Dana Rohrabacher

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.

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. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

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. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. What is that?

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3289. And what we are doing in Iraq is a noble endeavor. It is in our interest to stand tall and, yes, even to fight and to promote freedom throughout the world. It is especially important for us to promote freedom in those dictatorships that threaten our country or are run by tyrants who hate our country. Our military has done a magnificent job, and we need to give them what they say they need to do their job and to come home safely. Thus, there should not be any debate on the $66 billion that is being requested. They say they need it. Their lives are in danger. We must step forward. They have stepped forward for us. Our President is taking care of business. He has made the tough decisions to do what is necessary to secure our country and to make sure that we are safe in the years ahead. I wish that was the case in the past administration. I think many of the challenges we face today were left to us by jobs that should have been done in the past. Saddam Hussein hated America for what it did to kick him out of Kuwait over 10 years ago. And when I just said the previous administrations, I hope you just do not think I mean Democrats, because George Bush's father, George Bush, Sr., did not do the job right and left us with Saddam Hussein in power. So let us reflect that we did not do the job then, but let us just not place blame and say that means we should not be doing it today. No. The mistakes of the past should mean that we need to make sure we do what is right today so that America is safe in the future and that our children 10 years down the road will not have to face this same kind of problem because we cut and run, because we nit-picked our President at a time when he made the decision that should have been done 10 years ago. Saddam Hussein was a man who hated us. He hated us. He was an enemy to the United States of America. He was a murderer to his own people. He pillaged and destroyed his own economy, and that economy should have been very prosperous; but instead he pillaged and stole from it. And now that country is very poor and needs our help. America is safer. The people of Iraq are better off because of America's courage, our commitment, and, yes, our leadership. I support this bill, $66 billion in the supplemental that will help rebuild our military or bolster them at this pivotal moment. I will be voting for this bill, for the supplemental, H.R. 3289, even if my amendments are not made in order. But I have some serious problems with that part of the bill that provides $18.6 billion in reconstruction for Iraq, and it has taken the form, as the administration is giving us, as a grant, a gift, a giveaway to the people of Iraq. Now, let me note Iraq is probably in essence one of the richest countries in the world. They have the third largest oil reserves now that we know. And, in fact, in the future we may find they are the most plentiful in oil of any country in the world. Why should we be borrowing money when we are in debt by $400 billion a year, almost $500 billion in deficit spending right now, why should we borrow and then give a grant to the Iraqis, which when they get back on their feet they will not have to repay, but our children will then have to repay? That is ridiculous. That is an absolute absurdity. And I will present an amendment tomorrow that makes the reconstruction effort belong to the Iraqi Government, or the Iraqi people, of $18.6 billion. And if I am ruled out of order, I will offer another amendment to cut that funding from the budget. If that is ruled out of order, I will offer another amendment which will just cut from the budget $18.6 billion in the reconstruction part of the bill. And believe me, if we vote for that, within a few days the administration will come back with a loan package because the Senate will probably vote for that anyway. Let us keep faith with the American people in the long run. Let us make sure that everybody does their part, not just the American people having to bear this burden by themselves. And I would ask my Democratic colleagues as well as my Republican colleagues to please join me on the Rohrabacher amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, in the next few weeks Congress will be shaping and hopefully passing legislation aimed at jump-starting the Iraqi economy, hopefully laying the foundation for prosperity and democracy in that troubled land. The administration is proposing a $23 billion package out of an $87 billion program; and the question now is, what form will our support take in this first $23 billion assistance package to Iraq? Will it be given to Iraq in the form of a loan or will it be given in the form of an investment or will it be given in the form of a grant? We are being told in Congress that it must be given in the form of a grant. We are being told that the people of the United States must give to Iraq $23 billion because if we try to give it in the form of a loan instead of a grant that it will hurt the Iraqi economy and they will not be able to prosper. This is so much nonsense, State Department nonsense which is not taking into consideration the well-being of the people of the United States of America and taking the easy way out. Yes, let us just shovel money over there. That would not be good for the people of Iraq or the people of the United States. The objection the State Department has is based on the idea that if we have any more debt accumulated on the people of Iraq, they will not prosper because they already have so much debt. In fact, their debt is estimated at $120 billion. That is no reason for us to just give away $23 billion of the money of the people of the United States. No. What we should be doing is saying, who loaned that money to Iraq? And, in fact, what we are talking about here is $120 billion given not to the people of Iraq but to Saddam Hussein, to Saddam Hussein's regime by our supposed allies, by big international banks. Our position should not be that the Iraqi people have to repay that debt. We should be encouraging the new democracy in Iraq to repudiate the debt of countries that gave money to Saddam Hussein which he then used to buy weapons to repress and oppress his own people. Repudiation of that debt will permit the Iraqi people to prosper and permit us rather than to penalize our own people in order to repay, yes, the money is not going directly back to those big international banks, but it will be going back to them if we simply shovel our money into Iraq right now. No, we should help Iraq establish the foundation for prosperity by insisting that the loans that were given to Saddam Hussein are not the responsibility of the people of Iraq who want a democratic government. If those big bankers in France and Germany want their loans back which they gave to Saddam Hussein, let them find Saddam Hussein and collect those loans from Saddam Hussein, not the people of Iraq. Our assistance should be based not on giving money to the people of Iraq because we have no choice because Iraq already owes so much money. What we should do is help them get out of that debt situation by repudiating that illegal debt and, instead, structure our support as loans when we can, or even investments. Much of what is being suggested for Iraq is upgrading their post office, their water system, their oil production, their electric system. All of those things are based on services that are provided to the Iraqi people which they will pay for. Let us structure the $23 billion we give to Iraq as an investment in those things rather than just giving them the money and expecting no repayment for the American people in return. This would be actually more efficient in the end because it would put a profit-type of incentive into the mix when people are setting up the post office and the water system and the oil production and the electric system in Iraq. No, let us reconfirm to the world by supporting the repudiation of Saddam Hussein's debt; let us reconfirm the principle that anyone who loans money or does business with dictators does so at their own risk and the American people should never bail them out if that dictatorship is overthrown. We should be on the side of the democratic forces and give them an incentive to get rid of the dictator and by doing so, get rid of their debt rather than have to bear the burden of their own oppressor.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Republic of China on Taiwan's re-admission to the United Nations. For the last 32 years, Taiwan's people have had no representation in the United Nations. It is incongruous that a world body founded on the principle of universality and self-determination excludes a free, democratic and independent nation of 23 million people--a population larger than three quarters of the U.N.'s current member states. Let's be clear. Taiwan does not seek the expulsion of the People's Republic of China from the United Nations, but asks only that it be given a voice at the U.N. There are well-established precedents for parallel representation of divided nations at the U.N. East and West Germany, now unified, and the still divided Republic of Korea and Democratic People's Republic of Korea are the outstanding examples. Taiwan's participation in international bodies is well documented as shown by its membership in the Asian Development Bank, its admission to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation group as a full member, and its membership in the World Trade Organization. Taiwan possesses ample resources to contribute to the work and funding of the U.N. as shown in its many contributions of humanitarian aid. Such projects by Taiwan include relief supplies for Iraq and Afghanistan, AIDS prevention in Africa, the dispatch of rescue teams following natural disasters in El Salvador, Nicaragua and Turkey and assistance to victims of the 9/11 disaster here in the United States. Taiwan's accession to the United Nations is long overdue. Its 23 million people deserve this important vehicle to full participation in the global community. As Taiwan bids to return to the United Nations, I wish to say that 1 totally support Taiwan's aspirations to be a member of this global body. Taiwan has all the qualifications: a sound political system, a much-admired economy and a genuine desire to maintain peace and prosperity in East Asia and the world. With membership in the United Nations, Taiwan will become a truly useful international player, contributing its finances and ideas to combat nuclear proliferation, environmental abuses, and the spread of infectious diseases such as AIDS and SARS. As of now, Taiwan has not been invited to any of the various U.N.-sponsored conferences and programs on HIV/AIDS. Moreover, no U.N. bodies are willing to accept Taiwan's aid for Afghanistan and Iraq. This is not in the interests of the Afghan and Iraqi people. Also, with membership in the United Nations, Taiwan will be able to incorporate itself into the international system of human rights protection, abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action. It is heartening to know Taiwan's commitment to human rights is very serious. It is establishing a National Human Rights Commission in accordance with the principles outlined by the United Nations. Being the world's 17th largest economy, Taiwan will most certainly be able to carry out all United Nations Charter obligations. Taiwan's efforts to help other countries would be much more effective if they could be coordinated with international efforts sponsored by the U.N. and its specialized agencies. Perhaps one of the best reasons for supporting Taiwan's membership in the United Nations is that Taiwan is willing and anxious to be a full contributing member of the United Nations. So, let's speak up for our friend and ally, the Republic of China on Taiwan. Let's tell the world how unfair it has been to deny the 23 million people of Taiwan their voice and representation in the United Nations and especially their willingness to other nations in need.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I certainly respect those people, especially the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) for the very hard work they have put into this legislation. It has always been my intent to support this legislation. So this is not done with the spirit of anything except trying to do something for the American people because this is an opportunity that we have today to start working on a very positive idea. There is no reason for us to put this off. If we put this on this legislation today, this idea will move forward, and a lot of work will be done on this, and we will move toward this goal. If this amendment fails, what we have done is condemn the American people to tens of billions of dollars of expense that could have been taken up by foreign manufacturers who are importing their goods into our ports and putting their goods onto our market and undercutting our domestic manufacturers. Earlier the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) suggested that perhaps the ports already have this authority, thus this amendment is redundant. Let me say if that is the analysis, why not pass it then? There is no reason then, if the ports already have this authority, why are we so hesitant about passing this? The reason we are so hesitant is that there are powerful interests at play. We should be interested in what is the effect on the American people. We face, in these next 12 months, a horrendous, an astronomic expense in our ports, making them safe, making them more secure and more efficient. We should start working right now, and this is how we can do it, finding a new revenue source, a source for manufacturers overseas that will help us accomplish this mission. OMB will go along. The ports will go along. The American people will applaud us if we provide the leadership today, and that is what I am suggesting. I would ask my colleagues who are listening to this debate to join me, siding with the American people, the American manufacturer and let us not tax billions of dollars from them when we could have a fee paid by foreign manufacturers that would provide us the revenues necessary to make our ports secure and to upgrade their infrastructure. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the good work that those people who have worked on this legislation have done, and I intend to support this one way or the other.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time be extended by 1 minute on each side to allow the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) to speak.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, let me just note that this creates a new revenue flow. This amendment will create new revenue, a new source of revenue that begins perhaps in Shanghai or some other foreign country, and that revenue then can be used to our benefit. Now, the only other option we have, of course, is to fight over limited revenue, all of which is taken out of the pockets of the American people. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me just suggest, we do not represent the ports here. By the way, if anybody represents the ports in this room today, it is me. I represent, in my district, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach; and if there is anything I understand now about being a Congressman from an area that represents ports is the ports are looking for leadership. The American people, surprise, surprise, are looking for leadership from us. Our job is not to make our decisions by, well, let us call up the people who want Federal money and see if they want us to give them Federal money. That is not our job. Our job is to try to structure a system that works for the benefit of the American people. I would suggest this: that even though I represent both the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, who I really represent are the American people. I do not know if any of my colleagues have had the experience that I have with the small manufacturers in their areas. I have gone to small manufacturers in my area, and what have I found? They are going out of business. And they are going out of business because we have set up a structure that has permitted foreign manufacturers to slip into our market at almost no expense to those foreign manufacturers and undercut our own manufacturers. Why is it so wrong that we would expect that those foreign manufacturers pay a little fee, a little fee on the containers they are using so they can help build the infrastructure, rather than tax those companies that I visited in my district who are going under because of this, really, actually, American tax-supported competition that they are having to face? This is not right. I can see why our ports and harbors do not want this. They do not want to have to ask for that fee. Well, the fact is, it is good for America, it is good for the American manufacturer, and it will be good for our ports in the end if we give them this right. This idea that they may not get the money, we can tweak this language; we all know that. If this amendment passes, we can tweak the language to make sure it goes exactly where we want it, into security and infrastructure for these ports. But if we do not pass this amendment, this idea is dead, this idea is dead; and what is going to happen is, the tens of billions of dollars, right now, that we are making a stand on, will be paid by the American people, rather than through a container tax paid for by foreign manufacturers. I say it is time for this body to stand up and provide some leadership. Who cares what the ports say right now. If they are operating in their self interests, we have to operate in America's interests, and it is in America's interests to have foreign manufacturers contribute to infrastructure costs here. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will see to it that the massive costs in making our ports and harbors more secure are shared by those foreign manufacturers who use these facilities. The American people should not be stuck with the entire costs of the expensive infrastructure and security upgrades now necessary for the sake of homeland security. What happens under the current system is that Americans are taxed to pay for improvements to our ports, which are then used by foreign manufacturers to move more efficiently in their exporting of products into our market. Yes, we end up taxing our own manufacturers in order to help their foreign competitors put them out of business. Something is wrong with this formula. My amendment will permit local port authorities the right to levy a fee on containers traversing through their ports. This fee will be fed into a fund controlled by the authority to meet the new and rising cost of security and infrastructure. Why should all the tens of billions of dollars needed for this upgrading come out of the hide of our own taxpayers? Should the manufacturers in Shanghai not pay a share of the cost through a fee on the containers they use? After all, are these foreign manufacturers not making huge profits by using an infrastructure provided for them by our own taxpayers? Surprisingly, some of our ports are opposed to this amendment. You can hear lobbyists around the Hill talking about it. They like the status quo. They come to Washington and expect us to provide them more and more money by just simply taking it right out of the hide of the American working people. They want us, whenever there is an upgrade necessary, especially as we look into the future where it is not just regular upgrades and regular structural operations in their ports, now that we are looking at a huge expense because of homeland security needs, they just expect us to hand it to them and take it right out of the pockets of the American people. Well, I am sorry, but that is not the fair way to do things, and that is not the best way to do things. We should be expecting foreign businesses through a container fee to pay their fair share. If the ports do not want to ask them for that, but would rather come here and have us take that money out of the pockets of our own people, well, I am sorry, they are going to be disappointed. But the American people will not be disappointed. The American people will be disappointed if we continue to provide people overseas who manufacture products that put our own people out of work, that we continue to provide them these services free of charge, of course, at the expense of the American taxpayer. Mr. Chairman, lobbyists have been around. Some of the people who vote on this bill will have heard from their lobbyists saying they have to be against the container fee, I am suggesting, because it is going to go to a non-Federal interest. That is right, it is not going to go into the Federal pool of money here. It is going to be kept locally by the port authorities to be used for infrastructure and security matters in those local areas, or it could perhaps, for example, be used for matching funds. If the Federal Government is going to provide something, they could use that for matching funds. This is fair to the American taxpayer. If there is any problem with wording, a little bit of wording here, little tweaks that need to happen to make this a perfect bill, I am happy to work with the chairman and work with the people on this committee as this bill moves forward. But if this bill loses today, if my amendment loses today, it will mean the American taxpayer is going to get stuck with all of this cost, and we are basically letting these foreign manufacturers off the hook; and we all know that. This is our chance to start this process down the road so we will have container fees and a more fair system of providing resources to our ports and our harbors. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this well- crafted, bipartisan legislation, and congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Sabo) for a job well done. During this debate it should be evident to everyone that the cost of securing our country is going to be astronomical. Later today I will propose an amendment to H.R. 2557, the Water Resources Development Act, which will help us raise some money for our own security needs from outside, from foreign sources. My amendment will permit us to establish a container fee on containers coming into our ports, which, of course, those fees will be paid by the overseas manufacturers, that will then be part of a fund that we can use for our own security, for some of the costs that this legislation is appropriating money for. We need to make sure that the American people are not the only ones who bear the burden of having secure ports in our country when overseas manufacturers use them as well. So I rise in strong support of this legislation and would ask my colleagues to consider my amendment in the upcoming legislation.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and support of the legislation as well, and I would hope, first of all, to congratulate all of those in leadership who have been involved in this. Water issues are so important, and they are also hard to work out at times, and I know the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has put a lot of time and effort into this, as well as all of those on the committee. I especially am, of course, supportive of this rule because it makes in order an amendment that I have to this bill that I believe is vitally important to the security of our country and to the American taxpayers. The amendment that I will be offering, and I would hope that my fellow colleagues would consider this very deeply when it comes to the floor, it permits the ports around the United States, does not mandate them, but permits them to put a fee on containers coming in or out of the port, up to $100 per container. As we move forward with an incredibly expensive goal of modernizing our ports so they will be secure and safe, there is going to be this astronomical cost to accomplishing this goal. The ports themselves do not have the revenue resources necessary to do their part unless we give them a source of revenue. Many of the ports are going to complain, and I understand that some of the ports have actually complained that they do not want the power to even ask for a fee from those people who are using the port facilities, the manufacturers overseas who are using the port facilities to send their containers in and out of the port. The American people should not have to pick up the entire burden that is required to make our ports safe and to keep our ports functioning in a way. My bill would make sure the people overseas pay their part as well and are able to do so through a fee on the containers coming through the ports.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of and with gratitude to my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for her resolution honoring our colleague, now our retired colleague, Steve Horn, a colleague and a friend and a much- admired person here in Washington, D.C. He is not a bicycle rider and he is not an Olympic athlete here, but I guess it is fitting for us to have the U.S. Post Office, which has sponsored one of our athletes, and today we are talking about the naming of a post office after Steve Horn. I cannot think of a better candidate than Steve Horn to name a post office after, especially on Signal Hill, California. Steve Horn, of course, started out as an academic and ended up working for a United States Senator from California, Senator Kuchel, and later on became president of Long Beach State College. Let me note that I graduated from Long Beach State College and was part of the committee, elected by the students of Long Beach State College, to be part of the selection committee to find out who would be the president, and that selection committee ended up choosing Steve Horn to be the President of Long Beach State College, which later became Long Beach State University. Steve Horn did a terrific job as president of that university. He was an incredible leader in the academic community. He was tough, but he was an intellectual and he was always very thoughtful. When he came here to Congress it was an interesting transition between the President of Long Beach State and coming to Congress. Steve and I actually ran against each other on my very first run for Congress. Steve was in the primary. It was a crowded primary of eight people, and I always thought of Steve as the one opponent I had in that primary who I dearly respected. He was such a thoughtful person. I always thought of it as the Jeffersonians versus the Hamiltonians. As our country started out we had these two different groups vying intellectually, and Steve was definitely a Hamiltonian and I thought of myself as a Jeffersonian. Now he would think of that as a great compliment, even though in the end, the Jeffersonians won in the beginning of our country's history. They won the battles with the Hamiltonians in terms of the electoral process. But as any very thoughtful historian will tell you, it was the Hamiltonians that ended up having a dominant influence on the structure of our government. Steve, of course, was someone who wanted to have an influence. He was someone who wanted to get tangible things done rather than talk about philosophy. He carried a book with him at all times, taking notes so he could have the details down on the things that he wanted to remember and to follow through on. He was a pragmatist of the highest order and someone who actually gives honor to that title of pragmatist because he wanted to make government work. He wanted it to work for the people, but, yes, work in its most efficient way. He was on the Committee on Government Reform and he served on it after he was elected in 1992. He came here and ran again in 1992 and won and was here for 10 years as Representative of the 38th District. During that time period we faced the challenge that our computer system may go haywire, and Steve headed the subcommittee on technology and spent a great deal of time working with, of course, the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and others to make sure that our country did not suffer horrible repercussions of being unprepared for the turn of the century that was going to make our computers all malfunction. With Steve's leadership, we were able to avert a great crisis at that time that probably saved our country billions upon billions of dollars and all sorts of disruption. This was a man who was making things better by making government work. He was also on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on which he worked so diligently to make sure that our transportation needs, especially in southern California, were met. So let me say again that even though Steve and I had been at odds, we had run against each other and at times we had our disagreements, he was a person whose methodology in his own life demanded a certain degree of respect even for those who disagreed with him. And then when we did agree, it was such a pleasure to have someone as efficient as Steve on your side, who was focused on detail and getting the job done. I think together in the Republican majority we were able to accomplish a great deal with Steve Horn and myself on the same team. And that is what the Republican majority, we hope, has been all about. We are missing Steve now and we wish him well. This post office that we are naming after him he fought long and hard to get a ZIP Code for in Signal Hill, so I think it is very, very fitting that we offer him this tribute by putting his name on that post office. So I thank once again the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender- McDonald). This is a very nice bipartisan tribute to a man who really appreciated bipartisanship.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) and me supports the rights of former American prisoners of war who were captured at the fall of Bataan, the Philippines, in 1942. They were used as slave labor by Japanese corporations during the rest of the Second World War. These heroes survived the Bataan Death March only to be transported to Japan and elsewhere in infamous death ships. They were then forced to labor for Japanese corporations under the most horrendous circumstances one can imagine. Private employees of these corporations tortured and physically abused our American POWs while the corporations withheld essential medical care and even the most minimal amount of food. All of this, and when it was over, they were not even permitted to be compensated by the Japanese corporations that used them as slave labor. Perhaps the worst part of this nightmare is that these American heroes have been thwarted in their efforts to secure for themselves just compensation and an apology, and they are being thwarted by our own State Department, which claims they have no right to sue. My amendment to H.R. 2799 would prohibit any funds in the act from being used by the United States Government to prevent our POWs from seeking a fair hearing in civil court against the Japanese companies that used them as slave labor. We are told, of course, that if the American POWs seek this compensation from these Japanese corporations, that it would be an insult to the corporate leaders in Japan who led these corporations or an insult to the Japanese people. Ironically, even while we are being told this, the Japanese have extended favorable reparation terms to other victims from other countries, and they continue to settle war claims for people of other countries. But, of course, those other countries have their governments fighting for the rights of their people rather than trying to undermine the rights of their greatest heroes. Unfortunately, to date, our State Department continues to argue in court against our POWs, touting a ridiculously restrictive reading of the peace treaty between the United States and Japan. In that, our State Department is now betraying our own POWs in order to protect Japanese corporations that used them as slave labor during the war. If our State Department is doing that, it is wrong; and it is therefore up to this Congress to pass this bill to force our State Department to get out of the way of our POWs and let them have their day in court, because every time our POWs come forth to sue these Japanese corporations, our State Department is there arguing against them and tearing down their arguments. This is not the first time that we have taken on this issue to try to prevent this from happening to our American heroes. On July 18 of 2001, this amendment passed in the House with a resounding vote of 395 to 33. It was also agreed to on September 10, 2001, in identical form by a majority in the United States Senate. It is a disgrace that this amendment, after having been approved by both Houses of Congress in identical terms, was pulled out of the bill and did not make it into the conference report; thus, behind closed doors, our POWs were again betrayed. Is this a democracy where if a majority of people in both Houses vote for something, it does not stay in the bill, that someone can just take it out? No. I think that we have got to try to correct this situation now; and if we stand up today, we send a message that this kind of behavior, making these kind of decisions behind closed doors, is unacceptable. And what better issue to draw the line against this practice than in protecting the rights of some of America's greatest heroes? I would hope that we can once again put restrictions into this bill that will prevent the State Department from using any of these funds that we authorize or appropriate today to prevent our own POWs from suing Japanese corporations that used them as slave labor during the Second World War. Which side are we on? It comes down to that. Which side are we on? On the side of America's greatest heroes or are we more concerned with the sensibilities of big Japanese corporations who used our heroes as slaves? I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, for two reasons. Number one, I believe in freedom. I believe in democracy and the democratic process. If the people of 10 States have voted, I guess eight of them have actually voted through referendum and two through their other legislative process to legalize the medical use of marijuana within those States, it is totally contrary to our way of life in the United States of America to say that those States, the people of those States, do not have a right to set their standards, their legal standards in those States. There are dry counties, and there are wet counties. You can have a State that is right next to one State. That is no argument. You do not have to have one rule for the whole country. That is what federalism is all about. And what greater use of federalism or more important use of federalism than for people to control substances as they are consumed in their own area? I would suggest that in my State, for example, where the people did, by a large majority, vote for legalizing the medical use of marijuana that it is a travesty for the Federal Government to send police into my State and arrest people and throw them in a cage, in jail, for doing something that the vast majority of people in my State voted to make a legal practice. This is contrary to American tradition. This is not right. It has only been in this last 100 years that America has decided to go haywire and create this type of oppression which is contrary to the wishes of the majority of people in these areas. Number two, let us just face it, it has not worked. The process that we have tried to use to prevent drug use has not worked. The drug war is a miserable failure. That does not mean we should give up. I am not advocating that. I do not advocate legalizing drugs, but I think that it is time to take a second look at what has been going on. It has not succeeded at all in preventing people from using drugs, and it has been a catastrophe in the black and other minority communities where young people get thrown into jail at an early age and their whole life is ruined. We need to take a second look at drugs in general and how we are going to try to convince young people not to use drugs. By the way, I was Ronald Reagan's speech writer and I wrote almost every one of his speeches about drugs at a time when we convinced America's youth to stop using drugs and there was the greatest decline in the use of drugs during Reagan's administration as any time in our history. I can assure you in Ronald Reagan's speeches, he talked about just relying on law enforcement was not the answer. And it certainly is not the answer in dealing with medical marijuana that has been approved by the majority of people in various States. Lynn Nofziger, Ronald Reagan's adviser; William F. Buckley, the editor of National Review; Bob Ehrlich, the Governor of Maryland, all of these people understand what this is all about and understand that those people opposing this liberalization of the medical use of marijuana are living in a bygone era. Let me just note this. My mother passed away about 4 or 5 years ago. One of the factors in my determination tonight to stand up here before you is that I remember when the doctor told me that she had lost her appetite and I was going to have to feed her. I was very pleased that I had voted for making the medical use of marijuana legal because I could not look at myself in the face knowing that I had done that to other people who were confronted by their mother. What are we doing to someone, and they do not have to be critically ill. What about an older person that has lost their appetite and their will to live? If a doctor thinks it is going to help them to use marijuana, it is immoral for us to try to put people in jail who are moving to alleviate that type of horror that people have in their own lives. Are we compassionate or are we not? I suggest that we vote for compassion and freedom and support this liberalization.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from California as I have over the years on many human rights issues, and this is a human rights issue. Racism, religious hatred, these are things that decent people must condemn and we must unite in our strong opposition wherever this type of vile behavior and vile thought patterns emerge. We must recognize that there are, however, people who exploit these type of negative feelings and this type of racial hatred. Anti-Semitism is perhaps the epitome of this ignorance and irrationality and mindless hatred and it is again raising its ugly head both in Europe and in the United States. Let us note that over 10 years ago, a major political figure in the United States referred to New York City as ``Hymietown.'' What is important is the fact that he was winked at and that for 10 years after that statement, he still remained a recognized leader. That did tremendous harm in America's black community. It sent a horrible message to young blacks and we are paying some of the price of an increased anti-Semitism today in our black community by mistakes that we made 10 years ago by not condemning that and other types of horrible remarks that should never have been made or accepted in our political debate. In Europe today, we see that same kind of winking going on. Oh, yes, people are ignoring statements that are being made that are totally unacceptable to people who believe in civilized behavior and are opposed to this type of vile hatred, the vile hatred in relationship to their fellow man. This is an alarm bell today. I am very proud to stand here with the gentleman from California and the gentleman from New Jersey ringing the alarm bell. We are not going to sit idly by and wink at an increase in this level of hatred towards our Jewish friends nor towards any other minority in the Western democracies. The Western democracies, our friends in Europe, just like we in the United States, have to remain vigilant and it is up to us as leaders of this society and the democratic leaders in Europe to call to task those who would wink and would not condemn this type of vicious trend in their society. We can cut it short now. Let us stand together united against anti-Semitism and all such hatred.