways to LOWER the COST of providing health care NOT just targeting the PRICE. There are multiple reasons for the price of drugs, but I assert that the earlier generic drug law has actually led to an INCREASE in the PRICING of drugs. It takes as long as 15 years--or even longer--and $1 $1.5 billion to gain regulatory approval of a new drug. With only 20 years of exclusivity before a generic drug is approved it should be obvious that the price of a new drug must be very high just to recover the development cost let alone a profit. Even the price of the generic version of a drug is typically only moderately discounted from the innovative drug rather than priced based on the manufacturing cost. If you question the impact of the current generic drug law just ask yourself how many $5 and $10 drugs there were before that law. It only costs pennies to make a pill. However, only by charging high prices can the high costs of pharma development be recovered with any profit during the brief period of patent protection remaining after regulatory approval. Passing legislation to further ease and speed the availability of generic drugs will not likely lower pricing; if anything it would likely just reduce innovation of new drugs. That slowing is already beginning; most of the major pharma companies have already begun downsizing R&D. Surely that is not in our interest when there are new advanced technologies that could significantly improve and extend life. We need to evaluate how we can speed and lower the cost of bringing a new drug to market rather than counting on the generics. There are various approaches that should be explored. One approach might be to delay approval of a generic to allow more time of exclusivity rather than to ease the generic regulatory process. There was such a delay built into the earlier bills, but that was certainly not adequate. Unfortunately it will not be easy to reverse the pricing practices of drugs--the companies and Wall Street have all gotten used to the high prices. Of course the price of drugs is but a tiny part of the cost of health care. We ought to be reexamining many aspects of our health care system. We do need to reduce the price of health care--including the cost and the price of drugs. However, the challenge is not so simple as just approving generic drugs more quickly. In fact the problem is not just the pricing; today many potentially valuable improvements and even new breakthrough drugs do not ever reach the market because of the regulatory hurdles. This problem and the costs will certainly become far greater as we move to more personalized medicine. The consequence of easing the creation of generics may even worsen from what we see today; future breakthrough therapies may simply not become available in the U.S.! I just heard from a very credible person of a meeting of 12 advanced pharma companies discussing how to deal with the current regulatory challenges. I am told that 11 of those 12 companies are intending to launch their new products outside the U.S. and just to ignore the U.S. patients. Heretofore wealthy foreign patients came to the U.S. for superior medical treatment. Perhaps that practice may be reversing. We want to protect our people from unsafe drugs. The challenge is how to do so in a more cost effective and more timely manner. I have suggested that we should redirect the regulatory standards to concentrate on safety, to lower the initial bar for efficacy to minimal requirements during a reasonable safety trial and then to issue a ``provisional'' approval. That provisional approval would be subject to a thorough review of clinical benefits compared to risk AND cost in something like a more rigorous REMS program. Our nation is in a crossroad on many fronts. In health care the barriers are preventing our ability to topple diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer's that so many of is will face. Not only are we harming and even precipitating death of many of our people but we are losing economic growth and the engine for good paying jobs. Our government is the most significant obstacle to medical progress today. We have new tools from new science that could make such a difference if only there were not the barriers to innovation that we see today. I am 86 years old and surely my objective is not self serving. For the past four decades I have been committed to trying to find solutions to unmet and poorly met health care needs. Yet I am so disgusted by the overly restrictive process to medical innovation that has been created by our government that I have begun to sell off most of my several ventures. It is no longer worth the effort and the agony. I am sending this communication to all the Representatives whose e-mail addresses I have. I would appreciate your forwarding this to your other colleagues. Alfred E. Mann.