Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prevent any funds in this bill from being spent on the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center. Our Department of Energy is using our taxpayer dollars to help China to develop their energy systems. This specific expenditure is $37.5 million over 5 years. China should be spending their own money for developing their own energy systems. With the miserable shape of our budget and our economy, the last thing we should be doing is depleting our resources to help the Chinese become more efficient and thus more competitive. We are borrowing money from Communist China, paying interest on that money, and then turning around and subsidizing the development of a high-tech manufacturing sector in China that will take away more American jobs. This is as nutty as it gets. The Department of Energy is helping the Communist Chinese to build electric vehicles. Over the next 20 years, the electric vehicle industry may well be creating 130,000 up to maybe 350,000 American jobs. As of 2010, 30,000 Americans are already working in the electric vehicle and advanced battery industries. Tesla Motors in my State is already doing it. Why are we spending our tax dollars to put these jobs in jeopardy by improving the Chinese ability to build such cars? Why does our government want to ship jobs to China and subsidize the effort? The Clean Energy Research Center also shares American know-how with China in advanced coal technology. The global value of electricity generated using clean coal technologies was $63 billion in 2010 and by 2020 will reach $85 billion. U.S. companies have the potential to capture the global market and can sell American-designed and -built technology to China, but if we give the Chinese access to our research now, our lead in this area will be undercut. Why are we undercutting ourselves? Last month, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced anti-dumping tariffs on Chinese companies for unfair trade practices regarding solar panels. Sixty-six Chinese producers were named, which suggests this is a concerted effort to undermine the United States market. In 2011, the U.S. imported over $3 billion worth in Chinese panels, and since 2001 our share of the global market in these panels has shrunk from 27 percent to just 5 percent. Over 100,000 American jobs depend directly or indirectly on the success of the U.S. solar industry. Why are we subsidizing the Chinese development of this technology? China is not playing by the same rules that we're playing by. The Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive released a report last year which states: Chinese actors are the world's most active and persistent perpetrators of economic espionage. Among the technologies which they have the greatest interest in is stealing. And what they're interested in stealing is the cutting-edge energy technologies that we are developing with our expertise. Let's stop paying the Chinese to give them access to our best scientists, research centers, and technology. They are already stealing enough intellectual property to enhance their own economic and military power. They are robbing us blind, but we are not blind. This is happening right in front of our face. America's high-tech industry-- whether in energy, aerospace, or any other kind of manufacturing-- should be way out in front of the competition. Why are we helping China close that gap? This amendment would put a stop to over $7 million annually that is being used to bolster the efforts of our Chinese adversary. Transferring technology or funds to help develop that technology to a strategic rival makes no sense whatsoever. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and put an end to it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I'll make this very quick. We're not talking about all cooperation. I'm not opposed to all cooperation. I'm opposed to cooperation with the Adolf Hitlers of our day--the people who are murdering Christians and other religious people as we speak. No, we should not be cooperating with that government in developing their technologies, whether it's energy or otherwise. All of these different groups that are cooperating with them, this is part of a group that also has research going on throughout our universities of the United States. That makes it even worse because you have Chinese nationals there who are taking as much of the information as they can and taking it back to China from our universities. We should be opposed to this. Let's stand up for the American worker and what's right. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, since 9/11, the United States has given Pakistan about $22 billion. That money has served only to embolden Pakistan's government to maintain the brutal repression of its own people and to continue its blatant support for terrorist attacks on its neighboring countries, as well as attacks on American troops in nearby Afghanistan. My amendment would cut off all aid in this bill designated for Pakistan. It would end the charade that we are buying cooperation in the ongoing struggle against terrorist forces in South Asia. Pakistan isn't with us in a war against terrorism; they are at war with us. Pakistan, at best, is a war profiteer, collecting a ransom by taxing our military supply lines that pass through their country, which, for the past 6 months, by the way, they have closed to resupplying our forces in Afghanistan. They are laughing all the way to the bank. Of course, the Pakistani people will never see any of that money. The corruption in Pakistan itself is reason not to give aid to them, which they will then pilfer. Furthermore, they use their military power to butcher the Balochs and others who don't want to be under their corrupt thumb. How can we forget this same Pakistani Government gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden after he led the conspiracy that slaughtered 3,000 Americans on 9/11? After our SEALs went in to get him, the Pakistani Government took the wreckage of our downed stealth helicopter and gave it for study to Communist China, whom they refer to as their ``all- weather friend.'' The Pakistani Government has gone so far as to arrest and imprison, without trial, Dr. Afridi, the doctor who helped us gather the intelligence that located Osama bin Laden in the nest that the Pakistani Government had provided him right there in Pakistan. The Pakistani Government threw him in jail and is talking about trying him for treason for the good deed that he helped us in bringing to justice the man who slaughtered 3,000 of our citizens. And we can continue to give money to these people, even as we ignore the suffering of Dr. Afridi, who is in prison now, languishing in prison? And all of us are forgetting this hero? We have lost almost 2,000 Americans defending our country as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Most of those deaths were due to Pakistani- inspired and -supported insurgents. How much more does the Pakistan Government have to do before we quit giving them our money? They are playing us like fools while murdering our soldiers. And, yes, we are acting like fools for giving them this money despite that. We should have quit bankrolling this rotten regime a long time ago. My amendment would do just that. The Pakistan Government is a terrorist government that murders and even attacks its own people, such as in Balochistan. It is a pro- terrorist, radical Islamic clique that rules Pakistan. They don't deserve one penny from us to help them in their dirty deeds. I would ask for support from my colleagues. Let's finally stand up. If we need an ally in that area, let's go to some people in that area that want to be our friends, perhaps the Indians. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. How much time is remaining?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I have here 13 pages of restrictions that we have had on Pakistan aid over the last few years, 13 pages of restrictions that have meant nothing. During the time that we have been giving them billions of dollars with all of these restrictions, they have been giving safe haven to Osama bin Laden, who massacred and slaughtered 3,000 Americans. How can we forget about that? How can we just go on and give these people money? The people of Pakistan can be our friends. They are our friends. But we have to recognize that their government is a terrorist-supporting government and a radical Islamic-supporting government. And we continue to give them money as they support insurgents that kill our people overseas. Is there any doubt about that? Admiral Mullen confirmed it for us. Why are we ignoring that? We are acting like fools and we are acting like cowards. It is time for us to stand up for the American defenders who are over there putting their lives on the line and say, No. If we're going to give money to the people killing you, we're not going to do that, period. That's going over the line. I would suggest to my colleagues to join me in defunding the enemy of the United States. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, first let me suggest that I join with my colleagues in honoring the memory of Chuck Colson, a man who also meant a lot to me as an individual. Those of us who come from California and remember Richard Nixon coming out there over the years and remember the great work that Chuck Colson did for our prison community in California, we're very grateful for that. He taught us really the true meaning of Christian compassion. I personally was a beneficiary of that knowledge and that spirit that he helped us understand and develop within our own hearts. So I would like to join my colleagues in that. But today I rise to call attention to the hundreds of millions of public dollars we have spent and continue to spend in the form of foreign aid to the People's Republic of China--better known as Communist China to those of us who have spent years trying to fight that oppressive regime. Our national debt is over $15.7 trillion and is growing. We are spending $1.5 trillion more every year than we are taking in. Forty- three cents out of every dollar we spend is borrowed money, and Communist China is the single largest foreign holder of United States debt. The interest we pay on this ever-growing debt is increasingly squeezing out spending on other worthwhile programs. Why, then, are we borrowing money from the Chinese Communist Government--to be repaid, of course, with interest--and then using that borrowed money to finance programs in which we are giving money to these various programs that go to China, the country from whom we are borrowing? Remember, the government of this aid recipient considers the United States its enemy. They are happy to loan us the money and they are happy that we are stupid enough to give it back to them in terms of aid and, yes, other types of programs, including giving it back to them in investments. We are strengthening the government that considers us an enemy. As we look into this situation, we know that they see the U.S. as their enemy, just as Japan saw us as their enemy before World War II--the Japanese militarists--just as Nazi Germany saw the American people as their enemy, and just as the communist governments that threatened the world for over four decades after World War II, just as they saw the United States as their enemy. Yes, we are the enemy of tyrants and vicious regimes that are expansionary and threaten the peace and the freedom of the world. We can be proud of that. The Chinese know that. The Communist Chinese know that. That's why they don't like us. That's why they consider us their enemy. China is the world's largest human rights abuser. China's Government smashes those who advocate freedom of the press, freedom of religion. Those who, of course, suggest that the Chinese Government should be accountable to its people are arrested and thrown into jail, or murdered. It arrests Chinese practitioners of Falun Gong, for example. Falun Gong is a Chinese religious movement which stresses yoga and meditation. Beijing has these devout and passive people, practitioners in a simple religion that is meditation and yoga. These people are arrested and they're thrown into prison where they are murdered. And then the Chinese Government, after murdering these people for their religious convictions, sells their organs and body parts. It doesn't get much more ghoulish than this. On the international scene, China is responsible for promoting and facilitating the proliferation of nuclear technology between North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, and others. China is responsible for empowering the Burmese junta that imprisoned Aung San Suu Kyi for years. It has allied itself with rogue regimes all over the world, like Sudan and Venezuela and other regimes that are tyrants in their own country and threaten the security of their neighbors and of the United States. China's aggressive foreign policy and hostile naval actions are threatening the sovereignty of American allies like Japan and the Philippines. It is Communist China that has stolen and is currently stealing most of our prized military and commercial secrets. China has stolen the designs for every one of our nuclear warheads. Chinese cyberspies have stolen all of our trade secrets. All of the money we put in to invest in research and development they steal and utilize. No wonder they're as far ahead in their rocket program as they are when they took the technology from us; they stole it from us. They have infected our critical electronic technology infrastructure with malicious viruses and then they, of course, break into our classified systems. It is China which has embarked on the most significant arms buildup since the Cold War. And I ask: Who do they think is their enemy? Who do they think is their enemy? The United States of America. While we not only become susceptible to them, not only do we put ourselves in an inferior position by borrowing money from them, but we also end up giving that money back to them in aid programs. And that is what I would like to talk about tonight, the fact that how can we possibly borrow money from the world's worst human rights abuser, a country that looks at us as their enemy. Then we become vulnerable to that country. But at the same time while we are becoming vulnerable, we then increase our investment in the private sector of that country. But also we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in aid programs to the communist Chinese regime. Well, with that in mind, I asked the Congressional Research Service to assemble a list of programs that the Congress funds that go directly to supporting development and the economy of China. It is a partial list because there are so many programs that, after weeks of work, they could not even find them all. This list that I am about to read is of projects that are funded and have been funded over the last 3 years, at the same time, while the Obama administration was spending $1.5 trillion more annually than we're taking in. So while we're spending more than we're taking in by $1.5 trillion, we are spending on programs that are going to China, and it's China who's lending us the money in order to spend that extra $1.5 trillion. This is an insane policy. And this spending on China is ongoing. I'm just giving you the facts from the last 3 years, and it is ongoing. To make sure we all understand exactly where we are spending or sending our taxpayer money, I am going to read a list of programs that we have funded in China, and ask, as we are going through this list, after every time I go through the money, couldn't we have spent this money better in the United States? Or wouldn't it have been better not to borrow it in the first place and add this to $1.5 trillion every year for the last 3 years that we've been putting our people into debt? So every one of these things that I read, ask yourself that question: Is this in the best interest of the United States? Is it in the best interest of our children who we're putting more in debt by borrowing and giving it to China and having to pay the interest? They're going to have to pay off the loan and the interest to China in the future. So here's a partial list, and I'm going to round off the figures to an understandable number. And many of these deal with ``environment.'' Why are we trying to make the environment in China better so that the people of China can basically out compete us in our business dealings? That should be part of the cost of production in China. But, no, we are picking up that cost. Not only that, our people are investing in China and building their factories. Why did the EPA give, for example, $141,000 to the Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development in Agriculture to reduce greenhouse gases in China? In China. Why did the EPA give $125,000 to the Eastern Research Group that reduces greenhouse gases in China? Why did the National Science Foundation give $63,000 to Siena College for Neutrino Physics at Daya Bay in China? And let me add, some of these will be repeats because we did this, this is over a 3-year period, because we have several programs over the years where we're giving money to the same group in China; and that spending continues, let me add. Why did the EPA give $150,000 to China for Coal Information Institute for reducing greenhouse gases? Why did the EPA give $100,000 to Guizhou International Corporation Center for Environmental Protection for reducing greenhouse gases? That's in China, of course. Why did the EPA give almost $300,000 to the Ministry of Environment Protection in China for reducing health risks? Don't we have health risks in the United States? Don't we have some needs of our own? Why are we giving this money to China? Why did the EPA give $150,000 to Tsinghua--I'm sorry I can't pronounce this right--University Department of Building Sciences for Environmental Governance in China? Why did USAID give the Asia Foundation almost $2 million, it was $1.7 million, to build environmental governance in China? Why did USAID give $500,000 to the American Bar Association to build environmental governance in China? Don't we have some things in the United States where we could use a $500,000 grant for some of our local communities? Couldn't they use some help? Instead we sent it to China. But first, of course, we borrowed it from China. So to give it to them, we'll have to repay China and the interest in order to give it to them. Why did USAID give $300,000 to the University of Massachusetts to improve the quality of judicial education in China? We're giving them $300,000 in order to improve judicial education in China? Why did USAID give $200,000 to the University of the Pacific to advance the rule of law in China? Why did USAID give $55,000 to Nexant, an NGO, to be an administrator of China program evaluations? Why did USAID give $2 million to Winrock International Institute for Agriculture for sustainable livelihoods in China? I guess we don't need any help in our farm belt. I guess our farmers don't need my help in California where they're going broke because the water has been cut off to them in order to protect some delta smelt. Our guys are going crazy and going broke, our farmers are, but we're going to find $2 million borrowed from China in order to give back to China in order to aid the Institute of Agriculture so that they can have sustainable livelihoods in China. Why did USAID give $2 million to the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, an NGO, for sustainable livelihoods in China? Think there are any Americans that need sustainable livelihoods? Why did USAID give $2 million to the Institute of Sustainable Communities to reduce greenhouse gases in China? Oh, yes. We need to make sure we pay all of China's environmental expenses; otherwise, they won't accept global government like our government expects us to accept. Why did USAID give $749,000, almost $750,000, to the ICF International to reduce greenhouse gases in China? Why did USAID give $500,000 to the Asia Foundation for humanitarian assistance to China? Why did the USDA give $10,000 to Texas Agriculture Experiment for biological control of forest insects in China? Do our forests not need this? Why are we borrowing money when we can't afford to do these things in our own country? Why did the USDA give almost $100,000 to Rutgers State University for climate change adaptation in China? Now isn't that great? We're paying for them to adapt to climate change. Then, of course, they'll join the global government which these same people are trying to force on us. But then we are under a mountain of debt, our children, in order to pay for their adaptation to climate change. Not, of course, to say that anybody in the United States, our farmers or any other industry, doesn't need to adapt to the different changes that go on in the climate, even if they are natural changes in our climate. Why did the Department of Energy give $2.5 million to the University of Michigan for the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center? Shouldn't we be developing our own clean energy in the United States? Instead, we borrow money from China in order to spend it in China, and then we have to pay debt, interest on that debt, and pay back the debt. Our children will, of course, be doing that. Why did the Department of Energy give $2.5 million to West Virginia University for a U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center? Again, a research center, perhaps the same research center, but the next year. So that makes it $5 million that we've given to that research center in China. Why did the Department of Energy give $1.2 million to West Virginia University for Long-Term Environmental and Economic Impacts of Coal Liquefaction in China? That's $1.2 million to, yes, spend through West Virginia University. Don't we have coal liquefaction environmental studies going on in the United States that could use that money for research to make sure that our coal burns more cleanly and effectively here, rather than giving that money and information to China's benefit and borrowing it from them in order to give it to them? Why did the Department of Energy give $5.3 million to Brookhaven National Laboratory in the Daya Bay nuclear project in China? That's over $5 million. By the way, that's $5 million to this nuclear facility. Let me just note that, in my district, we have a problem with a nuclear power plant that's going through some very serious problems right now, San Onofre. We maybe could have used that $5 million to help us correct the problems at the San Onofre plant. But no. We borrowed the money from China to give it back to them to solve their problems while our children will be forced to pay that debt off. We get no benefit out of it except a load of debt on our children. Why did the Department of Energy give almost $400,000 to the State University of Albany to study climate change in China? Oh, yes. Why did the Department of Energy give $300,000 to the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for the modeling of regional climate change in China? Again, it's using climate change as a vehicle to give them money that we are borrowing from them in the first place, which we will then have to repay. Why did the Department of Energy give $256,000 to the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute for research at the Daya Bay nuclear project in China? Again, another $250,000 to this Daya Bay nuclear project. It could have been the next year because this is over a 3-year period. These are some of these. By the way, it's not anywhere near all of them over the 3-year period, but all of these are taken from a list over that 3-year period. Yes, we could have used some of that money to make sure that we didn't have a problem in our own districts. Why did the Department of Energy give $210,000 to Rutgers State University for Site Science for the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Mobile Facility in China? Why are we doing that? Why are we providing them that type of a foundation, a scientific foundation, so that they can prosper and so that they won't have to spend their resources paying for that type of scientific infrastructure? Why did the Department of Energy give $135,000 to the University of Maryland for the climactic effects of aerosols in China? There you go-- aerosols. It's an issue from way back then, which some of us think was not entirely reported, but now we are still giving almost $150,000 to check out aerosols in China for their benefit. Why did the Department of Energy give over $500,000 to the University of Houston for a proposal to measure neutrino mixing at the Daya Bay nuclear experiment in China? Again, over a half a million dollars while we're having trouble with our own nuclear program. We should be developing our own new generation of nuclear power which will be safe--and we can do it--but we don't have the money to do it. Why? We're giving millions of dollars to China and to others, money that should go to developing our own new technology here. Of course, we are borrowing the money from China in order to give it to them, which leaves our children in debt, and they'll have to pay it all off with interest. Why did the Department of Energy give $70,000 to Colorado State University for the climactic effects of aerosols in China? Why did the Department of Energy give $19,000 to Pennsylvania State University for factors influencing energy use and carbon emissions in China? Isn't that nice that we gave the University of Pennsylvania money to study this for China so they will have the information in China and will be able to use it for their benefit rather than studying things in the United States to help us so we can do better here. Why did the EPA give over $500,000--$550,000 to be exact--to the Virginia Polytechnic Institute to reduce greenhouse gases in China? Why did the EPA give almost a half a million dollars to the Research Triangle Institute to reduce greenhouse gases in China? This is basically making equipment more efficient. Why aren't we making our equipment more efficient? The Chinese should buy it from us rather than our having to relocate our manufacturing plants in China. Yes, let them buy it from us--how about that?--and give our own people jobs rather than borrowing money so that they could have the technology. We are going in debt so that they can have the technology, and our children will have to pay the debt back with interest, and they will sell us the equipment. The Chinese will sell it to us in a generation. Why did the EPA give $300,000 to the Energy and Environmental Development Research Center to reduce greenhouse gases in China? Why did the EPA give almost $250,000 to the Research Triangle Institute again--probably a second year of their grant--to reduce greenhouse gases in China? Why did the EPA give almost $200,000 to the China University of Petroleum in Beijing to reduce greenhouse gases in China? Can't any of our people use this research money to help our country and our technology become cleaner and more efficient? No. We're giving it to China, and then they will sell that technology back to us after they manufacture it years ahead of us because we subsidize their R&D. Why did the EPA give almost $200,000 to the China Urban Construction Design & Research Institute to reduce greenhouse gases in China? Again, here we are spending money to help them design houses in China. Wonderful. None of our designers need any help. Why did the EPA give almost $300,000 to the Eastern Research Group to reduce greenhouse gases in China? Why did the EPA give over $100,000 to Guangzhou City, China, to reduce greenhouse gases? Why did the EPA give $110,000 to the Guizhou International Cooperation Center for Environmental Protection to reduce greenhouse gases in China? Do we have no need for this money in the United States? Does our equipment not need to be more efficient? Should we not be investigating putting money into the development of cleaner energy sources here? With all this money we're giving away, we could be developing clean energy sources, if nothing else, for the new generation of nuclear power plants, which is starving for research money. No, we're giving it to China. Why did the EPA give almost $100,000 to the China University of Petroleum in Beijing to reduce greenhouse gases in China? Why did the EPA give $200,000 to California State University at Fullerton to reduce greenhouse gases in China? Why did the EPA give $85,000 to ICF International to build climate change management capacity in China? Why did the EPA give $135,000 to Information Institute to reduce greenhouse gases in China? Why did the EPA give over $50,000 to Advanced Resources International to reduce greenhouse gases in China? Why did the EPA give $31,000 to the Energy and Environmental Development Research Center for biogas development? Each and every one of these items I am talking about is an item on which we spent money out of the Federal budget. We took it out of the taxpayers' pockets--or actually, we borrowed it from China--and then left them with the debt in their pockets, the IOU in their pockets, and we gave it to China rather than taking that money, those resources, and spending it in the United States to develop the technology here. Like I say, I've been struggling for years to get the new generation of nuclear power developed here. It has been starved--it has not been given what it needs--and we're giving away these hundreds of millions of dollars to the Chinese, which we, of course, are borrowing. In the end, we will pay them for the technology because they will be sending the manufactured items here. Why did the EPA give $30,000 to the China Association of Rural Energy Industry to reduce greenhouse gases in China? Why did the EPA give almost $800,000 to the China State Environmental Protection Administration to reduce transboundary air pollution? Well, that's great. We have to pay for everybody's air pollution in the world. We are borrowing money from China, but we have to pay for their reduction of transboundary air pollution. Why did the EPA give almost $200,000 to the Chinese Ministry of Environmental Protection to build environmental management capacity? Why did the EPA give $120,000 to the Tianjin Environmental Protection Bureau for water pollution management? Now, there is something we don't need any money for around our country--water pollution. I live in a coastal district. We could use that money for water pollution. We've got sewer pipes and water purification systems that need to be upgraded. But no. We're borrowing money from China to give it to China rather than having that money spent in the United States. Why did the National Science Foundation give $62,000 to Sienna College for neutrino physics at, again, the Daya Bay nuclear project in China? Well, we're not spending the money here to develop our own clean nuclear energy. Why did USAID give Management Systems International almost $500,000 to improve environmental governance in China? Why did USAID give Vermont Law School--get this--$1,725,000 for improved environmental governance in China? Why did USAID give the Institute for Sustainable Communities half a million dollars to save energy and reduce greenhouse gases in China? Can't we put this use in these structures in the United States? Why did USAID give the University of the Pacific a half a million dollars for environmental governance in China? Why did USAID give the American Bar Association $500,000 for environmental governance in China? Why did USAID give the University of Massachusetts $420,000 for environmental governance in China? Why did USAID give the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development $150,000 for development assistance in China? Why did USAID give Management Systems International $50,000 for development assistance? Why did USAID give the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors $2 million for sustainable livelihoods in China? Don't we have people in the United States who need money like that? Don't we have people, indeed, here who need a sustainable livelihood? Why are we giving it to China and borrowing it from them in order to give it to them and leaving our kids in debt? Why did USAID give Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors $400,000 for sustainable livelihoods in China? Why did the USDA give the University of Science and Technology of China $150,000 for research? Don't our universities need money for research for things that we can use here in the United States to make our life better? Why did the USDA give the SB Group Consultants $25,000 for education in China? Why did the USDA give Management and Engineering Technologies International $40,000 to improve forest health in China? We don't need any help with our forests here, do we? Why did the USDA give Yangzhou University $36,000 to improve biological controls in China? Why did the USDA give Management and Engineering Technologies International $8,000 for administrative purposes in China? Why did the USDA give Utah State University almost $400,000 for biomass research in China? I happen to know American companies and people who are investing in biomass research. Why are we giving almost $400,000 to help the Chinese in biomass research, which will compete with our own companies that are trying to develop this very important and unique energy source? Which by the way for the environmentalists who are watching, who think that I may be making light of climate change, I support biomass and other clean-energy programs that make sense. This one makes sense. Our companies are investing in it, and yet we're borrowing money from China in order to give it to them to do biomass research to compete with our own people and put them out of business. Why did the USDA give Tetra Tech EM $325,000 for administrative purposes for environmental programs in China? Why did USAID give the Institute of Sustainable Communities--get this--another $500,000 to save energy and reduce greenhouse gases in China? Don't we have the need in our communities to do things in a sustainable way in the United States? No. They don't have that money now. It's in China. We borrowed it from China to give to them. Now we're going to have to pay the bill back after we've given it to them. Why did USAID give the University of the Pacific $500,000 for environmental governance in China? Again a half a million dollars. Why did USAID give the American Bar Association $500,000 for environmental governance? Why did USAID give the University of Massachusetts $420,000 for Environmental Governance in China? Why did USAID give the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development $150,000 for Development Assistance in China? Why did USAID give Management Systems International $47,484 for Development Assistance in China? Why did USAID give Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors $2.4 million for Sustainable Livelihoods in China? Why did USAID give The Asia Foundation $1,025,000 to improve Disaster Management in China? Why did USDA give the University of Science and Technology of China $150,000 for Research? Why did USDA give Guangzhou Dxcel Advertising $18,500 for Administrative Purposes in China? Why did USDA give Management and Engineering Technologies International $40,994 to improve forest health in China? Why did USDA give Management and Engineering Technologies International $7,973 for administrative purposes in China? Why did USDA give Southern University $300,000 for improved Education in China? Why did USDA give Colorado State University $300,000 for improved Education in China? I will end my remarks tonight by suggesting that what we are doing is insane. America will never survive with such a mindset with these mind- boggling giveaway programs where we're giving away money, we're giving this type of support to a country and a government that is totalitarian, that kills Christians and other religious people, who hates the United States and is our biggest potential enemy. That is not the Chinese people. That's the Chinese Government. The Chinese dictatorship has cover today, and the reason why these policies go on is they have cover from some of our most powerful corporations. We have permitted overly subsidized American corporations to set up manufacturing facilities in China, and now they need to stand in the good graces of the Chinese Government. When I come up and say things like this, corporations in the United States try to provide cover for the Chinese dictatorship. We should not be providing aid to the Chinese. We should not be encouraging our corporations to go there and become vulnerable to the Chinese in order to make a quick profit. I would suggest over the last 10 years, since most-favored trading status has been given to China, we have put America in a very vulnerable spot. We at the very least should reassess our relationship with China, but at the very least cut off any aid programs that go to this communist regime, this totalitarian regime that looks at us as their enemy. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today, along with Mr. Hinchey, Mr. McClintock, and Mr. Farr, in support of a commonsense amendment that would prohibit the Department of Justice from using funds to prevent States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. This amendment would take a step in the right direction of respecting States' rights and individual liberties, and it would help the Federal Government prioritize its very scarce resources and show compassion for those thousands of ailing patients across our country. To date, 17 States, including the District of Columbia, have passed laws allowing for the medical use of marijuana, and the list continues to grow. Connecticut is in the process of passing a similar law as well. Many of these State laws, including in my own home State of California, have passed these statutes through the initiative process-- meaning that a majority of California voters specifically decided that sick individuals ought to have the right to use this herb for medical purposes. Why the Federal Government continues its hard-line prohibition, then, is completely beyond me. As far as the medical marijuana is concerned, individuals ought to have a right and ought to be able to act in accordance with their respective State laws without the Federal Government coming in and interfering. Neither should the Federal Government threaten to prosecute State employees who are carrying out the implementation of their State laws. Indeed, the Founding Fathers wanted criminal law to be the domain of local and State government. Unfortunately, however, this is not the approach that recent administrations have taken, including the current administration. For example, the Governor of Washington State received a letter from the Department of Justice and was warned that: State employees who conducted activities mandated by the Washington legislative proposals would not be immune from liability under the CSA. Additionally, the DEA has conducted numerous raids on medical marijuana dispensaries that are in full compliance with State law. Businesspeople and cooperatives who are licensed and certified within these States to function as legitimate medical marijuana dispensaries have seen their businesses locked down, assets frozen, businesses driven away, and in some cases the victims of a SWAT squad coming into their operation. It is simply outrageous that we are spending scarce Federal dollars to interfere with the medical needs of individuals, especially when it's been recommended by a physician and approved by the voters of a State. Importantly, this amendment does nothing to prevent the Federal Government from being able to go after drug traffickers. In fact, it makes it easier because it prioritizes and gives those people a chance to go after drug traffickers rather than sick people. Under this amendment, the DEA would still have the power to arrest anyone selling marijuana for recreational use or engaging in any activity that is not expressly allowed under State law. But they will have more time to go after the drug traffickers if they are not going after people who are providing medical marijuana to people who are sick. It is time that we respect States' rights, get serious about prioritizing our Federal Government's activities, and show some common sense and compassion when dealing with the sick among us. I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' for the Rohrabacher-Hinchey- McClintock-Farr amendment to prevent the Department of Justice from continuing to engage in activities that it has no business engaging in. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chairman, I rise today to engage in a colloquy on NASA's Commercial Crew Program. The chairman has shown great leadership on space and science issues. He and I have often worked together on issues of shared interest, and he is a great friend. The report of this bill contains some very strong language about NASA's Commercial Crew Program; and I, admittedly, have some concerns about that language. I believe it makes a flawed comparison between Commercial Crew Program partners and the energy firm Solyndra. In addition, it requires an immediate down-select to a single-program partner, which I do not believe is the best path to move forward. That being said, I do understand and agree with many of the chairman's concerns that I know were underlying this language. For example, NASA has not shared a clear, comprehensive management plan for the program despite repeated requests. Instead, they have made inconsistent and confusing statements about the program's purpose, timeline, design, costs, and procurement benefits. Although the committee has defined one possible management approach in response to these concerns, I hope that we will be able to discuss some alternative approaches that both address the management problems within NASA and allow the achievement of the agreed-upon goals of the program. With that in mind, I am willing to work with NASA to help come up with a new plan that will do just that. And I would be pleased to work with the chairman on these issues in order to go forward. At this time, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the CJS Subcommittee.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me just note that both of us are committed to making sure this country is never dependent on a Chinese rocket system to launch either commercial or government satellites or to reach the space station. I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I rise in favor of H.R. 4105 because we need to have every tool we can muster to fight China's unfair trade practices, which not only steal markets and jobs from American producers, but also provides Beijing with a means to finance its military buildup and expanding influence around the world. This bill should not have been necessary. It overturns a faulty court decision that claimed U.S. law prohibits the Department of Commerce from applying countervailing duties to nonmarket economies. Yet nonmarket economies, where the government directs business through trade subsidies, national planning and state ownership of firms, this is where the greatest abuses occur that distort the market. Unfortunately, our system to combat trade abuses and unfair foreign practices does not work. We have had a massive transfer, which is evident, when we see that we have had a massive historic transfer of wealth from the American people to China over these last few decades. That policy should have been corrected long ago to prevent this deprivation of the American people. Furthermore, this bill allows the Commerce Department to adjust actions to avoid future negative findings by the World Trade Organization. Again, this should not be necessary because China should not be part of the World Trade Organization. It is not a market economy and thus should have been denied membership. It has not lived up to its obligations of WTO membership, and thus Beijing should not be made a stakeholder in world affairs. It remains an aggressive, communist dictatorship that supports every rogue enemy of the United States. It is the world's number one proliferator of nuclear technology and the number one abuser of human rights. It is a land of cronyism, corruption, and repression. We should not be helping a country ruled by this kind of government grow while we stagnate.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We ran a record $295 billion trade deficit in goods with China last year at a time when the U.S. economy was trying to struggle from a recession and we had high unemployment. This bill would be a small step in the right direction; but we need to do much more to restore growth and balance to our international, economic and strategic relations with other countries, especially China. We should end this massive transfer of wealth from our people to China. It's a sin against our own people.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I rise in opposition to this amendment. Long ago my parents told me a truism that has been reconfirmed over and over again in my life. My parents both were raised on dirt-poor farms in North Dakota in abject poverty. And my father, who made a decent life for himself and for his family with hard work and struggle, told me as a child when we visited those farms, he said: Son, ordinary people are not going to live well in this country or any country unless there is an abundance of water and energy. And that's what all through my life I've seen; that those people who have had their water or energy restricted, it has hurt the ordinary people, the standard of living of the people of that country. What we have faced in this country is a good example of that. What we have got is a coalition of radical environmentalists who have over the years prevented America from having the energy we need to have a high and a good standard of living for our people. Ordinary people have suffered. The same is true when we are talking about water. Now, this radical coalition has never thought anything about constitutional rights and about whether it is States' rights to this or that. That has made no difference to them at all. The central issue is there is a vision that the radical environmentalists have in which people are less important than fish or little insects or reptiles. The bottom line is ordinary people, ordinary Americans, should be our highest priority. What is it doing to their standard of living? And we have seen an attack on the standard of living of the people of California by depleting water resources that should go to them that instead are being committed to a tiny little fish that isn't even good enough for bait. Today, we are going to reaffirm in a very bipartisan fashion that no, the people of this body are elected to represent the well-being of ordinary Americans, to make sure that we have the energy and the water we need to fulfill the American Dream where everyone has a chance at a decent life.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the members of the Los Angeles Selects Hockey Peewee AAA team for winning the prestigious Peewee World Championship Tournament in Quebec on February 19, 2012. In the 53-year history of the tournament, this accomplishment marks the first time that a California team has won the event at the highest level of competition. The L.A. Selects defeated the Vancouver North Shore Hockey Club in the championship game tournament by a score of 4 2 in hockey's equivalent of the Little League World Series. The Selects defeated teams from Russia, Slovakia, Detroit and Canada on their way to the title. Over 100 teams comprised of 12- and 13-year old hockey players and representing 14 countries competed in the event. Over 10,000 people watched the championship game that took place in the Quebec Colisee, home of the former NHL Quebec Nordiques. Many NHL stars, such as Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux, played in this tournament as youngsters. Since 1960, the Quebec tournament is the pinnacle of hockey competition where nearly 200,000 hockey fans attend the twelve-day event. The L.A. Selects Peewee AAA Championship Roster included constituents from my district as well as a number of other high caliber players from the surrounding area: Cooper Haar (Huntington Beach), Jordan Bonner (Huntington Beach), Brett Rudy (Huntington Beach), Dexter Russo (Laguna Beach), Cayla Barnes (Corona), Jacob McGrew (Orange), Jack St. Ivany (Manhattan Beach), Vanya Lodnia (Anaheim), Cole Guttman (Northridge), Brandon McDonald (Valencia), Rhett Bruckner (Las Vegas), Brannon McManus (Upland), Nicholai Gruzdev (Valencia), Jesse Lycan (Escondito), Lukas Uhler (Upland). Finally, Mr. Speaker, I submit the following article, from Youth1.com about the team and the tournament. LA Selects Win Quebec International Pee-wee Hockey Tournament (By Dan Lio) The No. 5 LA Selects rebounded from their opening game loss to win five straight games en route to capturing the tournament title at the 53rd Annual Quebec International Peewee Hockey Tournament, a tournament that lasted over a week long. In their opening game on Monday, the Selects gave up a 3rd period lead, falling 3 2 to the St. Louis Blues. After the loss, their offense was in full force in their next game last Wednesday as they defeated Bratislava 14 0. In the win the Selects received hat tricks from three different players, including Jake McGrew, Cole Guttman and Vanya Lodnia. Also scoring in the win were Cayla Barnes, Brannon McManus, Jesse Lycan, Lukas Uhler and Brett Rudy. The Selects were back in action the following day to take on No. 4 ranked Compuware. In a well-played game by both team the Selects defeated Compuware 3 2 behind two goals from McManus and one from Guttman. Picking up the win inbetween the pipes was Rhett Bruckner. The Selects blew out Russia Forward in their next game, defeating them 8 1. Offensively, McManus led the way with four goals and one assist, while Guttman pitched in with two goals and an assist. Both Jake McGrew and Cooper Haar also found the back of the net in the win, while goalie Brandon McDonald picked up his second win of the tournament. The Selects battled the Whitby Wildcats in their next game, with the winner advancing to the championship game. It was all Selects from the get go as they eventually took home the 6 2 win. In the win they received goals from six different players, including McGrew, Lodnia, Guttman, Haar, Lycan and Jordan Bonner. In the championship game the Selects took on the previously undefeated North Shore Winter Club. In a total team effort, the Selects were able to double up North Shore, taking home the 4 2 victory to win the championship. Brannon McManus and Vanya Lodnia each had two goals and an assist in the win, while Jake McGrew and Cayla Barnes each pitched in with an assist. Playing phenomenal in net was Rhett Bruckner as he picked up his third straight win. Congratulations to all members of the team, including coaches Shawn Pitcher, Greg Chinarian, Andrew Cohen, Igor Nikulin, Barry McManus and players Brandon McDonald, Rhett Bruckner, Jack St. Ivany, Jake McGrew, Vanya Lodnia, Dexter Russo, Cole Guttman, Jordan Bonner, Cayla Barnes, Brannon McManus, Cooper Haar, Nickolai Gruzdev, Jesse Lycan, Lukas Uhler and Brett Rudy.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced legislation to grant American citizenship to Dr. Shakeel Afridi, the Pakistan medical doctor who risked his life to identify Osama Bin Laden and help U.S. military forces bring him to justice. Pakistan's Inquiry Commission on the Abbottabad Operation, the U.S. mission which killed Bin Laden, has recommended that Dr. Afridi be tried for treason for helping the United States. If convicted, Dr. Afridi could be executed. My bill would grant him U.S. citizenship and send a direct and powerful message to those in the Pakistani government and military who protected the mastermind of 9/11 for all those years and who are now seeking retribution on those who helped to execute Bin Laden. Before the May 2, 2011 raid which resulted in Bin Laden's death, Dr. Afridi used the cover of conducting a polio vaccination program in Abbottabad in an attempt to gain access to Bin Laden's compound and identify who was living there. Pakistan subsequently arrested Dr. Afridi at his home on May 22, 2011. He has been jailed for the past eight months and media reports state that his wife, an American citizen of Pakistani origin is currently missing and her whereabouts are unknown. Recently, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said that Dr. Afridi ``was an individual who in fact helped provide intelligence that was very helpful'' to the operation which killed Bin Laden. Secretary Panetta is ``very concerned'' about his fate. This bill shows the world that America does not abandon its friends. I have introduced this bill with the endorsement of Representatives Brad Sherman, Louie Gohmert, Jim Moran, Dan Lungren, Collin Peterson, Duncan Hunter, Joe Pitts, Jeff Duncan, Joe Wilson, Bill Posey, Ted Poe, Roscoe Bartlett, Doug Lamborn, Patrick McHenry, Sam Johnson, Mike Coffman, Adam Kinzinger, Tom Cole, Jeff Denham, David Rivera, and Jean Schmidt.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 658. This legislation goes a long way in addressing some concerns I have had regarding our Nation's aviation enterprise. Two of those provisions I would highlight this morning: The first is an extension of a provision from legislation that I supported back in 2004 when I was chairman of the Space Subcommittee of the House Science Committee. Let me note that these provisions inaccurately were just described as not having had hearings. There were lots of hearings on these provisions. The provisions relate to the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation and are designed to make certain the FAA does not limit the development of the commercial human spaceflight industry without specific data about what will increase safety. This extension will encourage continued research and development while building industrywide flight experience so these companies can best serve new and existing markets. This includes expanding the research portfolio for federally funded science in the upper atmosphere and in space. The second provision provides a slight increase in the number of flights from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport so that it can accommodate these flights to and from the west coast. This small increase will help my constituents in southern California and all Americans in the western States to meet their Representatives in Washington, DC, or visit the Smithsonian or perhaps enjoy the cherry blossoms in the spring. It will also enable those from the Washington area to visit California, California's beaches and California's sunshine and perhaps maybe want to join the Freedom Surf Team. This legislation takes us a step closer to removing the unnecessary and unfair restriction on flights to and from the west coast.