Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and I might add the Member in this body who represents JPL in California.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 490, the resolution now under consideration.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon). He has been a terrific partner in these efforts that we have gone through in these last 5 years. To the degree that our country has had successful space missions and is developing technologies that will help us on Earth, it has a lot to do with the bipartisan spirit that we have had in our subcommittee and the great and hard work and responsible leadership that the gentleman from Tennessee has provided. He is moving up now. He will be missed. The bipartisan spirit I talk about is so evident in everything that we do in this subcommittee. Let me note that there are no Democrats and Republicans, there are Americans in our subcommittee. We work together as such. We all believe that if America is to be a prosperous country, if our people are to live good lives and see our standard of living increase for average Americans, that we must remain a major power in space, we must develop the technologies and the science that is necessary to uplift humankind into the cosmos. If America is to remain at peace, if we are to live in peace, we must be a leading space power. When we meet the challenges of terrorism or the challenges of gangsters throughout the world, gangster regimes that would kill our people, that would harm us, that would threaten the stability and peace of the world, it is our technological edge that gives us the ability to thwart these threats. If we were not the number one power in space and instead that mantle would shift over to some despot or gangster regime or antidemocratic regime, for example, on the mainland of China where they still have the world's worst human rights abusers who are now making investments in space technology, we would not be safe and secure on this planet. The free people on this planet and the American people could not live in peace and security if despots held the high ground, which is space and space technology. And, finally, if we are to remain a free people, if the United States and America is to remain free, which is our number one value, after all, that unites all Americans, we Americans of every race and every religion and every ethnic background are united by a concept of liberty and justice for all which we pledge to our Flag, but if we are to remain free and have liberty and justice for all, we must be the technological leaders in space because we must remain the society that leads humankind to conquer new frontiers. If we lose that part of the American character that pushes back the frontier and that chooses to lead mankind into places where it has not gone before and to explore that which has not been explored, if we lose that aspect of our character, we will not remain a free people for long. So what we are doing when it comes to these great achievements like we are applauding today, we are fulfilling our mission that was set out over 200 years ago by our Founding Fathers to lead humankind into a better world and perhaps into the cosmos. I thank my colleagues for the support they are giving to America's space program. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and my friends on the other side of the aisle for being bipartisan and cooperative and all of us for being the type of Americans necessary to maintain that struggle that started with our Founding Fathers over 200 years ago. God bless them. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my fellow colleagues today in applauding our President last night for his position on drug testing, and I would certainly agree with what my colleagues have just said, because young people today are faced with this onslaught. First of all, we have a media around them, entertainment media, et cetera, that actually breaks down their ability to make the right decisions for their lives in the long run, and drug testing would not only go a long way in terms of just identifying a young person whose parents need to know that they are vulnerable and are perhaps making some wrong choices in their life, but drug testing also gives these young people an added incentive to say no. Without drug testing, if you are talking about your daughter going to a party or something and having a few beers, there is nothing she can say to the person proposing using drugs except, well, that is wrong and we should not do that; my parents have told me that is wrong. And that is about as neat a thing to say at a party as I guess let us listen to Bing Crosby music or something like that. But if there is drug testing in school, young people will know what to say. And what to say is I cannot take this drug because I may be tested for drugs in my school tomorrow. And if I get tested for drugs and I am positive, my parents will know about it. And as far as I am concerned, any young person who is found to have drugs through drug testing, and there should be drug testing in our schools from junior high all the way through, not only should their parents be notified but the student should be able to then face an extra hurdle to jump over before graduation. And that hurdle should be a class that they need to take that will demonstrate to them the evils and the threat that drugs have for them as an individual. We need to let this child, who is now a young person, sit through a few films and some personal stories about how drugs have destroyed the lives of other young people and make that mandatory if that young person tests positive for drugs. They would have to get a passing grade. And I would suggest that if someone has tested positive for drugs before they get their degree, they have got to test so they are not on drugs. In other words, we have got to provide positive incentives for young people not to get involved in this type of behavior in the first place. Again, I would applaud our President for taking a positive approach. I have some disagreement with some of my other colleagues as to how effective the war on drugs is and how effective just focusing on enforcement or interdiction is. I do not think they have been effective at all. That is why we have got to try this personal approach, personal responsibility, focusing on identifying those people who are vulnerable, especially focusing and identifying people who might make us vulnerable. Airline pilots, doctors, people who our lives are in their hands, they all should be drug tested, but then especially testing young people to make sure their parents can know that there is a challenge and giving an incentive for these young people to say no when they are offered these drugs. I would join you both in applauding our President and hope that we can stimulate people across this country to look at drug testing as a positive alternative rather than some sort of threat to privacy. The only way it would be a threat, I would say, to civil liberties is if drug testing is mandatory and then we believe that we are going to prosecute young people for using drugs. That would be self- incrimination in my point of view, but I do not think that is what is being advocated here. What is being advocated here is drug testing in order to facilitate some type of outreach program to get someone so they are not using drugs.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I have just introduced the District of Columbia Voting Rights Restoration Act, a bill to restore full and equal congressional voting rights, including representation in the United States Senate, for the residents of the District of Columbia. My bill would restore the Federal rights of Maryland citizenship that were taken away from the District of Columbia residents over 200 years ago by an Act of Congress, the Organic Act of 1801. Enactment of my bill would mean that D.C. residents would once again have the full Federal voting rights they enjoyed as Maryland citizens prior to Congress' assumption of exclusive legislative authority over the District of Columbia. Those rights included the right to vote for and to be elected as and to serve as U.S. senators, U.S. representatives and presidential electors from Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not to let small national political considerations stop us from restoring these rights, and I would also insert the questions and answers about my bill that I am putting on the desk today as part of the Record. Mr. Speaker, it is time for all Members of Congress, whether Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, to heed the legitimate complaints of ``taxation without representation.'' We must correct this 200-year-old injustice to the U.S. citizens who live in our nation's capital. The debate must no longer be about whether D.C. residents should have full voting rights in Congress, but how to accomplish a goal that we all share. Question. Since the VRRA includes D.C. as part of the Maryland delegation in the U.S. House, what is to keep the Maryland legislature from splitting D.C. and joining it with two or more Maryland congressional districts? Answer. The VRRA would require that whenever D.C. has fewer people than the average Maryland congressional district, D.C. be kept intact in a single congressional district, with contiguous territory from adjacent Maryland counties added as necessary to produce a district equal in population to the other Maryland districts. The VRRA also provides that whenever D.C.'s population is equal to or larger than the average Maryland district, then there must be at lease one district that is 100% D.C. The controlling Supreme Court opinion in Oregon v. Mitchell (the 18-year-old vote case) made clear that Congress has the power to regulate congressional redistricting by state legislatures. Congress has exercised this power in prohibiting at-large districts in states with more than one House member. In this case, Congress would protect D.C. from unfair treatment because D.C. residents would have no voice in the Maryland legislature. Question. Does the Constitution allow D.C. residents who do not actually live in Maryland to choose the representatives of that state? If it were constitutional to treat D.C. residents as if they were residents of the state of Maryland for the purposes of voting, would D.C. residents be constitutionally precluded from representing the new Maryland district, given the language of Article I specifically requiring that representatives be inhabitants of the state in which they are chosen? Answer. In addition to restoring congressional voting rights, the VRRA also restores Maryland citizenship rights to be a candidate for, and to serve as, U.S. Representative, U.S. Senator, and presidential elector from Maryland. D.C. is one of several federal enclaves in which the residents were not considered to be ``inhabitants'' of the states that ceded such enclaves to the federal government. There is no reason why Congress is any more powerless to restore the right of D.C. residents to be considered inhabitants of Maryland for federal electoral purposes than it was powerless to restore the rights of residents of other federal enclaves to be considered an inhabitant of the states, including Maryland, that ceded their place of residence to the federal government. Question. Because representation in the Electoral College is based on the number of Senators and Representatives in the states, wouldn't Maryland receive only one more electoral vote to correspond with the new district? If so, and the District's three reliably Democratic electoral votes were eliminated, wouldn't the result be to tilt the votes in the Electoral College in favor of a Republican presidential candidate? Answer. The VRRA add one electoral vote to Mayland's total, and would eliminate D.C.'s current three electoral votes to eliminate double counting. Depending on how Maryland and D.C. vote, that would result in either a net pickup of 8 or a net loss of 2 electoral votes for Democrats, with a small possibility of changing the result one way or the other. It's also possible that the D.C. votes for Members of Congress provided by VRRA could swing control of the House and Senate to the Democrats. The small risks involved for each political party are a reasonable tradeoff for correcting the 200-year- old injustice of depriving D.C. residents of congressional representation. Question. Shouldn't a bill creating two new House seats for D.C. and Utah have a clause that the bill is not severable, meaning if the D.C. portion of the bill were found to be unconstitutional, the Utah portion also would fall? Answer. Yes; the VRRA has such a non-severability clause.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the conferees direction regarding NASA at this critical time. In the wake of the Columbia tragedy, NASA's practice of over-promising, over-marketing, and under-estimating the costs for its programs cannot be tolerated any longer. I applaud Chairman Walsh for his commitment in getting NASA to rethink its priorities relating to human space flight. We must now ensure that the return to flight of the Space Shuttle is not a return to business as usual. I support the Science Committee Chairman's position that we cannot perpetuate the Space Shuttle and Space Station indefinitely, and that any new program has to come with an affordable price tag. I do believe, however, that we need a bold vision for NASA. I think we should return to the Moon, but this time to stay. When the notion of an Orbital Space Plane was introduced, I welcomed it as a significant sea change in NASA's approach to space transportation development. One year later, however, NASA is still struggling with what it has touted as a simple design. According to NASA, OSP doesn't replace the Shuttle, and it's not clear how OSP night support any future mission. At an estimated cost of $18 billion over the next decade, NASA should not go forward until there is consensus between the Administration and the Hill concerning the direction of the U.S. space program. For too long, we endured costly development programs that failed to deliver results. Unfortunately, OSP is poised to head down the same path. We have been down this road before. Although the conference report calls for the NASA Administrator to report to Congress on a ISS re-supply plan by June 2004, the conferees do not go far enough in ensuring that Alternative Access to Station Program (AAS) remains viable. Current funding for this program runs out in January 2004, and the work of the private sector involved with this program could be potentially lost. It has been my belief that this program has the potential to address the national need for a viable, near-term cargo transfer capability as an alternative to the Space Shuttle. With the grounding of the Shuttle fleet, America is now at a vital crossroad concerning its ability to access space. NASA seems to be limiting its options in this regard to foreign launch capabilities. And to think several years ago we were concerned with the Russians in the Space Station Program's critical path. We must look to domestic, commercial solutions to address the critical need to re-supply the Space Station. Given my concerns, however, the NASA portion of this appropriations package is a good first step to help NASA prepare for the next chapter in the American space experience.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and again thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for proposing it. We share Long Beach, which is the home of a large Cambodian exiled community. Let me note the people who are exiled in Long Beach and elsewhere in the United States from Cambodia are there because they fled terror almost beyond imagination. Cambodia was pushed into a regional conflict in the 1960s. They did not really choose to do so. Sihanouk, their king, tried to keep that country out of that conflict; and eventually, as I say, they were pushed into it. And who pushed them? Well, the Vietnamese certainly pushed the Cambodians into it, but so did the United States of America. While we were looking towards protecting our interests in Southeast Asia, we made the Cambodians vulnerable to the type of atrocities that cost the lives of millions of Cambodians and left so many people exiled in the United States and elsewhere throughout the world. That conflict was something that we should not forget, and we should not forget that during this massacre that followed America's withdrawal from Vietnam in Cambodia, where millions of people were imprisoned and perhaps up to a million and a half murdered, that those people were suffering and going through this situation and America ignored all of the pleas. During that time period, we turned our back on something that we had pushed them into; and we held our fingers to our ears and refused to hear the cries of agony that was coming from the slaughter that was taking place there in Cambodia. Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge, who, I might add, were the perfect communists, they were not working people who just rose up, they were well-educated people and well educated in Marxism, Leninism and their plans from their Marxist professors in Paris who gave them the ideas of what a perfect society would be like. And, of course, to create a perfect society they had to slaughter everyone in their society that was imperfect by their plan. Well, we did not do what was right back in those days. The Cambodians suffered. Today we recognize that with this resolution. But we must do more than pass a resolution. We must make sure that we are committed to democracy in Cambodia. Let us not turn our backs again or put our hands over our ears when we hear that things are going wrong in Cambodia. Hun Sen, who currently controls the government in Cambodia, was himself a member of the Khmer Rouge, was a brigade commander; and if there were people slaughtered, there is no doubt he was engaged in it. Today, when they attempt to have free elections and organize an opposition party to Hun Sen's rule, people get killed. People disappear. Let us not turn our backs and with this resolution declare that we are committed to democracy and to helping the people of Cambodia.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1824, a bill to reauthorize funding for the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. I never supported OPIC in the past because, until recently, what OPIC basically did was provide insurance for Fortune 500 corporations to invest overseas, and when those investments went belly up, the American taxpayer picked up the bill. OPIC was basically an ATM machine for the Fortune 500. Well, things are different now. Things are changing at OPIC for the better. A new president, Dr. Peter Watson, is in charge of OPIC, and OPIC funds are now being channeled to business initiatives that promote democracy and justice and are in the interests of the American people. One case of particular interest is that of Ethiopia. Ethiopia is a case of particular interest. Ethiopia is run today by leaders who are inclined towards war and who frequently violate the rights of honest people whose property has been confiscated by their government. Some of these victims are U.S. citizens. One of the victims is Mr. Berhane, my constituent, and now a U.S. citizen. The Berhane family is a very well-respected family in Orange County. We all know them and respect them as honest, hard-working people. Mr. Berhane owned a successful enterprise in Ethiopia that was stolen, confiscated by Ethiopia's former Marxist dictatorship. Although the current regime in Ethiopia claims that such stolen property will be returned, they refuse to give the Berhane family back their business or offer just compensation. Members of Congress and officials from the executive branch have warned the government of Ethiopia that this issue is taken seriously; and it will, therefore, have damaging repercussions if this injustice to the Berhane family continues. Underscoring this new commitment at OPIC, I have been informed that OPIC will no longer consider any project for Ethiopia until this American family is properly compensated for their property, for their confiscated property. Let the government of Ethiopia be forewarned, this issue will not stop here. We applaud OPIC today. Funding for Ethiopia by multilateral development banks and the United States Agency for International Development is in jeopardy. It will be called into question until Americans are treated fairly in Ethiopia and their just claims dealt with honestly. I applaud OPIC and call on those who run Ethiopia not to hurt their own people for selfish reasons and to give the Berhane family back its property. I call on my colleagues to support this reauthorization of OPIC which is now reconforming itself to those noble principles which justified the creation of OPIC in the beginning, and it is doing so demonstrably in my district by standing up for this American family. So I am very proud to stand for the reauthorization of OPIC today.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and commend those who were involved with bringing it to the floor today. About 5 months ago, I traveled across Afghanistan. Just actually my wife and I decided to travel by car, and we were told that it was rather risky and that it was a precarious situation; but we wanted to see exactly what was happening on the scene, and I would like to report a little incident that happened. As we were traveling between Kabul and Mazar Sharif, we saw the devastation throughout the countryside, burned-out Russian tanks and buildings that had been destroyed. We noticed some young people, hundreds of people, gathered at this old building that seemed like a bombed-out relic from World War II; and we had our driver stop, and we walked over and we had an interpreter with us. And there we found, I guess, about 100 young Afghan children all about 8, 9, 10 years old, sitting in this burned-out building where they had piled rocks together and formed little desks, trying to teach each other how to read and to write. There was never a symbol of a people who were more committed to moving ahead and to bringing themselves out of the ashes of this horrible catastrophe that has befallen their country for these last 25 years than these young children; and what was most important is they were not just a bunch of boys. There were young boys and young girls who were there being taught to read and to write and to improve themselves and thus bring up their country, and it was one of the most inspiring sights I had seen. The United States has a special burden here in Afghanistan. We turned away from the Afghans before, and it led to another era of crises after the Soviets left; and let me just note that I am afraid to offer this to my colleagues: I think we need to pay more attention to Afghanistan. This resolution is an important step, but we need to pay more attention. Things are sliding back in the wrong direction if we do not pay attention. And I think we have a message today to the people of Afghanistan, and that is democracy is sometimes slow to move, but we are committed to helping them rebuild their country and to build those institutions that provide for human dignity. We respect their religion, we respect their faith, but we also know that the persecution of women is not required by Islam, that this Taliban extremism and Islamic extremism that we see in various parts of the world does not reflect the broad cross-section of Muslims who would grant women their rights and have little children who happen to be girls educated and treated equally and with due respect. But today we have to work with the Afghan people to make sure that the Taliban does not come back, and that threat still exists. And to the people of Afghanistan we say today do not give in to these evil people again. The Americans have not left. We will not leave until they are secure from the return of the Taliban and al Qaeda and the terrorists that held them in bondage.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask all freedom-loving people to pay attention to the latest crackdown in Burma by that country's brutal military regime. A few days ago, the military again reminded us why Burma has one of the most despicable regimes in the world, by cruelly cracking down on a demonstration by Buddhist monks. Over 900 monks took to the streets, calling for freedom and democracy. These people, who are dedicated to peace themselves, found themselves the targets of not only water guns but of brutal beatings. One of them was killed. Four have been put in intensive care. It is time for the people of Burma to join the Buddhist monks and to rise up against their tyrants. It is time for the people in the Burmese Army to rise up and turn their guns against the military regime that has destroyed freedom in their country and led their country into such deprivation and poverty, the regime that is stealing from their own people and giving their country to the Communist Chinese, and it is up to us, the United States, to back up the freedom-loving people of Burma.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion to instruct conferees. Let me note I support our President in his military requests for Iraq, and I applaud his leadership and the great job that our military has done in Iraq. The question is not the $66 billion that we are providing in the supplemental for our military, but the $18.6 billion in reconstruction money. And the question is should we just give this as a grant or should half of that $18.6 billion, at least half of it, be in the form of a loan that will be repaid after 20 years. Well, I do not see any reason why after bearing such a heavy burden, it is not like the $66 billion, but so many other billions of dollars, why the American people have to carry the whole burden. Why do we not permit half of this, $10 billion of this, to go in the form of a loan that can be repaid? After all, we are in debt $400 billion a year. That is our level of deficit spending. We have to borrow that $10 billion to give it to Iraq as a gift. Why do we not let them repay it after 20 years, put it in the form of a loan? That way our children will not have to repay this $10 billion 20 years from now. Instead, Iraqi children, who will have benefited from all of our investment and will probably be the richest kids in the world because Iraq is one of the richest oil producing country's in the world, let them pay it back. Mr. Speaker, I would support this motion to instruct. Let us give the American people a little break.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, let me note that I support H. Res. 198, and I commend the author for trying to do something. I would note to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) that a fig leaf is better than no leaf at all, and this is a step, a very small step in the right direction that focuses on the debt forgiveness and how important that is that we do not keep a mill stone around Iraq's neck, and the people of Iraq, they are going to be democratic. If they are going to have the stable society, they cannot have this massive debt hanging around their neck that was left them by Saddam Hussein. These are debts that were given to Saddam Hussein, loans that were given to him by these major financial international partners, for example, the Saudis and certainly German and French banks. We should not be saying that they have to repay these loans because no matter how much money we give them or how much is in the donor's conference, they will never prosper with these loans around their neck. We tried this with Russia and we tried this with Eastern Europe. We insisted that they repay the debts of the Communist-era debts, and it created chaos and undercut progress in that part of the world for 10 years. We cannot afford that with Iraq. So I support H. Res. 198, but the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) was absolutely correct when he said this is only part of the major debate which is should the $18.6 billion that we are going to provide as reconstruction money go to Iraq as loans or go to Iraq as a gift. The reason why they are saying it must be a gift is because of these loans that these big bankers made to Saddam Hussein when he was in power. That is no excuse at all. We should not be protecting the validity of $100 billion for the loans to Saddam Hussein from these heavy international financial institutions by giving our money away. We are borrowing this money, this reconstruction money, $18.6 billion because we are in deficit spending, and we are expecting our children to pay it back rather than to have the Iraqi children pay it back when they are on their feet 10 or 20 years from now, when they are the biggest oil producer in the world. We are going to end up paying it back rather than them paying it back. It makes no sense at all. So I would ask my colleagues to make sure that they pay close attention to the Rohrabacher amendment which makes sure that this will be a loan to Iraq and not a grant and a gift or a giveaway. With that, I support H. Res. 198.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, today we will be discussing a supplemental which provides $87 billion for Iraq, $18.6 billion of that going as a reconstruction package. The gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) was right when he suggested this is the pivotal decision that will be made today. The American people should pay close attention to what their Representatives are doing and should contact their Representatives if they believe that if we are going to give $18.6 billion away, it should be in the form of a loan which will be repaid once Iraq, which could be one of the richest oil producing countries in the world, gets back on its feet. It should repay that $18.6 billion. We should not just be giving it as a gift. The Rohrabacher amendment insists that it be given as a loan instead of a gift and that it be repaid. And if the Rohrabacher amendment is not permitted, if it is ruled out of order, I will move the next Rohrabacher amendment, which would be to cut that $18.6 billion from the request. And within a matter of days, the administration will come back with it in the form of a loan. If you do not want to give away this money, if you want your children not to have to repay this money that we are borrowing in deficit spending, vote for the Rohrabacher amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pence amendment. We are talking about $18.6 billion of reconstruction funds. Should it be a loan? Should it be a gift? I have legislation, an amendment that I have submitted and have been pushing for the last week, suggesting that all of that money should be in the form of loans. We should not, when we have to borrow this money, and we are already $400 billion in deficit spending this year, we have got to borrow this money in order to give it to Iraq, which is going to be rich with oil 10 years from now. And our children are going to have to pay that back and their children will not? That is ridiculous. It is obscene. The Pence amendment goes half way. If it passes, I will be supportive of this amendment and withdraw my amendment. But if the Pence amendment is struck down by a point of order, I would suggest my Republican colleagues join me in supporting the Obey-Lantos amendment which accomplishes the same goal of a 50/50 loan versus grant of the reconstruction money, and I understand that that will not be struck down by a point of order. Let us get something done here today. The American people bear too much of the burden. Let us think of them for a change.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey- Lantos amendment, and very few times has anyone ever heard me say those words. And let me note that I will be voting for the $87 billion supplemental bill, whichever form the $18.6 billion reconstruction part of the package takes. However, the fairest way to the American people is to make sure that we do not just give away money that could be repaid to us once Iraq gets back on its feet. Again, the former speaker said it right. This is whether it is going to be a loan from our children and repaid by our children or repaid by the Iraqi children once Iraq is on its feet and the wealthiest oil producing country in the world. There is no reason to burden Americans any further. They have paid their debt and met their responsibility with treasure and blood. For Pete's sake, let us think about them and not just think about what is best for the world. Lending the money will get the job done, and they can repay it. That is what it is all about. Anyone who spoke for the Pence amendment should be supporting the Obey- Lantos amendment. I will be withdrawing my amendment in favor of the Obey-Lantos amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, we will be paying the interest on that for 20 years and then our children, our young children today will have to pay those debts off in the future. Again, this comes back to a basic argument we will have on the floor tomorrow, and this is one of the center core debates we will have tomorrow, about fiscal responsibility and what is going on. I support the President's war efforts. I have been a point person on them. No one can doubt that in this body. I support the Iraqi war efforts, supported what we did in Afghanistan. I am proud of our President. But we must stand up for fiscal responsibility, especially when it comes to this part of the package I think it is one-eighth of the package or something, one-sixth of the package, which deals specifically with Iraqi reconstruction. Should it be a loan? Should we expect that when Iraq gets back on its feet, starts producing its oil, which it may be the word's biggest oil producer in years to come, should we expect them to pay it back as we continue to prosper or should our children pay for that money because we had to borrow, make a greater debt to get the money there in the first place? Well, let me tell you what happened in the past when we followed the same course. We pressured the democratic governments that replaced the communist dictatorships in Russia and Eastern Europe to pay their debts of oppressors of the preceding communist regimes. What did that do when we forced them to pay for that? What happened was a decade of chaos, a decade of uncertainty, a decade where there was very little growth, and there was actual decline instead of what we could have had in Eastern Europe and Russia which could have been an era of progress, of freeing, of uplifting. But instead we wanted those people to pay for the debts. Well, all of this was done. Why? Here we were risking the democratic development of Russia itself and bringing us out of the Cold War and into a new world in order to protect powerful financial interests who had done business with these bloody dictatorships. Mainly, yes, huge European banks who had loaned money to Russia and to Eastern European countries. And we risked instability and we risked the whole future of development of the post-Cold War world in order to make sure that their loans to the dictatorships were honored. We cannot do that now. We cannot base our policy on keeping the loans to Saddam Hussein's loans viable for these nutty financiers from Saudi Arabia and from French and German banks. We are here to do right by the people of Iraq. And we can do that. What is right is for us to let them wipe the slate clean. Let them repudiate these debts. As I say, no amount of money is going to be donated at this conference that will make up, that could be anywhere as beneficial as just repudiating the Saddam Hussein debt. And let us renew, let us start anew, let them start anew as well. Let us offer money for reconstruction as a loan. If they can or cannot repay it in the future if something happens, we have not lost anything if we put it as a loan. Because if we give it as a grant, we are certainly not going to get anything back. Now, tomorrow I am going to offer two amendments on the Iraqi reconstruction. And my first amendment will suggest that the $18.6 billion in Iraqi reconstruction, that part of the supplemental should be made only as a loan. Now, it may well be ruled out of order. It may be said that it is not germane because you cannot legislate on an appropriations bill. And we are talking about an appropriations bill. If my amendment there is ruled out of order, I will then offer another amendment. And that amendment will be to cut the $18.6 billion in reconstruction money from that bill. And I can assure my Democratic colleagues and my Republican colleagues, my friends on both sides of the aisle, that if we stand up and do what is right and insist that they not spend the money unless it is a loan, I can guarantee them the next day the administration will be here, will be here with a loan proposal. And, so, the vote on the Rohrabacher amendment tomorrow, and that is not a cutting amendment but it is an insistence that it be a loan instead of a give-away, the people of the United States need to know how we are voting, they need to contact their Member of Congress to say to vote for the Rohrabacher amendment making it a loan, and cutting it if it is not. Because it will come back within a few days as a loan. And I would hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be able to support that. We can stand by the people of Iraq, but we do not have to stand on the face of the American taxpayer to do it.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. What is that?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, today we have heard a great debate on H.R. 3289, the supplemental concerning Iraq and Afghanistan. This $87 billion supplemental is the largest supplemental in American history, and we should look at it very closely; and we should be considering all portions of this supplemental. I support the supplemental basically, and I will be voting for it even if my perfecting amendments are rejected. However, I have several suggestions that I will be making tomorrow that I believe are vital to the well-being of the American people. So tonight I thought I would speak a little bit about the supplemental and about several of the changes that need to be made in order to ensure that the interests of the American people are being met. First of all, of the $87 billion we are being asked for in this supplemental, $66 billion of it is for our military. And this portion of the supplemental I support. And I will have to suggest that, even as we have heard today, if someone is complaining that there was a lack of body armor, one does not suggest that the way to solve that is not to give them the money that they believe is necessary to complete their mission in Iraq. In fact, being someone who respects our Armed Forces and their leaders and respects the job and the courage it takes to do this job and knowing that I am not an expert on military matters, I would lean towards granting the requests from our military when they claim they need a certain amount of money in order to get their job done and to come home safely. Certainly, a great deal of our defense resources have been expended in Afghanistan and Iraq; and many of these resources need to be replaced, whether it is fuel or ammunition, whether it is repairing equipment or whatever. We are going to need to spend a certain amount of money just to bring ourselves up to the point where we are not vulnerable because of the commitments that we have made overseas in these last 2 years. If we do not do this, if we do not pay heed to what our military says they need in order to finish their mission successfully and come home safely, either they will not succeed in their mission, more people will be killed, or we will be left vulnerable in years ahead. This makes no sense. So I will give the benefit of the doubt to the military, to Mr. Rumsfeld to try to do his best job and get this operation over in Iraq and bring our troops home safely. But, fundamentally, many people are talking about and challenging whether or not our military should have been in Iraq in the first place. Let me note that taking care of Saddam Hussein was necessary for America's security, and we should applaud our President for making the tough decisions and taking the heat and putting up with all the backbiting and nit-picking that he has had to go through in order to make sure that our operation, the democratic offensive there in Iraq, to make sure it kept going and was successful. The President has his detractors, and I am not saying he has not made mistakes, but by and large this has been a great President, a historic President who stepped up to the plate and did what was necessary and met the challenge of his day. And let us note that almost very few of the people who are now attacking our President and are attacking the supplemental would advocate that we permit Saddam Hussein to get back into power, and earlier we even heard the proposals that we give this to the United Nations so that Saddam Hussein will not come back into power. Unless we are going to provide leadership, the United Nations is useless, as we know. It is a debating society, and unless America provides the leadership, it will do nothing. So we can be very proud that our President said, I am going to take care of America's security. Saddam Hussein was a monster. He is a monster. And he was a monstrous threat when he was in power. He was a mass murderer to his own people. He was a torturer, and he was not only a scourge to his own people in his right, but he was a threat when he was in power to the United States of America. He was a threat to our safety because Saddam Hussein hated America, hated every one of us, and would have done us harm had he had the chance because America humiliated him by driving his forces out of Kuwait a decade ago. There is no getting around it. He had a blood grudge against us. What that means in that part of the world with a man who murders hundreds of thousands of his own people, that means he would not think twice if he had the opportunity to kill Americans in great numbers; and I am very pleased that our President took this tyrant out, eliminated this threat to America, and promoted democracy in Iraq at the same time. Unfortunately, the reason we had to do that now was because a decade ago President Bush One did not do his job. He did not finish the job he set out to do, and now we have been paying for it. Let us make sure that the decisions we make now with this supplemental and other decisions that we will be making ensure that we will not have to go back to that region. Let us finish the job, get it done right. Let us not shortchange our people when they ask for their needs in the military, but let us make sure we get the job done so we do not have to go back again. How do we do that? First and foremost, yes, we back our military because Saddam Hussein was one of the most powerful military forces in that part of the world. In fact, he was the most powerful military force in that part of the world. So we had to use that tool to get him out. But succeeding also requires having the people of Iraq on our side. We need to help them build a democratic society. And I was in the forefront along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) in passing the Iraq Liberation Act 5 years ago, and I might note that the State Department under the last administration and under this administration until after September 11 did not expend the funds that were given to them in order to help the people of Iraq provide the democratic alternative to Saddam Hussein that they needed. That was a failure for the last 5 years of our government. We need now to work with the people of Iraq and build their democratic institutions, and we are succeeding in that. And, yes, there are people who will kill an American soldier, and we are drawing in the al Qaeda and the terrorists from around the world to attack Americans there. But overwhelmingly the people of Iraq are very gleeful that Saddam Hussein is gone and grateful to America for this. And I suggest that in years ahead that once the situation is stabilized and Iraq becomes part of the family of nations, the civilized family of nations, instead of headed by a rogue general like Saddam Hussein, that we will find that the people of Iraq are our best friends. They will be so grateful to us that they will stand beside us in the challenges that we face in the future, and they will tell us how grateful they are and the suffering that they went through under Saddam Hussein. And already our stand in the Middle East has done so much to increase our prestige. Already, for example, in Iran we see changes, movement for change in Iran, one of the most hardened anti-Western of Islamic societies, and we see that throughout the Islamic world that there is a possibility now because of America's increase in prestige that we can actually step in and do some good and we can be proud that with only a minor loss of civilian life we actually achieved our goal of eliminating Saddam Hussein's monstrous regime. In fact, more civilians would be dead, Iraqi civilians would be dead today, had we left Saddam Hussein in power and he killed the number of civilians that he was killing, that his rate of massacre of his own people would have continued unabated by American troops. Also, there were limited casualties on our side; and, yes, there are still a few casualties. Every day we hear about that. It is a tragedy. It is part of the price we are paying, but it does not reflect the Iraqi people, but instead is the last gasp of a tyrant and of a dictator of a monstrous regime that we have driven into oblivion and put on the ash heap of history. So our soldiers can be proud, and we are proud of them. They are risking their lives, and we are going to make sure they can do their job. So I want to make it very clear that I support those elements in the bill that will assist our military in that job; and as I say, America is safer because of what we have done. America will always be safer when we are championing the cause of liberty and justice. All too long in the Cold War, we found ourselves supporting dictators and tyrants, and there has been talk about what we did for Saddam Hussein himself at a time when he was in a conflict with Iranians. And, yes, people did help. I might add that the guaranteed loans that my friend referred to earlier happened in 1989 after Ronald Reagan had left the White House. I know that because it was my first year here, and one of the first things I did on the floor of this House was to pass out leaflets to Members as they came in through that door asking them not to vote for the loan guarantees to Saddam Hussein. These were loan guarantees that were going to permit him to buy American grain, which meant we were paying for his food while he used his money to pay for his army. It was a horrible mistake. It was a horrible thing to do. Anytime we give credit to dictators, it is wrong. When we helped support people like Samosa and these other dictators around the world, it was wrong. What we need to do now to be secure is to promote freedom.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman's information puts to bed the idea that we have to spend $18.6 billion and give it as a gift in order to make sure that the Europeans at this donors conference cough up the money. Well, there is very little chance that they will. But again, no matter how much money they give, in no way would it be as beneficial as if we had a policy that the debt owed or the debt accumulated by Saddam Hussein and spent by Saddam Hussein is no longer the responsibility of the Iraqi people. That would free the Iraqi people from a burden that will bend them over and break their economy.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of holding Syria accountable for aiding and abetting terrorists and for helping those who are killing Americans in Iraq, also to suggest to the Syrians that it is time for them to leave Lebanon. Terrorism, we hear that word a lot. What is it? A terrorist is an individual or an organization or a nation that uses violence against noncombatants in order to achieve its goals. Syria needs not face this type of punitive legislation. First of all, let me note that before the Syrian Army went into Lebanon, the Lebanese were engaged in slaughter among themselves and that the Syrian troops played a positive role at that time. That has long since passed. They should be out of there by now. But also the fact is that the Syrian Government fully understands that it is offering its country as a base of operations for organizations that target women and children in Israel. They are based there. They announce their attacks and the results of their attacks from there. There is no doubt that terrorists, people who are slaughtering innocent people, are there in their country; yet they refuse to change the policy that permits those terrorists to operate out of that country. Now, when you talk to them about it, which I have, they always use what they perceive as the evils of Israel as an excuse. Well, I will tell you this, I am opposed to anyone who targets noncombatants to achieve their military or political ends. It is sinful. And today I wholeheartedly support this because what Syria does by providing safe haven to terrorists is an affront to civilization. Also, they are now engaged in helping those who are pulling the trigger in killing Americans as we do our job in Iraq. And I do not have to condemn all evil in the world in order to wholeheartedly condemn this evil. Today it is even more incumbent upon us to take a strong stand with Syria's wrong doing because every day our soldiers are being killed by people who are sneaking through Syria to get into Iraq. I would plead with Syria, please change your ways. You need not be our enemy. You need not have the policies you do. Finally, let me note that while I wholeheartedly support this legislation condemning Syria's wrongdoing, I also condemn when other countries are engaged in wrongdoing in that part of the world. I would suggest that as a body we do not forcefully condemn Israel when it is apparent to us that Israel is engaged in wrongdoing. I believe that undermines our credibility with these Arab countries and these Arabs when we plead with them on issues like this. If we could be more balanced, I think we could be a greater force for the good and moral standards that we talk about today.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a moment? I appreciate the expressions of support. And if we can help improve this even a little bit by that portion of the bill dealing with reconstruction, I think that it will at least make these a little bit better. I would hope that those people who are listening or reading this in the newspaper would be calling their Congressman and let the people know that the Rohrabacher amendment is something that we know is in the deep interest of the American people and that we need to stand up for the American people sometimes.