Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 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 H.R. 1023, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1185, but I appreciate all the hard work that the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) have done on this bill. I understand that they are very sincere in their efforts, but I have a strong philosophical opposition to what this bill represents and what it is all about. Let me note that if section 3 were taken out of this legislation, I could support the bill; but the heart of this bill is section 3, which is a 30 percent increase in the Federal deposit insurance rate. What we are talking about here is increasing Federal deposit insurance, the taxpayers' guaranteeing private accounts in private banks from $100,000 to $130,000; for savings accounts I think it goes up to $240,000, $250,000, or is it $260,000; as well as $1 million, I believe, for community-type savings accounts. But the most important factor here is this: this system was set up to protect the little guy. It was set up to protect average Americans who are not saving hundreds of thousands of dollars, so that they could save $10,000, $20,000, $30,000 and not worry about having a bank default and close up on them and then losing that money. What has happened is a perversion of that basic premise. What has happened now is the taxpayers, the average person out there working is protecting the rich guy. We have the little guys now with their tax dollars protecting the rich guys who, at $100,000 in an account, and now they want to make it $130,000 in an account are protected by the taxpayers. It is not just one account, however. There are multiple accounts that these rich people use, so we are not just protecting $130,000. We are protecting $130,000 times 10 or 20, where they can place it in various banks. What we end up doing is having the little guy protecting the rich people in this society. And there is a downside to having this protection. Not only is it not fair, but the downside is people who invest their money, when it is guaranteed, will be less cautious about where they put their money. We have just heard from the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) about the people who lost their money in a bank. Well, those people should have paid closer attention to that bank. The fact is that we are encouraging people to be frivolous where they are putting their money because we are guaranteeing it as taxpayers. This is exactly what led to the savings and loan debacle in the 1980s. In 1980, before Ronald Reagan was elected President, this went from the early 1970s, from $10,000, to 1980 when they jumped it to $100,000 protection. All of a sudden, people could then invest with these multiple accounts, millions of dollars protected by the taxpayers. So what happened? What happened is, we have millions, billions of dollars now in our system being invested in the most irresponsible way. Because the banks and the savings and loans themselves, no matter what, they ended up paying more interest than they should have. The bad institutions were bringing down the good institutions, and the public was protected from any bad decision they made. We ended up with a debacle, a financial debacle created by this increase in 1980 that ended up by the mid-1980s costing us tens of billions, maybe even $100 billion of the American taxpayers' money. We do not need this kind of irresponsibility. That is not what this program started out as. It has been perverted to be that now. Section 3 is just that kind of perversion, where we end up now increasing it precipitously from $100,000 to $130,000. It should be basically back in the arena of the average American taxpayer instead of protecting the rich. So with that said, I can remember personally, just to note, I remember during the mid-1980s when I worked in the White House, a friend of mine from the Reagan administration was in charge of one of those institutions, savings and loans, and he was being attacked because he was not giving out enough loans to various people and various institutions that would be guaranteed. He was not giving out these guaranteed loans, and I called him up, I said, Well what is the matter? Are you not part of the team? We want to have a strong economy. He said, Dana, we are being put behind the eight ball. Every one of these things that we are giving out has a government guarantee because of this deposit insurance, and it is going to take us right down the road to economic hell. Well, that is exactly what happened, and we should not be going in that direction anymore. We should be doing a reversal, making the system more responsible, asking people to be more responsible with their money and where they put it and not having the middle-class taxpayer subsidizing rich people by guaranteeing wherever they would want to put their money. I oppose the amendment, and I will be proposing an amendment later on.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate that I do this with great respect to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) who put a great deal of time and effort into this bill and this legislation. I have a fundamental philosophical disagreement about Federal Deposit Insurance. But I have no doubt that they have worked hard to try to produce some good legislation here. With that said, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). The Rohrabacher-Maloney amendment would strike out section 3, keeping the Federal Deposit Insurance at its current level of $100,000 per account. Let me note the argument was made earlier that simply by raising insurance, for example, from $100,000 to $130,000, would that, we were asked, make people more irresponsible if it was car insurance, and you just increased the car insurance from $100,000 to $130,000? The answer is, yes, if someone else was paying for the car insurance. If somebody gave whatever it is, if the Federal Government ends up coming in and saying, if all else fails, do not worry, you are going to get paid off, because we are going to pay it, the taxpayers will pay it in the end, if this whole system fails we are there. Yeah, people who ended up not having to take that responsibility off their shoulders, the institutions might be a little less responsible, and, of course, the individuals themselves might be less responsible in picking out where to put their money. This bill also increases to $260,000 retirement accounts, the deposit insurance for that, and $2 million per account for municipalities. Well, this, as I say right in the beginning, the FDIC was supposed to be for the little guy. And, again, there has been the argument that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) gave, well, $100,000 or $130,000 these days is the little guy. Well, that is if you are counting one account. Everybody involved in this knows that we are taking about multiple accounts. Now we are talking about multiple accounts of $130,000 per account, and, yeah, someone who has 10 accounts at $130,000 is someone who I would catalog as rich. But, I just say this much, yes, if someone has $1.3 million in various accounts that are going to be ultimately guaranteed by the Federal Government, and the question is, where does this money come from? Does it come from, yes, the banks and the savings and loans? Well, it comes, yes, from the banks and savings and loans. But, what is important is, the ultimate guarantor is the Federal Government, otherwise we would not be talking about that. But, when we put the taxpayers on the ultimate hook, will it ever happen? Well, it has happened, and I have seen it happen, and you have seen it happen. And this bill may or may not make that less likely. In fact, when you combine the deposit insurances, and put them together, yes it might add some strength to the system, but it also means that if the system collapses, it collapses big time, big time collapse; not just medium time collapse, but a big time collapse. So could it happen? Yes, it could happen. I think that things like this happen, like the savings and loan debacle, because fundamental principles are ignored. And the fundamental principles are people should be responsible for their own money, and that institutions should be responsible. If they commit acts or they are charging too much or their expenses are too high, or they are not competent enough, people should not be placing their money in that institution simply because there is a guarantee, there is a deposit guarantee, which is what we have now. By ignoring these fundamental principles, you have less responsibility on the part of the depositor and less responsibility on the part of the financial institution. So here we are, faced with a major jump in the deposit insurance. What are we going to do? I think it is about time to reexamine the fundamental issue of whether or not we should be guaranteeing this deposit insurance in the first place. And I will say, as I have said before, I watched this happen during the Reagan administration. In 1980, they dramatically increased the deposit insurance, and do not tell me that there have not been people, well known economists suggesting that that was a major cause of the savings and loan debacle, they are. Because, even today Alan Greenspan, Milton Friedman and others oppose this increase in the deposit insurance for that very reason, because they have seen that this makes the system more vulnerable, and we should not be doing that. With that, I would suggest that I would hope that people could vote for my amendment to strike section 3 out, which would then increase that.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman support that one?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. If that is the criteria we are using, why do we not then limit it to one account because the less sophisticated people will not have multiple accounts.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my special order at this time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, a few days ago a P-3 Orion aircraft, owned by Aero-Union, on contract to the U.S. Forest Service, crashed in California. This crash in and of itself reduced the current Federal fleet of nonmilitary, firefighting planes by 10 percent. It probably also will lead to the grounding of the remaining nine Federal aircraft currently available for firefighting in the United States. So here we are, quickly approaching the fire season, and our Federal fleet of civilian firefighting aircraft, which was 33 strong only 2 years ago, will most likely be nonexistent this year. Yes, we may have a few small crop dusters. We have some helicopters available. But if the wind comes up and a major conflagration gets out of control, our frontline firefighters will have no real backup. This would be a calamity of death and destruction, made all the worse because it is avoidable if we act now. To have us become so defenseless is inexcusable. Not to take the steps immediately to end this vulnerability would be even worse. So what do we do? Today I am calling on the leadership of the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to take the steps necessary to prevent a fire catastrophe later this year. Do not leave us helpless and our firefighters vulnerable and unable to thwart a blaze for lack of a large tanker aircraft which should be available. And do not tell me that it cannot be done unless we have billions of dollars. The U.S. Forest Service regulations establishing the requirements for airplane- based firefighting are obviously designed to protect the good old boys and to discourage anyone else with new approaches and new alternatives. I am suggesting that the U.S. Forest Service drop its obstructionist policies that have prevented, among other things, the use of foreign firefighting aircraft to extinguish major fires in the United States. Specifically, the Russians have invested a large amount of money in large capacity firefighting air tankers. We wanted them to invest in this. We wanted them to invest in these things rather than in military hardware. Well, they invested and they can be anywhere in the United States or yes, anywhere in the world, in less than 24 hours. They have already played a significant role in extinguishing huge fires in Australia, Greece, and elsewhere. Yet the U.S. Forest Service has blocked the Russians from providing their services here, even as we endured massive fire destruction in places like Florida, New Mexico, and in California. This stonewalling and obstructionism has gone on for 10 years, even as our Federal firefighting air fleet deteriorated, and even as lives, homes, and other property were being lost to out-of- control fires. This year there has been considerably more rainfall in southern California than usual. It does not take a genius to predict that the increased rainfall we have already experienced will result in a proliferation of shrub growth, thereby increasing the danger of wildfires later this year. In short, we face a fearsome wildfire threat, and the U.S. Forest Service needs to act now, or we will have no large capacity firefighting aircraft tankers available should the worst occur. If we contract with the Russians who have large capacity firefighting aircraft ready to go, we will save lives and property, even if we do that as just a stop-gap measure until domestic aircraft is built and can be introduced. If the U.S. Forest Service does it right and does it right now, takes the steps that are required for these Russian air tankers to assist us in extinguishing a major wildfire and make those steps right now, we can actually save lives and save property. But if they do not take these steps now and we lose property senselessly, they will be held accountable. If disaster strikes and people and animals die and valuable property is destroyed as huge air tankers that could have helped remain grounded and kept out of the fight, then those responsible will be exposed for this incompetence. But that, unfortunately, will not undo the damage or bring back a life that has been lost. It is time for the Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service to change its attitude, quit trying to protect a good-old-boy network which is unable to function, and to permit others to get into this business, including the Russians, who we would like to have invest in this type of domestic, peaceful technology. Mr. Jerry T. Williams, Director, Fire and Aviation Management, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Williams: Reference your 19 Aug 2004 letter, File Code 5700. My staff examined your response to the questions on the Air Tanker grounding by the Forest Service and the possible role of the Russian IL-76 in fighting US wildfires. Your response has raised some very interesting questions. The recent news release saying that the Forest Service is planning to contract for only 10 air tankers has added urgency to our investigations. With the heavy rains in California this last winter, the additional brush and timber will create an extreme fire hazard here in Southern California. A review of your Aerial Resource Bridge Plan for 2005 indicates that you are only going to contact for a maximum of 20 heavy fire fighting aircraft instead of the 33 air tankers that have been available in the past. Your RFP for heavy tankers has excluded the possibility of the use of foreign aircraft such as the IL-76, the CL-215, and the CL- 415 to supplement the limited U.S. resources available due to your grounding of the air tanker fleet. It is not clear that the resources will be available to fight the fires if we have a fire season as bad as we had several years ago. I am requesting that you prepare a briefing for presentation at my Huntington Beach office to set the stage for discussions between your experts and myself in Washington on the air tanker issues. The primary topic would be the FY 05 fire fighting plans with emphasis on the heavy air tanker fleet. Particular emphasis should be given to discussion of your modernization strategy and the role that newer aircraft will be playing. Information on the civilian C-130 fleet that is not included in your bridge plan should be included. Since the military C-130's appear to play an important role in your fire fighting plans, it is inconsistent that the civilian C- 130 fleet capabilities have been excluded in your recent RFP. A detailed explanation of this action is requested. The points of contact for this presentation are Dr. George Kuck in my Huntington Beach office and Chris Minakowski on my Washington staff. Before presenting me with the briefing in Washington, please have your appropriate staff member travel to Huntington Beach for a pre-briefing to Dr. Kuck and discussions on your strategic overall plan. Sincerely, Dana Rohrabacher, Member of Congress.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, on March 23, my office received an extraordinary tip that a stockpile of explosives remained undiscovered by the FBI in the home of Terry Nichols, one of the two men convicted of the mass murder of 168 Americans in the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal building. What made this tip even more provocative were the informant's claims that the FBI had been contacted weeks earlier and that nothing had been done to recheck the location. On March 31 the FBI finally raided the small-framed home of Terry Nichols; and after 10 years of insisting that the location had been thoroughly searched for evidence, the FBI found a yet-to-be discovered stash of bomb-making materials, blasting caps and the rest. That this discovery is relevant to the Oklahoma City bombing case is an understatement. If nothing else, this episode justifies a degree of skepticism about the claim that all the relevant facts concerning the Oklahoma City bombing have been uncovered and/or disclosed. After serving for 8 years as chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics of the House Committee on Science, this year I was pleased to be reassigned to head the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation of the Committee on International Relations. Already we have conducted several hearings into the scandal and malfeasance involving the United Nations Oil-For- Food program. But as chairman of the investigative arm of the Committee on International Relations, I was asked by several people whom I respect to direct my attention to the Oklahoma City bombing and to a possible foreign connection. That this mass murder of Americans was accomplished by two disgruntled veterans acting alone seems to be the conclusion reached by those in authority. However, there are some unsettling loose ends and unanswered questions that deserve to be considered before joining those affirming the official explanation. I promised to honestly look at the information available from official and unofficial sources to determine whether or not a hearing of my subcommittee would be justified in this matter. I have yet made this determination. However, my limited personal inquiry has brought howls of anguish, even from friends who have warned me, oh, you will hurt yourself and be called a conspiracy nut even for considering a hearing. Well, admittedly, when listening to these howls and people pulling out their hair, my reaction inside has been, as Shakespeare once said, ``Me thinks that thou doth protest too much.'' So I am and have been proceeding on a personal inquiry into this matter. The day I walk away from trying to determine the truth of a matter of this magnitude because of possible personal attacks is the day that I will lose respect for myself and for the system. The Oklahoma City bombing was the worst and most deadly terrorist attack on Americans in our history up until September 11, 2001. Those monsters who built the ammonium nitrate fuel oil bomb and detonated it next to the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City slaughtered 168 of our fellow citizens. Nineteen of them were children. The bomb went off at 9:02 a.m. April 19, 1995, 10 years ago today. Of course, in situations like this, it is unnerving to think that those we trust to defend us from mayhem and slaughter may not have done their jobs. I am sorry, but that is what we found after 9/11. Our intelligence community had let us down. The Oklahoma City bombing may or may not fall into that category. The fact that Terry Nichols' house, a central focus of law enforcement officials, was not thoroughly examined, is one of those items that justifies a certain level of skepticism about the other assurances by those in power who were investigating this monstrous crime. Furthermore, I am not certain that this site, Terry Nichols' home, would have been reexamined if it had not been known that I was considering a congressional hearing. So with a skeptical eye, we need to look into this matter, consider the questions being raised, and honestly assess the explanations we are given. Honest, hard-working, patriotic, responsible professionals led and were part of the investigation into the Oklahoma City bombing. My assumption is that all of them were highly motivated and committed to truth and justice. My experience tells me, nevertheless, that even in such situations, mistakes can be made and a group-think mentality can prevail. No one could fault the great job that was done by law enforcement right away, of course. American law enforcement, with the FBI in the lead, mobilized an investigation and man hunt that continued in high gear even after initial quick results. Within days, Timothy McVeigh was identified and, incredibly, had already been taken into custody by the exemplary reaction of Oklahoma Highway Patrolman Charles Hanger. Having sought McVeigh for driving without a license plate, Officer Hanger noticed McVeigh was carrying a pistol and arrested him on the spot. Good work, Officer Hanger. So when the FBI, with amazing speed, traced remnants of the Ryder truck rental used to transport the crude, but powerful, bomb, Timothy McVeigh was already in jail. And shortly after this discovery, another man was connected to the bombing, Terry Nichols, McVeigh's buddy who had helped in the purchase of the bomb materials and was involved in planning this monstrous crime. Today at the 10th anniversary of this horrific crime, this terrible blood-letting, America needs to know that our government has followed every lead and that all of the significant facts are known and have been thoroughly evaluated. There begins the first of a number of disturbing questions, questions that remain unanswered or are obscured by a fog of indecisive rabble, official rhetoric. Obfuscation may be too harsh a way to put it, internal official ambiguity might be a more distinctive phrase. Maybe. So what is question number one? It is very basic. Is the investigation of the Oklahoma City bombing after 10 years an ongoing investigation, an active case or not? This question needs to be answered because it will give us all of the basis, our basis to evaluate the situation as it stands. If this is an ongoing investigation, the government must be holding open the possibility that this heinous crime was committed not just by McVeigh and Nichols but also by others unknown or others yet to be proven. How could this case still be open and the possibility of others being involved if the authorities, with this in mind, permitted Timothy McVeigh to be executed, thus eliminating the primary witness against others who are thought to be involved? No. This case is ongoing. If it is an active investigation and authorities permitted McVeigh to be executed, well, this is beyond bad policy. This would be the equivalent of executing Oswald very quickly even though he refused to talk. No, in cases of this magnitude, the same type of procedure is not followed by law enforcement as is followed in a normal crime, where someone commits murder while robbing a liquor store or something. When you have the biggest terrorist attack and the most bloody terrorist attack in American history, no, you did not let a primary witness be executed if you think it is even possible that someone else was involved and that the person you are executing knows about it, even though he is not talking at the moment. So let us hear the status of this case. That is our first question. If it is an ongoing investigation, why has significant evidence and why is significant evidence still being withheld from the American people? There are a number of specifics to which I refer, such as the videotapes from the surveillance cameras located around the Murrah Building in the time leading up to the bombing and the moments immediately after the bombing. It has been reported that there may be up to 23 such surveillance tapes. The Justice Department requested, and a judge agreed, to seal these tapes. Well, if this is not an ongoing investigation, then these surveillance tapes should be made public. If there is nothing new and the videotapes reveal, as the authorities insist, that Timothy McVeigh by himself drove the bomb-laden Ryder truck to the front of the Federal building, then why not reassure us? If that is the case, why are these tapes sealed? However, if the tapes reveal a second person in the truck with McVeigh, we know that Terry Nichols was not with him that day, then let us go look for that co-conspirator. Let us track him down and bring him to justice. But keeping this from the American people, something as basic as whether or not the surveillance tapes of the Federal building indicated that there was a second person in the truck, and thus a third conspirator in this monstrous crime, then do the American people not have a right to know about this? No. That is unacceptable. This is a free society. And if the public is to have faith in their government, we cannot keep secrets like this. We cannot keep it from the public as a whole. We cannot keep it from the families of the victims who died 10 years ago today. Whatever is on the video, it is time for the American people to see it. Ten years have passed, and there is no longer any excuse. Keeping the tapes sealed can do nothing but undercut public trust in the authorities who have overseen this investigation. So that is question number one: Is the investigation ongoing or not? And, number two, why are the videotapes taken from the surveillance cameras around the Federal Building on the morning it was blown up not available to the public? Whatever the status of this investigation as determined by the FBI and law enforcement authorities, it has not been a closed case for a number of patriotic, hard-working investigative journalists. Many of these journalists launched their own investigation in the face of career-destroying ridicule. They paid a price for trying to find out the facts in this case. But despite this, despite being called names and conspiracy nuts, et cetera, despite all of this, they did research and pushed for facts. These investigators were not always right. They made mistakes. But to this day, they are asking questions that deserve answers before we Americans can just move on and leave the slaughter of 168 of our fellow Americans behind us. And, yes, there has been a certain degree of fanaticism that motivated some of these inquisitors, but that does not refute truth. And there are some disturbing unanswered questions and loose ends out there that have been brought up that we need to hear the answers about. Jayna Davis was a broadcast journalist who worked as a reporter for a network-affiliate TV station in Oklahoma City at the time of the bombing. Over the years, she has presented information and raised issues that need to be addressed. Jayna Davis collected 22 affidavits from individuals who swear they saw Tim McVeigh in the company of certain individuals, especially one who looks uncannily like John Doe 2. To remind you, a few days before Tim McVeigh was positively identified, the FBI released a drawing of McVeigh. Then he was known only as John Doe 1. They also released a drawing of John Doe 2, who was described, well, both of them were described by an employee of the rental truck office and by others at the bomb scene. John Doe 2 arguably resembles a man of Middle Eastern extraction. Jayna Davis followed up on reports by those claiming to have seen McVeigh with someone who resembles John Doe 2. And she has followed up on those reports over the years. I have spoken to several of her witnesses. And I find at least some of her witnesses to be credible. In one case, I spoke to a motel owner from near Oklahoma City. He claims that McVeigh stayed at his motel several times. He spoke to McVeigh and spent time with him. This is a man who was not just getting a glimpse of McVeigh, but actually was able to talk to him over a period of minutes, half an hour, an hour. Accompanying McVeigh on occasion, according to the motel owner, were some individuals the manager believes were of Middle Eastern extraction. He also claims McVeigh stayed at his motel the night before the bombing. The Ryder truck, stinking of diesel and fertilizer, was parked on a lot near his motel, and he saw it pull out the next morning. A read of Timothy McVeigh's book reveals that McVeigh said that he had parked his truck at a lot near a motel outside of Oklahoma City. It seems to me that this motel owner has a lot to say and is a very credible witness. But how seriously was he taken? Was that testimony taken by the FBI? Well, the motel owner says the FBI did not even interview the other co- employees of the hotel who would have disproved or proven what he had to say. And, by the way, as I say, the official version of McVeigh is that he did pull up into a vacant lot near a motel and that is where he spent the night. Well, he did not say he spent the night in a motel; he just said that is where he parked the truck. Davis has a number of believable witnesses. These witnesses, and she just kept following this throughout the years and just kept on going and kept on going like an Energizer bunny, and she could not be stopped. And she has amassed an important amount of information, an important list of witnesses who claim to have seen McVeigh with John Doe 2 at different times before the bombing and immediately after the bombing. Clearly, at some point, the FBI began having second thoughts about the existence of John Doe 2. So here we have a reporter finding witnesses who have actually seen McVeigh, who is very easy to identify, with John Doe 2; but the FBI is beginning to think that John Doe 2 really does not exist at all. This character, John Doe 2, just was not fitting into the scenario the FBI saw taking shape, the explanation that seemed to be gathering steam in terms of official circles as to what had happened. So they went back to the Ryder truck rental operation again and asked the owner again, and asked the employee who had identified, who had actually described John Doe 2, to take a second thought. The employee who originally described McVeigh, and by the way he had described McVeigh in such a way that that drawing was based on his description, the description of John Doe 2. He actually changed his position and changed the description of the man that he claimed to have seen. However, I talked to the owner of the rental company, the one who actually did the business with McVeigh, and he is adamant. Even though the FBI is now saying that McVeigh went into that rental company alone, and is trying to convince the man who originally identified and had the drawing made of John Doe 2, and said, oh, yes, there was a person with him, that employee actually gave in to the FBI's suggestion. But the man who owned that little Ryder rental shop insists that McVeigh was not alone as the FBI is now trying to say, and insists that there was a man accompanying McVeigh; and although he cannot describe the man, he is absolutely sure McVeigh was not alone there at that company. And of course we ended up with a sketch of John Doe 2, and John Doe 1, who looked exactly like McVeigh. So then it became a question, all of a sudden, is there a John Doe 2? Well, how much did the FBI follow up on the extensive investigation of Jayna Davis who has collected the affidavits of 22 people, who saw John Doe 2, a person that looked like John Doe 2 with McVeigh? Now, she even identified a suspect that looks like John Doe 2. And there are many reasons to suspect that he may well have been with McVeigh. And there may be a John Doe 2. But there is a lot of conflicting things that have to be looked at here. However, she actually got a picture of a Middle Eastern man who works there in Oklahoma City who had great trouble explaining where he was at the time of the explosion, and in fact was caught in many lies when trying to explain that. And many of the witnesses who Jayna Davis had shown the sketch to later on, when they were shown pictures of various people, she went and got a picture of this particular man who worked there in Oklahoma City, who was an immigrant from Iraq, I might add. Many of her witnesses positively identified the man in the photo, not just the sketch that the FBI artist had given them, but the man in the photo as being the man that they saw with Timothy McVeigh. This is eye witness testimony. And, yes, eye witness testimony can be wrong. People can make a mistake. But this is important enough that the FBI should have looked at this individual as a potential suspect and treated him as such. And I would like to think that was the case at any time. Was the individual Jayna Davis pointed out at any time considered a suspect, and what type of investigation was done on this individual? It appears that the investigation was not a thorough investigation into this man, but I certainly would like to hear from authorities as to how extensive that investigation was. Jayna contends it was difficult even to get the FBI to take possession of the sworn testimony that she had collected that linked this individual with Timothy McVeigh. That sworn testimony, the affidavits she collected, was at long last accepted by an FBI agent. But we must note here that Jayna Davis now tells us that that testimony, that sworn testimony, that Timothy McVeigh was in a relationship with a Middle Eastern man and that he was identified at the scene of the bombing and in the days leading up to the bombing by various people. That was never passed on to McVeigh's lawyers or Terry Nichols' lawyers during their trials, even though by law the government must provide all pertinent information to the lawyers, defense lawyers in a trial like this. So why was there such a hesitation? Was there such a complication of just trying to get a proper investigation into someone who has been fingered by so many witnesses as being John Doe 2? And why was he not being treated as a potential suspect? Why? Was he being treated as a suspect? What was the investigation like? Yeah, we need to know that. And we need to know why all of those people were wrong, if they were wrong. So Jayna Davis, who has recently written a book called ``The Third Terrorist,'' should not be dismissed out of hand. I spoke to Jim Woolsey, former director of the CIA, and he believes, as I do, that her evidence and witnesses deserve serious scrutiny, and her investigation should be looked at judiciously. Even though 10 years has passed, it is not too late to look at what she has found. As far as Mr. Woolsey and myself, we are not saying everything that Jayna Davis is accurate. I, in fact, have some serious disagreements with some of the information that she put in her book, just an analysis of some other individuals, not the ones who were pointing the finger at John Doe 2, but I had some serious disagreements with her. But that does not negate the other things in the book, and especially the hard work she did to try to pin down those people who had actually seen McVeigh and this Iraqi immigrant who looked exactly like the first, not exactly, but looked like John Doe 2 and even had a tattoo on his arm which, I might add, was in the description of John Doe 2. So here we have a man who looks like John Doe 2 and has a tattoo on his arm and mysteriously cannot back up his claim of where he was when that bomb went off. Well, was he John Doe 2? Was he involved with McVeigh? We need to know that that has been thoroughly investigated. Other possible terrorist links can be found centered around a whole different approach than the one that Jayna Davis took. This time we must look to see if the terrorist links can be found that can be traced back to the encampment of a neo-Nazi compound that was near the Oklahoma City-Arkansas border, about a half a day's drive from Oklahoma City. A number of journalists, including J.D. Cash, Rita Cosby of Fox News, and others, have focused enormous energy and investigative talents into the activities surrounding the compound of neo-Nazis, white racists, gun nuts, Christian separatists, and irrational anti-government extremists, all of whom can be found at Elohim City, which was more like a small village or compound, as I say, about an afternoon's drive away from Oklahoma City. There were reports that as many as 250 crooks and criminals were based in Elohim City. What McVeigh and Nichols had to do with this nest of vipers has yet to be fully determined. So we know that neo-Nazis were there. We know Ku Klux Klan types, we know people whose hearts were filled with hate who could commit acts of violence were there, who organizing there. We are not so sure how much exactly Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols had to do with this gang. Records show that he stayed in a motel very nearby this compound, and this is way out in the sticks. And so if he was in that hotel, he was there because of that compound of racists and Nazis. And also his car and he as the driver of the car were pulled over and received a traffic ticket very near the compound. Again, no one is just driving on a Sunday afternoon and just happens to drive by this racist Nazi compound in Oklahoma. So there are some indications that McVeigh was on the scene there or nearby; and if he was nearby, that would mean to us that he was probably meeting with some of the people in the compound. One suggestion, for example, is that McVeigh helped finance some of his activities by getting money from some of the bank robbers who operated in and out of Elohim City. In fact, there were 22 bank robberies that were committed at that time by people who, as I say, were in and out of Elohim City and McVeigh's and Terry Nichols' relatives, their sisters have suggested that some of that bank robbery money was used by McVeigh and Nichols to further their goals. That connection, however, again needs to be examined. What was the connection between McVeigh and Nichols and the monsters, the racists and the Nazis and the bank robbers there at Elohim City? One thing is certain, this potential terrorist camp did not escape the attention of authorities. There was at least one paid informant there and probably more, other informants from other government agencies who probably did not know about each other. Carol Howe, the informant for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, reported extensively from Elohim City. What she described was the preparation for an armed attack on the U.S. Government. She warned of assassinations and of bombings, and she told that the extremists there in Elohim City were capable of violence and capable of using weapons. Federal authorities of course turned on Carol Howe later on after she made these reports. They actually brought charges of conspiracy and bomb making against her, even though she had been, obviously, an informant. Let us note that the jury system works. A jury found her not guilty. I have seen many of her reports firsthand and found them to be very provocative and alarming as to what was going on there in Elohim City. One of the most curious characters there was an Andreas Strassmeir. He was, as widely reported, in charge of security at the compound. He wore a gun and taught paramilitary tactics and operations. He was a young man who came from one of Germany's prominent families. So think about this. Here is the guy who is in charge of security. He was training people in tactics. He was training people in guerilla warfare tactics and operations. And here he was, a young man whose father was the chief of staff of Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Helmut Kohl was the Chancellor of Germany. This is the equivalent of the son of Andy Card being charged with this type, of being a Ku Klux Klanner. In fact, Andy Card may have a little less social prestige here than Andreas Strassmeir's father had in Germany because they did have a very, very prominent family. Andreas graduated from an elite military school, and then inexplicably he turned down a commission in the German Army; and a short time later he popped up in Elohim City. And there he was, as described by informant Howe and others as trying to provoke violent attacks on the United States Government which he referred to as a Zionist-controlled government. Well, Timothy McVeigh had Strassmeir's card in his wallet when he was arrested after the bombing. Strassmeir and McVeigh claimed to have met only once at a gun show long before the bombing. Well, who the hell is Strassmeir? He is either a neo-Nazi, a virulent racist who pushed American extremists into violent acts, or tried to anyway, or he was, which would be logical to assume that he might be an informant for some agency of some government. Well, if he was an informant, he was ill trained and improperly handled because instead of being an informant, he eventually became, if the reports are correct that we hear from Carol Howe and others, he eventually became a provocateur. The FBI has stated categorically to me that Strassmeir was not an FBI informant and never a source of information for the bureau. Okay. So if he was not an informant and the FBI did not think he was an informant, why then was Strassmeir only briefly interviewed over the telephone by the FBI and then permitted to leave the country after it was clear that he had such connections to Elohim City? If nothing else, they knew that bank robberies were taking place by people who were in and out of Elohim City. If nothing more than the bank robberies, Mr. Strassmeir should have faced a much more serious interrogation instead of being given just a few minutes on the telephone and then being permitted to leave. If he was not an informant, would not his role there in Elohim City and what he was doing with bank robbers and racists and Klan members and then of course with the possible tie-in with McVeigh, would these things not just call out for a thorough investigation and a close look by the FBI? And if nothing else, should not his connection or possible connection with McVeigh, who was after all the murderer of 168 Americans, was not the possible connection worth a more thorough investigation? How much of an investigation was done into Strassmeir? Yes, there are serious questions that need to be answered, and there are loose ends that need to be explained and taken care of. In the next few weeks, I will seek answers, and so far, the FBI has been more than cooperative. They are doing their best to see that I am satisfied with the conclusions they reached after a long and hard effort on the part of FBI professionals. They may well have answers that are very satisfying to me and to the issues that I have raised, and there may be no need for a hearing if this level of cooperation is successful, and I certainly hope it is. However, let us begin to answer some of these questions. We can start with the surveillance tapes and work our way through. In the end, the public needs to be satisfied that the facts are known and that every lead has been followed and that all of us in the government are committed to keeping the American people safe from internal, as well as external, terrorism, and when crimes occur, like the one committed against our people in Oklahoma City 10 years ago today, the American people should be able to rest assured that their government will never give up, never close the case until it is certain that everyone with a hand in such a crime has been brought to justice and that those of us who work for government feel a special bond to the people of the United States to make sure they know all of the information and are satisfied with the investigations that we are involved so they can rest assured that we are doing our job just as all of the American people go about their business every day doing their job as professionally as they can. The United States of America is a wondrous land, but we are also a very vulnerable country. By the very nature of our free system and our free country, there are people who commit heinous crimes against us. We saw that in 9/11. 9/11, let us admit, it was a failure of our intelligence systems, including the FBI, that permitted 9/11 to happen. I still remember that some FBI agents were calling from the field, pleading with their superiors to let them have a further investigation into these pilots, these foreign pilots that were being trained in the flight schools in different parts of the United States but these pilots who have might connection to foreign terrorists. We have heard these stories, and how heartbreaking it is that these FBI agents out in the field were turned down and they were diverted and prevented from doing their job by a mindset that existed. Well, sometimes these mindsets happen and sometimes just leads are ignored because everybody believes that we should be going this way instead of that way, and thus, if anybody else has evidence of the other direction, it may not get the attention that it deserves. We have to make sure that kind of mindset did not happen in Oklahoma City. We did not have to make sure of that, and by making sure that those people who seem to be credible witnesses, especially with tying Timothy McVeigh to a John Doe, we have to make sure this is thoroughly investigated. We have to make sure that if there was a connection between the bank robbers and Timothy McVeigh, that we understand that that possible connection has been thoroughly investigated and that people who are involved in those bank robberies have been interrogated about any meeting with Timothy McVeigh or Terry Nichols. We have got to understand and ask where Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh did get their money and where they got their training. If there is a foreign connection to the Oklahoma City bombing, and it is evident that these questions have not been answered, then a hearing by my subcommittee on the Committee on International Relations, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, would certainly be justified. I will come back here in several weeks and report to the people of the United States what I have found and whether or not I have recommended to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), the Chairman of the Committee on International Relations, who has been very cooperative and offered me great guidance on this, I will let the public know whether or not I have recommended that there will be a hearing or not be a hearing. So, with this said, let me just end with this note. The FBI is filled with wonderful people, and our intelligence people and the CIA are dedicated human beings who are professional. We know there were some problems with 9/11, but we also know that the vast majority of agents and government employees and these law enforcement agencies and the intelligence agencies are very dedicated to protecting our country. So nothing that I say or do should make anyone feel that this is implying anything but applauding the good work and applauding the patriotism of those people in these law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies who protect us.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, on March 16, 1988 Saddam Hussein brutally attacked Halabja, Kurdistan in Iraq. When the bombing attacks were completed, over 5,000 were dead and over 8,000 injured. The injured people were civilians. Families died together that day, orphans were made that day, a day that the Kurdish people will never forget. As the poison gas largely cleared by noon that day, the deadly smoke lay close to the ground, sinking into the basements of the homes where people had gone to seek shelter. They watched as their skin burned. Some were immediately blinded. Some took shelter among the corpses of their family members. The ones who were able to run, ran, stopping only when they were overcome with pain or exhaustion. Today, I honor those men, women, and children who lost their lives at the hands of a ruthless killer, Saddam Hussein. The Halabja massacre represents 5,000 of the 200,000 Kurdish people who died or are missing during the genocide campaigns of the Saddam Hussein regime. Hundreds of thousands of other Iraqis were also killed or are missing. Mr. Speaker, as our Armed Forces battle to build a democratic future for the people of Iraq, we should recall the horror of Halabja, and acknowledge that the hellish tyranny that shackled all but a few Baathist thugs is part of Iraq history and not part of its future. Let's recall the suffering of all Iraqis, especially the Kurds in Halabja, and honor our Armed Forces for the better future they are building in Iraq.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I am asking my fellow Republicans to please look at what we are about to do. This solution that we are being offered will not work and will leave the American people vulnerable at a time of maximum crisis. This is one of the most important votes that we are going to have. What is going to happen in the future if we put this solution in place and there is a crisis? For 45 days after the death or incapacitation of these Members, we will have no government. We will basically be left to marshal law or anything else. There is an alternative. The people who have written this bill basically have come up with a continuity of elections instead of a continuity of Congress, and they have good motives, but the fact is it will not work. It will create a huge crisis for America at the moment that it needs to have something laid down for them, something solid on which to rely upon at a time of crisis. So, please look at this. There is an alternative. We did not have to do this by statute. We can do this by constitutional amendment. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and I have a constitutional amendment which will do that. So, again, let us not leave a void, which this bill does, for the future Americans who will face the crisis of a generation and leave them in the lurch.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I oppose this amendment because it does not correct the fundamental flaw of H.R. 841, which is leaving the United States of America at a time of its worst crisis, its worst potential crisis that you can imagine, it leaves the American people in the lurch, leaves them without representative government and without representation in the Congress for 7 weeks. According to this amendment, there will be no representation for the American people at a time when our government needs leadership. On 9/11 we lived through a crisis which at times seemed bizarre and even surreal. Many otherwise competent leaders were in a state of shock and at that moment, on 9/11, did not necessarily know or were incapable of doing exactly what the right thing was. Many of us gathered at the Capitol on that fateful day; we gathered on the steps to back up our leadership. The purpose was to send a message to the American people. Representative Barrett and I realized, once a very short message had been given by our leaders, that the message was not adequate enough. And let me note that on that day, that time of crisis when we were all in confusion, standing on the Capitol about ready to break up, Representative Barrett and I looked at each other in our eyes and said this is not enough. We are going to start singing God bless America right now. And it was Representative Barrett and myself that started leading that singing and were joined in by our colleagues. Let me note that that was the message the American people needed to hear of unity and God bless America at this time. Let us today do what is needed for the American people at the time of the next crisis. What is happening is we are being offered an alternative that will leave them in the lurch, leave them wanting at the time of maximum crisis. If we do believe in God bless America, let us join in now with the partisan flavor of this debate and do what is right to make sure our people are prepared if our country is ever attacked like this again. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 841, and I regret the partisan flavor that seems to have become part of this debate. Mr. Chairman, this bill offers a solution to a crisis, to a problem that we face, to a challenge that we face, but it is a solution that will not work. I plead with my fellow Republicans to listen to the arguments that have just been made and to determine for themselves whether or not this legislation will do the job that it claims it is intended to do. I looked at it with an open heart and an open mind and find that I agree with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) that at a time when we need it the most, this bill will leave us in limbo, without leadership, and it will make America vulnerable at a time when we need leadership the most. I oppose this legislation. This bill focuses on the continuity of the election process rather than the continuity of Congress. The people who wrote this bill got their priorities all mixed up as to what the purpose of this was supposed to be. Mr. Chairman, the time frame in this bill of 45 days is both too long and too short. Forty-five days is too long to reconstruct the House of Representatives in a time of crisis when decisions need to be made immediately, so in that 45 days, when we are the most vulnerable, this legislation would leave America the most vulnerable. But 45 days is also too short a period to preserve the democratic representation that we have heard about, because, yes, you could have elections, but it does not allow time for primary elections. So who are those elections going to be all about? Under this law, party bosses rather than party voters will choose the candidates; thus, they will choose the Representatives. This is hollow, a very hollow approach to democracy, suggesting that this would permit people to be elected, when in fact it will be the party bosses that will be deciding who the voters will have a chance to vote on. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and I have introduced a bipartisan constitutional amendment that solves the problems that H.R. 841 attempts to address, and it does this without the inevitable limitations of trying to fix a constitutional problem with a simple statute. House Joint Resolution 26 provides for the immediate replacement of both deceased and incapacitated Members by alternates, who become acting Representatives only until a new Representative is elected. Just as the Vice President of the United States is elected as part of a ticket with the President, alternate Representatives would go on the ballot and be elected as a ticket with their Representative so that in times of crisis, there would be immediate representation for the United States Congress and for the people throughout our country. H.J. Res. 26 thus solves the constitutional problem that a statute such as H.R. 841 cannot. It provides for both the continuity of Congress and for the continuity of representation for every district in the country, even if only one Representative dies or is in incapacitated. Under our alternative, thus no district would ever be without representation. H.R. 841, on the other hand, does nothing to address incapacity, and in the case of death, allows as many as 99 districts at a time to go without representation for months. Under H.J. Res. 26, Acting Representatives would be every bit as much elected officials as the Vice President is, yet would serve only until a new Representative is elected under the fully democratic procedures used by States today. Thus the Rohrabacher-Baird amendment not only solves all the continuity problems, but also preserves the principle that only elected officials may cast a vote in the House of Representatives. Mr. Chairman, although I oppose the bill before us, the Rohrabacher- Baird amendment is something that can be supported even by those who vote for the bill. I ask my colleagues for their support and co- sponsorship of H.J. Res. 26. On 9/11 we lived through a crisis that at times seemed bizarre and even surreal. Many otherwise competent leaders were in a state of shock and at one moment when we gathered on the Capitol steps to send a message to the American people, Representative Baird and I realized more was needed and began singing God Bless America. All our colleagues joined in. That was the message the American people needed. Today let's do what is needed for the American people at a time of maximum crisis. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my fellow Republicans, please give this serious consideration. This is too important an issue to think about in terms of party politics. This is a time of crisis, when American people will be counting on us to do our best and to set up something that will work in a time of crisis.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I claim the time for the opposition.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing a bill today concerning the Ethiopian Government's confiscation of property owned by U.S. citizens and the Ethiopian Government's arrogance and intransigence in the face of efforts to rectify the situation. Mr. Speaker, the Berhane family are constituents and friends. They are black African immigrants who fled the establishment of a communist regime in Ethiopia in the 1970s. They now live in Huntington Beach, California. At one time the Berhane family owned the National Alcohol and Liquor Factory, NALF, in the capital of Ethiopia. The Marxist regime that took over Ethiopia expropriated their property and drove the Berhane family into exile. Well, that Marxist government fell more than a decade ago. The current government agreed in principle to return all illegally expropriated property, but it has steadfastly refused to return the Berhane family's factory, or offer them just compensation. It seems the distillery is one of the confiscated properties that the heavy-handed rulers of Ethiopia refuse to return to its rightful owners. Perhaps that is because this factory is one of the few businesses that makes a profit. The smell of corruption at the highest levels of the Ethiopian Government is hard to miss. Mr. Speaker, this matter should have been settled long ago. This property should have been returned to the Berhane family or just compensation should have been offered. The Berhane family claim is supported by a finding of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, which is part of the United States Government. So this is not a matter of determining whether or not the Berhane family has a just claim; it is a matter of arrogance and probably corruption on the part of the Ethiopian hierarchy. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation today that will prevent Ethiopia from receiving any benefit from U.S. Government sources until it deals honestly and fairly with the claim of these American citizens. It is a tragedy that the Ethiopian Government is risking the well-being of its people because of its intransigence in dealing with a just claim of an American family. Mr. Speaker, this act withholds all appropriated U.S. Federal dollars to the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia until property claims of American citizens are either returned or the U.S. citizens are justly compensated. With the exception of emergency humanitarian aid, this prohibition on funding includes economic support funds, the Export- Import Bank, foreign military financing, the Global AIDS Initiative, Millennium Challenge Account, and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. This bill further directs international organizations to be required to oppose aid to Ethiopia under these same conditions. Mr. Speaker, this type of officially sanctioned rip-off that we see in Ethiopia is outrageous. However, it is not just limited to the gang that rules Ethiopia. Mr. Speaker, there are other governments, be they Cuba or Iran, that are equally guilty of this type of theft. I intend to introduce similar legislation in a broader bill denying aid to all of these foreign governments who deny the proper reimbursement to American citizens who have just property claims against them. Part of that bill, which will include Ethiopia as well, will provide that U.S. citizens with legitimate claims against a government like that in Ethiopia will be able to put a legal hold on the American property and assets owned by the government officials of that government. Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to stand up for justice, especially for the justice of American citizens. These African immigrants who came here fleeing communism had their property confiscated. The government of Ethiopia has time and again suggested that they would return all property that was illegally confiscated. Yet the Berhane family has not had its property returned. They deserve the rights of protection of the United States Government. We will struggle for this legislation, we will pass this legislation, we will keep this fight up until this family gets justice, this family gets their property returned or gets just compensation.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 18. Today, we recognize the heroism of America's POWs, and we recognize the heroism as well of those men and women of our military who rescued our POWs in various conflicts. We are focusing mainly on the Philippines. And, of course, in the Philippines there were so many thousands of Americans that were captured by the Japanese and held and who were rescued by Filipino Americans, or Filipinos I should say, and by U.S. troops near the close of the war. Let me note that the Filipinos who fought side by side with us, and there were many thousands of Filipinos who were also held as prisoners of war during the war with Japan. During those 4 years, those Filipinos who fought, those Filipinos as well as those Americans who fought with us to liberate the Philippines and rescued our POWs as the war ended, were shortchanged. Today, the Filipinos who fought alongside Americans, many of those were promised veterans status, and they never received the veterans status we promised them when they helped us liberate the Philippines. So they were shortchanged. Our own POWs were shortchanged. Those Americans held in the Philippines have been prevented by our own government from suing the Japanese corporations that used them as slave labor during the war. This is a horrendous gift to give a POW, like the survivors of the Bataan Death March who then were used as slave labor by the Japanese. They cannot even be compensated by suing the Japanese. And this is not something that happened just in history. American POWs from the last Iraq war, who were held prisoner and tortured by Iraq, are now being prevented by our government from suing the Iraqis who tortured them. We should be on the side, if nobody else, of our greatest heroes, America's POWs; but we have shortchanged them at every step. And what do we say about those who fought in Vietnam, along with some of those Vietnamese, those Americans that were captured in Vietnam and were not returned after the war and that we abandoned? We know that is true. We know a number of them were taken to Russia. We do not even know their names. We have not even insisted on their names. As we expand our trade now and begin selling things in our stores, we are not even demanding that Vietnam please give us the full accounting we deserve. They have not, for example, given us the records from the prisons in which our POWs were kept so we can check to see who was kept in those prisons. I have asked for that for 20 years and have never received it. Obviously, they are covering something up. But we are letting it slide. We are letting it slide. We ended up turning against our POWs in the Bataan Death March and not letting them sue the Japanese, and we are turning against our POWs from the last Iraq war by not letting them sue their torturers. We need to start thinking about where our loyalties lie in this country of the American heroes. We have a lot to stand up for, because these men and these people, the men and women who sacrifice for us, including the Filipinos who fought with us in World War II, we owe them a debt of gratitude that can never be paid. At the very least, let us be faithful to them and give them the kind of recognition and honor they deserve.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. I would like to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) again leading, being the moral leaders of this body concerning issues of human rights and humanitarian concerns. I appreciate their leadership. I am a very grateful follower. I would like to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for his leadership on this issue as well. This resolution does express our condolences to the people of Asia and East Africa devastated by this incredible tsunami which on December 26 hit this region and has cost at least 140,000 lives. It is a staggering number of lives. It is hard to comprehend how many people have lost loved ones and are suffering. In this time of need, the world has responded in a manner unprecedented in its size and scope to a catastrophe that is unprecedented. Between private and public donations, the relief effort so far has totaled over $3 billion. The distorted characterization of a confused United Nations official notwithstanding, America can be especially proud that in this time of need our people and our government have stepped forward. In addition to government aid, which sometimes people overseas only recognize the government aid, a significant amount of donations have come from charitable organizations and private donations in which our people voluntarily give out of a loveness in their heart and a concern for humanity. As we speak, financial and material donations, private sector as well as public, continue to be pledged. However, all the relief does not diminish the anguish and personal pain of so many tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people who have lost loved ones. And to those people, you have the prayers of the American people and our hearts are with you. Every day there are new stories of a family having lost both mother and father or parents who have lost their children. Communities have been demolished and the hard work in piecing these people's lives together will take many, many years. The people of the United States stand with these people who are in need and who have been affected by this horrible tragedy. Incidentally, many of those who have been suffering from this natural disaster are Muslims. I would hope that these people in the Islamic world understand that America is stepping forward with generosity to help these people not because they are Muslims or whatever their faith is but because we care about them as human beings. We hope that they put that in perspective when they are trying to analyze what the United States is all about. Compounding this tragedy, of course, is an economic issue that we need to discuss as well and that is the lapse of a 30-year-old WTO agreement for manufactured apparel. This would not even come up and people would not understand it had it not been for the tsunami. A critical part of Sri Lanka's and Thailand's as well as Indonesia's economy deals with producing this apparel. With the ending of this agreement, of the quota system for apparel, we can expect that China will benefit dramatically even though China has not suffered from this natural disaster. It will benefit and $2.5 billion of trade will be taken from Sri Lanka alone, for example. I think in light of this tsunami tragedy and the current labor practices in China that an extension of this agreement is not only in the best interests of our friends in Thailand and Sri Lanka but for all countries who believe in standards of labor and human rights practices. I would suggest that we go back to those quotas as of January 1 and postpone the elimination of the quotas for 2 years in order to help those countries that are now suffering. I would also like to recognize the people of Thailand and the royal family of Thailand who have cared for thousands of refugees and people over the years from Burma, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. For over 30 years they have taken in refugees and so generously cared for them. Now they are in need of help and it is up to us to help the people of Thailand. Our relief efforts and our donations go with a great deal of understanding that the Thais have themselves been generous and it is our time to be generous to them. Relief workers are now struggling to reunite families and find loved ones that are dead and their remains brought back to the family. As they do, the people of Thailand are going to be suffering. We know that. I know those people. Let us keep them in mind and their suffering in mind. As we move forward, let us do ourselves proud by doing what is right and that is what is happening throughout America and the free world today.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 2845. This is first and foremost, and everyone in the country knows that, this is a pro-illegal immigration bill in that the situation with illegal immigration will be worse if we pass this bill than it is today. It is also not a reform bill. It is an illusion. It is a piece of illusion legislation. It is designed to make people feel better because they perceive something is being done. And I would like to thank the largest organization of 9/11 families who are opposed to this legislation, the 9/11 Families for American Security, who visited Members of Congress to oppose this legislation. What this bill does is change the flowchart, trying to make people think that is doing something. It adds a level of bureaucracy, a new level of bureaucracy, and, yes, creates an intelligence czar. Boy, that is going to make everybody feel really good that we have an intelligence czar. We had an energy czar. That did us a lot of good. And thank goodness America had a drug czar that was appointed years ago; otherwise we would be plagued with drug use in America today. No, this whole bill is designed to make people feel good rather than to do something to hold people accountable for the decisions that they made that led up to 9/11. The intelligence czar and the huge staff required to support the new intelligence czar is duplicative and will be an impediment to getting things done in the Intelligence Community. The National Security Council, I worked at the White House for 7 years, was set up to do exactly this. And had the National Security Council during the Clinton administration, and, yes, during the beginning of this administration, had been doing their jobs, there would not have been a 9/11. So we already have people to do this job of the new intelligence czar and his huge bureaucracy. 9/11 was not due to blocks in the flowchart. 9/11 was the results of bad policies in dealing with the Taliban, which I complained about for years on the floor of this House, and bad policies in terms of what we were doing against al Qaeda during the Clinton years, and, yes, even bad policies exemplified by Jamie Gorelick, who signed a Justice Department order during the Clinton years that restricted cooperation between the FBI and CIA in dealing with terrorist threats. No, that was bad policy. We do not need to change the flowchart to make people feel good in order to hold people accountable for those bad policies. Finally, this bill should be defeated because it has gutted the provisions in this bill that passed the House that were aimed at controlling this massive invasion we have of illegal immigrants into our country, and we are not going to have a secure America when we have millions and millions of illegal aliens coming here, many of whom can be terrorists; and in this bill we no longer have the provisions to make sure that we will not be giving ID cards so these illegals can get on airplanes and crash them into buildings.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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 the bill now under consideration.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, if I might add, because it puts the government and it puts the bureaucracy in the control of the project, rather than the designer, the entrepreneur and the scientist.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentleman would further yield, that is what happens when we give the government the right to say yes or no to people who are making new designs on technology.