[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 70 (Wednesday, May 16, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H2807-H2810]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CHINA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from California
(Mr. Rohrabacher) for 30 minutes.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, first let me suggest that I join with
my colleagues in honoring the memory of Chuck Colson, a man who also
meant a lot to me as an individual. Those of us who come from
California and remember Richard Nixon coming out there over the years
and remember the great work that Chuck Colson did for our prison
community in California, we're very grateful for that. He taught us
really the true meaning of Christian compassion. I personally was a
beneficiary of that knowledge and that spirit that he helped us
understand and develop within our own hearts. So I would like to join
my colleagues in that.
But today I rise to call attention to the hundreds of millions of
public dollars we have spent and continue to spend in the form of
foreign aid to the People's Republic of China--better known as
Communist China to those of us who have spent years trying to fight
that oppressive regime.
Our national debt is over $15.7 trillion and is growing. We are
spending $1.5 trillion more every year than we are taking in. Forty-
three cents out of every dollar we spend is borrowed money, and
Communist China is the single largest foreign holder of United States
debt.
The interest we pay on this ever-growing debt is increasingly
squeezing out spending on other worthwhile programs. Why, then, are we
borrowing money from the Chinese Communist Government--to be repaid, of
course, with interest--and then using that borrowed money to finance
programs in which we are giving money to these various programs that go
to China, the country from whom we are borrowing?
Remember, the government of this aid recipient considers the United
States its enemy. They are happy to loan us the money and they are
happy that we are stupid enough to give it back to them in terms of aid
and, yes, other types of programs, including giving it back to them in
investments.
We are strengthening the government that considers us an enemy. As we
look into this situation, we know that they see the U.S. as their
enemy, just as Japan saw us as their enemy before World War II--the
Japanese militarists--just as Nazi Germany saw the American people as
their enemy, and just as the communist governments that threatened the
world for over four decades after World War II, just as they saw the
United States as their enemy.
Yes, we are the enemy of tyrants and vicious regimes that are
expansionary and threaten the peace and the freedom of the world. We
can be proud of that. The Chinese know that. The Communist Chinese know
that. That's why they don't like us. That's why they consider us their
enemy.
China is the world's largest human rights abuser. China's Government
smashes those who advocate freedom of the press, freedom of religion.
Those who, of course, suggest that the Chinese Government should be
accountable to its people are arrested and thrown into jail, or
murdered.
It arrests Chinese practitioners of Falun Gong, for example. Falun
Gong is a Chinese religious movement which stresses yoga and
meditation. Beijing has these devout and passive people, practitioners
in a simple religion that is meditation and yoga. These people are
arrested and they're thrown into prison where they are murdered. And
then the Chinese Government, after murdering these people for their
religious convictions, sells their organs and body parts. It doesn't
get much more ghoulish than this.
On the international scene, China is responsible for promoting and
facilitating the proliferation of nuclear technology between North
Korea, Pakistan, Iran, and others. China is responsible for empowering
the Burmese junta that imprisoned Aung San Suu Kyi for years. It has
allied itself with rogue regimes all over the world, like Sudan and
Venezuela and other regimes that are tyrants in their own country and
threaten the security of their neighbors and of the United States.
China's aggressive foreign policy and hostile naval actions are
threatening the sovereignty of American allies like Japan and the
Philippines. It is Communist China that has stolen and is currently
stealing most of our prized military and commercial secrets. China has
stolen the designs for every one of our nuclear warheads.
Chinese cyberspies have stolen all of our trade secrets. All of the
money we put in to invest in research and development they steal and
utilize. No wonder they're as far ahead in their rocket program as they
are when they took the technology from us; they stole it from us. They
have infected our critical electronic technology infrastructure with
malicious viruses and then they, of course, break into our classified
systems.
It is China which has embarked on the most significant arms buildup
since the Cold War. And I ask: Who do they think is their enemy? Who do
they think is their enemy? The United States of America. While we not
only become susceptible to them, not only do we put ourselves in an
inferior position by borrowing money from them, but we also end up
giving that money back to them in aid programs.
{time} 2120
And that is what I would like to talk about tonight, the fact that
how can we possibly borrow money from the world's worst human rights
abuser, a country that looks at us as their enemy. Then we become
vulnerable to that country. But at the same time while we are becoming
vulnerable, we then increase our investment in the private sector of
that country. But also we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in
aid programs to the communist Chinese regime.
Well, with that in mind, I asked the Congressional Research Service
to assemble a list of programs that the Congress funds that go directly
to supporting development and the economy of China. It is a partial
list because there are so many programs that, after weeks of work, they
could not even find them all. This list that I am about to read is of
projects that are funded and have been funded over the last 3 years, at
the same time, while the Obama administration was spending $1.5
trillion more annually than we're taking in.
So while we're spending more than we're taking in by $1.5 trillion,
we are spending on programs that are going to China, and it's China
who's lending us the money in order to spend that extra $1.5 trillion.
This is an insane policy.
And this spending on China is ongoing. I'm just giving you the facts
from the last 3 years, and it is ongoing.
To make sure we all understand exactly where we are spending or
sending our taxpayer money, I am going to read a list of programs that
we have funded in China, and ask, as we are going through this list,
after every time I go through the money, couldn't we have spent this
money better in the United States? Or wouldn't it have been better not
to borrow it in the first place and add this to $1.5 trillion every
year for the last 3 years that we've been putting our people into debt?
So every one of these things that I read, ask yourself that question:
Is this in the best interest of the United States? Is it in the best
interest of our children who we're putting more in debt by borrowing
and giving it to China and having to pay the interest? They're going to
have to pay off the loan and the interest to China in the future.
So here's a partial list, and I'm going to round off the figures to
an understandable number. And many of these deal with ``environment.''
Why are we trying to make the environment in China better so that the
people of China can basically out compete us in our business dealings?
That
[[Page H2808]]
should be part of the cost of production in China. But, no, we are
picking up that cost. Not only that, our people are investing in China
and building their factories.
Why did the EPA give, for example, $141,000 to the Institute of
Environment and Sustainable Development in Agriculture to reduce
greenhouse gases in China? In China.
Why did the EPA give $125,000 to the Eastern Research Group that
reduces greenhouse gases in China?
Why did the National Science Foundation give $63,000 to Siena College
for Neutrino Physics at Daya Bay in China?
And let me add, some of these will be repeats because we did this,
this is over a 3-year period, because we have several programs over the
years where we're giving money to the same group in China; and that
spending continues, let me add.
Why did the EPA give $150,000 to China for Coal Information Institute
for reducing greenhouse gases?
Why did the EPA give $100,000 to Guizhou International Corporation
Center for Environmental Protection for reducing greenhouse gases?
That's in China, of course.
Why did the EPA give almost $300,000 to the Ministry of Environment
Protection in China for reducing health risks? Don't we have health
risks in the United States? Don't we have some needs of our own? Why
are we giving this money to China?
Why did the EPA give $150,000 to Tsinghua--I'm sorry I can't
pronounce this right--University Department of Building Sciences for
Environmental Governance in China?
Why did USAID give the Asia Foundation almost $2 million, it was $1.7
million, to build environmental governance in China?
Why did USAID give $500,000 to the American Bar Association to build
environmental governance in China? Don't we have some things in the
United States where we could use a $500,000 grant for some of our local
communities? Couldn't they use some help? Instead we sent it to China.
But first, of course, we borrowed it from China. So to give it to them,
we'll have to repay China and the interest in order to give it to them.
Why did USAID give $300,000 to the University of Massachusetts to
improve the quality of judicial education in China? We're giving them
$300,000 in order to improve judicial education in China?
Why did USAID give $200,000 to the University of the Pacific to
advance the rule of law in China?
Why did USAID give $55,000 to Nexant, an NGO, to be an administrator
of China program evaluations?
Why did USAID give $2 million to Winrock International Institute for
Agriculture for sustainable livelihoods in China? I guess we don't need
any help in our farm belt. I guess our farmers don't need my help in
California where they're going broke because the water has been cut off
to them in order to protect some delta smelt. Our guys are going crazy
and going broke, our farmers are, but we're going to find $2 million
borrowed from China in order to give back to China in order to aid the
Institute of Agriculture so that they can have sustainable livelihoods
in China.
Why did USAID give $2 million to the Rockefeller Philanthropy
Advisors, an NGO, for sustainable livelihoods in China? Think there are
any Americans that need sustainable livelihoods?
Why did USAID give $2 million to the Institute of Sustainable
Communities to reduce greenhouse gases in China? Oh, yes. We need to
make sure we pay all of China's environmental expenses; otherwise, they
won't accept global government like our government expects us to
accept.
Why did USAID give $749,000, almost $750,000, to the ICF
International to reduce greenhouse gases in China?
Why did USAID give $500,000 to the Asia Foundation for humanitarian
assistance to China?
Why did the USDA give $10,000 to Texas Agriculture Experiment for
biological control of forest insects in China? Do our forests not need
this?
Why are we borrowing money when we can't afford to do these things in
our own country?
Why did the USDA give almost $100,000 to Rutgers State University for
climate change adaptation in China?
Now isn't that great? We're paying for them to adapt to climate
change. Then, of course, they'll join the global government which these
same people are trying to force on us. But then we are under a mountain
of debt, our children, in order to pay for their adaptation to climate
change. Not, of course, to say that anybody in the United States, our
farmers or any other industry, doesn't need to adapt to the different
changes that go on in the climate, even if they are natural changes in
our climate.
Why did the Department of Energy give $2.5 million to the University
of Michigan for the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center? Shouldn't
we be developing our own clean energy in the United States? Instead, we
borrow money from China in order to spend it in China, and then we have
to pay debt, interest on that debt, and pay back the debt. Our children
will, of course, be doing that.
Why did the Department of Energy give $2.5 million to West Virginia
University for a U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center? Again, a
research center, perhaps the same research center, but the next year.
So that makes it $5 million that we've given to that research center in
China.
Why did the Department of Energy give $1.2 million to West Virginia
University for Long-Term Environmental and Economic Impacts of Coal
Liquefaction in China? That's $1.2 million to, yes, spend through West
Virginia University. Don't we have coal liquefaction environmental
studies going on in the United States that could use that money for
research to make sure that our coal burns more cleanly and effectively
here, rather than giving that money and information to China's benefit
and borrowing it from them in order to give it to them?
{time} 2130
Why did the Department of Energy give $5.3 million to Brookhaven
National Laboratory in the Daya Bay nuclear project in China? That's
over $5 million. By the way, that's $5 million to this nuclear
facility.
Let me just note that, in my district, we have a problem with a
nuclear power plant that's going through some very serious problems
right now, San Onofre. We maybe could have used that $5 million to help
us correct the problems at the San Onofre plant. But no. We borrowed
the money from China to give it back to them to solve their problems
while our children will be forced to pay that debt off. We get no
benefit out of it except a load of debt on our children.
Why did the Department of Energy give almost $400,000 to the State
University of Albany to study climate change in China? Oh, yes.
Why did the Department of Energy give $300,000 to the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory for the modeling of regional climate
change in China? Again, it's using climate change as a vehicle to give
them money that we are borrowing from them in the first place, which we
will then have to repay.
Why did the Department of Energy give $256,000 to the Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute for research at the Daya Bay nuclear project in
China? Again, another $250,000 to this Daya Bay nuclear project. It
could have been the next year because this is over a 3-year period.
These are some of these. By the way, it's not anywhere near all of them
over the 3-year period, but all of these are taken from a list over
that 3-year period. Yes, we could have used some of that money to make
sure that we didn't have a problem in our own districts.
Why did the Department of Energy give $210,000 to Rutgers State
University for Site Science for the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement
Mobile Facility in China? Why are we doing that? Why are we providing
them that type of a foundation, a scientific foundation, so that they
can prosper and so that they won't have to spend their resources paying
for that type of scientific infrastructure?
Why did the Department of Energy give $135,000 to the University of
Maryland for the climactic effects of aerosols in China? There you go--
aerosols. It's an issue from way back then, which some of us think was
not entirely reported, but now we are still giving almost $150,000 to
check out aerosols in China for their benefit.
Why did the Department of Energy give over $500,000 to the University
of
[[Page H2809]]
Houston for a proposal to measure neutrino mixing at the Daya Bay
nuclear experiment in China? Again, over a half a million dollars while
we're having trouble with our own nuclear program.
We should be developing our own new generation of nuclear power which
will be safe--and we can do it--but we don't have the money to do it.
Why? We're giving millions of dollars to China and to others, money
that should go to developing our own new technology here. Of course, we
are borrowing the money from China in order to give it to them, which
leaves our children in debt, and they'll have to pay it all off with
interest.
Why did the Department of Energy give $70,000 to Colorado State
University for the climactic effects of aerosols in China?
Why did the Department of Energy give $19,000 to Pennsylvania State
University for factors influencing energy use and carbon emissions in
China? Isn't that nice that we gave the University of Pennsylvania
money to study this for China so they will have the information in
China and will be able to use it for their benefit rather than studying
things in the United States to help us so we can do better here.
Why did the EPA give over $500,000--$550,000 to be exact--to the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute to reduce greenhouse gases in China?
Why did the EPA give almost a half a million dollars to the Research
Triangle Institute to reduce greenhouse gases in China? This is
basically making equipment more efficient. Why aren't we making our
equipment more efficient? The Chinese should buy it from us rather than
our having to relocate our manufacturing plants in China. Yes, let them
buy it from us--how about that?--and give our own people jobs rather
than borrowing money so that they could have the technology. We are
going in debt so that they can have the technology, and our children
will have to pay the debt back with interest, and they will sell us the
equipment. The Chinese will sell it to us in a generation.
Why did the EPA give $300,000 to the Energy and Environmental
Development Research Center to reduce greenhouse gases in China?
Why did the EPA give almost $250,000 to the Research Triangle
Institute again--probably a second year of their grant--to reduce
greenhouse gases in China?
Why did the EPA give almost $200,000 to the China University of
Petroleum in Beijing to reduce greenhouse gases in China? Can't any of
our people use this research money to help our country and our
technology become cleaner and more efficient? No. We're giving it to
China, and then they will sell that technology back to us after they
manufacture it years ahead of us because we subsidize their R&D.
Why did the EPA give almost $200,000 to the China Urban Construction
Design & Research Institute to reduce greenhouse gases in China? Again,
here we are spending money to help them design houses in China.
Wonderful. None of our designers need any help.
Why did the EPA give almost $300,000 to the Eastern Research Group to
reduce greenhouse gases in China?
Why did the EPA give over $100,000 to Guangzhou City, China, to
reduce greenhouse gases?
Why did the EPA give $110,000 to the Guizhou International
Cooperation Center for Environmental Protection to reduce greenhouse
gases in China? Do we have no need for this money in the United States?
Does our equipment not need to be more efficient? Should we not be
investigating putting money into the development of cleaner energy
sources here? With all this money we're giving away, we could be
developing clean energy sources, if nothing else, for the new
generation of nuclear power plants, which is starving for research
money. No, we're giving it to China.
Why did the EPA give almost $100,000 to the China University of
Petroleum in Beijing to reduce greenhouse gases in China?
Why did the EPA give $200,000 to California State University at
Fullerton to reduce greenhouse gases in China?
Why did the EPA give $85,000 to ICF International to build climate
change management capacity in China?
Why did the EPA give $135,000 to Information Institute to reduce
greenhouse gases in China?
Why did the EPA give over $50,000 to Advanced Resources International
to reduce greenhouse gases in China?
Why did the EPA give $31,000 to the Energy and Environmental
Development Research Center for biogas development?
Each and every one of these items I am talking about is an item on
which we spent money out of the Federal budget. We took it out of the
taxpayers' pockets--or actually, we borrowed it from China--and then
left them with the debt in their pockets, the IOU in their pockets, and
we gave it to China rather than taking that money, those resources, and
spending it in the United States to develop the technology here.
Like I say, I've been struggling for years to get the new generation
of nuclear power developed here. It has been starved--it has not been
given what it needs--and we're giving away these hundreds of millions
of dollars to the Chinese, which we, of course, are borrowing. In the
end, we will pay them for the technology because they will be sending
the manufactured items here.
Why did the EPA give $30,000 to the China Association of Rural Energy
Industry to reduce greenhouse gases in China?
Why did the EPA give almost $800,000 to the China State Environmental
Protection Administration to reduce transboundary air pollution? Well,
that's great. We have to pay for everybody's air pollution in the
world. We are borrowing money from China, but we have to pay for their
reduction of transboundary air pollution.
Why did the EPA give almost $200,000 to the Chinese Ministry of
Environmental Protection to build environmental management capacity?
Why did the EPA give $120,000 to the Tianjin Environmental Protection
Bureau for water pollution management? Now, there is something we don't
need any money for around our country--water pollution. I live in a
coastal district. We could use that money for water pollution. We've
got sewer pipes and water purification systems that need to be
upgraded. But no. We're borrowing money from China to give it to China
rather than having that money spent in the United States.
Why did the National Science Foundation give $62,000 to Sienna
College for neutrino physics at, again, the Daya Bay nuclear project in
China? Well, we're not spending the money here to develop our own clean
nuclear energy.
{time} 2140
Why did USAID give Management Systems International almost $500,000
to improve environmental governance in China?
Why did USAID give Vermont Law School--get this--$1,725,000 for
improved environmental governance in China?
Why did USAID give the Institute for Sustainable Communities half a
million dollars to save energy and reduce greenhouse gases in China?
Can't we put this use in these structures in the United States?
Why did USAID give the University of the Pacific a half a million
dollars for environmental governance in China?
Why did USAID give the American Bar Association $500,000 for
environmental governance in China?
Why did USAID give the University of Massachusetts $420,000 for
environmental governance in China?
Why did USAID give the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development $150,000 for development assistance in China?
Why did USAID give Management Systems International $50,000 for
development assistance?
Why did USAID give the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors $2 million
for sustainable livelihoods in China? Don't we have people in the
United States who need money like that? Don't we have people, indeed,
here who need a sustainable livelihood? Why are we giving it to China
and borrowing it from them in order to give it to them and leaving our
kids in debt?
Why did USAID give Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors $400,000 for
sustainable livelihoods in China?
Why did the USDA give the University of Science and Technology of
China $150,000 for research? Don't our
[[Page H2810]]
universities need money for research for things that we can use here in
the United States to make our life better?
Why did the USDA give the SB Group Consultants $25,000 for education
in China?
Why did the USDA give Management and Engineering Technologies
International $40,000 to improve forest health in China? We don't need
any help with our forests here, do we?
Why did the USDA give Yangzhou University $36,000 to improve
biological controls in China?
Why did the USDA give Management and Engineering Technologies
International $8,000 for administrative purposes in China?
Why did the USDA give Utah State University almost $400,000 for
biomass research in China? I happen to know American companies and
people who are investing in biomass research. Why are we giving almost
$400,000 to help the Chinese in biomass research, which will compete
with our own companies that are trying to develop this very important
and unique energy source? Which by the way for the environmentalists
who are watching, who think that I may be making light of climate
change, I support biomass and other clean-energy programs that make
sense. This one makes sense. Our companies are investing in it, and yet
we're borrowing money from China in order to give it to them to do
biomass research to compete with our own people and put them out of
business.
Why did the USDA give Tetra Tech EM $325,000 for administrative
purposes for environmental programs in China?
Why did USAID give the Institute of Sustainable Communities--get
this--another $500,000 to save energy and reduce greenhouse gases in
China? Don't we have the need in our communities to do things in a
sustainable way in the United States? No. They don't have that money
now. It's in China. We borrowed it from China to give to them. Now
we're going to have to pay the bill back after we've given it to them.
Why did USAID give the University of the Pacific $500,000 for
environmental governance in China? Again a half a million dollars.
Why did USAID give the American Bar Association $500,000 for
environmental governance?
Why did USAID give the University of Massachusetts $420,000 for
Environmental Governance in China?
Why did USAID give the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development $150,000 for Development Assistance in China?
Why did USAID give Management Systems International $47,484 for
Development Assistance in China?
Why did USAID give Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors $2.4 million for
Sustainable Livelihoods in China?
Why did USAID give The Asia Foundation $1,025,000 to improve Disaster
Management in China?
Why did USDA give the University of Science and Technology of China
$150,000 for Research?
Why did USDA give Guangzhou Dxcel Advertising $18,500 for
Administrative Purposes in China?
Why did USDA give Management and Engineering Technologies
International $40,994 to improve forest health in China?
Why did USDA give Management and Engineering Technologies
International $7,973 for administrative purposes in China?
Why did USDA give Southern University $300,000 for improved Education
in China?
Why did USDA give Colorado State University $300,000 for improved
Education in China?
I will end my remarks tonight by suggesting that what we are doing is
insane. America will never survive with such a mindset with these mind-
boggling giveaway programs where we're giving away money, we're giving
this type of support to a country and a government that is
totalitarian, that kills Christians and other religious people, who
hates the United States and is our biggest potential enemy. That is not
the Chinese people. That's the Chinese Government.
The Chinese dictatorship has cover today, and the reason why these
policies go on is they have cover from some of our most powerful
corporations. We have permitted overly subsidized American corporations
to set up manufacturing facilities in China, and now they need to stand
in the good graces of the Chinese Government. When I come up and say
things like this, corporations in the United States try to provide
cover for the Chinese dictatorship. We should not be providing aid to
the Chinese. We should not be encouraging our corporations to go there
and become vulnerable to the Chinese in order to make a quick profit.
I would suggest over the last 10 years, since most-favored trading
status has been given to China, we have put America in a very
vulnerable spot. We at the very least should reassess our relationship
with China, but at the very least cut off any aid programs that go to
this communist regime, this totalitarian regime that looks at us as
their enemy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________