[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.

                          ____________________