Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), a Member whose leadership has been a major factor in the passage of so much historic legislative reform that has gone through this body.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. First of all, thank you very much to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and all those on the other side of the aisle and the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), who has done such great work in our committee and on issues dealing with Iran and trying to secure the safety of our country as well as the Middle East. The gentleman has my respect; and as he knows, he has had my cooperation in the past, and we appreciate his cooperation on this effort as well. This legislation needed to come to the floor, and we needed that type of bipartisan cooperation as well as cooperation with the Members on this side of the aisle and the hard work of the staff of both the Committee on International Relations and the Committee on Science to ensure that we were able to get this legislation passed in time to prevent what would have been an embarrassment, a major embarrassment, to the United States of America, which would have done irreparable damage to our credibility. Our space program would have been humiliated by the elimination of America's presence on the International Space Station, having an International Space Station, which we paid for, then to be occupied and controlled by Russians. We have, by this effort today, and by this cooperation, prevented that shortcoming, that humiliation from happening. But let me note, it was never the intent of the authors of this part of the Iran Nonproliferation Act that we should ever come to a crisis like this. I can say that with certainty, because I was the one who was involved with writing this portion of the Iran Nonproliferation Act. I felt at that time we should have taken care of this issue a long time ago with carrots rather than sticks. I went to both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration years ago to ask them to offer Russia an alternative to being involved with Iran in terms of building nuclear facilities. The Clinton administration did not act and the Bush administration did not act to prevent this crisis that we are averting right now at the last minute from happening. Thus, for the record, let us note that, yes, we have averted a crisis; but a long time ago, positive and responsible actions by either the Clinton administration or the Bush administration could have prevented this from happening in a most important way. Let me note, cooperation with Russia in the space program is not inherently bad. It is something that is inherently good. It places the Russian scientists working on positive programs such as cooperation with America's space program. Israel itself is very involved with the Russians in their space program. Russian rockets launch Israeli satellites. Thus, we know that it is not inherently tied to Iran, the cooperation with Russia in space matters. But let us make sure that by passing this today we in no way are belittling the argument about the importance of dealing with Iran's development of nuclear weapons. This should be of concern to each and every one of us, and passage of this bill does not lessen that concern whatsoever.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), a Member who was both the senior member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence as well as serving as chairman of the Committee on Science. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1713) to make amendments to the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 related to International Space Station payments, as amended.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and ask unanimous consent that he control that time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and, of course, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for the leadership that has been demonstrated in getting this legislation to the floor. One of America's challenges as we seek global security and stability is stopping the proliferation of nuclear and missile technologies. Several years ago, we enacted the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 to give the United States several tools in our fight against proliferation to Iran, one of which was a restriction on U.S.-Russian space cooperation. As a member of both the Committee on International Relations and the Committee on Science, I was deeply involved in that aspect of the Iran Nonproliferation Act. While many of the INA's tools have helped and should be continued, the limitation on space cooperation has not been effective and is now counterproductive. So, today, we have an opportunity to both correct and strengthen that legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the amended version of Senate bill 1713. First and foremost, the bill strengthens the tools available to fight proliferation to, and from, Iran. This bill also provides urgently needed relief for NASA so that the United States can maintain a continued presence on the International Space Station and enables cost-effective commercial partnerships to support the Space Station. This latter benefit also strengthens non-proliferation, because over the past decade we have learned that commercial ties between the United States and Russian aerospace companies have been an effective tool against proliferation. We need to employ such carrots along with our non-proliferation sticks. The changes put in place by S. 1713 will prevent a major setback for America's space program, and that is one of the most important things we are talking about today. It will prevent this setback by ensuring a continued and uninterrupted presence, an American presence, on the International Space Station. Cooperation with Russia, just as similar cooperation with Russia by the State of Israel in terms of space policy, will help us achieve America's space goals while maintaining our commitment to non- proliferation. This bill needs to be passed. There is a time element here, and I would like to thank all those who have been involved in trying to get this legislation to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 1713, the bill under consideration.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion. I think it is important for conservatives and Republicans to speak up at this moment because they did not speak up back in the 1950s when they should have. I think that this is a fitting moment for this conservative to offer his apology to all those who were active with Rosa Parks in the civil rights movement for not being as supportive as I should have been as well as other conservatives who I know. At that time many conservatives were blinded by the stupidity of the arguments presented to us called ``States rights,'' which was a bunch of baloney, and we know that now. We know that the people who really were offering that argument, many of them had evil hearts and sinful hearts, and that they hate their fellow human beings and were trying to just oppose the efforts to perfect our country and to make it what our Founding Fathers and Mothers dreamed it would be, a land of liberty and justice for all. Rosa Parks and the other activists in the civil rights movement at that time were doing their part to try to make our country better, to try to live up to its ideals. So as we name this Federal building, as we talk about this tonight and honor this great lady, I think it is fitting for those Republican conservatives to realize we did not do what was right back then. We recognize it, and we will make sure to do what is right in the future. I thank the people who have spoken today. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for reminding us of what hypocrisy really was, and that we really should not be hypocrites in our lives, and we should speak out strongly for wonderful people who gave their lives trying to make this country a better place.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the United States and Ethiopia have a long diplomatic history. It is a place that many Americans are familiar with. Next door to Ethiopia spreading out along the strategic Red Sea coastline is Eritrea, a relatively new country, and a place that few Americans seem to fully understand. The United States wants to have a good relationship with both Ethiopia and Eritrea. However, bilateral ties with both are weak and deteriorating. This situation can be corrected, but it will take more interest and involvement by senior leaders in the U.S. government. Congress is doing its part. Chairman Chris Smith and Representative Don Payne of the Africa subcommittee have held hearings on the border dispute earlier this year and have recently traveled to the region. Last year Congress passed Senate-originated legislation, which became law, restricting assistance to Ethiopia or Eritrea for non-compliance to the Eritrea-Ethiopia Border Commission findings. Unfortunately, in January 2005, the executive branch waived this provision on national security grounds. I say ``unfortunately'' because it is because of our national security interest that the provision should have been kept in place. Uncertainty on the border issue creates uncertainty in the region. Members have written letters to Secretary Rice and President Bush. We have urged them to clarify our policy and to become engaged in this increasingly volatile part of the world. The responses from the State Department have been unhelpful and lead us to believe that either there is no policy, or the policy is to apply political pressure on Eritrea until there is war--and then blame Eritrea for not compromising with Ethiopia--or continuously pressure Eritrea until they agree to renegotiate the final and binding decision of the EEBC. From Eritrea's perspective, everything depends on full implementation of the EEBC decisions. The U.S. supposedly supports the EEBC decisions, but if it does, then its support appears to be very weak. The U.S. policy, whatever it is, has one clear result: the status quo remains in place. Unfortunately, the status quo is untenable and will ultimately result in a renewal of hostilities. The current stalemate is clearly driving the region towards war. The border demarcation crisis is an existential threat to the security of Eritrea. The dialogue and discussion now being requested by Ethiopia has already occurred and is articulated by the EEBC. This fact underlies Eritrea's unwillingness to dialogue further with Ethiopia or with U.N. Special Envoy Lloyd Axworthy on border demarcation. The failure to resolve the border impacts all aspects of thinking in Eritrea. Eritrea believes that protecting the security and sovereignty of the nation is the first responsibility of the government. Let me make one thing perfectly clear: Ethiopian troops are occupying sovereign Eritrean territory today and have done so for years. Because Eritrea is a small developing country the current situation puts into effect enormous internal pressures. But Eritrea will not compromise its national sovereignty, and will instead invoke the right to self-defense as articulated in Article 51 of the U.N. Charter and move to secure its territory by force as the international community fails to implement and enforce the rule of law and U.N. Security Council resolutions. I am confident that if President Bush knew the details of this situation personally, that he would be very disappointed in the officials responsible for this weak policy. It does not reflect the President's love for freedom and justice. Our policy leads nowhere but to war. That is unacceptable. Someone has this problem figured out wrong. Today's approach mirrors the thinking of the Clinton Administration. One wonders where the Republican appointees are in the policy-making process concerning this part of the world. There is active discussion among Members about potential solutions. One common aspect of all potential courses of action is that more U.S. leadership is needed. U.S. leadership makes a difference. Clear policy statements by President Bush and other senior officials preceded Charles Taylor leaving Liberia, Syrian troops leaving Lebanon, Israeli settlements leaving Gaza, Viktor Yuschenko's election as President in Ukraine and so many other recent developments. China is paying attention to this region. Sudan has thousands of PRC advisors working in the oil and gas business as well as military advisors. China is rapidly expanding its relationship with Ethiopia and Eritrea. These relationships with China will falter over time, but right now Beijing seems to be paying attention to the Horn of Africa and we appear to be asleep at the switch. Someone at the State Department needs to wake up before it is too late. Mr. Speaker, the Congress is calling on the Administration to make a clear statement of our policy on the Eritrea-Ethiopia border demarcation issue. A clear statement urging Ethiopia to unconditionally and swiftly implement the EEBC's final and binding decision will set in motion positive forces that enable success. Further, such clarity would go a long way to starting a process that would very likely resolve this knotty border matter through a peaceful and diplomatic process rather than by more bloodshed.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of my colleagues the important contribution Kyrgyz Republic President Kurmanbek Bakiyev is making in supporting United States and Coalition Forces in our mission to fight terrorism in Afghanistan. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has just concluded a visit with President Bakiyev in the Kyrgyz Republic's capitol of Bishkek. On October 11, 2005, Secretary Rice and President Bakiyev issued a ``Joint Statement of the United States of America and the Kyrgyz Republic on the Presence of the U.S. Military in the Region.'' I ask that the full statement be placed in the Congressional Record. Mr. Speaker, I applaud President Bakiyev's leadership in making this courageous commitment to provide the United States and Coalition Forces access to the Manas air base. This agreement provides certainty at a time when there is great uncertainty in the region. This new U.S.- Kyrgyz agreement follows a statement released July 5, 2005, by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization comprised of China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, requesting a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal in the region due to the lessening of operations in Afghanistan. The U.S.-Kyrgyz agreement also comes at a critical time for our military presence in the region, in light of neighboring Uzbekistan's decision to deny the U.S. access to a key military base which has been used for counterterrorism, military and humanitarian missions. The United States has a very real and expanding interest in Central Asia. The United States looks forward to working closely with our partner The Kyrgyz Republic to successfully eliminate global terrorism and bring peace and stability to the region. Department of State, Washington, DC, October 11, 2005. Joint Statement of the United States of America and the Kyrgyz Republic on the Presence of the U.S. Military in the Region Following is the text of a joint statement issued by the United States of America and the Kyrgyz Republic on the Presence of the U.S. Military in the Region. Kyrgyzstan understands the need to resolve urgently the military and political situation in Afghanistan, to contain the sources of terrorism and to create peaceful conditions for the social, economic and democratic development of the country. in this regard, the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic recognizes the important contribution of the international anti-terrorist Coalition, located at the Ganci Airbase, in strengthening regional stability. The Kyrgyz side will continue to take part in these and other joint efforts of the international community to contend with modern-day challenges and threats to security. We support the presence of Coalition Forces in the Kyrgyz Republic until the mission of fighting terrorism in Afghanistan is completed, a mission supported by the United Nations. The governments of the United States and the Kyrgyz Republic express their readiness to review the transparency of investments made for the use of the Manas Airport and at the same time to discuss other organizational and technical questions. Regarding its domestic policy, Kyrgyzstan intends to continue its orientation toward strengthening democratic principles and carrying out a decisive battle against corruption in order to create the necessary conditions for sustainable development. Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and celebrate the 20th Anniversary of KKLA-FM Christian Talk Radio in Los Angeles, California. KKLA-FM began broadcasting out of a small studio in North Hollywood on October 15, 1985. The launch of an afternoon drive call-in talk show, ``Live From L.A.,'' in 1986 moved the station into position as the voice of the Southern California Christian community on local and national issues. KKLA-FM was the first station in Los Angeles--and the second in the country--to stream programming live on the Internet, beginning in late 1995. In the late 1990s, KKLA-FM's success led parent company Salem Communications Corporation to acquire and develop other stations around it in a cluster, including News/Talk 870 KRLA-AM, 95.9 KFSH-FM (The Fish), News/Talk 590 KTIE-AM and 1190 KXMX-AM. Salem Los Angeles, as the cluster is known today, encompasses nearly the entire 5th floor of its Glendale headquarters with 11 studios and production suites, and satellite offices in Orange County and the Inland Empire. For 20 years, KKLA-FM has provided a place for Southern Californians to tune in and listen to the Christian perspective on national events. Their success is also due to the generosity of their listeners who voluntarily contribute to pay for programming rather than expecting it from the taxpayer. I congratulate them on 2 decades of excellence and look forward to another 20 years of quality Christian talk radio.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and thank the people, especially the royal family, of Thailand. In my lifetime, the people of Thailand, guided by a benevolent and wise royal family, have been among America's best friends. Throughout the ups and downs of the Vietnam era, the Thai's have stood with us steadfastly, even when it was uncomfortable for them to do so. They have also played a tremendous humanitarian role by taking in refugees from tyranny from all directions. Their generosity and friendship is recognized, respected and appreciated. In a time when millions of Americans are suffering the disastrous affects of Hurricane Katrina, they have stepped forward to offer a helping hand. They have donated thirty tons of humanitarian goods such as food and blankets. It is inspiring to see that there are countries who appreciate our help in their times of need and are expressing it by helping our distressed people now. To the people and royal family of Thailand--thank you. Your compassion and friendship is much appreciated.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we as a people should take note of those who immediately rushed forward to help. As a senior member of the International Relations Committee, I rise today to express my personal gratitude as well as that of my fellow Americans to the royal family and to the people of Qatar who once again demonstrated their generosity, friendship, and solidarity with the people of the United States at a time of our maximum suffering. When it really counted, Qatar stepped forward with a generous gift of $100 million to the American victims of Hurricane Katrina. Qatar is a small country, yet it must rank near the top of America's list of friends and allies. With the leadership of a thoughtful and progressive royal family, Qatar is building democratic institutions including elections, freedom of press and religion, and a recognition of the rights of women. Furthermore, after 9/11, our military was permitted to establish its headquarters in Qatar, which is vital to the safety of our troops and the success of America's operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Thank you, Qatar. You have proven to be friends when we needed you the most, and we will not forget it.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation, this authorization bill. I want to congratulate the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), for a job well done. I especially want to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), who has taken over the position of chairman of the subcommittee, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall). Good job. It is a good job for America, good job for NASA and a good job for the future. In its short history, I believe NASA has done more than any other governmental agency to inspire generations of America's youth to pursue careers in science and engineering and thus propel the United States and the world into an era of technology that has elevated the human condition to what, only a few decades ago, was beyond imagination. Now at a time of intense global competition, NASA plays a vital role for our country both in inspiration and in technology development. America's success in the future depends on it. In just a few short months, NASA administrator Michael Griffin has shown tremendous leadership in transforming an agency from a maintenance-oriented mindset to a mission-oriented mindset. Dr. Griffin is fully behind the President's Vision for Space Exploration, and I am confident that he is the right man at the helm to guide NASA to achieve the vision and to achieve goals that will uplift all of humankind and especially our own country. Although these are exciting times for NASA, these are also challenging times. Hard decisions will have to be made as the administrator and all of us have to prioritize spending. The pressure of a constrained budget, expensive legacy missions, and future program developments of the Crew Exploration Vehicle and other exploration initiatives will require creative and bold spending cuts as well as an expansive partnership with the private sector. The administrator will need our support for making those tough decisions. NASA's success, America's success depends upon it. NASA cannot be an agency that does everything for everyone, or it will not be able to accomplish anything for anybody. It needs to have a clear focus and vision, and it needs to execute that vision as well. Let us stand proudly behind NASA and its new administrator. Let us make sure that America leads the world into this new frontier and elevates all of humankind, as was our mission that was set in place by our Founding Fathers over 225 years. I again congratulate those who have reached a bipartisan consensus in this bill today, and I am very proud that over my 18 years in Congress the Committee on Science has always demonstrated bipartisanship in this committee.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this bill. In 2001 after an attack on the United States and the slaughter of innocent civilians, this Congress passed the PATRIOT Act, which I supported at that time. It gave our investigative agencies a wide variety of special powers to fight terrorism and to win this war on terrorism. However, these powers were not to be permanent. They were designed to help us win the war, not to change our country permanently. Now we have the PATRIOT Act being handed to us again, but instead it is being handed to us in a permanent form. You do not make policy for the United States Government protecting the rights and freedoms of our people in an extraordinary time as this, a time of war, and then mandate it so it is going to be the rule of our country once we live in peacetime. Our country was founded on the idea of limited government and individual liberty. I gladly supported PATRIOT I. Now they have taken all but two of the sunset provisions which would make those extraordinary new powers that we gave the government lapse once we have peace in this country. Any real patriot will vote against this expansion of government at the expense of the individual even when peacetime comes.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would suggest that we do not have to sunset all the legislation going through this Congress, but we have to pay particular attention to that legislation that affects the civil liberties of our people. And if we are going to in some way expand the power of government over our people in time of war because it is necessary, that should be sunsetted once the war is over. By permanently changing America, we are not furthering the cause of freedom in this country.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion. After 9/11, the United States Congress gave our investigative agencies a wide variety of special powers to fight a war on terrorism, an expansion of powers that we would have never approved in peacetime. This included the right to break into homes of American citizens without court order, seize documents, copy computer files, and evidence without ever telling the owner. We gave our agencies, among those other things, the right to wiretap and intercept phone and computer communications without prior cause, and in general we lowered the requirement for lawful searches. I supported this dramatic expansion of Federal power because our country was at war. In times of emergency, it is responsible to increase the power of our government, yet we recognize that these powers should contain sunset provisions. The first PATRIOT Act had 16 of its sections sunsetted, so after the emergency was over the government would again return to a level consistent to a free society. Our Republic was founded on the idea that the powers of government should be limited. We should not be required to live in peacetime under the extraordinary laws that were passed during times of war and crisis. Emergency powers of investigation should not become the standard once the crisis has passed. I am seriously concerned about the use of emergency conditions to permanently alter our constitutional legal rights. Until now, the Members of this body have been denied the ability to vote their conscience on the issue of sunsets. Now, each of us will have that opportunity. It is not a Republican vote, it is not a Democrat vote. I support this war on terror and the war on radical Islam. I was here yesterday fighting for a very important provision that put me against my friends on the other side of the aisle. But today I am asking all of my friends, on both sides of the aisle, let us be patriots. Let us stand up for those principles that our Founding Fathers talked about, and that is limiting the power of government. What we are doing here in this motion to recommit is establishing the sunsets so that 4 years from now, hopefully when we have beaten the terrorists, we can return to normal constitutional protections, and if not, we can reestablish another situation. But, please, let us keep faith with those people who founded our country on limited government and the protection of civil liberties. Vote ``yes'' on this provision.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. We take so many things for granted in this country, and people, when you look at the life of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and some of the people who have gone through so much hardship and turmoil in their life, they cherish America because they understand things and they see things that we do not see. Sometimes we do not see the freedom around us because it is invisible. It is the lack of a guy with his boot in your face. It is the absence of that that is freedom. It is the absence of the censor or the bully or the gangster that runs your local community. That is what freedom is, and it takes people some time who have gone through that turmoil to understand that, and I appreciate the support of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) since we have had that tragedy on 9/11 and been forced into this war on radical Islam. But we have to remember this: Whatever freedom we have, whatever we cherish here in the United States of America, we have because people sacrifice for it; we have because there were people who shed blood, who had courage and made right decisions years ago, whether it was during the Cold War, whether it was during World War II when we fought the Nazis and the Japanese militarists, or the Cold War when we fought the Communists. The fact is the people had courage and saw the fight through till the end. Had we backed off in those battles, this world would have been a different place. This would have been a far different place to raise our children. Now is not the time for us to back down. Now is the time for us to reaffirm to our friend and our foe alike that we have the courage to stick it out, we have the courage to build a better world for tomorrow with our courage and sacrifice today. We are going to raise our children in a better world because we are not going to live in a world where radical Islam blows up buildings anymore or beheads people. America, hold firm. Be courageous. Let us build a better world together for these things that we cherish.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. There has never been any proof of torture at all at Guantanamo, period, zippo. Also, let us not hear the complaint that we have not had enough investigation of Guantanamo. Mr. Chairman, 187 Members of Congress and congressional staff have visited Guantanamo just in the last few months, 11 Senators, 77 Representatives, 99 congressional staff members, and there have been 400 media visits, including 1,000 national and international journalists have visited there. There has been a lot of attention paid to Guantanamo. We have been transparent. We can be proud of the job our people are doing. That is what this is all about today. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), chairman of the Subcommittee on Middle East and Central Asia of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, as our chairman of the Committee on International Relations just noted, it is always of benefit to get criminals off of the street and it is always to our benefit to take people who are involved, actively involved in terrorist organizations who have been engaged in suicide bombings, engaged in murdering other people, it is always good to get them off the street. And if it is in Guantanamo or anywhere else, that makes Guantanamo a very positive factor in keeping us safe. Twelve of the people who we let go out of the 56 already returned to do battle to kill Americans. So it might have been better even to keep them in custody rather than put the Americans who they were aiming their guns at at more risk. Guantanamo is doing a good job. Those people down there, the Americans, are doing a good job for us. They are not perfect but no one is perfect, but they are making us safer and that is what this is about. I think we have no hesitancy whatsoever than to proclaim that. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I think we should note that there have been at least a dozen congressional hearings into Guantanamo itself and there has not been a lack of attention on the possibilities that some of our people were not meeting the high standards that we set as a Nation. That is number one. Number two, and I think my colleague, and he is my dear friend and colleague, should understand that Guantanamo is not a result, as he suggested, of an unjust and illegal war in Iraq. Almost all the prisoners in Guantanamo, unless I am mistaken, are from the Afghan conflict and the conflict in Afghanistan was thrust upon us. The war in Iraq had nothing to do with Guantanamo whatsoever. The prisoners in Guantanamo are people who have been taken prisoner after serving as part of al Qaeda or the Taliban army in Afghanistan. We did not choose to declare war on the Taliban and al Qaeda. They attacked us. We were attacked on September 11.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for the American people to hold their heads up high, not only about the goals of the war on terror but the way we have conducted it, and especially the way we have handled the prisoners at Guantanamo. Let us put it this way: the prisoners in Guantanamo, our prisoners, are better off for being our prisoners. They have gained weight. They have medical attention. They have regular meals, none of which they would have had if they would not have been captured. And life in their cell is probably a lot better than the cave in which they used to live. And perhaps as well, we need to say that the leaders, the people who hold power over them at Guantanamo are at least directed and guided by moral restrictions that are far different than those restrictions placed on them by their former leaders who followed radical Islam. The people who used to be their boss and hold authority over them, the radical Islamist leaders, would cut people's heads off, participate in torture, not to mention of course send them out and send their families out on suicide missions. No, those people that we have captured that are in Guantanamo are better off because they are under our authority rather than those people they used to work for. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the International Relations Committee, as well as the co-chairman of the International Relations Committee.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, there is hardly a topic more misunderstood, mischaracterized, and exploited by America's enemies than the detention facility administered by the United States military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Mr. Chairman, we should be clear that the Guantanamo prison is reserved for some of the world's worst terrorists. Those there pose a great threat to our national security. Those there were primarily captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. Here are some specifics that the Department of Defense has stated publicly regarding Guantanamo. Since September 11, 2001, more than 70,000 detainees have been captured in Afghanistan and Iraq. The vast majority have been released. The U.S. is working with Iraq and Afghanistan and other governments to have them take control of detainees from their own countries. Some 800 suspected al Qaeda or Taliban have been sent to Guantanamo; approximately 520 of them remain. Approximately 235 have been released, transferred or are presently in other countries; 61 are awaiting release or transfer. So, who is in Guantanamo? Well, certainly no one under 18 years of age. That is important. The people who were there are terrorists, terrorist trainers, bomb makers, recruiters and facilitators, terrorist financiers, Osama bin Laden's bodyguard, and would-be suicide bombers. And what are we learning from these people that are being held in Guantanamo? The organizational structure of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups; the extent of terrorist presence in Europe, in the United States and the Middle East; al Qaeda's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction; methods of recruitment and location centers for recruitment; terrorist skills and how they use them; both general and specialized operative training; and how legitimate financial activities are being used to hide terrorist operations. Mr. Chairman, Lieutenant General Randall Schmidt recently headed a Department of Defense investigation of Guantanamo. General Schmidt's report described how military interrogators at Guantanamo broke down Saudi Arabian-born Mohammed al Kahtani, who was to be, I might add, the 20th hijacker on September 11. By the fall, Mr. Kahtani had resisted all conventional interrogation techniques, so Secretary Rumsfeld approved a more aggressive action plan, although a plan that still did not violate the Geneva Convention. Ultimately, this prisoner started talking, and we learned how al Qaeda, led by bin Laden, planned September 11 and the murder and the slaughter of almost 3,000 Americans. We learned how they recruited the terrorists and financed their operations, and how they entered the United States of America. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, common sense prevents a greater discussion of the intelligence windfall that was reaped by the questioning of this particular prisoner. This case also shows that persistence and skill of our soldiers pays off. In short, intelligence gained at Guantanamo has prevented terrorist attacks and saved the lives of countless Americans and America's allies. Mr. Chairman, no system is perfect, no group of people is perfect, our country is certainly not perfect, our defenders are not perfect. But of some 24,000 interrogations, of those 24,000 interrogations, again, it is not a perfect system, but only 9 of the 24,000 have been basically found to have any type of abuse or purported to be examples of abuse. Most significantly, Guantanamo is not shrouded in secrecy, as we are told over and over again. There has been enormous transparency, especially as compared to any other country in the world which is holding terrorist detainees. The International Committee of the Red Cross has been there. They have 24/7 access to the facility, and it is at their discretion. The International Committee of the Red Cross had had a permanent presence, recently changed at its choosing, and basically that is what the report said. We have also had media people go to Guantanamo, including more than 400 visits by 1,000 national and international journalists. We have had lawyers for the detainees there, especially in connection with habeas corpus cases. We have had congressional Members, including 17 Senators, 103 Representatives, and 129 congressional staffers. Now, if there was ever a case of openness and transparency in a place for holding prisoners, this is it. Additionally, Congress has held at least a dozen hearings into this matter. Mr. Chairman, our distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), stated after touring Gitmo last month that he noted that the detainees have gained an average of five pounds each over the last year. They have received first class medical services, averaging four hospital visits per month, and that 100 percent of the detainees have been given a written notice of their rights, a written notice of their right to contest their detention in a U.S. court of law, as well as instructions on how to obtain a free lawyer, and about 100 of the detainees have lawyers at this time. What other country in the world would be so generous at a time of war, after seeing our people slaughtered in New York? One military analyst, Jed Babbin, recently toured Gitmo and concluded the following: ``The common belief among the terrorists, fed by reports apparently conveyed to some by their lawyers, is that political pressure will soon result in our having to close Gitmo and to let them go. Critics are making the interrogators' job much harder than it already is. Because they, the terrorists, are beginning to believe we will close Gitmo, and many of the detainees resist interrogation'' because of this belief. To the critics of Guantanamo, I would ask them, where do they suggest that we put these people? What do they suggest we do if we end up closing Gitmo? Where are we going to put those people we need to interrogate? Where are we going to put, in this war on terror, where are we going to put those we capture? At Gitmo, the people there have done a good job, a fantastic job, not a perfect job, and we should keep it open. It should not be closed, and we should actually congratulate our people who work there for the fine job they have done. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.