Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, you can say that again. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here with Ranking Member Engel and Chairman Royce. I want to congratulate both of them on the great work that they are doing on especially Middle East issues. Over and over again, they have been on top of the situation and making sure that America's position and the moral position of the world is declared by this Congress. Today we have four bills that are in keeping with that tradition and the great job that they have already been doing. First of all, let us just note that this human shield legislation, whatever way Hezbollah acts, it is worth us saying: Look how horrible it is. Look at the horrible tactics they are using. It is worth us having a resolution to draw people's attention to it, but let's just be fair. What this is today is we are calling for peace in the Middle East. We are pleading with those people who have degenerated to the point that they are using innocent people as shields, where their bodies will be cut apart by shrapnel or by enemy fire. This is how far down those people who would destroy Israel have gone. So it is just and right for us today. Yes, they point out the human shields, but this is part of a bigger problem. That is, that you have the leadership in the Islamic world, in that part of the world anyway, in the Middle East. The Islamic leaders in that part of the world refuse to recognize Israel and its right to exist. Whether they are using their people as human shields and innocent people as human shields to accomplish their mission, whether they are allied with the mullah regime who chants ``death to Israel,'' no; when those people--and whether it is Iran or Hezbollah or their allies throughout the Middle East--recognize that Israel has a right to exist, a major step forward would happen. Instead, they play games about the right of return. So how would Israel ever be able to accept the fact that their country is going to be inundated with other people and taken over the minute they make some kind of an agreement to let them do so? What we are calling out for today is--yes, we are pointing our fingers at the immorality of Hezbollah and their association with both the mullahs and the tyrannical Assad regime in Syria. We point that out, but what we are really asking for is not just a condemnation. We are asking for peace. We are asking for these people to take a look at moral arguments. America is standing for these moral arguments. Please, we are pleading with you through these condemnations of immoral activity, we are pleading with you to reach a peace agreement with Israel and to reach a peace agreement with the other peoples of that region. I am very proud to stand with Mr. Royce and Mr. Engel, as all of us are, in the bipartisan effort to make sure America stands for truth, justice, and morality.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, let me just note I believe that our President is doing a terrific job. I think that the last Presidents of the United States have left us an incredibly dangerous situation, and this President is trying to deal with it with strength and purpose, and, yes, being a forceful leader. For example, during the Clinton administration, we provided $4 billion to $5 billion to North Korea, the same way the last administration tried to provide funds for Iran. What do we have now? A crisis with possible nuclear weapons and missiles in North Korea. That is called kicking the can down the road. They sure kicked it down to us, and now the people want to kick the can down the road with the Iranians. No, let's not do that again and leave future generations to face the music that we left them. Our President wants to make sure that Iran does not become a nuclear power as long as it is controlled by radical, fanatic mullahs who don't even represent their own people. In fact, if Iran was more peaceful and actually more democratic, then we wouldn't have to worry about that because they wouldn't want to have a wasteful program of nuclear weapons. Those are the type of issues we face today. We face a lot of uncertainties at home and abroad, and it behooves us to look for explanations for the shifts in power, the dangers, and the influence that are taking place in the world today. Europe, along with the United States, for five decades, seemed to be the center of world order and progress. NATO, the European Union, and the common market all seemed to be the epitome of sophisticated and proper governance needed to offset humankind's destructive and combative inclinations. World Wars I and II had undercut, if not destroyed, the expansion of classical liberalism that was in the process of retiring royalist and imperialist domination of the world, which, of course, is where the world was at the turn and the beginning of the 20th century as classical liberalism began to replace imperialism and monarchy. Yes, the two World Wars that we experienced were traumas that still impact our lives. The Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I was the last gasp of European colonialism. Maps drawn at that international gathering brought on World War II. Some of those other lines that they drew on that map plague us to this day. Those national borders mandated by the Versailles Treaty made the world temporarily tranquil. Maybe we just heard about that a few moments ago, how we have got to overcome the tragedy right now, like we did in Korea, by not having confrontations with those people who were engaged in hostile activity. Yes, the Treaty of Versailles gave the world temporary tranquility, but doomed following generations to instability and conflict. Such future challenges were left to the League of Nations. When that failed, the baton was passed to the United Nations. Humanity, obviously, hoped that global government, in one form or the other, would solve everything. The EU, the common market, NATO, and other multinational bureaucracies would demonstrate how nation-states can cooperate and achieve a collective peace, freedom, and prosperity. Well, just as things changed dramatically after the 19th century turned into the 20th century, and it became a different world, so, too, is our world changing. We must make sure that we have turned from the 20th century into the 21st. The 20th century was dominated by the wars and by the defeat of the Soviet Union. Yet we are plagued with conflicts and upheavals that can be traced back to border and sovereign decisions made long ago by people who are now dead, not only from the 20th century, but, as I said, from the end of World War I. Many of the confrontations between various nationalities that we face today could be solved and the greatest threats of violence, insurrection, and war itself could be defused if our world would again recognize the right of self-determination. It seems to have been forgotten that the United States was not only founded on the principles of liberty and independence, but also of the right of people to demand their rights, and, yes, that right of independence. They had a right to declare their independence. This was the revolutionary idea that people have a right to select their government. This was the revolutionary idea that gave our Founding Fathers and Mothers the moral high ground to free themselves from the British Empire. Without this, they probably would not have won, if it were just a battle between powermongers. No. This was what the fundamental beliefs were: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but also the right of people to declare themselves free and independent to create a country based on shared beliefs and shared ideals and values. This is what we hope--those shared values and beliefs in liberty and justice--are the things that unite us today. That is what united had our Founding Fathers and Mothers and that is what made us a nation. After all, we don't have one race or one religion or one ethnic group to identify us as being Americans and create that unity. But that said, there are many other countries of the world whose nationalism and patriotism are based on the fact that they have an identity with other people that share their cultural and racial identities. This is what unites them as a people. They are ethnically the same, they are culturally the same, and they have the same type of national and racial roots in their past. Yes, this is what most countries are like. That is what defines a nationality. Recognizing that people of similar values and culture do not want to live in the subjugation of others has been ignored and/or rejected by the powers that be throughout the world. So we live in a world where this idea of just recognizing that people want to be like people with similar people. For example, you have differences between Catholics and Protestants in many areas of the world. Yes, they like to have people who maybe speak their same language and have the same culture, enjoy the same music. There is nothing wrong with people identifying others as being part of their national family. We should promote that as a positive, rather than as a negative. We should encourage people to work together. There are many, for example, Jewish charities, which is wonderful that Jewish people now, because they have gone through a certain amount of oppression throughout the world, take care of each other in Jewish charities. We have that. We have Catholic schools and different things. Yes, it is meant because people do share certain values that they can work together on. That is a good thing. However, the idea that people like that might want to be in their own country, which is what our Founding Fathers said, because it was only shared values, it wasn't specific that we wanted freedom of religion for all people. Well, today the world is threatened by people who want to be independent of domination of others who don't share their same values and their nationality. The reason why it is being rejected is basically by the power brokers throughout the world because it threatens those in power with losing authority over people who don't want to live under their domination. That is what self-determination is all about: letting people decide their own fate. If a majority of people in an area want to be independent of a country, that is what they should be, according to our Declaration of Independence. And this is something that brings a more peaceful world, rather than trying to have subjugation of one people by another. There has been a major cause of conflict in the world today when people don't recognize that, yes, there are others who feel that they are being oppressed by being forced under the jurisdiction of a particular government. They would like to have their own independence. This, of course, has been especially true where people, since the end of the Cold War, have started looking at their own self-identification. When the right of self-determination is recognized, disputes are usually settled peacefully, as happened when, for example, after the fall of communism, the Czechs and the Slovaks, who had one country before, under the Treaty of Versailles, Czechoslovakia became the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic. Well, that is fine. It is a good thing that they were able to separate. Now they can be friends. But when they were one country, if the Czechs and Slovaks felt like they were being oppressed, they weren't satisfied. It was a good thing to permit them right off the bat: If you don't want to be part of the country with us, yes, you can be a separate country. Otherwise, there would have been turmoil at one level or another. We also saw a peaceful solution in countries like Slovenia. Yugoslavia was breaking up, Tito was dead, the Cold War was over, and guess what. Slovenia and a bunch of other republics within Yugoslavia wanted to be independent, and they were able to do it. Well, perhaps they were able to do it because the Serbs had already launched attacks on the Croatians and the Kosovars and other people in Yugoslavia that now was splitting apart because these people wanted to be independent and free, but the Serbs attacked them. They didn't attack Slovenia, because I think by that time they realized that they could not succeed going to war with all of these various groups. Had the Kosovars and the Croatians been free to go and separate and become independent countries--as Croatia is today, and as the Kosovars would like to be, and as we are trying to help them to be--that would have been better for Serbia. It would have been better for everybody. There would have probably been by now an agreement for some kind of free trade zone. Instead, when the Serbs used force to keep those people under its jurisdiction, we had violence throughout the Balkans that has lasted for several decades. That is a tragedy. We should be working today in the Balkans. Let me just note that the Serbs today are an example of people who are reaching out, for example, to the Kosovars and others to try to find peaceful solutions and trying to come to some agreements that will make peace more likely. But, again, if you would have had people who were under their thumb, nobody would be talking to them because they would be afraid of them. No. People who treat other people as equals and have rights as people in the world, they are more likely to reach understandings that are of mutual cooperation that will bring peace to the world. I am not trying to say you have to submit yourself to some other group of people. The former Soviet Union, Ukraine, and other of the so- called Soviet republics were actually permitted at the end of the Cold War to, basically, peacefully establish their own independence. I know it is not as simple as that, but it happened in a peaceful way in which thousands of lives were not lost trying to force groups of people who do not want to be under Moscow's control. Those people, whether Ukraine or elsewhere in the Baltics or the Balkans, had the right--and also in Central Asia--and people were permitted to have, basically, an independent government free from being only suppressed by Moscow and have to follow its orders. That happened relatively peacefully. Had that not happened, there probably would be conflict throughout that part of the world today. There certainly would have been, as communism faltered in Russia itself. So it took a lot of prodding for us to make sure that the Russians in the Soviet Union, in Moscow, understood that they could not keep people under their thumb. It was the Cold War. Thank God, we ended the Cold War peacefully, because that was the great gift that Ronald Reagan gave to us. I am very proud to have served with Ronald Reagan for 7 years in the White House as a senior speechwriter to the President for 7\1/2\ years, as well as being a Special Assistant to the President and very involved with his efforts to try to move peace in the world. A lot of it was peace by recognizing people's right to independence. Look back, for example--Ronald Reagan was an Irish American--at the needless violence that the British perpetrated and what happened in Ireland because the British insisted that the Irish be kept under British rule for so long, when it was clear that the Irish people wanted to be independent of Great Britain. Look at what happened, in contrast, in Singapore and Malaysia, where the British just peacefully permitted those countries that were basically under the domination--they were part of Great Britain and the British Empire--to leave and establish their independence peacefully. Then Malaysia and Singapore separated from Great Britain, and then separated from each other, peacefully. But in any one of these cases, if somebody demanded that these people stay in this particular status within this particular government, there would have been a lot more violence. When self-determination is respected, peace is more likely. When a people are subjugated to the orders of a government in a country they don't want to be part of, violence is more likely. How easy is that? Special interests and power elites throughout the world are not so inclined to this obvious reason. Why? Because it is not in their interest to let people just go when they have them right there under their control. So let's look at a few examples where self-determination has manifest itself in conflict. Today, one of the greatest conflict areas of the world is the Middle East. Again, many of the conflicts that we have seen, if not a majority, can be traced right back to the Treaty of Versailles, right back to World War I, and the decisions of colonialists and imperialists and royalists to draw borders in the Middle East, just as they did in Africa and elsewhere, which made no sense. Yes, we ended up separating whole nations. For example, one nation of people that we are aware of today are the Kurds. The Kurds were separated into various countries in the Treaty of Versailles by these British and French colonialists. And we are supposed to just abide by their decision of what the borders should be today, 100 years later? No, I don't think so. The Kurds, of course, were not living just subjugating themselves to what they had been dictated. No, the Kurds have been our greatest ally in the fight against radical Islamic terrorism, and what they are doing today and what they just voted on recently was they had a vote to determine if their people wanted self-determination and wanted to be an independent country from Iraq. Yes, that was a good thing, and we should recognize that. They won overwhelmingly, and we should look at the map of--we should say a map of the Middle East needs to be changed so you can have a Kurdistan that flows all the way from Turkey and Iraq and Iran and Syria. There are more, for example, Kurds in Iran than there are in Iraq. In Turkey, there are more Kurds, and, of course, in Syria. This should be a modern country. Why are we letting this turmoil go on when our greatest allies are looking for their own self- determination and these other countries are becoming or are already our enemies? Yes, it will behoove the United States to support the independence of Kurdistan and all the Kurds. We should support in bringing together these Kurdish people as a nation, because that is what they are. They are a nation without a state. Let them have their country. There has been so much bloodshed in trying to repress the Kurds from the Iranians, from the mullah regime, but also the Shah before him. The Kurds were oppressed by Saddam Hussein, and right now, what we have is a repression of people even in Iran where the mullah regime is oppressing not only the rest of its people, not only the other people who make up Iran, but the Kurds, in particular. Look at what is going on with the Baloch, for example. Now, a small group--there are groups of people. There is an area in Iran where the vast majority of people are of the Baloch extraction. They would like their independence. They deserve their right to self-determination, and they are not suffering from the oppression of Iran. By the way, if we are going to try to deal with Iran, let's not ratchet up our military and threaten to attack them that way. Let's ratchet up our support for people like the Kurds and the Baloch and the Azaris and other people who live in Iran who don't like the oppression of the mullahs, and we can even be supportive of the Persian people who hate the mullah regime. These are not our enemies in Iran. It is the mullah regime, the fanatics that would drop a bomb on us and not even think twice because they think they are doing God's work. They are the enemy. So we need to be supporting, for example, the Baloch, when I talk about in Iran. The Baloch are also persecuted, mainly persecuted by the Pakistanis who have them under their thumb, and they murder people constantly. They pick these young people up and they murder them, and then they drop their bodies in little villages just to show people what is going to happen to them if they try to resist Pakistani authority. This is the history of Pakistan. Right now they are doing it to the Baloch, to the Sindhis, to the Singhs, you name it. You have got just a group of people--except for, of course, the Punjabis and then others, the Pashtuns who control that Government in Pakistan. Well, remember what happened before. We have seen it before. When the people of Bangladesh wanted to be a little independent of the Pakistani Government, have some way to, you know, control their own lives and control their own government, they were brutally repressed by the Pakistani Government, and that is what led to, basically, the uprising of the people in Bangladesh when they freed themselves. Remember, that same type of oppression is continuing not only on the Baloch, but, for example, the populations that came over from India, after India and Pakistan split. A lot of them went to Karachi. Those people in Karachi now, there are people who want to have Karachi--it is like a Singapore of that part of the world, an independent. That is what they want to do because they have a right of self-determination. They don't want to be subjugated by this corrupt, militaristic, proterrorist Government in Pakistan. We should be siding with people like that who want their independence and believe in these same values that we believe in. Another example of that, of course, is what we see in Spain today. Today, of course, now there are groups of people who live in Catalonia. Catalonia is a province with a long history in Spain. People identify themselves as Catalonians. Yes, Spanish, but also Catalonians. They should have a right to vote on whether or not they want to remain part of Spain, whether or not they give up their sovereignty to a central government in Madrid or do they want to have a government of Catalonia that they can have their own government, and yes, their own sovereignty. Well, the Spanish overreaction to the efforts of the Catalonians just to have a poll--basically it was a vote on independence, but it was-- you know, basically it had to be recognized for it to have effect. But instead of letting them do this and just saying, ``Well, it has no legal effect,'' instead, the Spanish Government came down with brute force and conducted violence, as you would think violence coming from terrorists would exert on a group of people in Spain. It was their own government that was exercising violence and force and intimidation against the people of Catalonia. Now, of course, the people of Catalonia are united because they know the brutality and subjugation of what is going on with Madrid. Now, the British knew how to do it. Unlike Madrid and Spain, the British permitted their people in Scotland to have a vote, and that was a wonderful thing. The Scots had their vote, there was no interference, and if they didn't want to be part of Great Britain, they didn't have to be, and that was a wonderful example to the world of how you should do this. Now, the Scots decided to stay part of England, part of Great Britain. That is fine, but they had their chance. The people in Spain weren't given that chance. No, instead their government came down and beat them up when they tried to go to the polls. And let's say also, the British seemed also to be demonstrating, they believe, in self- determination. They are exiting--they are taking the Brexit issue of whether or not you should have Britain as part of the EU and the common market. That vote that they allowed their people to decide, it wasn't decided by an elite. The Brexit vote let all the people of Britain decide whether or not they were going to be basically part of a subjugated people in Europe or whether they were going to be an independent force and a nation, which is their history as a people of Great Britain. I am proud that they permitted Scotland to vote, and I am also proud that they voted not to subjugate themselves to the EU and to the common market, et cetera. We need to make sure that we stay true to our principles and have a vision about what this world will be. If you are just looking at things of what we can do every day, Ronald Reagan succeeded because he had a vision of a peaceful world based on those individual rights and those concepts of freedom and democracy that were at the heart of the American experience, but also an America that encompassed people from all over the world. Reagan had a vision, and it wasn't to get into a war with the Soviet Union and destroy communism. Reagan's vision was let's have--yes, we have to have strength in our military in order to defeat this enemy of Soviet communism, because it was threatening the world peace. It was taking over countries and overthrowing governments and replacing them with atheist dictatorships. Reagan knew we had to stop that. Just like today, our primary enemy today is no longer the Soviet Union because Reagan helped eliminate the Soviet Union, the communist threat. The threat today is radical Islamic terrorists who will murder our people and are murdering people all over the world and murdering people in their own countries in order to terrorize them into submission. Well, the bottom line is, Ronald Reagan's vision succeeded with Russia because, at that time, it was the Soviet Union, and now we have a Russia that we have so much more potential. Now, there are a lot of flaws. There are a lot of flaws in the Russian Government, and there are things that we have to make sure that we are taking care of and standing firm on, but, by and large, we have to understand that they, today, are being attacked and murdered by radical Islamic terrorists as well. They know that, and they know the dangers that we face because they face a common danger. We need to work to build a new alliance because what is happening is, Islam is making such inroads into the stupidity of our western European allies that the western Europe that we know--here again, time is going on, 19th century into the 20th century. Now we are in the 21st century. The 21st century will see that Europe becomes a whole different place than what it has been for the last 150 or 200 years. There will be Islamic countries in Europe, and they will be, then, either part of or they will not fight against a radical Islamic terrorist threat that today threatens the peace of the world just as the Soviet Union did that 10 years, or I should say, 10 decades ago. So with that, we need a vision, and one vision that we should have is, number one, a vision of self-determination that we all agree on. Number two, let's make sure that we ally ourselves in a positive way with people who are not going to be weakened by the onslaught of Islam. I would suggest that America will be a more peaceful place and our country will be more secure and the world will be more peaceful and secure if we establish a new relationship in which we are watching out for each other with four countries. The United States, of course; the other one is India, and I will soon be going to India. In fact, I will be going to India tomorrow. And number three, Japan; and number four, Russia. Now, there is some work that needs to be done to make a coalition like that real, but a coalition of those countries working together, not mandated that we have to do this and we have to subjugate ourselves to decisions of what the four say, but, instead, seeking out cooperation with those countries where there is mutual benefit to do, we can make this a better world. We can secure our prosperity and secure the peace of our own country and the security of our own country. So with a vision and with a recognition of fundamental things like the right of self-determination and the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that our Founding Fathers talked about, and limited government where they said government only derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, let us champion these values and these ideals. Let us have a vision for the future, as Ronald Reagan did, and we can make this a more peaceful world as we side with people all over the world who want to control their own destiny by having their own nation rather than being subjected to someone else. Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Asset forfeiture is a crime against the American people, committed by their own government. This is absolutely opposite of what our people who wrote the Constitution of the United States had in mind. For the government to take away someone's property and then say, ``You have to prove you are innocent to get it back,'' that is totally in contrast to the limited government, individual responsibility, individual freedom, and property rights concepts that our Founding Fathers had in mind. If we believe in freedom and if we believe in liberty, let's not open up the government to be able to steal our property and then we have to go to court. We have lost all of our due process. It is now our obligation to prove that we are innocent until proven guilty. That is ridiculous. Vote for this amendment and protect the freedom of our people. Mr. Chair, I rise as a proud co-sponsor in strong support of the Amash-Sanford-Labrador-Rohrabacher Amendment. Civil asset forfeiture is a widely abused law enforcement tactic in which federal, state and local law enforcement agencies seize property, often with little or no evidence that a crime has been committed. The person whose property has been seized then has to hire an attorney and prove their innocence in order to try to get their property back. Police departments have a strong incentive to abuse civil asset forfeiture because they get to keep these ill-gotten gains for their own use. Even when state legislatures have enacted important safeguards against abuse, the Justice Department has helped local police departments to circumvent such restrictions by ``adopting'' seizures that would be illegal under state law, and then sharing the proceeds with local law enforcement. In January 2015, under the Obama Administration, the Justice Department issued two crucial orders to stop this circumvention of state, raw. Unfortunately, the current Justice Department has reversed those orders, and Congress must now take action. This amendment will prohibit the Justice Department from using any money in this bill to engage in activities not allowed by the 2015 orders. I ask my colleagues to stop the assaults against law-abiding citizens by the people who are supposed to protect them. Vote for the Amash-Sanford-Labrador-Rohrabacher Amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about DREAMers today, and we will continue to hear that. Let us note that we are talking about inviting millions of people to send their children to the United States, millions from around this hemisphere who live in poverty and oppression, and we are saying: If you can get your kids to the United States, they are going to be taken care of. We have limited resources here, limited in the Federal Government. Our people of every race and every religion and every ethnic group that make up the American family deserve to know that we are caring about them--I am sorry--rather than the children in other countries that come here illegally. We can expect a flood of new young people if we legalize this, and they will be consuming the healthcare dollars. They will be consuming the education dollars that should go to American children. This is not being selfish by saying take care of your family first. The American family deserves our attention and our support. We should not be extracting resources, bidding down their wages, extracting the resources of education and healthcare for people who have come here illegally and invite more people to flood into our country. No, the DREAMers concept is a nightmare for American young people.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for providing me this time. I rise in opposition to this rule, which prohibits a vote of the House of Representatives on an amendment that would prevent the Department of Justice from using its power and resources to supersede all State laws that have legalized the medical use of cannabis. For 3 years, States have been shielded from having the will of their voters and their people by a prohibition on the Department of Justice that would prevent the Department of Justice from thwarting the will of the people of the States by superceding those State laws when they have determined in the States that the medical use of marijuana should be permitted with their citizens. The Rules Committee has, thus, been basically--it will be changing the law of the land for 3 years where the 50 States have been permitted, if they so chose, to have the medical use of marijuana. After this vote, because of this rule, we have been prevented from again providing that prohibition that passed this House on a number of occasions that would prohibit the Department of Justice from superceding State law. In short, a vote for this rule is anti-States' rights. A vote for this rule is against permitting the people of your State to legalize the medical use of marijuana if the Federal Government, if the DOJ, decides. A vote for this rule will, thus, prevent medical use of cannabis by our doctors in States that would like to permit their people to benefit from illegal use of medical marijuana. Instead, those doctors now will, as they have been, prescribing opiates. That is right, opiates. Our people have ended up being prescribed opiates because marijuana has not been an option. It is a vote to cut off our veterans, and our seniors with arthritis, those people who have children who are plagued with seizures, all of these things now are permitted in the States where they have legalized the medical use of marijuana. These people are provided an avenue to at least try this as a method of dealing with these horrible maladies that they have to deal with in their lives, whether they are seizures, or whether they are people who have arthritis, or whether they are our veterans who are coming back. We need to make sure that the billions of dollars that right now are being invested in medical marijuana businesses and clinics throughout our country, those billions of dollars will go to the benefit of our people. Instead, this rule prevents us from standing in the way of the Justice Department from obliterating those rights in the States.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, so a vote against this rule is a vote to permit those States to make that decision. The rule, as it is now, prevents us from getting in the way of the Justice Department's obliteration of these rights. But one of the most important things, whether it is States' rights, or whether it is trying to listen to the seniors who are begging for us to give them some relief from some of their suffering and let them at least try this if the doctors so prescribe, but let us just remember this: that billions of dollars, $3 billion or $4 billion have been invested in this industry to provide honest businessmen and doctors the right to try medical marijuana on some of these maladies. Those $3 billion will immediately be transferred to the drug cartels in Mexico if this rule goes through. That is what it means. Now, I would suggest that whether it is opiates, or the drug lords down in Mexico, we need to side with the States' rights to make this determination and decide--and to make our determination to let the people decide in those States and let them have the choice there. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule for those reasons.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, before I get into a rather elongated discussion about one fundamental issue that we are having to decide in the next few days, I would like to just mention that we have just heard severe criticism of our President. Let me just note about President Trump and his rhetoric supposedly making things worse in Korea. The rhetoric of our President has not made the situation worse in Korea. What made the situation in Korea a major threat to our country and to our people and to the world was that, during the Clinton administration, President Clinton pushed through this Congress a package of aid for North Korea. Yes, we gave billions of dollars of aid in the form of energy and other types of issues and things that they needed. We gave them billions of dollars of aid under the agreement that North Korea would not be developing their nuclear weapons. At that time, Chris Cox, a Member of the House of Representatives at the time, and myself fought aggressively against that deal. The North Koreans ended up being the recipient of billions of dollars of aid, even though they were the most antidemocratic institution, the greatest threat, and the greatest tyrants in that part of the world. Yes, they knew that they didn't have to worry about the United States of America. That is when they, again, slowly but surely, after receiving billions of dollars from us, pushed through by President Clinton, that is how they have gotten to this point now where they are exploding weapons and launching rockets. They are blaming that on our President, who just recently became President, and they are blaming it on his rhetoric rather than his policy? It is ridiculous. The other thing we have heard about our President again is how heartless he is because he is not permitting young people who have been designated as DREAMers to stay here in the United States, even though they are in this country illegally, and they were brought here illegally. Now, what is the impact? What will be the impact to those young people, who are probably wonderful young people? Most of them, I am sure, are wonderful young people. But the bottom line is, our interests and our moral obligation must be to the well-being of American young people. That includes American young people who are of every race and every religion and every ethnic group. Approving the people who have come here illegally will hurt American young people, especially American-Hispanic young people. The DREAMers will be competing with their jobs and, yes, bidding down the wages of our own young people and our other people who are trying to struggle right now to get by. No, what the President has done is watch out for the right young people: Americans. Yes, we have had millions of people--in fact, for the last few years, over a million people--legally immigrate into our country. We have nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to apologize for. We are the most generous when it comes to legal immigration into our society of any country in the world. In fact, at times recently, the amount of legal immigration we have been allowing into our country represents more than all the other countries of the world in what they have permitted to legally immigrate into their society. We all feel for young people throughout the world who deserve a better life. But if we permit people to come here as young people illegally, and then legalize their status, every parent in the world will see that decision. Every parent in the world will say: Oh, my gosh, that young person who comes from Guatemala, or wherever it is, made it to America. He went in illegally, and now he is going to a junior college. He has had some health problems. The American taxpayers have paid for it. Why can't I bring my children there? Well, it will dawn on them that millions of people--hundreds of millions, perhaps--that if they are going to come to the United States illegally, you better bring the kids, because Americans think more of those kids than they do their own kids. I applaud the President for what he has done to slow down this betrayal of American young people by allowing young people to come in here illegally and thus expect that they are going to get legal status by wearing us down and appealing to our emotions. One thing we have to note, in closing on this issue, those young people, if they are legalized, that is not the end of the game. At that point, when they are legalized, they have a right to make applications so that their parents can have their status legalized. They can bring in family that they left back in their home countries. Now they can apply to have them come in under family reunification. This isn't just about a group of young people who came in. Even to legalize their status would be wrong. Otherwise, millions of other people will come here. Remember the trainloads of young people who were put on trains headed to the United States? Yes, we can expect more of that. Why not? If you love your children and you live anywhere else than the United States and you are living a poor life, of course you want to bring your kids here. We should not be encouraging that, and we should not be attacking the President of the United States for standing up for our own young people, rather than trying to bring a massive flood of illegal immigrant children into our society and pay for their education and their healthcare, et cetera. With that said, the issue that I am hoping to discuss in detail tonight is something on a totally different level, in terms of issue. This is an issue, whether you are Republican or Democrat, you go across the board; whether liberal or conservative, there should be a close look at what is happening right now in the House of Representatives. A decision will soon be made by the House Rules Committee--they are meeting tonight and tomorrow--that will have a dramatic and direct impact on the lives of millions of Americans. Although the issue will have such severe consequences on so many people, Members of Congress may or may not have had the opportunity and may not have the opportunity in the future to vote on the provision that is being discussed tonight. What I am talking about at issue is an amendment submitted to the Rules Committee. For those who don't know, the Rules Committee is a committee here in Congress that decides what will come to the floor for a vote--what bills--and what will be included; what amendments will be permitted, what amendments won't, and if there will be any. That is their job. They do a good job of it, but it is important that they do a job that reflects the American people and the interests of the American people. So what we have is an amendment that has been submitted to the Rules Committee for consideration with this week's appropriations bill. What I am talking about is an amendment which prohibits any of the money or resources in the appropriations bill for the Department of Justice; it prevents that money or the resources that come from the Department of Justice, purchased by that revenue; it says that the Department of Justice can't use that money that is being given to them in the appropriations bill to supersede a State law when that State has legalized the medical use of marijuana. Now, that is my amendment. That amendment has been around. As many of my colleagues know, this amendment has a long history. The House has considered this issue numerous times since former Representative Maurice Hinchey of New York introduced the first amendment of this nature in 2001. I joined him and supported that provision. Eventually, I became the lead sponsor of the amendment when Mr. Hinchey left. That year, in 2012, my amendment failed in the House by a vote of 162-262. So, in 2012, my amendment, which would have legalized medical marijuana--basically, saying that you can't have the Federal Government supersede States when they have legalized medical marijuana--lost by 162-262. Two years later, I teamed up with Representative Sam Farr, who is also now retired, and saw the amendment pass--the very same amendment we were able to reach out to our colleagues and say that we do not want any of the money that is being allocated for the Department of Justice to be used to supercede States' rights. That cannot supersede a State that has legalized the medical use of marijuana. The passage of the amendment in 2004 led to the inclusion of this provision in last year's omnibus appropriations bill, which was signed into law December 2014. The following year, the amendment passed by an even larger margin. Let me note that the last time it came here for a vote on the floor, it passed by 242-186. What we are talking about is that the people of the United States, over these years, over and over again, have expressed themselves to the Federal Government by passing laws in their own States to legalize the medical use of marijuana. And now we have a move to try to prevent those reforms that we put into place for the last 6 years that insisted that the Federal Government respect the State laws that have been changed so that the State laws that have given their own people permission to use medical marijuana for medical purposes, now what we see is an effort to try to prevent that from happening. In other words, the status quo for 4 years has been the Federal Government will not interfere because the Department of Justice is not permitted to use its resources to supersede a State that has legalized the medical use of marijuana. And the States, in these 4 years, over and over and over again, have reaffirmed and have sometimes put in place brand-new law that permits their people to use medical marijuana. Changing the status quo here by not adding that amendment that has been in the bill for the last 4 years, we are changing the status quo in a way that undermines the rights of the States and the people therein to make their policy, a right that we had acknowledged for the last 4 years. Since it was first enacted into law, the provision has been updated and extended through a series of continuing resolutions. That is the bill that says we will respect State marijuana laws and omnibus appropriations bills, the last of which was signed into law by President Trump on April 5. So, on April 5, we signed the omnibus bill. In that bill was the amendment that said the Justice Department will not use its resources to supersede State law. And since the first vote in 2014, the Senate Appropriations Committee has taken up the issue and has adopted this amendment on a bipartisan basis every year for the last few years. As a result of this provision, the Federal Government has been prohibited from arresting or attacking those providing cannabis for medical purposes in the States that have passed such laws through their State legislature or through a direct vote of their own people. So, to date, what are we talking about? We are talking about 46 States that have legalized some form of cannabis for medical purposes. Yet we see, today, this Republican Congress is seriously considering what? Superseding those States, 46 States that have actually said: We will determine what is good for our people, and our people have voted overwhelmingly to permit medical marijuana to be used by the people of this State. We are considering changing the status quo tonight by not permitting the amendment that always gave the rights to the States to make that decision. With this movement by the States, we have witnessed the emergence of a new and a major industry in America. Billions of dollars now are being invested in the exploding cannabis industry, an industry where now marijuana is being grown to provide clinics, which then they work on the cannabis itself. They put it into and they catalog it in terms of strength and in terms of dosage, and they work with doctors to make sure that this can be used for helping people with their maladies. Those involved, all who are doing this, the ones who are providing the cannabis, the guys who are processing it, the people who are selling it, the people who want to make sure that everything is designated right, the strength and the character of what is being sold, and, of course, a bookkeeping system that makes sure everybody knows, total, who is doing what, all those involved in this new industry, billions of dollars' worth of industry, are respectable businessmen and -women. Yes, they are seeking profit, but these are men and women who are eager to be, yes, seeking profit and to be responsible and transparent; and just like any other member of the business community, they want to do a business efficiently, and they want to be held accountable for what they are doing. Money should be accounted for, yes. Ingredients of products must be verified and labeled. Standard business practices ought to be applied, and, of course, taxes and regulations are part of that equation. Well, throughout the country, this industry is taking the public away from gangsters, away from criminal drug dealers. Now, who is being helped? But first let me note on that. If we eliminate this right of the States to basically legalize the medical use of marijuana and put it in the hands of those people whom I have just described, honest businessmen who are going to be held accountable and held with transparent types of operations, no, they will be replaced by whom? They will be replaced by drug dealers. They will be replaced by the Mexican drug cartel. That is who is being helped if we eliminate this provision that has been part of the appropriations bill for the Department of Justice for the last 3 years. So why are we thinking about helping, not only just superseding what the people locally have voted for--why aren't we thinking about that?-- but worse than that, why are we thinking about transferring those billions of dollars now in this industry directly into the pockets of the drug cartels? That is what the vote is. The vote is not, oh, we are going to stop anybody from using marijuana because marijuana is bad. That is not the vote. That is not the result of the vote. The result of the vote will be billions of dollars immediately transferred into the pockets of the drug cartel. That is what will happen. So I implore my colleagues to look closely with this vote. I hope that the Rules Committee will see the error of its ways and permit a vote on the floor on this issue. If not, I will be calling on my colleagues to join me in opposing the rule that is coming to the floor that prohibits us from voting on this issue. If we vote on the issue, let's all vote on the issue and let the voters hold us accountable for our vote, but don't just let nobody have a vote on it and hide behind anonymity. No, let's let the people know what side we are on. Do we want to have drug cartels being handed billions of dollars? That is what this is about. Oh, yes, we are going to say, well, fewer people will use marijuana. No, I do not believe that for an instant. And especially people who are using it for medical purposes, there won't be fewer of them. Those people still need medical marijuana, and they have arthritis and all kinds--the Vietnam--actually, not Vietnam vets, but the vets coming back from the Gulf. The veterans are coming back, and they know that this can help them. We are now turning off the supply of medical marijuana to people who can be helped, and then what are we doing? We are giving the money that is being made by honest businessmen now in a transparent way, trying to run something where taxes are paid and everybody is held accountable, anything they sell is labeled--no, no. All of that is out the window because someone thinks marijuana, itself, is evil. Children, especially those who are afflicted by seizures, have been treated through the use of CBD oils. That is a derivative of cannabis, and it appears to be effective. Senior citizens are both physically and psychologically assisted in dealing with some of the challenges that often come with old age. Alzheimer's, arthritis, chronic pain, these are things that our seniors, when they are sitting in old folks homes or wherever, they suffer, and we say: No, you can't try marijuana; no, we are not going to let you legally be able to obtain that as something that might help you with your suffering. How ridiculous is that? All Americans who suffer from diseases ranging from Crohn's disease to cancer, the potential to receive medical benefit from cannabis is clear. And the wounded American soldiers coming home from the Middle East, they have come to our offices. They have been in my office, and I am sure they have been in other people's offices to explain the positive effects of cannabis in dealing with PTSD. In fact, the American Legion, an organization chartered in the aftermath of World War I to represent veterans, adopted a resolution last month urging the Federal Government to allow VA physicians to discuss and to recommend the use of medical marijuana in accordance with State laws. My goodness, I will just have to say that for us to turn our back on these seniors, to say that these people who have young children who had seizures and they couldn't stop them and to turn our back on those people, to turn our back on our veterans, that is what this vote is all about. This isn't about, oh, well, somebody can just go smoke marijuana. And, by the way, if an adult is smoking marijuana in their backyard, yes, I don't think that we should waste police resources and billions of dollars of law enforcement money to try to stop an adult from using marijuana in his backyard. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether States that have legalized the medical use of it should be superseded by us here, by the vote that we are going to have here in the next few days. Let me tell you something about how I didn't know how the public would respond to the fact that I am one of the leaders in this whole effort to legalize the medical use of cannabis. You know, I was Ronald Reagan's speechwriter, and I have been a Republican all my life. I get the top score on conservative groups that, you know, are giving you a score of how you voted and everything. I have received very high marks in all of those groups, and I have been a conservative voter. I have a conservative, libertarian background. I was Ronald Reagan's speechwriter for 7\1/2\ years in the White House. I got elected in 1988, the last year of Reagan's term in the White House, and I sort of slipped into this issue because it is a principled issue to me. The principle is freedom, liberty, justice, and if you are not hurting somebody else; but especially we should let people who are suffering, at the very least give them some leeway when it comes to medical uses. Well, I knew that I was getting a lot of publicity on this, and a fellow came into my office to talk to me about a totally different issue, about an aerospace issue. I am one of the senior members of the Science Committee, and I said--now, this guy represents, to me, my typical voter, my conservative voter in Canton, California. The conservative voter was a guy who has been a commander or a captain in the U.S. Navy, a pilot. He was now in aerospace, and I am sure he always voted Republican. And so I asked him, I said: Look, what do you think about the fact that the guy you have been voting for all this time is now the leader in the fight to legalize medical marijuana for the people of this State and this country? He looked at me, and he said: Dana, you really don't know me very well. I said: Well, I know you are a former pilot in the Navy and you are now in aerospace and you are a conservative vote. And he says: Yeah, but you don't know that I have three sons--three sons--and the day after 9/11, they all marched off and joined the military. And then what you don't know also is, a few years later, two of them came back, but the third one who came back wasn't my son anymore. The third one that came back was on the floor in seizures because he had been in some kind of an explosion that had rattled his brain, and he was on the floor over these seizures and they wouldn't stop. How would you feel about your child on the floor having seizures that you cannot stop? And now when I tell these people: We don't care about that; you are not going to get to try medical marijuana--well, this guy said he tried everything. He took him to the VA, and it didn't help. After about a year, this guy said one of the guys at the VA hospital pulled him aside and said: Hey, you want to help your son? See me off campus. They saw him in his office off the VA hospital, and the guy said: Look, your son needs marijuana. Here is the prescription. Here is how to use it. Go do it. And do you know what the guy said to me there in my office? He said: My son hasn't had a seizure since that day. You wonder what I want to do about you being the point man on legalizing medical marijuana? I want to go over and give you a big hug. That is what he said. Now, I hope that my colleagues take this seriously because there are children on the floor having these seizures. There are veterans waiting there in seizures. There are old folks who are having arthritis and they can't move their hands, or they have lost their appetites in these senior citizen homes. There is nothing wrong with us using cannabis to help alleviate their pain. We have been doing that for 3 years, and now the Rules Committee may not even permit us to have a vote on it, and they will take it out of this bill. We will be taking this away, without even having our people have to vote on it or not. Well, I say if you disagree with me, that is fine. If you don't think the drug cartels will be enriched, fine. Come up and make your arguments. When I lost this vote on a number of occasions, before we won 3 or 4 years ago, I lived with it. I said: Fine; I lost the vote. I respect those people's opinion, and they beat me. Well, I expect that is what a democracy is supposed to be all about. That is what it is supposed to be all about. Let people be held accountable for this. Don't take it out of the bill. If they take it out of the judiciary appropriations bill, I am asking my colleagues to stand up and vote against a rule that is shielding us from accountability, shielding us from having to have, basically, responsibility for handing billions of dollars over to the drug cartels. Now the argument, of course, is: Oh, there is an opiate--you know, some kind of, what do they call it, an epidemic. An epidemic that is crossing America is opiates. Well, yes, there is. When young people, or old people, are given opiates by their doctors, that is what happens: they get addicted to the opiates. If their doctors have no alternative, like cannabis, to provide their patients with something that might help them with their challenge, well, then you are going to get opiates, and that is what has happened. Our doctors have been passing out opiates as if they are candy. It is the legalization of medical marijuana that makes it more likely that we will defeat the opiate epidemic and get our people back to a point where they can actually control their own lives. No one has ever died from an overdose of marijuana. Now, I can tell you this. I understand that people really want to help young people, and others, not to get addicted to drugs. And I will say, no one has ever overdosed on cannabis. Yes, there are some serious concerns of why you don't want young people, in particular, using cannabis. But to make it illegal, to put people in jail for using this, for basically leaving the distribution of marijuana in the hands of criminals, is far worse in what happens than any of the things that happen if young people--or, well, if anybody--start smoking a joint. And let me just say, I think young people, we need to talk to them seriously. When we tell them we don't even think marijuana should be used for medical purposes, they tune out. But if we say, we know there are some legitimate uses for this, but when you are 20 years old, it is going to hurt your mind development, do not use marijuana until at least you are over 20 years old, and we are only making it legal now in this bill, or if you have some medical problems. Well, the fact is that young people can understand that. That is one of the reasons why we have got to have research into cannabis, other than just leaving these opiates as the easy answer for doctors. In fact, one of the greatest sins, I believe, committed against the American people in the last 100 years has been really a lack of research into cannabis as a potential healthcare device or, shall I say, entity so that, instead of doing research into cannabis for the last 100 years, research has been suppressed. There could be some really wonderful things, and we are learning about them now. A few years ago, for example, Israel had to lead the way on this and introduce a major research effort into cannabis, and their results have been spectacular. Why does that happen in Israel and not here? Don't we care about whether those things that they discovered there that affects their people will help our people as well? No, no. We couldn't do that because we have people who are still living in the 1960s when to them cannabis--marijuana--means everybody growing their hair long, smoking dope in the park, and fornicating in the park, and failing in life, becoming hippies, and all of that. The bottom line is that image is destroying the well-being of millions of Americans today. We have got to get over that image because that is not what medical cannabis is all about. And as I say, young people under 20 years of age, I have no problem outlawing it for them and having some kind of severe penalty for people selling that to them. We need to protect them because it does impact negatively on kids who are under 20 years of age, or in that age group. But let me also note: those kids shouldn't be drinking as well. The same studies that show that marijuana will really hurt the development of their brains and affect their electrical system also says that when they overdrink at an early age it has that same type of impact. So those trying to protect us Americans from ourselves are well- intentioned. They certainly understand these negative impacts, and there are negative impacts of everything. There are negative impacts of too much sugar; there are negative impacts of eating the wrong things, or not getting any exercise, or sitting down in front of your computer, or only sitting and watching TV. But if we go down the road and we let the government just protect us from ourselves, and that we are saying the government needs to just control our lives for us, no, that is not going to happen. That is not what our Founding Fathers were all about, and that is not what this country is all about. Yes, there are things that we don't want young people to be involved with when it comes to cannabis. It is true with so many other things. And, also, we can't control that if we leave the drug cartels as the major player. Perhaps the most serious downside of using cannabis over the last 50 years has been the financing of these drug cartels in Mexico and developing countries. But now, with the continued enactment of Rohrabacher-Farr, the vast majority of States have charted another course, rather than what we have had before, before our things passed. Well, the billions of dollars, this multibillion-dollar industry has been taking shape, and it is taking a huge market share away from the cartels and the gangs. Number one, it is important that we make sure young people, veterans, older people, people who need this, people who are infirmed and need this help with cannabis and it can help them, first and foremost, let's let the States decide whether or not that is going to be a right for people to try to treat themselves with cannabis in those States. Okay, that is number one. But, number two, let's make sure that the money that is now being spent and organized to try to provide those people with their supply, and doing it in a very professional way with how much and what strength they are getting, et cetera, and people held accountable, let's not turn that off and eliminate that and just send these people to the drug cartels. It is ridiculous. And, finally, for me and many of my conservative colleagues, this has always been an issue of federalism and freedom. This has always been an issue that goes right back to the fundamentals. Our Founding Fathers did not expect that the Federal Government would assume such a prominent role when it comes to policing our lives. Rather, they intended the States to take the lead when exercising police powers. The 46 States have, thus far, sought a different course when it comes to medical cannabis. These States should not be stymied by an all- powerful Federal Government dictating what we, and the citizens of this country, shall do in our private lives. The States, and the people therein, should be left to make these decisions and to regulate these activities, or not regulate them, as they see fit. What has happened now, because we have gotten away from this idea that Federalism will decide, the issue of Federalism, the 10th Amendment, what we have now are situations where we have different armies, like the DEA and others, who have had raids taking place throughout our country. This was not what our Founding Fathers had in mind. This effort to try to put in jail anybody who is even using marijuana for anything, what we have done is in the Black and Chicano communities, in particular, minority communities who have less money, they have suffered the most because if their children--let's say a 20- year-old young man gets arrested in the ghetto, well, he is not going to have a lawyer like that, like people who live in more affluent areas. So that record will stick with him for the rest of his life. We have wasted billions of dollars of their lives that they could be having better jobs 10 years down the road by hanging this on their back. We wonder why people can't get jobs. Well, somebody from a more affluent home, there is a lawyer waiting for them at the police station if he is ever caught with a baggy of marijuana. Well, that is not good to have that young man in the ghetto, or anywhere else, or even in the affluent communities, to have to have a criminal record for something that, yes, might have a negative impact on him. We should instead--let me just offer this as a solution. Let's go forward with some positive programs, rather than superseding State law with a heavy-handed, iron-fisted enforcement of laws controlling people's private behavior and their private consumption of what they want to consume. Let's put our effort into offering a positive alternative. For example, in high schools and colleges, and even in grade schools, we can have drug testing. In our military, we can have drug testing. But it is not drug testing to put someone in jail. If you do it that way, you can't do that legally. You can't force someone to testify against themselves. But if you say: We want to see if you have a problem, and you are not going to get a driver's license if you don't pass drug free; and you can be given a drug test in high school at any time, and if your test comes back negative, you talk to the family of a young person who has been tested and has been using some kind of drug. We can do those types of things. We can do those things that aren't aimed at obliterating someone's future by giving them a felony conviction for having a little bit of marijuana on them. That is ridiculous. And we don't need to give the drug cartels all the money in making sure that people in the old folks' home down the street don't get to smoke marijuana to take care of their arthritis. That is all ridiculous. Now we are facing this challenge here. This will be a vote this week. I would ask my colleagues: Please, let us have the amendment that we have had for 3 years, keep the status quo of letting the States handle this issue, let the States do that. This is a States' rights issue. Thomas Jefferson would be for us. At the same time, if we do not get a vote on this and they try to hide behind it--we are not even going to get a chance to vote on it, thus we are not going to be held accountable for eliminating this freedom that we have and this federalism that we have--if we don't get that vote, I am asking my colleagues, especially my Republican colleagues--and I ask the public to pay attention to how people vote--a vote for the rule if this amendment, if the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer amendment is not permitted, then a vote for the rule is a vote for giving money to the drug cartels, it is a vote for eliminating the law as it is today, which is leaving it up to the States and bringing the Federal Government back to our local and State areas in an enforcement mode. We don't need that. If we don't get this, if my amendment, the Rohrabacher amendment, is not permitted, I would hope that my colleagues would join me in voting against the rule, which sends that bill back to the committee, to the Rules Committee, where they will then either add it or not, but at least gives us a chance to have a direct vote on it again if we defeat it the first time. So I say strike a blow for freedom, make sure we have reaffirmed the idea of federalism, personal responsibility, not government controls over our lives, let's do what our Founding Fathers did, let's strike a blow for liberty. That is what this is about: liberty. And it is not about having power in the hands of the Federal Government to come down and tell us how to run our lives and centralizing power in Washington, D.C. So I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for my amendment if it is permitted on the floor and, if it is not, to vote against the rule on the appropriations bill for the Justice Department. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this en bloc package. I especially want to thank the chairman for including my amendment as part of the other very positive amendments that he has included in this en bloc package. My amendment would condition the allocation of certain funds to Pakistan upon a certification from the Secretary of Defense that Pakistan is not using its military or its funds or equipment provided by the United States to repress minority groups, and to make sure that they do not repress these minority groups who are seeking their own political or religious freedom. At a time of high budgets, we should reserve our aid for friends and allies, and end assistance to Pakistan in particular, which does not meet the standards of decency and freedom that the American people believe have to be part of any decision that we make here. Pakistan has acted as an adversary not only to the United States, but has been aiding our enemies and repressing its own people. Let us not forget that Pakistan harbored Osama bin Laden. This is the prime mover, the man who organized the slaughter of 3,000 Americans. We are fools if we continue to support a regime like that in Pakistan today that represses its own people and is using what we give them to actually do things that make us less safe as a people and put us in jeopardy with the terrorists around the world. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for including my amendment to the en bloc package.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the other gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that my two colleagues refused to yield any time when they are talking, especially when they are using phrases like naked partisanship. That is very interesting, isn't it? We could have had a nice dialog here. I was asking for a chance to go into a dialogue so the American people could understand what was being said rather than this incredible naked partisanship of people who disagree, but I won't yield my time to have a dialogue about it. I am afraid that doesn't cut it. This is yet another example of what we have seen of people using sinister-sounding descriptions in order to basically distract us from some of the corruption and, I might add, questionable activities of their own Presidential candidate in the last election who was defeated because the American people did not trust that candidate. By the way, I would like to have asked--I am sorry that my friends have left and wouldn't yield any time for a question--whether or not they believe that Hillary Clinton's activities in Russia while she was a government official, was she involved in money raising from Russian oligarchs to the tune of millions--tens of millions--of dollars? Was her husband involved in raising this money while she was Secretary of State or while she was a candidate for President of the United States over in Russia, millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation? I understand even hundreds of thousands of dollars were put in her husband's pocket for a speech that he gave in Russia. These things need to be looked at. Instead, what we are hearing about is sinister-sounding words about a meeting where someone said they had some information that would help, yes, the campaign, but the reason it would help the campaign is there was supposedly information that showed that Hillary Clinton was involved in some activity that was contrary to the interests of the United States or contrary to the law. Yes, if someone says to you that they want to give you information, there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I would hope that my colleagues who just said what is happening on our side of the aisle is naked partisanship, I wonder if the Democratic Party and my other colleagues in this body are calling for Hillary to release all of her emails and to make sure that we have under oath an explanation of these transactions to the Clinton Foundation. Instead, we are hearing all sorts of sinister descriptions of a meeting that was going to give information. I will tell you right now, everybody in this body, if they think that there could be information that is important for our country to know from any foreigner, we should talk to them and find out what it is. It is not illegal to receive information from someone, especially if you are engaged in an activity that is aimed at trying to secure understanding for policies that you plan to implement as a leader in the United States as an elected leader. There absolutely is nothing wrong. By the way, I am the chairman of the Europe, Eurasia and Emerging Threats Subcommittee. Russia is in my jurisdiction. Should I ever turn down a chance to talk to somebody who has information for me, negative or positive, about Russia? No, I shouldn't. And neither should the Trump campaign have ignored any community to receive more information about what was being done by Hillary, perhaps, and the raising of the millions of dollars for the foundation. So that was a legitimate thing to ask. Then you determine: Is the information accurate or is it not accurate? If it is not accurate, you don't want to touch it. But many people were disturbed that there had been a release of emails during the campaign, and a lot of the questions about this whole Russia issue is whether Russia or somebody else actually hacked into the system and released those emails. I think what is important is only whether truth was revealed. If someone was talking about releasing negative and false information, the public should be upset about that. But they should not be upset if they are being given a chance to see more information that is accurate information on this issue. I would hope and trust that the American people are smart enough to see a diversionary tactic using sinister words over and over again to describe something that is perfectly legal. In some cases, as I say, talking to anybody to get more information to help you make your decisions is a good thing and not a bad thing. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that that is what is being said: because those people are so sinister, you don't listen to them; or, the whole act is sinister, it may be legal. In reality, we are talking about one person meeting with another who may have information. We in Congress and anyone running for public office should be listening and seeing if there is information that is imparted that is important for our country to know.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, well, we know now people are trying to frighten us and others not to meet with people and not to talk to people. I wonder why. As far as I am concerned, I don't have just a blind trust in whatever our intelligence agencies give us. Let me note that many of the things that are being quoted aren't even being quoted from our intelligence agencies during this whole national discussion on what Russia's interaction with us has been for the last couple of years. The fact is that these intelligence reports are filled with weasel words. A weasel word is making it sound like you are saying something, but you put a phrase in that actually doesn't commit you to defending that particular position as being factual. With that said, I would hope that the American people pay close attention to the sinister words, but also the weasel words, and pay attention to the basic nonsense in telling us that: Oh, a horrible crime has been committed now, because someone in the Trump campaign-- whoever it was; I don't care if it was Donald Trump's relatives or his son or whoever it was, anybody in the campaign whatsoever--wants to talk to anybody in the world to get information, I think that is a good thing. Whether or not at that point it has to be determined whether it is accurate information, to move forward with accurate information is wrong, but your job, too, is to verify what somebody is telling you before you let it influence your policymaking or the decisions that you are making at that moment. With that said, I would like to change the subject at this point, because I had another issue that I really would like to talk about today. Bitcoin

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I am the chairman, as I mentioned, of the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats. I am a senior member also of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. I am here, basically, to discuss emerging technology that is unleashing a new economic dynamic, but it could also be negatively impacting on our national security. I have long considered myself a proponent of freedom. Instead of government controls, I have trusted free people and free markets with optimism that technology and innovation would deal with the perplexing challenges to our security and our prosperity. In recent years, one of the more exciting innovations helping reshape the way we live is the introduction of digital currency here and globally. Thanks to this leap in technology, times are changing right before our eyes. Americans have new ways of fighting inflation and handling their personal business obligations. People with bitcoins living under despotic regimes throughout the world now have the opportunity to protect their assets from abusive and corrupt government. Indeed, the security of the blockchain technology will enable a new wave of societal advances that should invigorate our markets and improve lives. However, with all that potential benefit of digital currency, there is also danger. It empowers the good people of the world, but it also can be used by those who have goals that are malevolent and evil. Radical Islamic terrorism is now a horrendous threat that hangs over all the free people in the world, in the United States, and elsewhere. Law enforcement throughout the world is now aware that bitcoin is available for use for terrorists in accomplishing their gruesome missions. What makes it a good deal for terrorists? It is anonymous. They can transfer funds using a digital currency platform without any of the usual safeguards that thwart terrorists and criminal activity. Anti-money laundering and know-your-customer standards have worked to deal with criminals in recent decades, but now that approach can be technologically undermined by the use of the bitcoin instead of traditional currency. Since digital currencies such as the bitcoin offer a free ability to transfer funds, some of our neighbors, such as Sweden, Thailand, Vietnam, and India, have banned their use. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that that is a necessary or practical response. Banning digital currencies will not prevent terrorists from using them any more than banning guns will prevent criminals from using them. Instead of banning all the digital currencies because some lack standards, I believe we should encourage digital currencies to implement full anti-money laundering and know-your-customer standards. These protections should empower both our law enforcement and national security professionals to keep terrorist and criminal financing under control while preserving for the rest of us the freedom to use digital currencies. Thus, with the proper type of regulatory look and seeing what options are available to us, we can prevent terrorists and criminals under control from financing their operations with bitcoins, but the rest of us will still be free to use these new digital currencies and enable America to keep the lead in the world in this enthusiastic technological advance. In light of my chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats, and my experience in the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I look forward to joining with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to encourage economic innovation brought by the bitcoins, but also to see to it that digital currencies will have strong standards that will thwart the exploration of this new economic function by terrorists and criminals and other evil forces in the world. So I look forward to working with my colleagues. I think this is a bipartisan issue. I won't try to make it sound sinister at all, because this is something we can work on, and we must keep America always in the forefront of technological development. We know with each step forward in technology, there is a potential harm that can be done, but we need to make sure that is taken into consideration, while at the same time that we do not thwart Americans from using the ultimate technologies of the day to secure prosperity and secure freedom and to secure our national security with these new technologies. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 23. Today we have seen pictures, horrible pictures of some of the best agricultural land in the world that has been totally destroyed by the policies of people who are now claiming that they like the environment too much and that that should have, perhaps, something more to do with their decisionmaking than what benefits people. Well, what happened is we have turned one of the most productive food-producing areas of the world into a catastrophe, a desert that produces nothing. And who has been in charge of this? Who has been in charge of seeing this total destruction of what could be a garden for the people of the world? It has been, yes, the Obama administration appointees for the last year and, yes, in California, where we have had a leftwing liberal Democratic administration appointing radical environmentalists the same way Obama appointed radical environmentalists to determine policy. And what does that mean to us? It means there is less food being produced. It means we have turned productive land into a horrible desert that even animals can't exist upon. No, it makes a lot of sense right now. What makes sense is that now we have gone through this drought and seen this destruction that didn't need to happen. What we need to do is build dams. What we need to do is to make sure that the water that we now have is being stored properly so that the people of our State don't suffer, so that wealth that can be grown from the land in central California, which used to be the world's breadbasket, that that wealth doesn't just disappear from the face of the planet. No, you can't really love nature unless you also love people, and right now the people of California deserve to have some planning done about storing water when we have it rather than suffering and having this type of destruction during our droughts.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of a very important part of this en bloc proposal, which is filled with important parts. Dr. Afridi is a Pakistani doctor who risked his life to help our special forces identify the hiding place of Osama bin Laden, the planner and commander of the slaughter of 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Dr. Afridi, clearly an American hero, has languished in a Pakistani dungeon for the past 6 years and has been sentenced to spend another two decades in captivity. Dr. Afridi is a courageous hero. He is not forgotten. His plight is not ignored. Tonight, I am pleading that this language be retained in the final version of this en bloc amendment. This man is suffering for us. Making my amendment in order acknowledges Dr. Afridi's sacrifice and demands Pakistani authorities release him immediately. If we turn our backs on such a noble friend as Dr. Afridi, shame on us. And I thank the Members who put this bill together for including this very moral statement.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Most of the people who come here, most of the people flooding here, even the illegals, are basically wonderful people. But that doesn't mean that we can bring in more than that, 1 million-- By the way, we need to understand, don't condemn America on its immigration policy. We let a million legal immigrants into our country every year, and that is more than the rest of the world combined. We can be proud of that. But, at the same time, we have to make sure that our people are protected, that they don't lose their jobs, or they don't have to accept less money for the same work because you have got somebody here who will work for nothing. We want to make sure when they need their healthcare, they get their healthcare. That will bankrupt our system. Are we going to have a sanctuary healthcare system, too, so anybody in the world can come here and use up our scarce health dollars? No, it is time for us to strike a blow for the protection of Americans and legal immigrants of every race and religion and ethnic background, not to show these things. Immigrant hysteria; shame, shame, shame.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3003. This is a very positive first step toward coming to grips with an issue that has divided this country because it is causing great damage to so many Americans. What we are talking about is not immigrant hysteria. That type of mixing legal immigrants with illegal immigrants, that is the true racism because it hurts those people who have come here legally. Now, what we have got here are legal immigrants who are being cast into the same pot as illegals, with the opposition to this bill. People who are here legally understand that we need protection for people who are here in this country against, especially, criminals who come from overseas and illegal aliens who are criminals, at that. Working Americans of every race, religion, and ethnic group have seen that their families are less secure, and they are even sometimes being murdered by the insane lack of action on the part of our government to protect our citizens. Our number one responsibility is to make sure our own people, legal immigrants, and all Americans of every race, creed, and color are protected. And what do they see? This massive flood of illegals coming into our country, taking jobs, bidding down wages, lowering the education standards and the healthcare that most Americans rely upon. No wonder the American people want action. But then, when they are faced with a city saying even criminals who have committed acts of aggression, murder, et cetera, upon our citizens, that we are going to let them just stay, and that there is going to be a block. Whose side are you on is what this amendment is all about. Are we on the side of the American people? Are we on the side of those victims who work hard every day and try to raise their families; or are we on the side of a massive flow of people, many of whom, and most of whom, are good people?

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from California for supporting this very important legislation. We all, all of us in California, have experienced what happens when you have radical environmentalist nonsense determining policy. We have just gone through one of the worst droughts in our history, yet during that drought, those wonderful California environmental planners saw to it that billions of gallons of freshwater were dumped into the ocean instead of being redirected towards producing food crops in our Central Valley area or providing water to drink or providing water so that people could afford to have water throughout our State. Instead, it was dumped into the ocean. Now, what we needed and what we need now that the drought is over is more water storage because we are in favor of people, not some grandiose concepts of what a better view counts--now, without people in it, that is, of course. Now we need to think about what our policies will impact on average people. And what we have in this radical environmental approach is opposition to storing water, now that we have some extra water, right after a drought. Now, whose side are you on? You can't tell me you are on the side of ordinary people, because when water prices go up and there is not enough water for the crops, the price of food goes up and the price of water goes up. Who is the worst hurt? America's lowest income people are the ones who are hurt the most, the ones who can't afford to pay the little extra for food that it costs when it costs more money to grow crops in the middle of a drought. So with that said, I dramatically support doing something for the people, not some environmental theory--nonsensical theories in most cases--that we are facing doom if we store water.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. If we store water, that is going to be bad for the environment? I mean, I am sorry. That makes no sense to me. And it doesn't make sense to ordinary people either that after a drought, that in some way it is against the environment to make it easier for us to store water so we don't have to have the same destruction and the same lowering of the standard of living of our poorer people when the next drought comes around. This act by Mr. Tom McClintock, H.R. 1654, will make it easier and quicker for us to build these dams. By the way, if we don't do this, many of those dams will probably be built, only we are talking about the evaporation not of water, but of money. After you have to go through years and years of paperwork, what evaporates is the money that should be going into education and transportation programs. No. It is wrong all the way around not to permit people to go as fast as we can rationally and engineeringwise to build storage for our water supply today so when the next drought comes around, ordinary people won't be hurt.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, today a lot of people are looking at Washington more perplexed than ever, thinking that nothing is getting done here. It is easy for them to think that because, when they turn on their televisions or listen to their radios and listen to news commentators, all they seem to be talking about is some very obscure idea. But something that dominates all the communication, or a great deal of communication, is that Russia in some way altered the outcome of the last election, perhaps--what they have been telling us--the Russians hacked into the system. This is the image we are being given. All those emails that came out during the election from the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary campaign, those emails were, in some way, a product of a Russian conspiracy with the Trump campaign. Over and over and over again, even though all of the experts who we have seen from the intelligence communities on down the line have said that that is bogus; that did not happen; there is no proof that that happened. And many people who are looking into this don't think that the Russians were involved with that hacking at all, much less their involvement in our campaigns in a way that differentiated from every other government in the world, including our own, being involved in trying to impact other people's elections in a light-handed way. In this situation, the Russian Government has not--again, has not-- been proven or even the evidence seems to indicate that they were not involved in a way that actually affected the outcome of our last election. Yet that is all we hear about. That is the massive news coverage, and the American people's attention is being focused on that, or they are being told: Oh, but over in Washington, the Congress is so tied up because of this crisis. We have not been tied up. We have been doing great things here in the Nation's capital, and the Trump administration has been doing great things. We have not been frozen by this unrelenting attack trying to give the American people the idea that the last election was invalid. This effort to distract us is a disgrace. And I do believe the American people see, when they hear this over and over repeated but there is no substance being told us that indicates the specific crime, the specific hacking incident that happened. No, we have no incidences where any type of Russian interference, in some way, determined the outcome of the last election. But, of course, the distraction that is taking place is basically covering the fact that we have a group of people who lost the last election who have been disrupting, who have a plan, a program of resistance and disruption of those who did win the election. If there is anything more anti-American than that, I don't know what is. Talk about destroying democracy. So with that said, what are we doing if we aren't tied up in this Russian problem? And let me note, there has been, even to the point after all the hearings that we had and there is no evidence of it, now some Republicans have gone along with this effort, and we have appointed what was called an independent or a special prosecutor. And now what we can expect is another 3 or 4 months of the headlines on all of the news media except one or two trying to divert our attention. Well, I would ask that the independent counsel and the special prosecutor, they are going to look into Russia, let them not just look into, did our Attorney General have two conversations or three conversations with the Ambassador from Russia to the United States in passing meetings, I might add, other people engaged, instead of asking questions like that and trying to find some way to charge our Attorney General with some sort of crime that he would have committed and maybe perjury even because he forgot about one conversation with someone over a year's time period where there were thousands of conversations with thousands of people, nobody hope--if they can go into detail like that, let us hope that the Clinton Foundation becomes a target of that investigation. They want to find out what effect the Russians had on our elections. Let's find out what the millions of dollars that went into the Clinton Foundation did that might have helped Hillary's chances of being elected. Let's find out that. And let's find out how much money was actually put into the Clinton family's pockets when former President Clinton, speaking again before Russian oligarchs, was able to receive certain payments, exorbitant payments, from what I understand, we need to know exactly what they were, into his own pocket at the same time Russian oligarchs were putting millions, maybe tens of millions, into the Clinton Foundation. So, okay, that needs to be looked at. But I would suggest that the American people need to go beyond this made-up crisis. The American people need to take a look at what we have been accomplishing here, and we have been accomplishing. A healthcare bill passed. And, yes, it is not a perfect healthcare bill, but now we have actually got a bill that is in the system. The Senate is going to have their bill. The system is now working, and there is a healthcare bill going through the system to improve our situation now instead of being stuck with ObamaCare that was so poorly written that people were being priced out of the market of having insurance. And we end up with millions of people who can't afford the health insurance because ObamaCare did what? ObamaCare basically said anybody with a preexisting condition, that risk will be paid for by other health insurance policyholders. And, thus, everybody else's health insurance went way up, and the amount of coverage they got went way down. Surprise. Surprise. No, that was not a good way to go, and the Republicans are trying to find a better method. Let me just note that I have personally been involved with promoting another concept of how we should be dealing with preexisting conditions, and there is a bill circulating now, and hopefully it will be seriously considered. And as the healthcare bill goes through the House and the Senate, maybe we can get this in there, and that is you look at preexisting conditions and you say: okay, that person has a preexisting condition, and right now that preexisting condition puts them into the mix with all the other policyholders. And then everybody else, including that person, picks up the cost of insuring for that preexisting condition, which then prices everybody out. More people end up without insurance, or insurance that they can't cover, or what they are getting for their money is decreased. My daughter, for example, had leukemia a few years ago. She is 9 years old. And thank God that we got through that and she is now free of leukemia. But I am sure that somewhere along the line what we are going to have is an insurance company saying: Well, you had leukemia, you had a preexisting condition, thus we are going to charge you more money for health insurance. Maybe 10 years down the road this will happen to her, maybe 20. But the fact is that we don't need to have people around our country that are in that situation. My daughter is now cancer free. And if she has a preexisting condition, or anybody else in the country has a preexisting condition, what I am proposing-- and there is a bill making its way around, people are considering this as an alternative, and I hope they take it seriously, but we will see, at least we are trying, and the idea is the Federal Government will document all preexisting conditions. My daughter's leukemia would be on that list. And at any time from then on that someone with a preexisting condition has that preexisting condition, if leukemia comes back to her or anyone else who has a preexisting condition that is documented, it will be paid for by Medicare. Just as simple as that. That condition only. All the rest of her health insurance, however, need not be covered by the Federal Government or anybody else. Now that the preexisting conditions have not put their amount way up in the cost to buy an insurance, now they will be charged just the same as anybody else who is healthy. But if they break their arm, they are in a car accident, if they have another disease that comes on, they now are insured from that, but they are not having to pay extra insurance because of that preexisting condition, and you just leave that to Medicare. It is a simple answer. It is not going to cost the taxpayers any more money by doing it any other way. Just let the government take care of those preexisting conditions. All the rest of their healthcare, however, will have to be paid for by that individual. Just the preexisting condition is covered. So that is a type of reform that we can put into place, and people are talking about these ideas now here. That is why, when the Republican bill passed, it was launching a discussion, an honest discussion, of what we should do. The Senate is going to send us back something, and we will, this year, have a healthcare bill because we will have gone through all of these types of alternatives like the one I just suggested. We also passed a financial reform bill. It was called the CHOICE Act. It was a financial reform bill that one of the main parts of it actually repealed the Dodd-Frank bill which was so dramatically hard for our economy and was basically making it very difficult for businesses to function in our country, was a terrible burden, and was actually bringing our economy down. So we passed the elimination of the Dodd-Frank Act, and we have reformed our financial community, and that has passed the House. It is now over to the Senate. We have passed dozens of notable bills, yet the impression we are given, of course, is the only thing happening here is the Russians were, in some way, engaged in the last election, and we must focus totally on that, even though all the committees that investigated this, all the people who came from the various intelligence agencies, no one said, here is the proof that they were colluding with the Trump campaign to defeat the Democratic candidate in the last election. So people are only getting that story, but there are all kinds of bills that are being passed, legislation being passed here. Like, for example, there was a weather bill that passed. I mean, this is one example. Suzanne Bonamici was someone who had a bill that was attached to the weather bill. It was aimed specifically at trying to have a warning system for tsunami waves that might be created and come not only towards the United States but towards Japan and any other coastal area. That bill passed, and, as I say, it is part of the weather bill now. And Suzanne Bonamici, of course, is a Democrat, and I am a Republican. The other lie is that Republicans and Democrats can't work together. Well, that is just wrong. People are creating a false image, and I am glad to see, by the elections last night, that the American people aren't falling for the baloney they are being fed. So was that a good bill, the tsunami bill? I think it was, and it has made it through. We have other environmentally aimed bills that are making up for the excesses of the last administration that was basically pushing a radical, environmental, globalist approach to environment issues. I think it is a great thing that the President of the United States has withdrawn us from the Paris Agreement, which would have cost us billions of dollars that we would send to other countries and would put us under the jurisdiction of decisions made by international bodies, not by American-elected officials but by international bodies. That was a terrific move on the part of the President. In fact, Trump has done a number of wonderful things that he is not getting credit for. Because all the media wants to talk about is how many conversations anybody associated with Trump had with any Russians in the last 2 years. Sorry. A lot of other things that are happening are important. Those people who are trying to distract us are not succeeding. The fact is that President Donald Trump had a triumphant trip overseas. His first visit was to the Middle East. I am a former speech writer for President Reagan. I didn't write the speech, but I was there when he gave that speech in Berlin telling Gorbachev to ``tear down this wall,'' a speech that made history, not just reflected it but is now seen as a pivotal moment in changing the direction of what was going on with the Cold War. I might say, I didn't write it, but I did make sure that I was one of the people who smuggled that speech into the President's hands. After the President was given that speech and said he was going to say that, all of his senior advisers tried to convince him not to say, ``tear down this wall.'' And ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,'' was a phrase in history that made history. And Ronald Reagan stood up against all of the people on the left who were attacking him and even all of his own advisers. That made a huge difference in the world that we live in. Now, let me just note this. We have a President now, President Donald Trump, who went to Saudi Arabia and went to a meeting with the leaders of that part of the world. He talked to them--and these were Muslims, of course. And he said to the Muslim world that, if there is going to be peace with the United States, drive the terrorists out of your mosque; drive the terrorists out of your country. I haven't been as proud of any President since I was with Ronald Reagan when he said ``tear down this wall'' than I was proud of our President, President Donald Trump, for telling the Islamic world that they have got to disassociate themselves, they have got to drive the terrorists out of their families and out of their relationships with good and decent Muslims, who are the vast majority of the Muslims in the world. So, with that said, I think there is a lot going on that is good. There are good things. This is a good report. I hope the American people pay attention. There are a lot of creative ideas that are going on. These I just told you about, healthcare and finance reform, these are really important things. And the fact that we are not putting everything in the hands of the United Nations or some unelected government to tell us what we have to do in the name of the environment, that is good, too. Well, I have got a few creative ideas that I have actually presented. I thought I would just let my colleagues know, let my constituents know, and let the rest of the country know, these are some issues on the table that I have personally put on. I think I have a good chance, for example, of getting into the tax bill a provision that is now written out in H.R. 1792, the Expanding Employee Ownership Act. What my bill suggests is that we should have more involvement by working people in their own companies. Let them own part of their companies so that the bosses and the laborers work together as a team rather than looking at each other as adversaries. My bill, H.R. 1792, is being considered for the tax bill that we are putting together. What it says, very simply, is that, if an employer gives to his employees--it has to be a general distribution--stock in that company, the employees don't have to pay income tax on it. And if they keep that stock for 10 years, they don't have to pay capital gains tax. So what we have now is a major boost of people keeping their good employees, a better working relationship, more productivity, and management more concerned about their laborers because now their laborers own stock in the company--maybe even 10 or 20 percent of the stock at some point. What we have is a bill that has a chance, and it is being considered. That is the type of thing that is going on here. People are talking about new ideas. For example, I talked about the idea of a new healthcare reform bill and my approach and what I am doing to promote that price for people with preexisting conditions. That is another example, ideas that are being discussed, legislation that is going through, and people are trying to mold it. That is part of the legislative process. Also, when you talk about Republicans and Democrats working together, we are being told we don't work together. Well, we do. Republicans and Democrats work together, just like I did on the tsunami bill. We actually have a good relationship--many of us do. Nowhere is that more evident than in my leadership of H.R. 975, which is a bill that is entitled, Respect State Marijuana Laws. What this bill does is--over the years, in the last 6 years, I have been joined with a Democrat. It is Mr. Blumenauer now, and it used to be Congressman Farr when he was with us. We were able to put into the appropriations bill for the Department of Justice a provision, an amendment to the bill that said: No money in this bill can be used by the Department of Justice to supersede the State laws on medical marijuana in those States that have legalized the use of medical marijuana. So, for the last 5 and 6 years, that has been a totally bipartisan effort. I am a Republican, obviously, and I have been joined by Mr. Farr and, now, Mr. Blumenauer. We have actually created a situation where we now have people who are getting involved in researching medical marijuana. By the way, did you know that Israel now, finally, has stepped forward and has done research in the last 10 years? We haven't. The United States hasn't. In fact, for 100 years, when we should have been trying to find the medical uses of marijuana, it has been virtually outlawed. And now Israel has found wonderful applications for medical marijuana. They also, by the way, when they were studying the effects of marijuana, have legalized it for personal use, for adult use of marijuana, as well as medical marijuana. Well, what does that tell you? That tells you that some of the people who have been telling us, ``oh, we can't do this because it is going to have a serious impact,'' Israel studies this closely, especially when it might have a military implication. This would not destroy their military; otherwise, they would not have passed this major reform in their country. Now, why is it that marijuana is an important issue and it brings Republicans and Democrats together? We have limited resources here. The idea that we are going to spend billions of dollars not on protecting Americans from terrorists, not from trying to get bad guys--rapists and murderers--in our local area; no, we are going to spend billions of dollars on police, on jailers, on lawyers, on judges, and on prisons. And then we are going to take people out of the workforce. We are spending billions of dollars so somebody will not smoke a weed in their backyard. And what is even worse, we are telling them we are going to spend billions of dollars to prevent you. If you find that there is a medical use for marijuana, like for senior citizens who have lost their appetites after a major operation--which happened to my mother, by the way. I did not give her marijuana, but I knew when I was feeding her that she had lost her appetite after a major operation. I said to myself: Why can't she have cannabis here? Well, now people know about that. There is no reason for us to prevent our seniors from having some euphoria when they are 85 years old in a senior citizens home, especially if it brings back their appetite and they feel better because of it rather than drinking. Do they want to have them all drinking? Well, this is not just for seniors. This is for people who have medical problems. It has been documented to have important uses. And again, no one has ever overdosed with marijuana, ever. In terms of what we need to do and what we need to focus on are drugs that are harmful. We have an opioid addiction problem now. Doctors have been giving prescriptions for this. We need to confront that and confront other challenges in crime rather than billions of dollars to try to prevent someone from hurting themselves. If an adult wants to consume cannabis--an adult--it is their business. For the government to intrude, especially the Federal Government, after a State has legalized it, this is tyranny. Our Founding Fathers did not believe that we should have police forces and criminal justice operating at the State--they believed it should happen at the State and local level, not the Federal level. These current restrictions that we have, we have people, unfortunately, again, that are living in the past. All they can remember is the sixties when hippies were smoking dope, and it was just literally a counterculture--counter our culture. And I say ``our culture'' because I have more of a conservative family background. Although I lived a life in my past and I had too much to drink at times, and maybe even when I was younger, maybe I tried cannabis a couple of times, but I have had an adulthood since I was 23 that I think meets the approval of my parents and, in particular, my dad, who was a lieutenant colonel in the Marines. So with that said, had I been arrested, let's say, where some of my friends or something were consuming marijuana when I was around, what would have happened to my life? And what is happening to the lives of all of these people, especially in our less affluent areas, who can't afford the legal protections of hiring a lawyer right away? It is destroying their ability to function in our society. We should not be taking people who are involved in an activity like consuming a weed. Adults should be able to make that decision for themselves. Sending police for someone like that or expending billions of dollars or ruining the life of that young person who can't afford, whether Black, Chicano, or Caucasian, who can't afford a lawyer to get them off and expunge their record, it is going to affect them the rest of their life. We can't be doing that. It is a waste of money. We have a chance now, with bipartisan support, to pass this amendment again, perhaps. We are trying to get that onto the appropriations bill for the Department of Justice, which would then keep in place those restrictions on the Federal Government. But I have a bill, again, with bipartisan support, that would make that across the board. It just says that every State that has legalized the use of marijuana, that none of the departments and agencies of the Federal Government should supersede. They should be treated just like someone selling alcohol or whatever. And, in fact, if they do, they will be asking for ID cards from people to make sure that they are not selling to juniors, to people who are minors, rather than to adults, just like beer. Unfortunately, when it is illegal, it is easier to get marijuana than it is--for someone who is not 18 or 21, it is easier for them to get marijuana than beer because they don't have to show their ID card at the liquor store. So with that said, there is bipartisan support for my bill. I am hoping that we can get it passed this year or next year, at least in this session of Congress. And then, finally, we have lots of things going on here. I just discussed several creative things that are being discussed around town. And we have got a President of the United States who is opening the door which was guarded by basically a very far-leftwing philosophy for the last 8 years. The door of government in this country now is open to working people, where this President has committed himself to trade policies and others that are aimed at creating jobs for the American people, ordinary jobs. One of the things that he has promised us to protect the American people and our American workers is to stop the massive flow of illegals into our country. The massive flow of illegals into our country is bringing down the standard of living of working people. There is one idea that I have presented. When he wants to build a wall, we have the means to provide the resources to build that wall in a very creative way. It wouldn't cost the American people anything. So I would hope that those who are listening who like some of these ideas don't get depressed about what they are hearing in the news. Good things are happening in Washington, and a lot of new creative ideas are being discussed. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, over the 25 years of Kazakhstan's independence, that country has become a valued member of the international community. Its commitment to building a relationship with the United States has resulted in stronger ties and a strategic partnership rooted in shared interests. After the Soviet Union dissolved, Kazakhstan inherited the fourth largest nuclear stockpile in the world. Through President Nursultan Nazarbayev's leadership, this nuclear arsenal was decommissioned and the steadfastness of their government in this matter has become a key part of our bilateral relations. Today, I would like to call my colleagues' attention to the international Expo 2017 which recently opened in the capital city of Astana. This unique event is focused on addressing the challenging issues of our time, especially the need for improved energy solutions. Expo 2017 is expected to draw nearly five million visitors over just a few months. I congratulate the leaders and the people of Kazakhstan on the opening of Expo 2017 and wish them success as public audiences visit the exposition and the nation of Kazakhstan.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor today to introduce to the House our guest chaplain, Becky Tirabassi, co-pastor of the Viewpoint Church in Newport Beach, California. Becky became a licensed pastor in 2014, when she and her husband, Dr. Roger Tirabassi, founded the Viewpoint Church. Today, she and her husband give spiritual guidance and personal counseling to members of the Viewpoint Church, but also to people throughout Orange County needing personal and spiritual encouragement. Becky was helping others even before she became a pastor. She is best known as an author of over 15 books, including the best-selling books, ``Change Your Life'' and ``Little Changes Big Results for Crazy, Busy Couples.'' She has appeared many times on national television and radio, and for over three decades has spoken before groups in nearly all 50 States, as well as internationally. In addition to her co- pastorate, she is president of the Becky Tirabassi Change Your Life, Incorporated. Becky and Roger have one married son, who is a grown man, and he has just completed a tour as a missionary in Uganda. For that safe return, we are all grateful. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in welcoming Pastor Becky Tirabassi, and thank her for offering today's opening prayer in the U.S. House of Representatives.