Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would yield.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, let me just note that I do believe there is an alternative that should be looked at seriously. And whatever happens to this legislation, I would hope that this other alternative which would permit the people of the District of Columbia to vote for not only a Representative but also two United States Senators is given some serious thought. With that, tonight I rise, Mr. Speaker, in remembrance of a champion of freedom who recently passed away, a great man who influenced the world in which we live, but left the world with little notice of his passing. His name was Dr. Fred Schwarz. He died in his native Australia on January 24, 2009, at age 96. Dr. Schwarz was a medical doctor, a brilliant thinker, with the most disciplined thought process and intellectual honesty than any other person I have ever met. And that is saying a lot. At an early age, Dr. Schwarz was able to identify the philosophy of communism--Marxism and Leninism--as the major threat of that day to the human race. He spent decades of his life exploring and exposing the basic ideas of Marx and Lenin and other communist thinkers. He was sounding the alarm as to the logical consequences of those ideas. Most anti-communists in the United States at that time never got in greater depth than that of a cliche. They were opposed to communism. ``The dirty rotten commies.'' But even though they were using these cliches, they didn't have an inkling as to what the actual philosophy and tenets of communism were all about. Dr. Schwarz saw communism as an evil religion that corrupted the human sole to the point that idealistic people all over the world, humane people, were turned into murderers and mass slaughter was taking place. People were executed. And yet, even thoughtful people in our own society whose thought patterns were corrupted by Leninism and Marxism ignored this mass slaughter that was going on in the communist world, and sometimes even excused it. From Lenin to Stalin, from Castro to Pol Pot, it was no freak accident that every regime led by people who believed in communism ended up with mass killing and the debasement of civilized and human values. And yes, ended up with having people who flirted with this Marxism and Leninism, were affected in some way by the philosophy, ignoring that torturous existence that the people who lived under communism had to endure. Dr. Schwarz took it upon himself to educate as many people as he could, especially opinion makers and future leaders, not only about the evil doings associated with communism, but also with the ideology itself that resulted in these evil consequences. In fact, one of the Dr. Schwarz's favorite quotes was ``ideas have consequences.'' Thus, it was vital in the Cold War years that the basic ideas and concepts of this evil theory that threatened the world and threaten to bring upon the human race death and misery wherever it happened, it was vital that we understood the basis of this philosophy and what was causing these evil things to happen in the world. In those days, communism could propagandize about creating a more peaceful world and benevolent society, even as they turned whole countries into concentration camps and murdered anyone who resisted their power, and murdered anyone who was related to anyone who resisted. Dr. Schwarz was an Australian, but when he realized that the Cold War would be won or lost by the strength and conviction of the American people, he moved here and became a major educational force teaching young and old alike about the inherent danger that lurked in Marxist- Leninist philosophy. He was a disciplined intellectual, and had no fear in engaging in direct confrontations and disagreements. He was always seeking the truth. He would never put up with faulty logic or inaccuracy of fact on our side or on their side. Now somewhat forgotten, perhaps ignored, the fact is he had a major impact. He had a major impact on the American conservative movement, giving substance and depth to anti-communist activists that were such an important part of that movement. He thus equipped the intellectual soldiers who eventually won the Cold War. He equipped them with what they needed to understand in order to understand the Cold War. I owe so much to Dr. Schwarz. The education he gave me was invaluable. From the time I went to Saigon in 1967 during the height of the Vietnam War in search of young political leaders to enlist in the anti-communist cause, to the time I marched arm in arm with anti-Soviet activists in the streets of Prague in 1968, what he taught me could be very well seen in those locations in that day of the evils of communism. And what he taught me helped me all the way through the time I was a journalist, all of the time I spent in the 1980s writing hard- hitting, anti-communist speeches in the White House for President Ronald Reagan. Of course, over these last 20 years as a Member of Congress, what Dr. Schwarz taught me has served me well and helped equip me to serve my country and to serve the cause of freedom. Speaking of President Reagan, it is significant that President Ronald Reagan was the master of ceremonies, before he was President, of course, at several rallies conducted by Dr. Fred Schwarz during the 1960s. Dr. Schwarz's Christian anti-communist crusade drew thousands to rallies and seminars. And I have no doubt that Ronald Reagan's anti- communist attitude, as well as his understanding, were to a great degree shaped by Dr. Fred Schwarz. Early on as a union leader, Ronald Reagan knew that he was anti-communist. But after Dr. Schwarz, Ronald Reagan knew why he was an anti-communist. I was not the only Ronald Reagan speech writer who subscribed to Dr. Schwarz. Tony Dolan, Ronald Reagan's chief speech writer who worked with Ronald Reagan on the Evil Empire speech and other historic utterances, was a devotee of Dr. Schwarz. Dr. Schwarz gave us the intellectual ammunition to relegate communism to the dust bin of history. All of us who he equipped to do battle remember him and are grateful to him. He has been laid to rest now in his native Australia, and I pay tribute to him, along with the other Cold War warriors, for the contributions that he made to us as individuals and to the cause to which we were all so dedicated. And yes, we as a global coalition of free men and women defeated the Soviet Union without an all-out war with Russia because we defeated their ideas and understood their ideas and fought them at that level as well as with weapons. One of the factors that helped us win was that we understood and defeated the ideology behind that communist tyranny. Thank you, Dr. Schwarz, for helping us learn what we needed to learn and to know what we needed to know and then to do what we needed to do. I will submit for the Record an obituary of Dr. Schwarz to give a small background on Dr. Schwarz. [From the Christian Today, Australia, Jan. 30, 2009] Fred Schwarz, RIP (By Bill Muehlenberg) Jesus once said that a prophet is without honour, except in his own country. One of the greatest Australian prophets of the past century has just passed away, and nothing that I am aware of about his passing can be found in the Australian mainstream media. While Australia has many heroes--especially sporting figures and movie stars--perhaps the greatest hero to arise from Australia in recent times has been totally overlooked by our secular, leftist media. I refer to Dr Fred Schwarz, who died earlier this week at age 96. Schwarz was a successful medical doctor originally from Brisbane. He left a successful medical practice in Sydney, although with a young family, to devote his whole attention to warning people about the dangers of atheistic communism. Born in 1913, he accepted Christ as his personal saviour in 1934. In the mid 1940s he began his medical work. He combined this with active Christian work, and also became aware of the threat of Communism during this period. He soon was reading everything he could find on the topic, especially the source materials. Each night he devoured the works of the founders of Communism. Thus his wife Lillian would quip that she often found four men in her bed: Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Fred. He soon was debating leading Australian Communists. He became aware that most Christians were clueless as to the menace of totalitarian Marxism, and he dedicated his life to educating the public, and the church, about these dangers. He was invited to speak in America in 1950. He was urged to form an organisation dedicated to instructing people about the Communist threat, and how it is the polar opposite of Biblical Christianity. In 1953 he established the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade (CACC). He closed his Sydney medical practice in 1955 and devoted the rest of his life to this project, moving to America to fully engage in the work. In 1960 his best-selling book was published, You Can Trust The Communists (to be Communists). I picked up a secondhand copy of this book in Madison, Wisconsin in the mid-80s. He said this in the book, ``In the battle against Communism, there is no substitute for accurate, specific knowledge. Ignorance is evil and paralytic.'' This book and this ministry were profoundly influential. They influenced a generation of Americans who would do battle against the Communist foe. These include such luminaries as Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, Jack Kemp, James Jobson and James Kennedy. Schwarz had countless debates with Communists, gave countless speeches and talks on the subject, and wrote countless articles, booklets and books on the topic. His life was energetic, passionate, and committed to standing up for biblical Christianity, and warning against the Marxist evils. When asked which was more dangerous, the external or internal threat of Communism, Fred would reply, ``If you were on a ship that was sinking, which would be the greatest danger, the water outside or the water inside? I was illustrating that the external and internal forces were manifestations of the same danger.'' And the dangers were very real indeed. In one of his first pamphlets Schwarz argued that Communism is a disease: ``Communism has already killed many millions of people and proposes to kill many millions more. Therefore, by definition, it is a disease. It is a threefold disease. It is a disease of the body, because it kills; it is a disease of the mind, because it is associated with systemized delusions not susceptible to rational argument; and it is a disease of the spirit, because it denies God, materializes man, robs him of spirit and soul, and, in the last analysis, even of the mind itself, and reduces him to the level of a beast of the field.'' And even though atheistic, Schwarz could clearly see that it was a religion, albeit a false religion, and the main contender against Christianity. He noted that many ex- Communists have spoken of the religious nature of Communism. When people charged Schwarz with bias, he confessed: ``I plead guilty. We are biased in favour of truth, freedom, and life; we are against deceit, slavery, and unnecessary death. We believe that Communism leads to classicide through the liquidation of the bourgeoisie, that it leads to the justification and practice of mass murder.'' But, critics will complain, what about the good of Communism? ``In rebuttal I explained that a pathologist is a specialist in the characteristics of a disease, not health, and that a mixture of good and evil is often more deadly than an undiluted evil.'' The complete and incredible story of this modern prophet is told in his autobiography, Beating the Unbeatable Foe (Regnery, 1996). This 600-page story is an inspiring read, and shows us the dedication, zeal and perseverance of this one amazing individual. It tells of the waves of opposition, not just from the Communists and the Soviet Union, but from leftist, liberal allies and ``useful idiots,'' to use Lenin's phrase. The lies, deceit, slander, and malicious attacks on Dr. Schwarz were relentless and are mind-boggling to read about. Yet despite all this incessant opposition and attack, he remained steadfast to his calling. The book also speaks about how the Christian churches were especially targeted by the Communists. Internal subversion was an important tactic of the Communists. And many churchmen of course were completely taken in by the Communist propaganda. One notable thing that struck me as I read this book was that a very similar battle is being waged today, and there is a similar need for accurate information to withstand a vicious enemy. I refer to militant Islam, and the war it is waging against the free West. The parallels between its internal and external attacks are so close to what we found in the Communist offensive. And in the same way today many Christians are completely ignorant of the threat to the Christian church, or are being duped by various ``peace'' initiatives and interfaith endeavours. In the same way that many believers were hoodwinked by the Communists last century, many believers today are being deceived by the Islamists and their interfaith supporters. Dr. Schwarz eventually returned to Sydney where he has now finally received his eternal reward. This man was a modern- day saint, a genuine prophet, and a tireless worker for Christ and his Kingdom. He achieved more in his lifetime than most people ever will. Yet incredibly I still cannot find any news of his death, or any obituaries or eulogies about this remarkable man. Like Jesus, he was certainly a prophet without honour in his own land. But his life and work deserve to be widely heralded. And if no one else will, I most certainly will. God bless you richly Fred Schwarz. I would also like now to rise in honor of another heroic champion of freedom, a distinguished scholar, a Cold War strategist, a man who, yes, like Dr. Schwarz did not get all of the recognition that he deserved, but those of us who were involved in the final days of the Cold War and the implementation of an anti-communist strategy that worked, we remember Constantine Menges. Constantine Menges passed away in 2004. Again, like Dr. Schwarz, there was not a great deal of attention that was paid to his passing, yet he had been a powerful force in shaping the world in which we live. He was a profound thinker. Constantine Menges had a Ph.D. He was someone who thought things out in the long run, and had tremendous historical perspectives which he shared with us. He was the one who put together the strategies and the maneuvers that would end the Cold War with the defeat of the Soviet Union while minimizing the chances of all-out war between the Soviet Union and the United States. Although it wasn't called it then at the time, the Reagan Doctrine-- that strategy of confronting Soviet expansionism without confronting the Soviet Army itself with American troops--this idea flowed from a basic strategy laid forward originally, as far as my first contact with it, from Constantine Menges, who was, at that time, a senior National Intelligence Officer for Latin America at the Central Intelligence Agency under William Casey--of course that was during Ronald Reagan's administration. I remember him showing me that plan. I also remember that basic plan later when Dr. Jack Wheeler stepped forward and said, I'm going to go out and meet the various people of these anti-Soviet insurgencies and anti-Soviet movements throughout the world so that we can put a face to that strategy. And then of course we had Oliver North, who was then working in the White House to help that insurgency in Nicaragua that helped turn the tide there. Constantine Menges was the man who strategized these moves, the man who then, after working in the CIA--and serving CIA Director Bill Casey very well--was brought to the White House. And there in the White House he fought the internal battles that made sure that strategy worked. President Reagan had signed on to that strategy--the Reagan Doctrine-- of defeating the Soviet Union by supporting those folks in various parts of the world who themselves were resisting Soviet expansionism. But you would think, well, that just speaks for itself, of course we should have done that. Well, in the 1980s, that was not something that was just taken for granted. The fact is that there were people within the Reagan administration itself who were constantly trying to undermine that strategy. For example, I just mentioned Oliver North, who was actually in the National Security Council, along with others--by the way, for only 1 year, with our help to the insurgents who were trying to fight the Sandinista dictatorship in Nicaragua, only for 1 year was that not a legal operation. And the years before we gave hundreds of millions of dollars, and the years after that hundreds of millions of dollars were given to support that resistance movement. But constantly there was this effort by people within the Reagan administration--and also from without, I might add, people here in Congress--who were trying to undermine our support for those who were trying to force democracy and democratic elections on the Sandinista dictatorship. And what was one of the major issues? It was whether or not we should cease our support for these insurgents before or after the Sandinista permitted free elections. And there were those who were trying to pressure Ronald Reagan, people within the administration--and I might say, I believe that our Secretary of State Schultz supported this position--of actually cutting off our arms to the anti-Sandinista insurgency before the Sandinista dictatorship actually permitted the elections to take place. With Constantine Menges constantly at Reagan's side reminding him that, no, what would work is only after the elections we will pledge, no matter how the elections come out, that we will withdraw our military support for those people in that insurgency, without that, we would have withdrawn our support and the Sandinistas would never have permitted a democratic election because they were committed to the same type of philosophy that you have in Cuba and in other communist countries; they were Marxist-Leninists. As Dr. Schwarz would say, you can trust the communists to be a communist. And Marxist-Leninists don't believe in democracy. And unless we were forcing them to, they would not have permitted free elections. And once those elections happened in Nicaragua--which was a tribute not only to the championship and to the courage of those people who fought that insurgency, but also a tribute to the Ollie Norths and the Constantine Mengeses who were fighting the inside fight. If we would not have done that, there would never have been those free elections. And with those elections, the Sandinistas were soundly defeated. By an American standard, that election was a landslide against them. So what happened? There was a solid move to democracy in that region because what we had done is we had thwarted the Soviet Union's strategy of their own to catch the United States by surprise and undermine our security by supporting those pro-communist elements in Latin America, supporting the guerrilla movements in Latin America. And that base of operations was going to be in Nicaragua. We put the Nicaraguan communists on the defensive, and by doing so, we permitted Central America to have a chance for freedom. And sure enough, the countries in Central America have been stalwarts for democracy in the years since the end of the Cold War. They have benefited by the Constantine Mengeses, who worked their hearts out inside the White House and outside the White House to make sure that they had the political support and the strategic support they needed to establish democracies there. Constantine Menges wrote book after book. His last book that I remember dealt with the emerging threat of China, but he was also very focused on Latin America and warned us about potential inroads being made in Venezuela, for example. So tonight we remember Constantine. And we are grateful to Dr. Fred Schwarz, we're grateful to Ollie North, we're grateful to Dr. Jack Wheeler, we're grateful to Constantine Menges. These are individuals whose names most people don't know. Without them, freedom wouldn't have had a chance during the Cold War. But yet, we won the Cold War without actual warfare between the Soviet Union and the United States and, again, democracy was secured in Central America. Unfortunately, now in Latin America we see an ominous trend, a very ominous trend, when we see the rise of a left-wing, semi-Marxist Cedillo in Venezuela, this Chavez, this boisterous anti-American, we see him aligning himself with communist Cuba, one of the last communist dictatorships in the world. And again, we see this in Bolivia. But yet, we see ominous trends. For example, in Nicaragua itself, the pro- democratic elements of that society were split, and they ended up with the Sandinista, the thugs from the old Sandinista Marxist regime returning to power even though they only had 40 percent of the vote. The 60 percent of the vote that was anticommunist was split, and that in itself is an ominous trend. And then of course we have the elections that will be coming up this weekend in El Salvador. And from what I understand, it is within a margin of error now, it's neck in neck, who will be elected to be the government of that country. El Salvador has had a solid and a stable democracy all of these years since the end of the Cold War, since Ronald Reagan determined we would be supporting not right-wing dictators to defeat communism, but instead, we would solidly support democratic elements. Otto Reich, one of the champions during the Reagan years, testified just yesterday that when Ronald Reagan became President of the United States, 90 percent of Latin America was under right-wing military dictators. When Ronald Reagan left, 90 percent of Latin America was under democratic rule and governed by people who had been elected in free elections. What a tremendous, tremendous legacy. But now that legacy is a threat because the people of these countries have learned to take that democracy for granted and to forget the basic nature of those Marxists and Leninists who tried to implement, tried to impose communist dictatorship on those countries back in the 1980s. Well, now the FMLN--which was a terrorist organization, basically a Marxist-Leninist military arm back in the 1980s which tried, by force, to become the government of El Salvador--since then they have been operating within the democratic process; but this same group that would have imposed a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship now has a chance of winning the elections in El Salvador. Free people should be alarmed, especially the people of El Salvador. They have learned to take for granted the stability, the progress, the democratic rights that they have. The FMLN is made up of people who have allied themselves with al Qaeda, Iran, Cuba, and other state sponsors of terrorism. For example, the current vice presidential candidate of the FMLN, that candidate, a few days after 9/11, celebrated the attack on the United States with a demonstration in El Salvador and burned American flags and claimed that America had brought 9/11 upon ourselves. That's the kind of leadership, that's the kind of belligerence represented by the FMLN. Now, the people of El Salvador have every right to elect whoever they want to head their government, whether it's the FMLN, or anyone else-- certainly no one is suggesting otherwise, but obviously there are consequences that need to be considered when choosing who your leader will be. In this case, all of the cooperation, all of the economic cooperation, all of the stability that we've had, the friendship that we've had could be destroyed if the FMLN, a political party in El Salvador that is hostile to the United States--they hate the United States. And if you elect someone who hates the United States, then the people of El Salvador cannot expect that there will be a good relationship between our countries. Now, if the people of El Salvador want to have a bad relationship with the United States, they don't want to have the same type of economic policies, fine, they should elect the Marxist FMLN. But if they want to be friends of the United States, they should understand that you can't elect people who celebrate 9/11 and say good things about al Qaeda and ally themselves with Marxist dictatorships and think that they're going to have the same positive relationship with us. In this case, we have had very positive economic policies for which we bestowed upon the Government of El Salvador because it was democratic and because it was friendly to the United States. Those economic policies will not stand up if the Government of El Salvador is hostile to us or hates us, or is anti-democratic, or starts--as the tough guy in Nicaragua has done, he has already started to repress his own people and to use a heavy hand in place of a democratic process in that country. So the people of El Salvador need to think about what relationship do you want to have? What will it cost us if we have an anti-American government? Well, today there are over $4 billion that come from El Salvadorians who are in the United States in remittances, $4 billion from these people who are here, who are El Salvadorians, flow into El Salvador. Now, they're called remittances. Well, we do not need to permit those remittances; we do this as a favor to that country and to try to help its economy. But if we have an anti-American government there, that issue will be hotly debated in the United States Congress. If you have a country that is run by people who burn American flags and congratulate al Qaeda terrorists for flying planes into our buildings and killing thousands of Americans, yes, we will have an honest debate about whether or not we should restrict the billions of dollars that now flow in remittances from the United States to El Salvador. If people want to vote for that there, they have every right, and we respect that. That's democracy. But we, too, will respond. And we, too, will have things that we have to do to protect our interests if we have a country that is allying themselves with the people who slaughtered our American citizens on 9/11. We can't expect to permit the free flow of billions of dollars to continue if that's the case. That shall be solidly debated if the FMLN is brought to power. So we need to make sure that good people who support democracy throughout this hemisphere, who we helped during the wars in the 1980s, that they do not then become complacent and take all of the democracy and progress that has happened there for granted. There was tremendous chaos in the seventies and eighties in Latin America and Central America. People don't need that anymore. They don't need the hatred and the vitriol that was down there and all of the anti-Americanism--and the outside interference, I might add, that came in when the Soviet Union pumped a billion dollars worth of military equipment into Nicaragua thinking they were going to roll up Latin America. Well, brave people in Latin America stood against Marxism- Leninism then. They should continue to do so because, in the end, all of us, what kind of country we live in is in our hands. We wish the people of El Salvador well; we do, we wish them well. We wish them a successful election. We hope that they will remain friends of the United States. Unfortunately, I know there is a large number of Members of Congress who signed on to a letter suggesting whatever happens in the election, it's not going to make any difference in American policy. Well, those Members of Congress, and many of them are my friends, they have a more liberal left outlook in life than I do, and I can say that they're misguided in presenting that to the people of El Salvador. The fact is that what happens in this election will have impact on our relations, and it is not just something that the people can elect an anti-American government and expect everything to stay the same. So I hope we remain friends. I hope the people of El Salvador vote to be friends. But if they don't, that is their right to do so. I think it would be much more beneficial for the people of El Salvador and other Latin American countries to remain good friends of the United States rather than attaching their future to the likes of Hugo Chavez and other despots and bellicose Cedilloses. These military strongmen who are in the right wing that dominated Latin America back in the 1960s, that was a tragedy for the people of Latin America, and that was a tragedy that the United States did not oppose that type of authoritarian rule as much as we should have. And it was Ronald Reagan that turned that around, and I am very proud that during Ronald Reagan's administration that we stood for democracy, not just anti-communism; and that with Constantine Menges there to help us strategize, we turned back the tide of communism in Latin America and throughout the world, and we created a better world without having the kind of nuclear exchange or massive military fight with the Soviet army that was predicted so often back in the 1950s and 1960s. So tonight we look back on the heroes, the heroes of the Cold War who brought about a more peaceful and a more democratic world. And we reach out to those people now in Latin America who are making decisions, making the decisions as to whether or not they're going to take for granted what was accomplished during this pro-democratic revolution that took place under Ronald Reagan and took place at great risk and great hardship for the people in Central America. Now is not the time to go back to Marxism-Leninism with another face. Let's again go back to Dr. Fred Schwarz. Dr. Schwarz told us that if you really read what the communists and the Leninists believe, you will see that they believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat. You will see they believe in the centralization of power, the arrogant ``we know what's best for everyone'' notion that results in dictatorship every time but also results in poverty and results in a decline in the standard of living and results in conflict with other peoples. Latin America nor anywhere else in the world needs the conflict, needs the repression that will come with a resurgence of Marxist-Leninists who now put on a democratic face and say, no, we're actually different now. Well, maybe they aren't using guns, but putting them in power in any way will not make this a better world or a better country. That is for people of each country to decide for themselves. We wish all of those people, whether in El Salvador or elsewhere, free elections, open discussion, open debate. I hope that my words today will be seen as part of the debate here as to what we should do if indeed a change in policy happens and a change in leadership happens in El Salvador so that we will know what policies will change if indeed the FMLN, which was a Marxist-Leninist terrorist group back in the 1960s and 1970s, whether or not, if that group comes to power, what changes will be brought about. With that said, Mr. Speaker, I would also put into the Record at this point an obituary about Mr. Constantine Menges, dated July 14, 2004. [From the Washington Post, July 14, 2004] Constantine Menges; National Security Aide (By Joe Holley) Constantine Menges, 64, a national security aide for Latin America during the Reagan administration who had a central role in planning the U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983, and who focused on the continuing threat of communism in books and numerous articles, died of cancer July 11 at Sibley Memorial Hospital. He lived in the District. At the time of his death, Dr. Menges was a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a public policy think tank. His recent work had focused on the threat to the United States of a growing pro-Castro alliance throughout Latin America; state- sponsored terrorism, including what he considered Iran's subversion of Iraq; and the rise of China as a superpower. Dr. Menges had just completed the manuscript for a book titled ``China, the Gathering Threat: The Strategic Challenge of China and Russia.'' He also was the author of a memoir, ``Inside the National Security Council,'' several other books, and numerous articles. Dr. Menges was born in Ankara, Turkey, the son of political refugees from Nazi Germany. The Menges family, fearing that Turkey would enter the war as an ally of the Axis powers, moved from place to place through war-torn Europe. The family arrived in the United States in 1943. Dr. Menges received a bachelor's degree in physics from Columbia College and a doctorate in political science from Columbia University. He taught political science at the University of Wisconsin before joining the Rand Corp. He entered government service in the late 1970s, first as assistant director for civil rights, then as deputy assistant secretary for education in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. From 1981 to 1983, he was a national intelligence officer for Latin American affairs at the Central Intelligence Agency under Director William Casey. From 1983 to 1986, he worked for the National Security Council as a special assistant to the president, specializing in Latin America. In ``President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime,'' author Lou Cannon described Dr. Menges as one of a cadre of National Security Council aides who believed, as did Casey, ``that the West should be mobilized to fight Communists with their own methods.'' Cannon described Dr. Menges ``as one of the most forceful of these polemicists'' and ``a principled conservative.'' White House and State Department pragmatists, according to Cannon, dubbed him ``Constant Menace,'' a play on his name, for his ardent support of action, covert and otherwise, against Nicaraguan Sandinistas and Salvadoran rebels. Deeply involved in White House support for the Nicaraguan contras, Dr. Menges also argued that an American strategy for combating communism in Latin America should include suppression of right-wing death squads and promotion of land reform. ``He believed that the United States should compete with the Soviets in sponsorship of `national liberation movements' in Third World nations,'' Cannon wrote. Dr. Menges contended that the invasion of Grenada helped avert a possible Grenada nuclear deployment crisis and strengthened President Ronald Reagan's hand in deploying intermediate-range missiles in Europe in late 1983. From 1990 to 2000, Dr. Menges was a professor at George Washington University, where he founded and directed the program on Transitions to Democracy. His work on democratic transitions included the post-communist states, Iraq, Iran and the Americas. He also began a project on U.S. relations with Russia and China and the new Russia-China alignment. In articles that appeared regularly in The Washington Post, the Washington Times, the New York Times, the New Republic and other publications, Dr. Menges continued to warn that the communist threat persisted. In a Washington Post opinion article in 2001, he wrote that ``Russia and China are using mostly political and covert means to oppose the United States on security issues and to divide America from its allies.'' As a college student, Dr. Menges helped individuals escape communist East Berlin in 1961, and in 1963, he worked in Mississippi as a volunteer for equal voting rights. Survivors include his wife of 29 years, Nancy Menges, and a son, Christopher, both of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that in this country we have demonstrated to the world something really important, and that is that we have had a shift in power in the United States. And I hope people see that the Republicans and the Democrats stood there and applauded as our new President was sworn in. We wish this country success, and we wish this President success. We may have a difference of opinion on how to achieve success, but we all are rooting for people who fundamentally believe that democratic dialogue like the one I'm talking about and democratic process is the answer to the future.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, El Salvador is a good friend of the United States. And after we suffered the attacks of 9/11, most Salvadorans kept us in their prayers. But one group felt differently. The FMLN, a pro terrorist, Left wing party in El Salvador, issued a communique that the U.S., because of its policies, was itself to blame for being attacked. The U.S. embassy publicly denounced that declaration, yet the FMLN is now poised to possibly enter into the government in El Salvador. Four days after 9/11, the FMLN had a march in their capital city to celebrate the 9/11 attack by Al-Qaeda and to burn the American flag. The leader of that march was Salvador Sanchez Ceren, who today is the FMLN's candidate for El Salvadoran Vice President. El Salvador's election is on Sunday. If an ally of Al-Qaeda and Iran comes to power in El Salvador, the national security interests of the United States will require certain immigration restrictions and controls over the flow of the $4 billion in annual remittances sent from the U.S. back home to El Salvador. Let me note, that my purpose is not to punish Salvadorans, but if a pro-terrorism government takes power, it will be imperative to review our policies in order to protect the national security of the United States. Statement on United States Policy Regarding the FMLN, Temporary Protected Immigration Status, Money Transfers and U.S. National Security

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I thank the co-chairman of the Tibet Caucus. I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I would like to thank both leaders of both parties here, Howard Berman and, of course, Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for all of the hard work they've done over the years to support the cause of the people of Tibet. But also I would like to point out that Nancy Pelosi, our esteemed Speaker, has over her career put out enormous efforts on this issue, and it's an issue of the heart and the soul. And that's why you see people in both parties who have committed themselves to this noble endeavor of supporting a people in a distant land somewhere on the top of the world on the other side of the Earth, supporting them in their call for recognition of their human rights and for us to recognize that, instead of dealing with tyrants and bullies and gangsters in Beijing, a regime in Beijing that oppresses their own people. They are also the world's worst human rights abuser, and the regime in Beijing is the oppressor of this actually peace-loving people on the other side of the world, the Tibetan people. One-sixth of the population of Tibet have lost their lives in this five decades of suppression. Thousands of their monasteries have been looted and destroyed. Their national treasure, the gold from their religious artifacts, robbed from them. And, yes, we would tell the Foreign Minister of that dictatorship in Beijing, yes, one-fourth of the territory now claimed by that dictatorship is actually the ancestral home of the Tibetan people. And we know that over these five decades of suppression that the regime in Beijing has tried their best to send other people into Tibet to steal their country. Not only to steal their artifacts and close their monasteries, but to actually rob from them their very country. And, yes, we, as honest people, should recognize this is Tibet when we talk about that area on the map. The Tibetan people, as the other people in China, have suffered because the United States and other free countries have treated Beijing as if it is a moral equivalent to the other countries that we deal with in the world. We must differentiate between the vicious dictators who obliterate their opposition and repress their own people. We must differentiate between them and the democratic forces of the world. Our job as Americans, as set forth by George Washington, whose picture we see now overseeing these proceedings, we were given the task to ensure that the light of democracy will shine bright. It does not shine bright on governments that turn their back on the oppression that we have seen by Beijing, the suppression of the people of Tibet, which we recognize today in these five decades of suppression. So today let us recognize that the Dalai Lama has been a force for peace and freedom and justice in this world. We wish him all the best. We wish the people of Tibet the best. And we are on their side. This resolution says the American people, of whatever political party is not important, that we are on the side of the people of Tibet, and they should have no doubts about this and the government in Beijing that suppresses them should have no doubts about that as well.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the requirements of the Republican Conference of the House, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I requested, which are included in the reported version of HR 1105, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Requesting Member: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46) Bill Number: HR 1105, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Name of Project: Heim Bridge Replacement Project Account: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), TCSP--Transportation & Community & System Preservation Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority Address of Requesting Entity: One Civic Plaza, Suite 350, Carson, CA 90745 Description of Request: I received $380,000 for the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority's Alameda Corridor Project. The SR- 47 Expressway project is a joint partnership between the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to replace the State's seismically deficient Commodore Heim Bridge over Cerritos Channel and add a four lane elevated roadway to by-pass intersections and railroad crossings. The project will replace one of the seismically deficient bridges listed on the Department of Transportation's list of structurally deficient bridges. The 2.2 mile long SR-47 Expressway project will enhance the efficient and secure movement of international trade at the nation's largest port complex, as well as reduce congestion, improve air quality and public safety. The project will provide an alternate route that will by-pass three traffic signalized intersections and five at-grade rail crossings. The SR-47 Expressway will be an attractive alternative to the I-710 and I-110 Freeways and adjoining Terminal Island bridges for truck access to local warehouse districts and rail loading facilities thus reducing congestion and improving traffic flows on the freeways. It is my understanding Caltrans will contribute $332,000,000 to the project. In addition, preliminary engineering and environmental evaluation work at a cost of approximately $13 million has been funded by available ACTA revenue bonds and other state sources. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46) Bill Number: HR 1105, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009 Name of Project: Bluff Top Park Account: FHWA, Transportation and Community Systems Preservation Program Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Huntington Beach, CA Address of Requesting Entity: 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Description of Request: I received $95,000 for the city of Huntington Beach's Bluff Top Park project. Bluff Top Park bike and pedestrian trails, park facilities and access roads are key elements adding to the economic viability of the beach as a tourist attraction. If the bluff area is left in its present condition, access to and enjoyment of the beach in that area will be limited. This limitation places serious constraints on the beach facilities as an economic resource to the City, region and State. The Bluff Top Park and the adjacent bike trails are regional coastal facilities used by over 850,000 visitors per year. Approximately 11 million State, National and International visitors come to Huntington Beach annually. Tourism is a major industry in Orange County and the State of California. The City's coastline is not just an extraordinary natural resource; it also represents an economic resource for the City, the State, and the Nation that cannot be neglected. To date, the City has contributed $4.5 million for improvements to the area. The City has also received two grants totaling $858,000 for the project. Funds will be used for technical assistance to provide plans, specifications and estimates for the design of the project. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46) Bill Number: HR 1105, the Consolidate Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Name of Project: California Coastal Sediment Master Plan Account: Corps of Engineers, General Investigations Legal Name of Requesting Entity: County of Los Angeles, Beaches & Harbor Department Address of Requesting Entity: 13837 Fiji Way, Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Description of Request: I received $822,000 for the County of Los Angeles' California Coastal Sediment Master Plan project. The California Coastal Sediment Master Plan (CCSMP) is a collaborative effort between the Corps of Engineers and a number of State/local agencies to survey the entire California Coastline to develop regional approaches to managing resources and strategies to replenish the coastline with sediment, including the Los Angeles County coastline. Over the years, human development has severally restricted the flow of sediment to the coastline (such as through sediment build up behind dams or through sediment being trapped underneath rivers/creeks that become paved flood control channels). The CCSMP when complete will provide critical assistance for properly managing and protecting California's coastal resources through strategies that lead to informed decisions and planning. The Corps will continue in FY 09 its intensive data collection effort through local public scoping meetings, along with ongoing development of GIS applications to manage the voluminous data and GIS-based sediment models in collaboration with local research universities. Some of the final products of this effort will also include an internal mapping server (IMS) webpage and development of regional sediment management plans. This plan is critical to ensure proper management, replenishment, and protection of California's coastal sediment resources through informed decisions and planning. Since the California Coastline holds important environmental, economic, cultural, and recreation benefits for the nation, halting the harmful effects of human development (both coastal and inland) is a significant national purpose. The primary non-federal sponsor for the study is the California Department of Boating and Waterways. This Department has provided all of the matching study support in the form of in-kind services. Funding for the in-kind work has come from various California State resources. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46) Bill Number: HR 1105, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Name of Project: Clean Fuel Bus Purchase Account: FTA, Bus and Bus Facilities Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Long Beach Transit Address of Requesting Entity: 1963 E. Anaheim Street, Long Beach, CA 90813 Description of Request: I received $950,000 for Long Beach Transit's Clean Fuel Bus Purchase project. The federal government defines a bus' useful life as twelve years and requires local transit operators to replace buses when they are determined to be at the end of their useful life. Long Beach Transit is working to replace their 40-foot diesel buses, which are at the end of their useful life as defined by FTA, with hybrid gasoline-electric buses. In addition, Long Beach Transit is located in the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which, unfortunately, ranks last in the state of California for air quality standards. This project will improve air quality, in a region that has the most need for improvement, by removing diesel buses from the road and replacing them with clean fuel buses. It is my understanding that funds will go towards the purchasing of new clean busses at a cost of $550,000 per bus. Other funds will come from the Transportation Development Act, Proposition 1B Bond, and local sales tax revenue to fund capital improvement projects. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46) Bill Number: HR 1105, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Name of Project: Orange County District Attorney DNA Expansion Project Account: Department of Justice, COPS Law Enforcement Technology Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Orange County District Attorney Address of Requesting Entity: 401 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701 Description of Request: I received $500,000 for the Orange County District Attorney's DNA expansion project. Currently, throughout the country, law enforcement DNA laboratories are backlogged and must focus on the most violent of crimes, such as homicides and rapes. Due to these backlogs, ``volume crimes'' such as burglaries, auto thefts, auto burglaries, robberies, etc. are either ``not processed'' or significantly delayed. It is not uncommon for a residential burglary case to take a year or more to get DNA results, if the case is processed at all. In the meantime, the burglar is out in the community committing crime after crime. It is well documented that those who commit burglaries, also commit other crimes. These crimes include, but are not limited to, rapes, homicides, robberies, gang violence, drug possession and sales, carjacking, auto theft, etc. The proposed project will enable the OCDA to significantly expand its DNA collection and processing efforts. Funds would provide for three DNA mobile collection vehicles that would travel to the five branch courts in Orange County to collect DNA on site from offenders and volunteers. Funds would also provide for related equipment, supplies and DNA processing. By catching criminals with the evidence they leave behind in volume crimes, the OCDA will be preventing a series of undetected or unsolved crimes in our communities. The Orange County District Attorney anticipates significant contributions from the county towards the establishment of the project, and when fully funded funds will be used for the following: DNA mobile collection vehicles (3 @ $300,000/each)--$900,000 DNA equipment, supplies and analysis--$1,000,000 Includes DNA kits, DNA processing and local data base populating-- $1,900,000 I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46) Bill Number: HR 1105, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Name of Project: Virtual Interactive Training Center Account: Department of Justice, OJP Byrne Discretionary Grants- Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Golden West College Address of Requesting Entity: 15744 Golden West Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92672 Description of Request: I received $500,000 for Golden West College's Virtual Interactive Training Center. Funds will be used to purchase a virtual training facility for regional law enforcement. In particular, the Virtual Interactive Combat Environment provides a system well suited to Orange County's needs. This system enables team-based tactics, techniques, and procedures training that closely reflect live training, but at a much lower cost to departments over time. The simulator offers a cost-effective approach by creating an engaging virtual training solution. The system immerses the trainee in a realistic 3-D environment, with the sense of immersion being enhanced both by the high-fidelity situational rendering and by the ease of navigating through the environment using simple controls mounted on the tether-free simulated weapons. Golden West College will be contributing $240,000 toward the project. Fully funded, funds will be used as follows: For the system hardware, software and simulated weapons--$463,432 For the trailer classroom--$252,221 Truck with towing package--$66,623 Training of instructors on virtual training system--$58,513 Twelve training databases and scenarios--$109,211 I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46) Bill Number: HR 1105, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Name of Project: Ground Water Replenishment System Account: Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Related Resources--Title XVI Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Orange County Water District Address of Requesting Entity: 18700 Ward Street, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Description of Request: I received $558,000 for the Orange County Water District's Ground Water Replenishment System. The Groundwater Replenishment (GWR) System is a jointly funded project of the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and the Orange County Sanitation District. This historic joint project is the culmination of OCWD's 75 years of experience managing the groundwater basin under north and central Orange County that supplies water to 21 cities and water agencies, and OCSD's longtime mission to protect the environment by safely treating the wastewater of over 2.5 million residents. The GWR System takes 70 million gallons of treated sewer water per day from OCSD, and puts it through an advanced purification process at OCWD which is comprised of three major components: (1) Micro-filtration; (2) Reverse Osmosis; and (3) ultraviolet light and hydrogen peroxide treatment. Once purified to levels which exceed drinking water standards, the GWR System water is either pumped through a pipeline to percolation ponds, where it naturally filters into the aquifer and blends with the groundwater, or is injected into the seawater intrusion barrier along the coast. While the groundwater basin currently provides approximately 70 percent of all water used within north and central Orange County, the GWR System will produce enough new water for over half-a-million residents, further lessening Orange County's dependence on imported waters from the Delta and the Colorado River. The GWR System is an effective response to meeting the federal mandate to decrease California's dependency on imported waters from the Colorado River, by creating a ``new'' source of water to serve an additional 560,000 residents a year in northern and central Orange County. The current method of moving water through the Delta to the pumps of the California State Water Project and Central Valley Projects is in jeopardy due to recent environmental rulings. The GWR System diminishes the region's reliance on uncertain imported water supplies. In addition to creating a reliable water source, the project creates new wastewater treatment capacity, reducing the amount of outfall during storms to the Pacific Ocean, preserving the country's vital coast, and provides all these benefits with fewer gas emissions than when importing water from the California State Water Project. Funds will be used for the Ground Water Replenishment Process Control System. It is my understanding that the following institutions plan to contribute to the project in the given amounts, State of California Department of Water Resources and Proposition 13 Grants, 2002 and 2000, $67,000,000 was funded. California State Water Resources Control Board, 2001, $5,000,000 was funded. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000, $500,000 was funded. Orange County Water District's contribution is $196,750,000 (40.5% of the total project cost) Orange County Sanitation District's contribution is $196,750,000 (40.5% of the total project cost). I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46) Bill Number: HR 1105, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Name of Project: Project EHR in OC Account: DHHS, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Legal Name of Requesting Entity: AltaMed Health Services Corporation Address of Requesting Entity: 500 Citadel Drive, Suite 490, Los Angeles, CA 90040 Description of Request: I received $95,000 for AltaMed's Electronic Health Records project. The project is designed to build the infrastructure for two clinic sites in the 46th Congressional District. The clinics will enhance quality of care through the installation of electronic health records, video conference, and advanced patient management systems. These installations will promote patient safety and higher quality services from more efficient clinic operations. Project HER in OC fulfills the federal mandate on Uniform Health Information Technology which requires all healthcare providers receiving federal funds to adopt quality measurement tools and uniform information technology standards for measuring and reporting treatment outcomes, registering patients, reporting lab results, writing prescriptions and providing secure electronic communications between patient and doctors. Funds will be used to cover the purchase and installation of video conferencing, advanced patient management, and electronic health records systems at two clinics in the 46th district of California. AltaMed has provided a total of $1,033,000 to the project. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46) Bill Number: HR 1105, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Name of Project: I-405 Widening Project Account: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), IM--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Orange County Transportation Authority Address of Requesting Entity: 550 South Main Street, Orange, CA 92868 Description of Request: I received $380,000 for Orange County Transit Authority's I-405 widening project. OCTA has successfully completed a major investment study (MIS) for the Interstate 405 (I-405) Freeway. Funding is requested to support capacity improvements in each direction of the facility, adding up to two lanes from Euclid Street in Fountain Valley to Interstate 605 (I-605) near the Orange County/Los Angeles County border. Prior federal funding has fully supported the environmental phase of this project, which is currently being initiated by OCTA. This request is to secure the necessary funding for the next phase, which is the final design of the project. The project is considered for other funding sources including State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and Measure M (local sales tax). I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46) Bill Number: HR 1105, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Name of Project: Long Beach Desalination Project Account: Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Related Resources--Title XVI Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Long Beach, CA Board of Water Commissioners Address of Requesting Entity: 1800 E. Wardlow Road, Long Beach, Ca 90807 Description of Request: I received $1,057,000 for the Long Beach Water Commissioners' Long Beach Desalination Project. Long Beach desalination represents the federal government's national interest in making desalination of seawater a viable, cost-effective and environmentally responsive option for supply reliability along the coast of California. Seawater desalination will not be seen by The Congress, the California State Legislature, regulatory agencies, private sector interests or the public as a viable, cost effective and environmentally responsive option for municipal water supply reliability in the United States until advances are made and existing processes optimized in on-going research and development, funded through programs like the Long Beach Desalination Project. The project is a constructed, large-scale, fully operational seawater desalination research and development facility located in urban/coastal Southern California. The research conducted at this facility is the most important and advanced, large-scale analysis being conducted anywhere in the nation at this time, to include facility design and construction, permitting, operations, water quality, distribution system integration and alternative intake and outfall systems. If fully funded, funds will be used in the following manner: $100,000--US Bureau of Reclamation $600,000--UV & C12 Research $1,000,000--Post Treatment Corrosives Testing $1,050,000--Under Ocean Floor Intake Demonstration System Construction It is my understanding the following amounts will be contributed to the total cost of the project. State of California, Department of Water Resources, Proposition 50-- $3,000,000; Long Beach Water--$4,000,000 I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46) Bill Number: HR 1105, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Name of Project: Long Beach Water Reuse Project Account: Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Related Resources--Title XVI Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Long Beach, CA Board of Water Commissioners Address of Requesting Entity: 1800 E. Wardlow Road, Long Beach, Ca 90807 Description of Request: I received $634,000 for the Long Beach Board of Water Commissioners' Long Beach Water Reuse Project. Funds would go to construction of Phase 2 of a 4 phased reclaimed water expansion project moving use of reclaimed water from 4,585a/f to 16,677 a/f per year; extending reclaimed water service to the Alamitos Seawater Barrier and to two of the largest power generation plants in Southern California. Dependable water supplies for Southern California are becoming more difficult to develop and maintain. Continued reliability of traditional imported water sources such as the Colorado River and northern California is unclear. These sources cannot provide urban water supply agencies the certainty they must have in order to maintain a clean, reliable and affordable supply of water for its customers. Continued population growth within the Colorado River Basin is reducing the amount of water that has historically been available to populated areas like southern California. The necessity for southwestern regions in the United States to develop new sources and to fully utilize existing sources, and conservation, is very evident. This includes fully developing and expanding use of reclaimed water supply systems. Under a funding agreement signed in 2000, the Bureau of Reclamation will fund up to 25 percent (with a cap of $20,000,000) of the Long Beach Water Reuse Expansion Project's total cost of $35,200,000. To date, not including this request, the Long Beach Water Department has received a total of $4,000,000 under this funding agreement, for its reclaimed water system expansion. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46) Bill Number: HR 1105, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Name of Project: Santa Ana River Mainstem Project Account: Corps of Engineers, Construction Legal Name of Requesting Entity: County of Orange, CA Address of Requesting Entity: 300 N. Flower St., Santa Ana, CA 92703 Description of Request: I received $14,000,000 for the Orange County Santa Ana River Mainstem Project. The Santa Ana River Mainstem Project including Prado Dam (Project) was authorized under the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986, and Section 309 of WRDA, 1996. The Project involves construction, acquisition of property rights, relocations, environmental mitigation and enhancement in Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The flood control districts of these counties are the Local Sponsors who are responsible, with the Department of the Army, for implementing the Project. The Corps considered the Santa Ana River as the worst flood threat west of the Mississippi River. In 1980's, the Corps estimated that 3 million people and 110,000 acres would be impacted, with potential loss of 3,000 lives and $15 billion in economic losses (1987-8 price level.) Estimated impacts and loss (without the Project being constructed) would be much greater with current population growth and value of land and structures. In addition to protecting a large, highly populated and rapidly growing area of Southern California, the Project has and will improve protection of major transportation corridors. The Local Sponsors and State of California Flood Subvention Fund will provide other matching funds as follows. Non-Federal Total Contribution: Per Corps 2/2007 Report: Local Sponsor Share $599,000,000 (33.9%). If State reimburses 70% of Local Sponsor cost, then State contribution would be $419,300,000 (23.8%) and Local Sponsors net contribution would be $179,700,000 (10.1%) of Total Project Cost. Non-Federal Contribution in 2009:OCFCD Est. Contribution=$75,000,000 (4.2%). I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46) Bill Number: HR 1105, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Name of Project: Huntington Beach Senior Center Account: Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Economic Development Initiatives (EDI) Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Huntington Beach, CA Address of Requesting Entity: 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Description of Request: I received $142,500 for the city of Huntington Beach's Senior Center project. The City of Huntington Beach's existing senior center is located at 17th Street and Palm Avenue. Due to the City's expanding senior population, the current facility is overcrowded and too small to meet the needs of the growing population. To this end, a larger facility is needed to address the future growth of the senior population in Huntington Beach. The City plans to build the facility to meet Leadership in Energy Efficiency Design (LEED) with environmentally ``Green'' building material, furnishings and equipment. Funds will be used for the preparation of plans and specifications needed to create environmentally ``Green'' or LEED certified elements to the senior center. $80,000 has been received from a private donation which will be used for the construction phase of the project or to help furnish the completed building. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46) Bill Number: HR 1105, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Name of Project: Smart Timer Irrigation Controllers Account: Natural Resources Conservation Services, Conservation Operations Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Municipal Water District of Orange County Address of Requesting Entity: 18700 Ward Street, PO Box 20895, Fountain Valley, CA. 92728 Description of Request: I received $134,000 for the Municipal Water District of Orange County's Smart Timer Irrigation Controllers system. ``Smart'' Irrigation Controller Technology assists customers in delivering the appropriate amount of water to landscapes based on soil, slope, type of landscape and changing weather conditions. Funding will be used to expand an existing $2.2 million program launched in 2004 (FY05) to distribute an additional 5,500 Smart Irrigation Controllers by the end of 2011 to the highest water using residential and commercial properties in the County. Overall program funding goes towards providing a rebate administrator to market the program in conjunction with MWDOC staff time and for hire of the Mission Resource Conservation District to assist with the program implementation and installation verification. Some of the funding may go towards purchasing the irrigation timers to allow acceleration of the installation program. The expected costs for expanding the program by about 1800 controllers over the next year would cost: Rebate Administrator costs: $1,350,000 Resource Conservation Districts $240,000 Printing mailing: $50,000 Total: $1,640,000 The Municipal Water District of Orange County will contribute $900,000 to the project. Other local agencies will contribute $180,000, and site owners and participants $60,000. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46) Bill Number: HR 1105, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Name of Project: Surfside, Sunset, Newport Beaches Account: Corps of Engineers, Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Legal Name of Requesting Entity: County of Orange, CA Address of Requesting Entity: 300 N. Flower St., Santa Ana, CA 92703 Description of Request: I received $546,000 for Orange County's Surfside, Sunset, and Newport Beach program. The project extends along the Orange County coast 17 miles from San Gabriel River mouth down coast to Newport Bay Harbor entrance. Eleven stages of construction have been completed including groins and beach fill. Periodic beach nourishment with no time limit on Federal aid was authorized by Public Law 87-874, as recommended by House document 602. The feeder beach at Surfside-Sunset receives approximately 1.8 million cubic yards of sand every 5 years. This is an on-going project by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to mitigate damage to Orange County coastline caused by construction of Federal navigation and flood control works in Long Beach and Anaheim Bay. Severe shoreline erosion resulted from storms in 1980, 1981, 1982, 1995 and 1998. Other funding sources towards the total cost of the project are anticipated as follows: State of California Department of Boating and Waterways 24.5% City of Newport Beach 2% City of Huntington Beach 1% Surfside Colony 0.5% County of Orange 5% I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46) Bill Number: HR 1105, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Name of Project: Vanguard University Academic Center for Science, Nursing, and Technology. Account: Department of Education, Higher Education (FIPSE) Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Vanguard University Address of Requesting Entity: 55 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626- Description of Request: I received $238,000 for Vanguard University's Academic Center for Science, Nursing, and Technology. Vanguard University is developing an Academic Center for Science, Nursing, and technology which will help address the significant problems facing California by training teachers in science and math, and by developing a Nursing School with an accelerated RN to Bachelor of Science in Nursing Degree Program to help address the nursing crisis. The center will include the development of smart classrooms, the nursing school, and research laboratories to train existing teachers and nurses, and will deliver the study of science, math, and technology that will prepare students for teaching careers in science and math. It is my understanding the University will provide the balance of funding through endowments and other major gifts. It is also my understanding funds will be used consistent with the following. Site work: $407,500 Shell & Minimal Core $4,087,000 Core & Systems $1,911,000 Basement Premium $232,500 500 SF total @132.66/SF Total $6,638,000 I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46) Bill Number: HR 1105, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Name of Project: Vanguard University Academic Center for Science, Nursing, and Technology. Account: DHHS, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Vanguard University Address of Requesting Entity: 55 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Description of Request: I received $95,000 for Vanguard University's Academic Center for Science, Nursing, and Technology. Vanguard University is developing an Academic Center for Science, Nursing, and technology which will help address the significant problems facing California by training teachers in science and math, and by developing a Nursing School with an accelerated RN to Bachelor of Science in Nursing Degree Program to help address the nursing crisis. The center will include the development of smart classrooms, the nursing school, and research laboratories to train existing teachers and nurses, and will deliver the study of science, math, and technology that will prepare students for teaching careers in science and math. It is my understanding the University will provide the balance of funding through endowments and other major gifts. It is also my understanding funds will be used consistent with the following. Site work: $407,500 Shell & Minimal Core $4,087,000 Core & Systems $1,911,000 Basement Premium $232,500 500 SF total @132.66/SF Total $6,638,000 I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46) Bill Number: HR 1105, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Name of Project: Westminster (East Garden Grove) Watershed, CA Account: Corps of Engineers, General Investigations Legal Name of Requesting Entity: County of Orange, CA Address of Requesting Entity: 300 N. Flower St., Santa Ana, CA 92703 Description of Request: I received $860,000 for Orange County's Westminster (East Garden Grove) Watershed project. Flood damages along the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel affect residential, commercial, and industrial development located in an 81 square mile watershed, impacting eleven cities in Orange County. Over 20,000 property owners are currently required to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program, while aging levees jeopardize thousands of additional property owners. The study will investigate innovative methods to provide flood protection in combination with improved ecosystem functioning and water quality. Over 20,000 property owners are currently mandated by the Federal government to pay flood insurance because of inadequate flood protection in this watershed. Taxpayer funds are used to rebuild private property and public infrastructure every year that flood damages occur. This comprehensive study is developing innovative, sustainable solutions to flooding, water quality, and environmental problems in this watershed. Those solutions will provide more cost-effective approaches than currently exist, and contribute to the National Economic Development as well as National Ecosystem Restoration Plan. It is the mission of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to provide flood protection, navigation, and ecosystem restoration in meeting these criteria. It is my understanding the County of Orange, CA will contribute $1,740,000 to the project. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. And let me just note that I have worked with Chris Smith now for 20 years. He is a heroic individual, a man who has come forth and put so much time and so much energy into protecting human rights throughout the world. Throughout the world, this man is known as the guy who will step forward and take the time and the effort to try to protect people who are under attack. Whether they are Montagnards or whether they are off in Africa or whether they are in South America or wherever out in the world that you have people whose human rights are being abused and peoples' lives, innocent lives, are being lost, Chris always stands up for them. And I have tried my best to work with him. He has a lot more energy than I do. But it has just been an honor serving with him. And it is so consistent with that position for people who claim to believe in human rights to also take a very close look at the issue of abortion and understand that we are talking about a human being which has rights. Now let me note that I did not always hold the position on abortion that I do today. And for a great deal of time in my life, I didn't give it any thought at all in fact. And what convinced me, it was very interesting, I worked for Ronald Reagan years ago. And Reagan called me to the front of the bus one time. And he said, Dana, I want to talk to you about abortion, because he thought that I was disappointed in a decision that he had made to stand up against abortion. And I said, no, I'm not against it. I just don't know much about it, and I know there's a political price to pay for people who are so pro-abortion that they will come back to you on this issue. And he said, let me ask you this, Dana. If you had a close friend and she was pregnant, and perhaps a former boyfriend who hated her and wanted to get even with her for no longer being his girlfriend, then intentionally dragged her into an alley and kicked her in the stomach because he said, I know you're pregnant and I'm going to kill your baby.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I rise in support of this motion, and let us note that those of us who are seriously saddened by the bloodshed and the carnage that is going on and the loss of innocent lives in Gaza, people being killed and bodies of children being torn apart, we see this horror story. But let us note and we don't have to be reminded that, yes, this is a fight and Israeli planes are dropping those bombs. But if we are serious about ending this tragedy, we must be brutally honest and not give in to ignoring the hard truths which our allies overseas seem to be doing. In this case, the hard truth is the real blame for this carnage is not Israel. It can be traced back to Hamas, to radical Islamists and those who supplied them their rockets and their weapons. The radical Islamists who ruthlessly and without remorse did what they knew would bring retaliation and slaughter on their own people, they are the ones to blame. The hatred in their hearts, the hatred of Israel, the irreconcilable hatred of those people obviously outweighs the commitment to the safety of their own women and children in Gaza. They are the ones who are to blame for the carnage that is going on right now, and we should not hesitate to condemn that if we really want to bring a peace in the Middle East. Yes, bloodshed is horrible, and yes, we must also recognize that Israel is doing no more in this case than what any sovereign nation would do if they were attacked. By protecting its own people from attack, this retaliation which has caused this loss of life in Gaza, we must recognize the real villains in this story are not the Israelis. The Israelis are open to peace. The real villains are those people who have ignored the opportunities for peace and, instead, shoot rockets into Israel, knowing there will be retaliation. Today we are saddened by the loss of innocent lives in Gaza; people being killed and wounded, bodies of children torn apart, all of this is a horror story. If we are serious about ending this tragedy we must be brutally honest, and not give in to ignoring hard truths. In this case the hard truth is that the real blame for this carnage in Gaza is traced to actions taken by Hamas, radical Islamists, and those who supply them with rockets and other weapons. There was a tremendous opportunity for peace when Israel withdrew its troops from Gaza in 2005. Instead of moving forward and building a Palestinian homeland, irreconcilables have launched nearly 7,000 rockets and mortar rounds into Israel since Israeli troops left. The hate-filled radicals who launched missiles into Israel--Hamas triggermen, not Israeli pilots--are the ones who are really responsible for the horrible mayhem we are witnessing in Gaza. The radical Islamists ruthlessly and without any remorse did what they knew would bring retaliation and result in the slaughter of their own people. The hatred of Israel in the hearts of these Hamas radicals clearly outweighs their commitment to the safety and well being of their own people. That's a hard fact. And that after shooting rockets into Israel, they hide among and behind non-combatants--women, and children--makes their actions even more despicable. An honest assessment leads to the conclusion that Hamas doesn't want peace with Israel and has no desire for a two state solution. Hamas wants a war that will destroy Israel. This commitment is the real cause of the current bloodshed in Gaza. Once Israel left Gaza, Hamas should have used its resources, their money, our money, on health care, education, roads and economic development in Gaza. Instead they have chosen death and destruction. Recently China's representative to the U.N. Security Council voiced concern about, ``large-scale Israeli air attacks against Gaza.'' Now, that takes chutzpah! According to a January 1st report in the Jerusalem Post, many of the rockets fired into Israel ``were manufactured in China. These Chinese rockets were smuggled into Gaza after the Sinai border wall was blown up by Hamas in January.'' Making matters worse the State Department and the White House hasn't mentioned a word about the China connection to the turmoil in Gaza, just as they're mum about Chinese complicity in crimes elsewhere. Yes, the bloodshed is horrible, and yes, Israel is doing what any other sovereign nation would do. It is protecting its people by retaliation when attacked. Those who shoot rockets into Israel know there will be retaliation, thus they are the responsible party for the bloodshed we are now witnessing. It's the hard truth we can't ignore if we are to someday end this terrible heart-wrenching violence. Humanitarians do the cause of peace no favor by blaming Israel for retaliating, instead of fixing responsibility on those who initiated the violence by attacking Israel.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, today we are saddened by the loss of innocent lives in Gaza; people being killed and wounded, bodies of children torn apart, all of this is a horror story. If we are serious about ending this tragedy we must be brutally honest, and not give in to ignoring hard truths. In this case the hard truth is that the real blame for this carnage in Gaza is traced to actions taken by Hamas, radical Islamists, and those who supply them with rockets and other weapons. There was a tremendous opportunity for peace when Israel withdrew its troops from Gaza in 2005. Instead of moving forward and building a Palestinian homeland, irreconcilables have launched nearly 7,000 rockets and mortar rounds into Israel since Israeli troops left. The hate-filled radicals who launched missiles into Israel--Hamas triggermen, not Israeli pilots--are the ones who are really responsible for the horrible mayhem we are witnessing in Gaza. The radical Islamists ruthlessly and without any remorse did what they knew would bring retaliation and result in the slaughter of their own people. The hatred of Israel in the hearts of these Hamas radicals clearly outweighs their commitment to the safety and well being of their own people. That's a hard fact. And that after shooting rockets into Israel, they hide among and behind non-combatants--women, and children--makes their actions even more despicable. An honest assessment leads to the conclusion that Hamas doesn't want peace with Israel and has no desire for a two state solution. Hamas wants a war that will destroy Israel. This commitment is the real cause of the current bloodshed in Gaza. Once Israel left Gaza, Hamas should have used its resources, their money, our money, on health care, education, roads and economic development in Gaza. Instead they have chosen death and destruction. Recently China's representative to the U.N. Security Council voiced concern about, ``large-scale Israeli air attacks against Gaza.'' Now, that takes chutzpah! Many of the rockets fired into Israel ``were manufactured in China. These Chinese rockets were smuggled into Gaza after the Sinai border wall was blown up by Hamas in January.'' Making matters worse the State Department and the White House hasn't mentioned a word about the China connection to the turmoil in Gaza, just as they're mum about Chinese complicity in crimes elsewhere. Yes, the bloodshed is horrible, and yes, Israel is doing what any other sovereign nation would do. It is protecting its people by retaliation when attacked. Those who shoot rockets into Israel know there will be retaliation, thus they are the responsible party for the bloodshed we are now witnessing. It's the hard truth we can't ignore if we are to someday end this terrible heart-wrenching violence.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 3197. I am pleased that we are finally about to provide this benefit to our veterans, but I am troubled that it has taken us so long to do so. On April 14, 2005, the House considered S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, which was a much-needed and very responsible reform. Then in the minority, my colleague Ms. Schakowsky introduced a motion to recommit so that the bill would allow a targeted exemption from our stricter means test for those National Guard and Reservists who had been called up after 9/11. At the time of the floor debate, I was told by the Republican floor manager that the Schakowsky motion was redundant, that there was already such protection for our National Guard and Reservists under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. Because of this, I voted against the motion, and it failed on a party-line vote, 200 yeas to 229 nays. I soon found out, however, that I and other Republican Members had been misinformed, apparently to prevent the then-minority from having any legislative success. When I found out there was no adequate protection for our returning Reservists and Guardsmen, I pledged to work with my colleague, Ms. Schakowsky, to make it right. Subsequently, I introduced legislation to amend the bankruptcy law. This measure, of course, isn't costing any--well, maybe it costs a few, but probably not any Federal dollars--new Federal dollars. There is no big spending involved in this. There is no massive appropriation needed. All it is is a consideration for these people who have risked their lives for us and are coming home. But my party couldn't get itself to provide consideration for our homecoming heroes, even though there wasn't a major cost involved. Thus my legislation didn't ever get to the floor. In the meantime, party control of the House changed, and Ms. Schakowsky and I have been working diligently to get this legislation to the floor and get it passed into law. The Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent on Tuesday, and we are now considering this bill under suspension, which means it's pretty well recognized that this has widespread support, and it should have been voted on and accepted a long time ago. S. 3197, introduced by Senator Durbin in the Senate, has bettered the bill in several ways. Often, it will take several months for a servicemember to gain an understanding of his or her financial situation after returning home. So this bill expands the time of eligibility to a year and a half after the servicemember has been released from active duty. And because more information is needed, this bill requires the Comptroller General to study and report to Congress on the number of Reservists in the Armed Forces and National Guard members who will be using this exemption and the number of servicemembers who are substantially or materially involved in bankruptcy cases because of their service. I encourage my colleagues who voted ``no'' on the motion to recommit 3 years ago to vote in favor of this legislation today. This bill is not a wedge to reopen the bankruptcy rules. Rather, it is a narrow, targeted change modeled after existing exemptions for disabled veterans who are America's heroes. This is targeted at those American heroes throughout our country who are called up for deployment and are now returning home. This bill will ensure that America's heroes throughout our country, who have often been called up for deployment, and these deployments have been far longer than they ever initially thought they would ever be called up for, this bill is intended that they will not pay a high personal cost for their absence and their willingness to step forward and defend our country. As my colleague, Ms. Schakowsky, put it, these servicemembers have put their lives and livelihood on the line for us, and we owe them a great debt. This is one way that we can show our deep appreciation for the service that these people have given to us, protecting our families and the service they've provided our country. Now is the time for us to repay that debt in a very bipartisan way, which should have been in play on this floor in this House all along; and when it wasn't 3 years ago, Ms. Schakowsky and I have finally made up for that bit of partisanship at the expense of our homecoming heroes that happened over 3 years ago. So, today, I ask my colleagues to join Ms. Schakowsky and myself. I thank all of those involved who helped us along the way, and I ask my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, today's vote reaffirms the independence of Congress and makes it clear that we will not be stampeded into spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in a precipitous manner. This legislation would have directed $700 billion of the people's money to bailout rich and powerful interests who acted irresponsibly. It would have been a classic example of taking from those who have been responsible and giving it to those who have not. We were told without this effort our country would suffer a financial calamity of historic proportion. However, Congress has spoken, and today's defeat of the bill is a rebuke of such scare tactics. These tactics made many of us even more skeptical of being rushed to act, especially when we are being asked to allocate hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. There were no reforms included in the bill that would have addressed the initial root causes of this financial mess, so there is no reason to believe if we passed the bill that we would not find ourselves in a similar crisis and on the edge of a similar economic abyss over and over again. The elites in the financial industry wanted us to give them a blank check. Well, that's not responsible, and it doesn't take a financial genius to predict the resulting special interests feeding frenzy. Whether this feeding would ever avert an economic debacle is yet to be seen. Effective reform takes time, commitment, and cooperation, which were obviously not a part of this speeded up, hysteria driven proposal. I remain willing to work with all of my colleagues in the House to fix our broken financial system. In the end, this bailout proposal was socialism for the rich, or better, socialism without a human face. It deserved to be defeated.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the House amendment to H.R. 2638, the ``Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009.'' Requesting Member: Dana Rohrabacher. Bill Number: H.R. 2638. Account: RDTE, Army. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The Boeing Company. Address of Requesting Entity: PO Box 516, St. Louis, MO 63166. Description of Request: I requested $2,320,000 to allow the Department of Defense to test and certify the Precision Container Aerial Delivery System (PCADS). PCADS is a tool to apply existing military airdrop capabilities to extinguish wildfires. It consists of containerized water bladders that are compatible with all U.S. military cargo aircraft, thereby enabling all military cargo aircraft to serve as firefighters. This will vastly increase the number of aerial firefighting aircraft available to State and Federal fire fighting agencies. The water bladders are delivered at a safe altitude above the fire, and ripped open prior to striking the ground, thus delivering water, gel, or agent with maximum effect. This request is for the testing of the program and will be the last time funds are needed for testing.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the NASA Authorization Act, H.R. 6063. I would like to salute Chairman Bart Gordon and Ranking Member Ralph Hall and Subcommittee Chairman Udall and Ranking Member Feeney. They have done a terrific job this year. There has been no better example of bipartisan cooperation and a spirit of goodwill that I have ever found in this Congress than what I have found in these last 2 years on this committee. I salute all those who are involved, and I am very proud to be part of this team. Space-based assets have become such a part of our way of life that quite often they are taken for granted. Just recently, when we experienced hurricanes and noted the damage that was done by these great natural catastrophes, sometimes people forget how much worse it would have been had we not been tracking these hurricanes as they headed towards populated areas. We were able to save many thousands of lives and save many billions of dollars in damage because we have had space-based assets that permitted us to be able to make that contribution to our fellow human beings, saving their lives and property in the face of an oncoming storm by giving them adequate warning. We also know that today our telephone calls are cheap, and they are clear. But this is dramatically different than what it was before we had space-based assets up there taking care of our communications. The fact is that space-based assets have permitted people to take time and to communicate with their loved ones. We talk about our country when we talk about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, talking to your grandfather, or letting your children talk to their grandparents on the phone. When I was a kid, it cost maybe $5 or $6, and you could barely hear on the phone. You could barely hear. It was so expensive, you called once a month at the most. Now people can talk to their loved ones. Space-based assets have done this, have increased our happiness, our level of happiness in this world. Again, those communications satellites also have brought down the cost of entertainment, as we know. The fact is, the competition the space-based assets have given to the cable industry have brought down that cost. GPS guides us to our locations, whether we are talking about jets or talking about automobiles, or even where farmers will plant their crops. Space-based assets are making such a difference in our lives. Of course, space-based assets are making America much safer. When we meet adversaries overseas, our people have that advantage. It's keeping us free, it's keeping us safe. Of course, when you talk about safety, I have been particularly interested in ensuring that we pay attention to the potential threat posed by near-Earth objects. NASA, of course, has tracked and catalogued over 90 percent of those objects in space that could destroy the human race, and we are very grateful for that job. But that leaves, of course, thousands of space objects that could cause horrendous damage and loss of life that still need to be tracked. This bill authorizes $2 million to keep the Arecibo telescope functioning. That Arecibo telescope in Puerto Rico is essential to this element of safety that we are providing by tracking near-Earth objects. As I say, without the telescope, there may be, perhaps, something, if we learned early enough that we could deflect that might come here and kill millions of people. We are paying attention to this. This NASA authorization takes a step in the right direction there in keeping the Arecibo telescope alive. We should be cooperating in space. All of these things cost money, and other countries have benefited by our research. We need to cooperate with Europe, Japan, Russia, and other countries to make sure that we can accomplish what we can do more by joining them than if we were alone in this. However, that cooperation does not mean that we should not continue to be the leaders in space activity. We will no longer be the leading power on the Earth unless we are the leading power in space. This is the 50th anniversary of NASA, and it is fitting that we set our sights on continuing to be the world's leading power in space. We can lead humankind into a better era. We have done that in the cause of human freedom. We will do that in the cause of technology and human development. I stand here with pride and join my colleagues. I salute them for all the hard work they have done and in asking my colleagues to join me in authorizing NASA in this legislation.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I rise in support of this historic effort to establish a partnership in helping India meets its energy needs, creating a prosperous country through clean and safe nuclear energy. I would hope that the nuclear technology utilized by this project and by this pact will be based on the high temperature gas cool reactors, which are safer and will not produce a byproduct that can be built into a bomb. Now, if we use these reactors, that should take care of the proliferation concerns of our colleagues they are rightfully concerned about. During the Cold War, unfortunate ideologically driven issues prevented us from a friendship and a close relationship with India. By cooperating in good faith to help India meet its energy challenge, we are indeed making it a better world and a safer world, and we now have an opportunity to have a new beginning with a country that was not in a good relationship with us in decades past. This can be a mutually profitable relationship, and we can indeed embrace the world's largest democracy, as compared to during the Cold War when we had too close a relationship, which we are paying for now, with China, which is the world's largest and biggest human rights abuser. So I gladly step forward and proudly step forward to be part of this historic effort to build good relations between the United States and India by utilizing safe and clean nuclear energy to build a more prosperous continent.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6897, the Filipino Veterans Equity Act of 2008. I am very pleased to see so much enthusiasm in recognizing World War II Filipino veterans who have so long deserved our gratitude for their service to this nation. As Americans, we have a moral obligation to care for the veterans who have sacrificed so much to ensure that we here at home can continue to pursue the ideals that have been the foundation of our country for over two centuries. For many years I have met with individuals of the Filipino community who have longed for acknowledgement of the sacrifices they made not only for their own land, but also ours. While these veterans were once eligible for benefits under programs administered by the Veterans' Administration, these benefits were stripped by the passage of the Rescission Acts of 1946. Since then, some of these benefits have been reinstituted, but not to the extent deserved. The Philippine Islands were possessions of the United States through 1946 and the military forces of the Commonwealth of the Philippines were inducted by President Roosevelt under the command of the United States Armed Forces of the Far East. They were not just allies during the war who fought alongside our soldiers; they were our soldiers. My father, a late World War II Veteran, encountered combat in the Philippines and served with the Filipino veterans, whom he considered comrades in every sense of the word. The passage of Filipino Veterans Equity Act of 2008 is imperative to help close this chapter of our past. Most of the Filipino Veterans have already passed away with no adequate compensation or recognition for their service to this country, yet that should not keep us from acting today to ensure that those still left are acknowledged. I am pleased to see that H.R. 6897 is on suspension today and ask my colleagues to give it their support.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5501. During this time of economic difficulty, this bill is humanitarianism gone wild. It's irrational benevolence that we cannot afford. Where are we going to get the $48 billion for combating AIDS and the $2 billion for Native American programs? Well, we can get it out of programs by gutting programs that are for our own people. We can raise taxes, which would likely throw us into a recession that would leave us with even less of a tax base for our people at home, or of course, we can borrow it and let our grandchildren pay for it in some way. And yes, if we borrow it, it will probably come from Communist China, making ourselves even more vulnerable to their pressure. Mr. Speaker, we have big hearts, but we need to use our brains. We cannot afford $50 billion of generosity to foreigners. This will cost the American people. It will cost them their health care and the education for their children. It will cost the veterans, and it will cost our seniors. Our economy is facing a catastrophic setback because of the irresponsible spending and taxing policies of the Federal Government, and now we're going to exacerbate that problem with a $50 billion commitment to provide a health care package to Africa. Concerning my friends on my side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, I say to those who oppose earmarks in the name of fiscal responsibility, they should not be expected to be taken seriously if they support this enormously expensive, feel-good spending. This $50 billion burden will be shouldered by our veterans, by our elderly, and by our children. My friends on the other side of the aisle often remind us America does not spend enough on our own people. More funds are needed, we are repeatedly told, for our veterans, our elderly, and yes, for our children. When we are already at a high level of deficit spending, how then can we advocate spending an additional $50 billion overseas? And we're not fooling anybody. When we have spending like this, it comes right out of the pot of limited resources that are available to Americans. This expenditure is not going to cure AIDS in the end. I wish I could say that I was very confident that it would succeed in that, but I'm not confident with that. What I am confident is that it will break our back. This could well be the 2-ton tree trunk that broke the camel's back, the item that finally destroyed the hope for responsible spending policies by Congress. I ask my colleagues to vote against this kind of generosity that is perhaps good-hearted but totally irrational. I say our number one job here is to watch out for the well-being of the American people. This bill is not in the well-being of our people. It will undermine the well-being of our people.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct, but I also rise in support of my colleagues who today are stressing the plight of the American people concerning the price of gasoline. Let me just note that this weekend I was surfing in my district. My wife and I are avid surfers, and my friend and colleague from Florida, who also, of course, represents a State with a long coastline, should understand that we have had offshore oil rigs off California for many, many years, off of my district for many, many years. The only oil spill we have ever had has come from a tanker which had an accident off our shore. Those people who are adamantly opposed to offshore oil drilling, as we have just heard, are actually making us more vulnerable. They are making their pristine beaches more vulnerable to spills because a tanker has about a 500 percent greater chance of spilling oil than does an offshore oil rig. In fact, let us note that we have heard the argument time and again, why aren't the oil companies drilling off the land they have already been given? In my area that is very clear. The reason the oil companies can't proceed is that they have been stopped by roadblocks put before them, legislative and legal and regulatory roadblocks by radical environmental groups that won't let them drill and won't let them get to that oil. As long as the alliance for the radical environmentalists and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party keeps hold, we are not going to get that supply. The price of oil is high, gasoline is high because the supply is down. The supply is down because there is a coalition between the liberal left and radical environmentalists that have prevented any type of new supply from being developed in the last 30 years. It's as simple as that. The money being extracted from our pockets at the pump is a result of the lack of supply. The idea that pristine beaches are going to be threatened by offshore oil rigs has been used to diminish supply and increase the price of oil at the pump. I rise in support of the motion to instruct and the arguments in favor of more supply of oil for our country.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, for 30 years, we have seen the development of new major gas and oil developments in our country thwarted. For 30 years, we have had no new nuclear reactors built in this country to provide us electricity. For 30 years, we have seen no new refineries being built in this country. For 30 years, we haven't even seen a hydroelectric dam being built in this country. And people ask why are we paying $4 and $5 a gallon for gasoline now? Well, what has happened, of course, is we have put ourselves in a position where the discretionary income of our people is being robbed from them because we were acting irresponsibly for these last 30 years. Congressmen, elected representatives of the people, did not stand up to a radical element which opposed all of these energy alternatives for America and has left us vulnerable to our enemies overseas. It is about time we speak up, we stand up, and we do what is right so we can fix this problem that was caused by inaction for the last 30 years.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. This bill will ensure that America's heroes throughout our country, who have often been called up for deployments that are for far longer than they were initially thought, will not pay a very high personal cost for their absence and their willingness to step forward. As my colleague, Ms. Schakowsky, put it, these servicemembers have put their lives and livelihood on the line for us, and we owe them a great debt. This is one way that we can show our deep appreciation for the service of these people, as we should have done originally. Now it is time for us to repay that debt in a very bipartisan way. I thank very much my chairman and ranking member.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. Madam Speaker, today marks the culmination of work that should have been finished long ago. On April 14, 2005, the House considered S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, which was a much needed and responsible reform. Then in the minority, my colleague, Ms. Schakowsky, introduced a motion to recommit so that the bill would allow a targeted exemption from the bankruptcy means test for those National Guard and Reservists who had been called up after 9/11. At the time of the floor debate, I was told by the Republican floor manager that the Schakowsky motion was redundant, that there was already such protection for our National Guard and Reservists under the Service Member's Civil Relief Act. Because of this, I voted against the motion and it failed on a party line vote, 220 yeas to 229 nays. I soon found out that I and other Republican Members had been misinformed, apparently to prevent the then-minority from having any legislative success. Yes, disabled veterans are exempt from the new bankruptcy means test, but not activated reservists and guardsmen, the men and women torn from their jobs and families, sent overseas to protect us were not to be given consideration under the Republican bankruptcy law unless they were disabled. Ms. Schakowsky's motion sought to correct that. In order to prevent even one success by the other party, the leaders of my party threw aside considering the well-being of our returning heroes. A returning reservist or guardsman, who possibly left a lucrative job to answer the call of duty, gets the same tougher means test as everybody else. If they fail, they are presumed to be abusing the system as specified in chapter 7 of the bankruptcy law. Yes, they can then rebut the presumption of abuse by demonstrating a special circumstance before the court. They can beg. They can jump through hoops, they can hire lawyers, and then it is at the discretion of the court to grant these homecoming heroes special circumstances and allow them a chapter 7 filing. This should have been in the bill in the first place, as well as Ms. Schakowsky's motion should have been accepted by the majority. It is a shame that it wasn't. The Schakowsky motion would not have killed the bill, as some Members have argued since. In fact, because the motion asked the Judiciary Committee to report the bill forthwith, we could have considered the bill on that very same day. And even if that were not the case, as now we hear from my side so often as we point out a motion requiring a committee to report the bill promptly could still be brought up the next legislative day. No, this motion failed so long ago because of the worst type of partisanship. It failed because Republicans did not want to admit that the Democrats could better their bill. When I found that there was no adequate protection for our returning reservists and guardsmen, I pledged to work with my colleague, Ms. Schakowsky, and make it right. Subsequently, I introduced legislation to amend the bankruptcy law. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership refused to bring my bill up to the floor for a vote and it took a change in the majority for this pro- reservist, pro-National Guard bill to be brought to the House floor today. This measure isn't costing any new Federal dollars. There is no new massive appropriation. All it is is a consideration for these people who have risked their lives for us and are coming home. But my party couldn't get itself to provide consideration for our homecoming heroes even though there wasn't any major cost involved. In the meantime, party control of the House changed, and Ms. Schakowsky and I have been working diligently to get this legislation to the floor and get it passed into law. We are now considering this bill under suspension which means it is pretty well recognized that this has widespread support. It should have been voted on by the majority or at least accepted a long time ago. I encourage my colleagues who voted ``no'' on the motion to recommit 3 years ago because they were misled to vote in favor of this legislation. This bill is not a wedge to reopen the bankruptcy law. Rather, it is a narrow, targeted change modeled after existing exemptions for disabled veterans, America's heroes in neighborhoods throughout our country, who have been called up for deployments.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. First and foremost, I would like to congratulate my colleagues for the hard work that's been put into this legislation, Mark Udall and Bart Gordon, of course, on the majority side, and also, of course, Tom Feeney and Ralph Hall on the minority side of this. This is a bipartisan effort. It always has been. Ralph Hall will be submitting my amendment for me, which will be the second amendment up today. Let me just note that my amendment simply suggests that NASA should put on its priority list seeking cooperation between the United States and our European and Russian friends to try to have an international effort to detect and deflect near-Earth objects. What that means is, if there are asteroids or comets that might be out there and might threaten the Earth, perhaps threatening millions of lives, that my amendment simply says the United States should not bear the entire burden and cost of identifying them and tracing their trajectory to see if they threaten the Earth, but we should be trying to recruit our friends and make it an international effort. I just recently came back from Berlin and Moscow, where this idea received a very, very warm response from these other spacefaring nations, and they're really anxious to work with us. This instructs NASA to take advantage of that spirit of cooperation, take the burden off the American taxpayers a little bit, and make sure this job gets done. I appreciate that Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall have both supported this legislation. And Ralph will be submitting it for me in a few minutes. Thank you very much, Bart. Thank you very much, Ralph. And I want to thank all of you and the staff for doing such a great job in this committee.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chairman, my amendment offered by Mr. Feeney encourages NASA to seek increased international cooperation to find and characterize all natural bodies in outer space over 140 meters in size that pass close to the Earth, referred to as near-Earth objects. Estimates of the total numbers of such objects vary from 25,000 to 100,000. This threat to the Earth is a worldwide matter of potentially catastrophic proportions should a collision with Earth occur, and the responsibility of dealing with it should not fall entirely on the United States or NASA, in particular. The motivation and timing for this amendment arises from discussions with Russian and German government officials on furthering cooperation with the U.S. in science and technology that occurred during a CODEL that I attended over the Memorial Day recess. The specific suggestion to cooperate in the effort to find and characterize near-Earth objects was greeted with great enthusiasm by the government officials with whom I met during the CODEL. The initiative encouraged under my amendment is intended to provide relief for the enormous burden being placed on NASA to find and characterize the vast number of these objects estimated to exist. Many countries around the world have very capable astronomical observatories that can assist (and probably have to some extent). In addition to telescopes, deep space radars play a critical role in quickly authenticating any impending threats that may be indicated from optical observations. Though the United States has the world's most capable deep space radar, namely the Arecibo Radar, and also the somewhat less capable Goldstone Radar, the Russian RT-70 Radar may be able to provide some contributions as well. Furthermore, certain large radio astronomy facilities around the world may be able to participate by pairing with these powerful U.S. deep space radars.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the requirements of the Republican Conference of the House, I am submitting for the Record the following information regarding an earmark I requested, which was included in the reported version of H.R. 5658, the ``Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act'': Requesting Member: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46). Bill Number: H.R. 5658, the ``Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act.'' Account: Ap,A Aircraft Procurement, Army; 020 Utility Helicopter Mods. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army National Guard Readiness Center. Address of Requesting Entity: 111 S. George Mason Drive, Arlington, VA 22204. Description of Request: Provide $5 million for helicopter modernization. The UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter is an essential capability of the National Guard. It provides units in every State with a multi-mission aircraft for search & rescue, utility lift, disaster relief and medical evacuation. The Army National Guard (ARNG) is authorized 782 Black Hawk aircraft, but is short of this authorization by almost 100 aircraft. This shortage requires ARNG units to loan or transfer Black Hawks in support deployments, training or State missions, resulting in a higher usage rate of available airframes. Additionally, more than 500 of the 782 National Guard aircraft are older UH-60A models, with an average age of approximately 25 years. The Army is procuring over 1,200 UH-60M Black Hawks for utility, special operations and MEDEVAC missions to replace the aging UH-60A from operational units by 2016. The Army acquired 33 UH-60M Black Hawks by the end of FY07, and from FY09 to FY13, the Army plans to procure an additional 300 UH-60M Black Hawks (70 of those aircraft are programmed for ARNG units). However, without an accelerated procurement of the UH- 60M, the Army National Guard will be operating more than 400 UH-60A helicopters beyond 2020. The ARNG and the Active Army developed a program to support the continued modernization of the ARNG Black Hawk fleet. Unfortunately, this program is not fully funded. The ARNG plan is to accelerate the fielding of UH-60M Black Hawks by 10 aircraft per year. Although the Active Army has programmed UH-60A recapitalization for the ARNG with Operations and Maintenance (O&M) funds, which includes an airframe life extension, fleet-wide product improvements and the replacement of components, the UH-60A to L upgrade is not funded. The UH-60L Black Hawk is more economical to operate and has 1,000 lbs. of additional lift than the UH-60A. The desired rate of UH- 60A to L upgrades is 38 per year. Funding the UH-60A to L upgrade will significantly improve the Black Hawk fleet, and assure that ARNG units are ready, deployable, and available to protect our national interests both abroad and at home. This ARNG aviation initiative has been identified by the Chief of the National Guard Bureau (CNGB) as FY09 ``Essential 10--Top 25'' unfunded priorities.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. First, I would like to identify myself with the remarks that I have just heard from my two colleagues, and congratulate them on presenting to the people the hard facts that have not been faced in this country for over 30 years. And those hard facts are some of the basic reasons that we are in trouble today. Mr. Speaker, I will preface my remarks tonight, and what I have to say tonight I would like to say totally is in parallel with the spirit of what was just said. But I preface my remarks to underscore, just as my colleagues would underscore their commitment. While I adamantly reject the man-made global warming theory, I am committed to a clean and healthy environment, to purifying the air, to purifying our water and our soil, all of this for the sake of the people of this planet, especially the children of this planet, and especially my three children, Christian, Tristan, and Anika, and all the children of the world who we hope will receive a world that we hand them that will be a better world, a healthier world. And I have no doubt that unless we thwart the onslaught of the nonsense being foisted upon humankind in the name of man-made global warming, our next generation will be deprived of freedom, prosperity, and a healthy environment. The radical environmental crusade behind the man-made global warming theory may well be well motivated. Motives and good intentions, however, do not count. What counts are facts. And when it comes to the facts about so-called man-made global warming, the public has been denied an honest debate. Only 18 months ago, the refrain, ``Case Closed, Global Warming is Real,'' was repeated as if a mantra of some religious sect. It was pounded into the public's consciousness over the airwaves, in print, and even at congressional hearings. This was obviously a brazen attempt to end open discussion and to silence differing views by dismissing the need to take seriously contrary arguments by anyone, no matter how impressive his or her credentials might be, if that person happened to doubt global warming. Just a short time ago, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, the OISM, released the names of some 31,000 scientists who signed a petition rejecting the claims of human-caused global warming. Of the 31,072 Americans who signed, 9,021 had Ph.D.s; many of the 31,000 signers currently work in climatology, meteorology, atmospheric, environmental, and geophysical studies, astronomical studies, as well as the biological fields that directly relate to the climate change controversy. And note, of the 31,000 signatories, these signers are American scientists. There are many prominent scientists throughout the world who are stepping up to expose the well-financed propaganda campaign behind the man-made global warming theory. But the views of these American scientists and those of so many scholars and scientists throughout the world don't count. The debate is over. It has been declared over. Al Gore has his Nobel Prize, and the film An Inconvenient Truth has its Academy Award. So shut up, case is closed. So what is this theory that now is so accepted that no more debate is needed or even tolerated? Man-made global warming is a disturbing theory that the Earth began a warming cycle 150 years ago that differed greatly from all the other warming and cooling cycles in the Earth's primordial past. And over the life of this planet over the millions of years, there have been many, many such situations of warming and cooling, sometimes lasting 10 years, sometimes lasting hundreds of thousands of years, glaciers that went back and forth. This warming cycle that we are now talking about and we are being told that it is unlike the warming cycle of all of those past warming and cooling cycles, this one we are told is tied directly to mankind's use of fossil fuels, as of course compared to all the other warming and cooling cycles even before mankind was present on the planet. Basically, they are saying that our use of fossil fuels, again, basically oil and coal, are causing the Earth's temperature to change; and they are blaming oil and coal, which happen to be fuels that have powered our industries and made modern civilization possible. Fossil fuels, we are told, are rapidly increasing the level of so-called greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, the most prevalent of these greenhouse gases being CO2, carbon dioxide. This increase in CO2 we are told causes the warming cycle we are now supposedly experiencing. This man-made warming cycle, according to the theory, is rapidly approaching a tipping point when the world's temperature will abruptly jump and accelerate with dire consequences, perhaps apocalyptic consequences, for the entire planet. Well, that is basically the global warming theory. For skeptics of this hypothesis, the consequences of accepting this theory are far more dire than any of the predicted rise in temperature predictions: We will live with the consequences of the social engineering being touted as necessary to prevent man-made global warming. It's a package. Accept the man-made global warming theory, and one is expected to accept the controls, regulations, taxation, international planning and enforcement, mandated lifestyle changes, the lowering of expectations, the limiting of consumer choice, and personal as well as family sacrifices that are necessary to save the planet from, well, from us. It really takes a lot to frighten people into accepting such personal restrictive mandates that would result from implementing a global warming based agenda. People's lives will be changed if we accept this agenda as being real, and if we cave in to this onslaught of propaganda. People's lives will change, but it won't be a change for the better. For example, jets are considered some of the worst CO2 polluters, according to the theory. So, how will our lives be different when low-priced airfares are eliminated? Let me repeat that. Low-priced airfares to be eliminated. How will that affect our lives? And how about the restricting the number of flights, themselves? How will that affect our lives? Oh, I guess we never thought about that. Well, we never thought about that because those clamoring for us to accept the man-made global warming agenda never mentioned the price that we have to pay, not just in dollars, but in the freedom that we have today to make such choices in our lives, choices, for example, when and how many times we should travel with our families and where we should travel. What we do know about the man-made global warming fanatics is that they don't want us using our cars. They've hidden the fact about the airplane restrictions, but we do know they don't like us in our private cars. Private automobiles will be on the way out. They want us to be regulated into public transportation, and basically, we will have gone out of our cars and have limited air travel. But don't worry. Don't worry about it because the rich and high government officials will still have private jets, Suburbans and limousines, because they will just buy carbon credits, which Al Gore will arrange for them, and he'll arrange it for them at a tidy profit for himself, of course. Global warming and global warming predictions appear to be designed to strike fear into the hearts of those malcontents, those of us malcontents who won't willingly accept these mandates and these changes in our lifestyle that will be demanded of us. And who, for example, among us, and we know that there will be people who just won't accept the idea that we have to have higher food prices; or they won't accept the fact that we need less meat in our diet. That's right. Man-made global warming fanatics want us to change our diet in a big way, not just low price airfare tickets, but our diet. A 2006 report to the United Nations entitled Livestock's Long Shadow focuses right on the hind parts of cows. Livestock, the report claims, accounts for 18 percent of the gases that supposedly cause the Earth's climate to change, the warming of the Earth's climate. Cows are greenhouse gas-causing machines, according to this report. Fuel for fertilizer and meat production and transportation, as well as the clearing of fields for grazing, produced 9 percent of the globe's CO2 emissions, according to the report. Cows produce ammonia, causing acid rain. And if that's not bad enough, all these numbers that I just mentioned are projected, in this report, are projected in the report's computer models that they will double by the year 2050. So not only is it bad today to eat meat, it's going to be so much worse by 2050, we've got to act now to get meat out of the diet. Not only are they going to cut our personal transportation, but we can't even stay at home and have a barbecue. Heck, they're not even going to let us have a hamburger. I'd point out that before the introduction of cattle to the United States, millions upon millions of buffalo dominated the great plains of America. They were so thick that you could not see where the herd began or where it ended. One can only assume that the anti-meat, man-made global warming crowd must believe that buffalo farts have some social redeeming value that's better than the flatulence emitted by cattle. I have to be very careful about such jokes. I was making light of this supposition at a hearing about a year ago. And I suggested, in jest, that perhaps dinosaur flatulence changed the climate back in those ancient days. Well, it was reported, widely reported as if I was serious, which demonstrates something that we should all understand about the global warming debate. The global warming debate has been totally dishonest. Anyone who could suggest that I was saying that as a serious matter was either a fool, or was intentionally portraying something that they knew was not to be true. Yes, what we have here, of course, is steely-eyed fanaticism by those on the other side of this debate, and maybe they can't understand humor when they see it or hear it. Yes, this is an absurd theory to be talking about animal flatulence when we're talking about the future of the planet and the restrictions, massive restrictions on our way of life. This would be absurd, but the deeper that one looks into this global warming juggernaut, the weirder this movement becomes, and the more denial in it is evident. Ten years ago, for example, alarmists predicted that by now we would be clearly plagued by surging temperatures. In testimony before Congress 20 years ago, NASA's global warming guru, James Hanson, predicted CO2 levels would shoot up the global temperatures by more than a third of a degree Celsius during the 1990s. Well, we were warned that we'd soon be seeing rising sea levels. And you've all seen all of these predictions, rising sea levels, perhaps even our cities under water, drought and famine and increase in tropical diseases. Yeah, an increase in tropical diseases. Of course the only increase in tropical diseases we've seen can be directly traced to the success of environmental extremists in banning DDT, which has resulted in millions of Third World children dying of malaria, something else that they were wrong about. So what about Hanson's and others predictions of imminent global overheating? Well, forget case closed. The question needs to be answered. And the answer is that Hanson's and the other predictions have turned out to be dramatically wrong. Temperatures during this last decade rose only one- third of the predicted jump, a modest 0.11-degree change. Remember, Mr. Hanson has been so arrogant over the years that he has insisted that his opinions be emblazoned on government documents as the official position of NASA, rather than acknowledging that existing other opinions may be worthy of consideration. And now, we are finding out that the predictions made by Mr. Hanson, who doesn't want any other people's opinions even to be considered as part of an official NASA presentation, that this, Mr. Hanson and other self-anointed elitists have been wrong, dead wrong in their predictions of what should be happening right now. Over the years, we've been led to expect an increased number of even more powerful hurricanes, for example. There would also be drought and melting ice caps. My beautiful Sierra Nevada mountains in California were due to heat up, dry up, brown up and burn, burn, burn, and we've been told this for almost 20 years now. During the entire Clinton administration, scientists produced study after study predicting the horrific impact of the unstoppable onslaught of man-made global warming, which we were all led to believe by those studies would be overwhelming us right now. Of course, if there was even a hint that the conclusion of their research wouldn't back up the man-made global warming theory, the scientists and researchers wouldn't get one red cent from the Federal research pool during the Clinton and Gore administration. In a September 2005 article from Discovery magazine, Dr. William Gray, now emeritus professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University and, more importantly, the former president of the American Meteorological Association, said that he had paid a price for his skepticism of man-made global warming. Quote, ``I had NOAA money for 30 years, for 30 some years,'' Dr. Gray said. ``And then, when the Clinton administration came in,'' and this is still part of the quote, ``and Gore started directing some of the environmental stuff, I was cut off. I couldn't get any money, any NOAA money. They turned down 13 straight proposals from me.'' Here's from one of America's great, eminent meteorologists, and the Clinton administration just kept turning him down because he had expressed some skepticism about whether man-made global warming was a reality. Dr. Gray made the mistake of being a skeptic about global warming. And however he was skeptic about that, that made him wrong with the Clinton administration. But he was right about hurricanes which were being blamed on global warming. Remember, we were told that global warming was going to cause more hurricanes. And Dr. Gray, one of the great meteorologists, said there's no reliable data available to indicate increased hurricane frequency or intensity in any of the globe's seven tropical cyclone basins.'' So, with that type of skepticism, no matter what his credentials were, no matter how preeminent a scientist and respected scientist he was, he couldn't get a grant during the Clinton/Gore administration. So Dr. Gray was cut off. The predictors of gloom and doom were left to shout out their paranoid nonsense every time a hurricane was detected. And just recently, one of those shouters, Tom Knutsen, research meteorologist for the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, that's NOAA, that's the ones who ended up not being able to give Dr. Gray any research grants, this gentleman, Mr. Knutsen, who was, during that time when Dr. Gray said there wasn't a relationship, he was a hurricane alarmist, suggesting there would be more and more hurricanes because of global warming, has now published a study in the Journal of Native Geoscience admitting that he was wrong. For the record, he now says his studies indicate that warming is not to blame for more hurricanes, and that warmer temperatures, if they do come, will actually reduce the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic. He unequivocally stated that his most recent finding argues against this notion that we've already seen a dramatic increase in Atlantic hurricane activity resulting from greenhouse warming gases. So here is a scientist with integrity. Dr. Gray, of course, was punished. He couldn't even get a research grant. But here we have a scientist who did get the grant and made wrong conclusions, but now he's stepping forward because he has integrity, to admit that he was wrong and now he has openly changed his mind. Unfortunately, such scientific integrity did not always rise to the occasion. Perhaps it's because scientists saw the raw power exercised during the Clinton/Gore administration, which may well revisit us in the next administration if we don't watch out. But there was raw power being exercised. Al Gore's first act as Vice President was to insist that William Harper be fired as the chief scientist at the Department of Energy. Why? Because he had uttered some words indicating that he was open minded about the man-made global warming theory, just like Dr. Gray. Well, anybody who talks about that way, off with his head. No more position for you. That was back in 1993, the first year of the Clinton- Gore administration. So for over a decade, all we got was a drum beat of one-sided research setting the stage for a false claim of scientific consensus that we heard 18 months ago. Case closed. Case closed. The argument is over. Global warming is real. How many times did we hear that? Let us remember that refrain and how false it was and how dishonest it was. Unfortunately, for all of those scientists who went along with the scheme back in the 1990s, now over a decade later there is a big problem. Contrary to what all of those scientists living on their Federal research grants predicted, the world hasn't been getting warmer. In fact, for the last 7 years when we were told there would be this dramatic increase in temperature, there has been no warming at all. Last year was colder, not hotter. Snow levels were high, temperatures have been low, and there are fewer hurricanes. Furthermore, while there is some melting in the Arctic, which we hear about over and over and over again about the melting in the Arctic, which we need to sort of compensate that and balance that off with the fact that there is an actual ice buildup in the Antarctic, which is almost never stated during those global-warming's-real-the-Arctic-is- melting. What is happening, of course, in the Arctic is probably based--I can't say for certain; we need studies on this--but is probably based on ocean currents. But it is not CO2-related global warming; otherwise, it would be a global impact on both ends of the planet. After hearing about the extinction of the polar bear again and again, and it has been drummed into our heads, the polar bear--all of the things about the Arctic out there, showing the poor polar bears. A few weeks ago, we were treated to the spectacle of our government placing polar bears on the Endangered Species List even though almost every article about placing the polar bears on the Endangered Species List contained a caveat that the number of polar bears is actually expanding, and with some of the species of polar bears, it's a dramatic expansion. There are more, not fewer, polar bears. Let me repeat that so everyone knows. There are more polar bears. Yet we are, because of the onslaught of this global warming nonsense that has colored people's vision by words rather than reality, we put the polar bear on the Endangered Species List even though their numbers are expanding. Unfortunately, the debate is over and the case is closed. So explaining the emerging obvious differences between reality and the theory need not be addressed. Maybe that's why they kept saying ``case closed'' because the observable data that was going on was in such contrast to the predictions that were being made, this was the time they had to declare the case was closed or we would basically be able to see with our very eyes the contradiction in what they had predicted. So what we need to do is to close our eyes, close our eyes and pretend that there are fewer polar bears. That's the way to do it. That's the way we should make policy, according to the scare-mongers. But the case is not closed. The gnomes of climate theory are now coming up with self-serving explanations and verbal maneuvers. The first attempt to cover their tracks has been slow but ever so clever. The words ``climate change'' have now replaced the words ``global warming.'' Now, if we accept this, no matter what happens with the global weather pattern, whether it be cooler or hotter for 4 years or 5 years, could be cooler, could be hotter, it will still be presented by the global warming crowd as further verification of human- caused change. Thus, they can claim credit that no matter what happens, no matter what happens in the climate, their predictions are correct because it's climate change now and not global warming, even though for over a decade and a half that was drummed into us that they were so certain that it was going to be global warming. Well, if we accept this shift of words, we know that we will be in a position now of being unable to intellectually say, well, there's not global warming like you predicted, so we actually are going to oppose and reject the oppressive policies that you are advocating to deal with the issue that you are describing. But if they use the words ``climate change,'' how are we going to counteract their policy recommendations when now whatever happens to the climate, they can justify it based on climate change? Sorry, fellows. Do you really think the world and the United States is filled with morons? I mean, bait-and-switch is an old game, and we've seen it in car salesmen; and car salesmen, I might add, are paragons of virtue compared to this global warming crowd. We just need to ask ourselves if a salesman keeps giving a strong pitch and claims something that later is found to be totally wrong, when does one stop trusting him? If he starts playing word games rather than admitting an error, isn't it reasonable to stop trusting him? If his prediction is that, well, this car is going to get 50 miles to the gallon and it only gets 5 miles to the gallon, isn't that really when we should stop trusting that used car salesmen? Well, yes, Al Gore and Company, we need to let Al Gore and Company know that we have noticed that they are now using the words ``climate change'' instead of ``global warming.'' And they're not just sort of slipping it in. They are trying to, but we've noticed, and that has important meaning. In and of itself that is an admission that they were wrong for over a decade in claiming that there would be global warming. Now it's climate change. Every time they use the word, it indicates they were wrong or they were lying before about how absolutely sure they were about what their predictions were and about what all of the statistics and what all of the research indicated. They were either lying or they were wrong. And every time they use the words ``climate change,'' it should reinforce us in understanding they were wrong or they were lying. Perhaps instead of word games, they need to explain why what is happening in the real world today doesn't match what they all said was going to happen based on their case-closed, man-made global warming is real. Okay. They must realize that someone is bound to notice that last winter was a really cold winter. I mean, it was a cold winter and it has been unusually chilly. And now chilly weather seems to be the norm, and where we've not yet had a full analysis of last year's winter, full winter, and we are looking forward to seeing exactly what a full study of the temperature ranges around the world had for us last winter. According to the global warming crowd, we should have seen a dramatic increase in the temperatures last winter. We will see. We are now seeing, of course, a beehive of activity. Those federally funded scientists who we mentioned are trying to save a modicum of credibility by readjusting their computers and coming up with some explanations that will keep the man-made global warming theory from being totally rejected but at the same time trying to explain away the current dichotomy between what they said would happen and then what is actually happening. Some scientists have simply adjusted their computer models and are now claiming that the warming isn't going to happen now, it's going to happen 10 to 15 years from now. Oh. So we can keep giving them their research grants for the next 10 to 15 years and then something else may happen. In fact, a much-detailed report is now predicting that the temperature of the sea around Europe and North America will slightly cool off in the next decade and the Pacific will be the same in its temperature. One recent article about the shift in scientific position heralded it's a ``10-year timeout'' for global warming. Well, however, we are warned, however, that after that 10 years, the global warming will start again. You see, they don't ever have to admit their original theories were wrong. We had one scientist at NOAA who stood up and had the integrity to say, I was wrong. I applaud him for it. These other scientists, we need to take note that they seem to be incapable of suggesting that perhaps the research grants that they took during the Clinton administration had skewed their vision of what the reality was in terms of climate and the world. To understand all of this nonsense, we need to seriously examine the basic assumptions of this gang of global alarmists who have been pushing this paranoid theory. They believe excess amounts of man-made CO2 are being deposited into the air and that this is what causes the greenhouse effect that warms the atmosphere. The carbon footprint that we hear about is referring to the amount of CO2 released by any specific activity. The CO2 causes the planet to warm, as we are told, until it reaches that darn tipping point when all hell breaks loose. That's what we're being told. That is the concept that every other extrapolation is based on. But it's wrong. It's dead wrong. It's absolutely wrong. It's based on CO2 and its impact on the temperature of the planet. Yet what we find more and more evidence of is that the rise in CO2 in the past came after the rise in global temperatures. Not before. The increases that there have been in CO2 on the earth and in the earth's history happened after the earth had warmed, and the scientists are trying to tell us it was the other way around. The reality has been observed in ice cores by prominent scientists, yet this fundamental challenge to the validity of the man-made global warming theory has gone unanswered by those who are screaming that this case is closed and that all discussion is off. So let's talk about that. Why aren't these scientists like Mr. Hansen and others willing to debate the CO2 issue? Why is it instead that they simply call names of people who are trying to ask questions and are skeptical about their theories? Well, they just keep repeating ``case closed'' or attacking not what the presentation of the ideas being presented, but instead attack, for example, myself in some nonsensical way as if I believe dinosaur farts changed the world's climate. That is about as dishonest a debate as you can have, yet we are told the issue of climate change now, global warming, is so important to the future of the world. Well, okay. Let's talk about the CO2. Let's have a debate on that issue. To cite one expert's findings, and we will just leave that for the record, Tom Scheffelin of the California Air Resources Board stated on November 5, 2007, that ``CO2 levels track temperature changes between 300 to 1,000 years after the temperature has changed. CO2 has no direct role in global warming; rather, it responds to biological activity which responds to climate changes.'' So what causes this warming in the first place? If it is not the CO2, all of these people were telling us that it is the CO2 that's caused the temperature to change and now we're in for it because the levels of CO2 are going up. Well, what did cause the temperatures to change if it wasn't CO2? Well, the best explanation I have heard is activity on the sun, and that would explain why we see parallel temperature trends as those trends that are on earth; we see those same trends going on on Mars and Jupiter. Are these people trying to tell us that they've got a problem with some sort of CO2 on Jupiter and Mars as they have their changes in the climate that sort of parallel what's going on in the earth? Well, Mars and Jupiter have something in common with us. They're part of our planetary system, and if something is happening on the sun, it will affect them as well as us. So that, too, is an argument, by the way, that's totally being ignored by the alarmists. After all, what new controls or new taxes or new regulations will they be able to foist on us if it's determined that the sun and not our sports cars are causing the problem of a warmer weather, if there is warmer weather. The fact is that man-made global warming and the community that supports man-made global warming are jumping through hoops, bending over backwards, struggling to find one glint of new information to cover for their arrogant attempt to stampede humankind into Draconian policies. The government-financed man-made global warming propaganda campaign has been, and continues to be, a cacophony of gibberish presented as scientific explanation. I've already given specifics as to what needs to be discussed, and instead, they ignore any type of specific challenge and go to personal attacks. And their explanations, for example, are left to people like Al Gore, and, let's face it, Al Gore is having a little trouble right now in telling us why his predictions have been wrong. The CO2 premise has been based that the whole global warming theory is wrong. Al Gore needs to confront that and argue his case. The methodology, by the way, that has determined ``global warming'' has been wrong. The observations have been wrong, and let me add, the attempt to shut down the debate has been wrong. Now, I remember Al Gore labeling me as a Stalinist. He used the word ``Stalinist'' to refer to me, because when I chaired the Subcommittee on Research and Science in the House, I insisted that both sides be presented and that expert witnesses be expected to address each other's points and contentions. To him, that's Stalinism, and I would suggest that the propaganda campaign of the man-made global warming alarmists has much more in common with Stalinism than does insisting that both sides of the issue be heard at a congressional hearing. One has to really believe that he or she has a corner on the truth to make such a complaint that Stalinism is having both sides presented and addressing each other's points. Of course, Al Gore's documentary, ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' as suggested by its own title is to be taken as the truth. Well, I won't go into the numerous debatable points and outright errors of that film, but something far worse is uncovered than just the errors of his film. In the pseudoscience and scientific documentary--yes, there were in that documentary, ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' there are numerous film segments of climate and environmental incidents, sort of like National Geographic footage, to add credibility to the alleged scientific points that supposedly were being documented. Specifically, the film portrays a dramatic cracking and breaking away of a huge portion of the polar icecap. The scene is awesome and somewhat overwhelming and leaves the audience with the feeling that they've witnessed a massive historic occurrence. Unfortunately, it's all fake. This is not grand, firsthand photographic evidence. It is not National Geographic footage of a huge breaking away of a portion of the icecap. Instead, what the audience is looking at is a great example of special effects. It's not the icecap. It's Styrofoam that you're seeing. That's right, Styrofoam, Styrofoam special effects trying to fool us into thinking we're seeing something happening in the icecap. By the way, isn't Styrofoam an oil-based product? Isn't there some sort of a carbon footprint there? Well, Mr. Gore has not commented on this depiction. Maybe it is inconvenient for him to comment because it may hurt his credibility. After all, it is not getting warmer, as he predicted, so maybe he has based his theories on a Styrofoam model that doesn't work. The first time I met Al Gore was in my first term back in 1989-1990. Al Gore, then a United States Senator, marched into the Science Committee room, followed by a platoon of cameras and reporters. He sat in front of our committee demanding that President Bush--that's George W's dad--declare an ozone emergency. And he waved a report in his hand as evidence that there was an ozone hole opening up over the northeast of the United States. A few days later, the report touted by Senator Gore was found to have been based on faulty data, data collected by one so-called researcher, flying in a single-engine Piper cub with limited technology and no expertise. The emergency declaration the senator called for would have had severe negative economic consequences on the people who live in the northeast part of the United States. Now, does anyone detect a pattern here? Such scare tactics, Chicken Little-ism, based on false information, of course, isn't new. We have many past examples of this nonsense being portrayed as science. In 1957, the FDA recalled 3 million pounds of cranberries. I remember as a young person that my mother took the cranberries off the table for Thanksgiving and Christmas and told me because they cause cancer. Well, a few years later, of course, it was admitted it was a total mistake; sorry, it was a mistake. Of course, a tremendous price was paid by a large number of our farmers who went broke. Then, of course, there was the scare over cyclamate used in everyday items like soda, jams, ice cream. It was very sweet and extremely low in calories. Cyclamate generated enormous profits because it was a product of research by our industry, but then in the early 1970s, the FDA banned cyclamate as a cancer hazard. Well, come to find out, the rats in their study had been force fed the equivalent of 350 cans of soda a day, and only eight of the 240 rats that they crammed all this soda in got sick. It was a faulty test, and eventually, after years, the truth finally prevailed, and it was officially recognized that cyclamate does not cause cancer. Canada, by the way, never banned cyclamate. Our northern buddies, I guess, couldn't get themselves to force feed those rats. Well, the FDA did take back its negative finding; however, great damage was done. This episode had serious consequences. It was the cyclamate ban that led to the introduction of high fructose corn syrup, with the obesity and the health problems that have come with high fructose corn syrup. So, yes, another scare tactic, another American industry decimated, another rotten theory with unintended consequences foisted upon us. The next example of fear mongering with pseudo science came on February 26, 1989. On that evening, February 26, 1989, Americans tuned in to ``60 Minutes'' and heard Ed Bradley say, ``The most potent cancer-causing agent in our food supply is a substance sprayed on apples to keep them on the trees . . . '' And he goes on to say basically that the children are being put at risk by eating these apples that have alar on them, and that story snowballed out of control. Meryl Streep testified before Congress with all this basically pseudo-scientific nonsense. Parents ended up tossing apples out the window. Schools removed applesauce from the cafeteria, replacing of course the applesauce with more safe and nutritious substances like ice cream and pudding. There was only one small problem. Alar, which is what was on the apples, didn't cause cancer, and the study that was released was based on bad science. Twenty-thousand apple growers in the United States, of course, suffered enormous financial harm because of this, and of course, when the public was so frightened, the alarmism was noted that it was a very successful tool and people could be scared into accepting policy if we just scared them. People saw that when they saw what a stampede happened because of this one story on alar. So then comes Three Mile Island, the Three Mile Island incident, the so-called nuclear disaster which ended any expansion of nuclear energy in America. Three Mile Island is the prime example of how devastating pseudo-science scare tactics can be, even if there is no substance to the hysteria. In this case, our country is now heavily dependent on foreign oil, while France has developed a thriving nuclear infrastructure. The French have learned how to reprocess uranium. We have learned how to buy more energy from abroad. Just remember, Three Mile Island is a nuclear plant where an operational mishap, in which no one was hurt or put in danger, was portrayed as a deadly accident putting millions of people and their lives in jeopardy. Well, no one has yet to show me that one person's life was shortened by the Three Mile Island incident. Coupled with Jane Fonda's movie called ``The China Syndrome,'' which had just been released, the Three Mile Island incident was a major disaster, a major public relations disaster for the nuclear industry. It was used to terrify the American people into rejecting nuclear energy as a means of producing clean, reliable, domestically fueled electric energy. Ironically, nuclear power is probably the most effective means of producing power with no carbon footprint, no CO2. Yet the radical environmentalists still block any attempt to expand the use of nuclear energy, even as we expand our dependency on foreign oil, on oil that is produced by people who hate us. Again, it was a total con job and has had a horrible impact. And what about that ozone hole over the Antarctic? We were told it would continue to grow and grow and it would take decades to get it under control. Boyce Rensberger, director of the Knight Fellowship at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, points to evidence that the ozone concentration is a cyclical event, expanding and contracting the ozone throughout the eons of time. It's just part of a natural cycle according to this scientist from MIT. So here is a scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology telling us the current ozone depletion is simply part of a recurring cycle, not the result of chlorofluorocarbons, as we were told. In layman terms, he's telling us that the gigantic expense of shifting away from aerosol was a waste for America. We're talking about billions of dollars here. The ozone hole closed on its own. It was just part of a cycle. If it wasn't, it would be much different than it is today. Then there is acid rain, of course. Who can forget the frightening threats that acid rain posed to us just 20 years ago? Acid rain was supposed to decimate our forests, destroy the fresh water bodies, and erode our buildings and sidewalks. Well, whatever happened to acid rain? Well, that theory, too, proved to be an extreme stretch of the truth. President Reagan was pummeled without mercy for his unwillingness to take monstrously costly action aimed at thwarting acid rain. He insisted on waiting for an in-depth study to be completed, and he was vilified for his insistence on legitimate scientific verification. Well, a 10-year study by the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Project was submitted to Congress in 1990. It minimized the human impact of acidity of water in the northwest and the northeast of the United States. The issue then died quickly and quietly, and no one ever apologized to Ronald Reagan. We haven't heard about acid rain. If they were right, we should have been hearing about it all this time. Instead, of course we've been hearing about something else which is much easier to scare people with, global warming. And of course, the last one before global warming that I'd like to mention is the most pitiful of all. Yes, an alarmist scheme which made the cover of Time magazine 30 years ago. Just 3 decades ago, scientists and politicians were frantic about global cooling. We were told the Earth was entering a new ice age. Unfortunately for the scare mongers, the temperature did not plummet and the oceans did not freeze. In fact, it was getting a bit warmer, and during the 1980s and 1990s it did get a little bit warmer. There was an up-and-down cycle. It happens in the Earth, has always happened. Well, some of those people, some of those scientists and others who were talking about global warming, well, they've changed their words, and of course, you guessed it, global cooling became global warming. Almost overnight global cooling was rejected, and then there became global warming, and now, of course, global warming is changing to climate change. So, the scare tactics are nothing new; it's a tried and true method. They've seen it ever since Alar, how people can be stampeded, and then policies can be foisted off on people. Unfortunately, the long-term consequences will be very damaging, very, very damaging for the next generation, just as the instances that I've just described have been damaging for our country. Here, we don't have nuclear energy to help us through this crisis, and we've been left at the mercy of Arab producers of oil, many of whom don't like us and don't like our way of life. Of course, our kids are being lied to in a big way to make sure they will be able to be fooled in the future, to prepare them to make the sacrifices that are necessary. Well, I often ask students from my district, from southern California, who come here to visit whether they think that 45 years ago, when I went to high school in southern California, whether or not at that time the air was cleaner or dirtier than it is now. A huge percentage of the students from southern California, young kids who I see from my district, in particular, believe that the air quality 45 years ago in southern California was dramatically better than it is today. When I tell them that what they believe is 100 percent wrong, that the air is dramatically cleaner today in southern California, you can see the frustration in their eyes; they have been lied to in a big way. The big lie their generation has been fed is that the environment is going the wrong way and that they have to give up their freedom, that we have to give up our national sovereignty, and that they have to give up their expectations of certain things in their life because the future is bleak because everything about the environment--the air, the water, the land--are all getting worse when, in fact, there has been tremendous progress made. And let me tip my hat to the environmentalists on this, and that is, yes, there has been regulation, that some of the cleaning, perhaps most of the cleaning that we've experienced we've seen as a result of the fact that government and liberal Democrats who push some of these reforms got them through and has helped clean the air, the water and the land. And for anyone not to admit that I think would be disingenuous on our part. But the fact is that our children are now being told that this man- made global warming is going to devastate the whole planet. They might as well not look forward to anything at all unless they buy into all of this agenda, and all of the controls that are being advocated and the bringing down, basically, of their expectations of their life, no travel as much as you--you don't expect low air fares like your parents had. No. Unfortunately, it doesn't get much worse than that when you're telling young people to be that pessimistic. Dr. John Christy, a professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, wrote recently, ``I remember as a college student at the first Earth Day being told it was a certainty that by the year 2000 the world would be starving and out of energy.'' Dr. Christy goes on to say, ``Similar pronouncements made today about catastrophes due to human-induced climate change sound all too familiar and are all too exaggerated for me, as someone who actually produces and analyzes climate information.'' We are told that polar bears are dying, but of course most populations of polar bears are thriving. We are told that polar ice caps are melting, but the Antarctic ice is actually growing. Hurricane Katrina was supposed to be only the first of many horrendous hurricanes to hit the United States within a few years, all caused by, of course, the warming of the climate, which is, of course, brought on by the CO2 emissions that we've had from the use of fossil fuels, never mind the fact that a hurricane of equal force to Katrina had actually hit the area 100 years before when there was a lot less CO2 in the air. And now, of course, since Katrina, totally contrary to the predictions, there hasn't been another strong hurricane season since Katrina, which totally is in contrast to the rhetoric that we heard 2 years ago. But of course we're told, never mind, the case is closed, you can't argue about it anymore. An honest debate is long overdue, yet we see an attempt to shut down the debate. So what are the issues which need to be addressed in an honest debate? I mentioned a few already. First and foremost, my colleague in the other Chamber, Jim Inhofe, has pointed out that man- made global warming theory, especially the part concerning CO2 and the so-called ``tipping point,'' is all based on computer models. And computer models are often changed to fit the theory. So let's take a look at the facts, get off of the computer models, and take a look at the facts. Does increased CO2 come from warming, or is it the other way around? By the way, what I'm told is that the solar activity heats the ocean water somewhat; and cooler ocean water absorbs CO2, warmer ocean water means that there will be more CO2 in the air. And if that's not the case, let's debate it, let's find out. Let's examine the issue of warming itself. The man-made global warming advocates claim that there is a 1.3 degree rise in global temperature since 1850. Yet it's widely known, and right in the hearings on the Science Committee they bring in their charts. Here's the thing in 1850. And here you see up here it's 1.5 degrees warmer now, 150 years later, than it was in 1850. Well, it is widely known that 1850 marked the end of a 500-year decline in the Earth's temperatures known as the ``Mini Ice Age.'' So if one uses 1850 as a low point, as a baseline, isn't that totally dishonestly magnifying the importance of a 1.3 degree rise in temperature? Right? We're starting from the lowest base. And, by the way, again, that needs to be addressed. I've asked this question numerous times. Global warming alarmists never will confront any of the basic scientific challenges to what they're saying and instead go to ad homonym attacks. Well, people can mention that they think somebody's looney, that's fine, that's all right, as long as we couple it with here is where we disagree, and let's talk about where we disagree. Instead, we've heard, he's looney, case closed. Don't talk about it, shut up, and accept what we have to say. So, what about the process that collected and analyzed the data which we now are being told supports and proves the man-made global warming theory? The Select Committee on Economic Affairs under the British Parliament had much to say about the methodology about the much- heralded U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC, on which much of the man-made global warming theory has been resting on their supposed findings. And the Parliament Commission in Britain said, ``We have some concerns,'' the parliamentary committee reported, ``about the objectivity of the IPCC process, with some of its emissions scenarios and summary documentation apparently influenced by political considerations.'' Shortly after this criticism, Edward Wegman from George Mason University found several problems with the statistical method and peer review process of the IPCC. At this time, I will place my remaining remarks in the Record and I would hope that my colleagues or anyone listening who would like to read this would look into the Congressional Record and read the rest of this presentation. With that said, I appreciate the Chair granting me this hour to talk directly to my colleagues and to the American people, through the Congressional Record. Then, a February 2008 report by Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong for the National Center for Policy Analysis found glaring problems in the IPCC's 2007 report. At a minimum, the IPCC ignored just under half of widely accepted forecasting principles. At worst, they violated over \3/4\ of those principles. Sterling Burnett of the Washington Times probably sums it up the best: ``Several assessments of the IPCC's work have shown the techniques and methods used to derive its climate predictions are fundamentally flawed.'' How are we supposed to take them seriously in the face of such lunacy? This isn't science. It's comedy. The National Policy Center was similarly distressed. Its reports on the IPCC found unreliable data and forecasting models, as well as politically motivated forecasters. Peer reviewers of the study were few in number and often had ties to the original authors of the IPCC study. Any academic will tell you that is unacceptable. But nevertheless we are told to sit down and shut up, case closed, game over. And Al Gore's movie isn't the only example of docudrama presented as gospel truth. As recent as May 5 of this year, the public was treated to yet another example of intentionally distorted visions. I am referring to an NBC program that included a view of the North Pole and the melting of the ice caps. As the reporter speaks, the camera pans over the ice as penguins cling to a small ice patch in the middle of the water. Touches your heart, doesn't it? Well, there is a problem. There are no penguins at the North Pole. Penguins live exclusively in Antarctica, that is the South Pole. But maybe we should give NBC the benefit of the doubt, maybe the penguins moved north. After all, climate change is happening in the South Pole too, except that there the ice is growing, not shrinking. Hmm. Well, that's why we call it ``climate change'' and not ``global warming,'' I suppose. I might add that NBC has removed the scene from its online video feed. Carbon dioxide is, in fact, like the penguins. It's being falsely pictured. It is being portrayed as a pollutant; in fact, it makes things grow, and it is not toxic to humans. After all, we exhale it with every breath. In the distant past the earth had much more CO2 in the air, perhaps as a result of volcanoes, but at that time we had abundant animal life, dinosaurs and lots of plants for them to eat. CO2 is today pumped into greenhouses to make tomatoes grow bigger and better. Nevertheless, we are now presented with such loony ideas like sequestration or carbon credits that only enrich the alarmists. This is only possible with a public that has been frightened into accepting totally false information about CO2. Let me state that I do support efforts that reduce pollution, particulates that do have a negative impact on the environment and human health. I support technologies that reduce these materials. If we are to have a debate on saving the environment, that is what we should be focusing on. Mr. Speaker, this old world has had many cycles of warming and cooling, probably the result of solar activity, perhaps in the distant past volcanoes, the ice caps on Mars and Jupiter go back and forth, just as glaciers have gone back and forth. But such a powerful and mysterious force as the weather can be frightening. We need not be frightened, hoodwinked into giving authority to our own government, much less the U.N. or a global power--the power to control our lives in the name of manmade global warming, or climate change, or whatever they want to call it. Let us not let the alarmists take this country down the wrong path. Let's let the children of this country and planet have the freedom and prosperity we enjoyed, and not give it away to hucksters who would frighten us into giving up our birthright in the name of saving the planet. Sounds noble, but it's just a trick, a hoax. The greatest hoax of all.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, recently I was visited in my office by two great Americans who have for many years been leading our nation's moral effort against the government of Communist Vietnam: Mr. John G. Carlson and Dr. Ngai Xuan Nguyen. Whenever they cone to town the bureaucrats in the State Department know that they will be asked some hard hitting questions and subjected to piercing scrutiny regarding the Administration's Vietnam appeasement policy. Messrs. Carlson's and Nguyen have sacrificed so much of their own personal time and resources in their endevour ``to bring improved democracy, human rights and religious freedom to the people of Vietnam'' they deserve the admiration of all of us. I am submitting for the Record a list that these two gentleman gave to me of ten political prisoners being detained in Vietnam and a statement by Mr. Nguyen to Secretary David Kramer, Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. I hope that the Vietnamese Communist Party quickly responds by doing the right thing and release the prisoners. I also strongly urge Secretary Kramer to follow the advice of Mr. Nguyen so clearly outlined in his statement. Additional Political and Religious Prisoners Being Detained--May 13, 2008 1. Bui Kim Thanh, lawyer of the Democratic Party of VN [DPV], rearrested and placed in a mental institution in Bien Hoa. 2. Ho Thi Bich Khuong, block 8406, sentenced 2 years in jail. 3. Nguyen Hoang Hai Blogger Dieu Cay, Club of VN freelance journalists, arrested in Dalat since 4/19/08. 4. Truong Minh Duc, journalist, VN Populist Party, awaiting trial, arrested in Kien Giang. 5. Nguyen Quoc Quan, Viet Tan Party, awaiting trial scheduled 5/13/08. 6. Nguyen The Vu, Viet Tan Party, awaiting trial scheduled 5/13/08. 7. Somsak Khumni, Viet Tan Party, awaiting trial scheduled 5/13/08. 8. Pham Ba Hai, Bach Dang Giang Group, sentenced to 5 years in jail. 9. Nguyen Ngoc Quang, Bach Dang Giang Group, sentenced to 3 years in jail. 10. Vu Hoang Hai, Bach Dang Giang Group, sentenced 2 years in jail. Statement by Dr. Ngai Xuan Nguyen, Vice Chairman, Democratic Party of Vietnam--Submitted to Secretary David Kramer, Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor--May 16, 2008 On May 29, 2008, you will lead a U.S. delegation to Hanoi to participate in a dialogue on U.S.-Vietnam Human Rights. As Vice Chairman of the Democratic Party of Vietnam, our Mission is to bring improved democracy, human rights and religious freedom to the people of Vietnam. Even though Vietnam's economy has undergone dramatic growth in recent years, Hanoi continues its oppression of human rights and religious freedom, just as it has been doing for decades. An ongoing U.S.-Vietnam dialogue can expand understanding between our two countries and peoples while consolidating human rights gains that have been won. However, actions speak louder than words. Therefore, we respectfully request that you discuss the following major issues with the Vietnamese government during your meetings in Hanoi, May 29: 1. All political and religious prisoners who are still being jailed in Vietnam must be set free, unconditionally. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher placed this list of 85 people in the Congressional Record in 2007, and a copy is available. Ten new activists, list attached, have been recently retained and should be added to this list, including Bui Thanh, a lawyer who has recently been sent to a mental institution. All 95 prisoners should be released, immediately. 2. Condemn the Vietnamese government for arresting and interrogating for more than six hours, Dr. Nguyen Thi An Nhan, and then deporting her on February 15, 2008. Dr. Nhan is a graduate of Harvard University Medical School and is currently a heart surgeon specialist at Stanford University. Her only ``crime'' was that she is a member of the Democratic Party of Vietnam and was in Hanoi to attend the funeral of Professor Hoang Minh Chinh on February 16, the Founder and Secretary General of the Democratic Party of Vietnam. 3. Unless major changes and improvements are made immediately, the U.S. State Department will recommend that Vietnam be redesignated a ``country of particular concern'' for its lack of democracy, human rights and religious freedom. Once Vietnam was removed from the CPC list and accepted into the World Trade Organization, human rights and religious freedom in Vietnam significantly deteriorated, as reported by Human Rights Watch on May 8, 2008. Several leaders of the UBCV (Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam) have been harassed and their pagodas destroyed in Lam Dong, Hue and Quant Tri in 2008. Many Christian leaders have been imprisoned and a major Montagnard Christian demonstration led by Reverend Nguyen Cong Chinh in April 2008 in Gia Lai and Daklak was oppressed by the Vietnam government with dozens of protestors beaten and arrested. Reverend Le Ngoc Thuong, from New Orleans, was arrested and deported to the U.S. while visiting Vietnam in April 2008. Major conflicts between the Vietnam government and Roman Catholic churches have erupted after the Vietnam government stole their land. These are just a few of the recent actions in the last several months. 4. If there is not an improvement in human rights, the U.S. Department of State will recommend that H.R. 3096, The Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2007, be passed in the United States Senate. H.R. 3096, which passed the House on September 18, 2007, condemns the ongoing human rights abuses in Vietnam, and prohibits increased U.S. non-humanitarian assistance to the Government of Vietnam unless there is verifiable evidence that the Vietnamese government has made substantial progress towards the release of its political and religious prisoners. In addition, this legislation requires that the Vietnam government respect the rights to freedom of religion, freedom of press and returns all confiscated properties. Again, we in the Democratic Party of Vietnam thank you for your continued efforts to bring about real change in Vietnam. However, talk is cheap, and it is time to see significant actions and results from the government of Vietnam.