[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7270-7275]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       HONORING COLD WAR WARRIORS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield 5 minutes to 
my colleague so that he can express his opinion on this important 
discussion. And then I will reclaim my time, the 55 minutes I have 
left, after 5 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this is so very gracious of you. 
I do appreciate it. This is such an important issue. Home rule is a 
concept that we take for granted, those who live in cities around this 
great Nation, those who live in counties, those who live in States as 
we all do. But all of those levels of government afford to their 
citizens home rule, which is basically the right to have some self-
determination of your governmental affairs.
  Unfortunately, however, the citizens of Washington, D.C. have not 
enjoyed that same liberty. And it was only back in I think 1973 that 
home rule was conferred by this body, the United States Congress, to 
the citizens of Washington, D.C., and since that time, they have been 
able to, as a city council, and as a mayor, school system, they have 
been able to have control over their governmental issues on the local 
level. And that was certainly something that was prudent for this body 
to do.
  However, the ability of those same citizens to actually vote for 
President

[[Page 7271]]

and Vice President of this great Nation still had not been authorized. 
And it was 1961 when that occurred. So in other words, citizens of D.C. 
first were given the right to actually vote for President and Vice 
President, and then they were given the right to govern themselves.
  Now, it is important that we logically extend those rights to the 
citizens of Washington, D.C. to have a Congressperson who has a vote in 
this great body. We have our illustrious delegate, as she is 
technically called, but I refer to her always as Congresswoman, a very 
effective voice in this Congress. And she, on behalf of the citizens of 
the District of Columbia, deserves to have a vote in this great body. 
And I'm here in support of that.
  I will say that with this fundamental liberty that we are talking 
about, the right to be represented in this great body, that is a very 
awesome and fundamental right that should not be bogged down by 
extraneous matters, particularly when those extraneous matters have to 
do with tying the hands of this local government that has been granted 
home rule. It is just totally different. And it is an insult to link a 
gun control measure to a people's right to have a representative who 
can vote in this Congress.
  So, let's not compound the tragedy and the injustice any further. I'm 
asking the public to understand that let's not play politics with the 
people of Washington, D.C.'s ability to be adequately represented. And 
certainly they are adequately represented. Congresswoman Norton 
deserves a right to cast a vote here to have total equality as all of 
the rest of us have. And so I don't think that is too much to ask.

                              {time}  1715

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 55 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I appreciate the very sincere presentation we have 
just had about a serious issue. Although my talk tonight will be 
focused on some other issues, I would like to have a slight commentary.
  Those of us who are conservative Republicans share the concern that 
has been expressed that the American citizens who reside in the 
District of Columbia have not been permitted to have the voting rights 
that people who live in other parts of the United States have. That was 
taken care of in terms of the Presidential elections by specifically 
permitting the people involved, and right now as we know the people 
from the District of Columbia participate in Presidential elections and 
have Presidential electors, et cetera.
  I would suggest that people who are listening do understand there is 
an alternative to what is being presented which I believe is very 
serious which is not being considered but should be looked at because I 
believe that the current path that we just heard being advocated has a 
chance of being declared unconstitutional. Several scholars testified 
to that in the hearings.
  One method that we know would be constitutional would be to permit 
the people of the District of Columbia to vote for Federal 
representation as part of the State of Maryland. That would not only 
permit the people of the District of Columbia to vote for a 
representative that would then have every right of every other 
Representative, but also the right to vote for two United States 
Senators. They would be the Senators as part of the voting population 
of Maryland. They would be able to vote for the two Senators that come 
from Maryland.
  This alternative has been somewhat ignored by those people who are 
pushing for the alternative that you have just heard outlined. But I 
would suggest as we move forward, I would hope in the spirit of 
compromise and in the spirit of really trying to get this job done, 
because I agree with the assessment that there is taxation without 
representation.
  One of my colleagues suggested, well, then let's eliminate Federal 
taxation for the people of the District of Columbia. I would support 
that. But I think it would be better for us to approach a situation 
where the people of the District of Columbia could vote as part of the 
voting system in Maryland, the Federal voting system; and thus, they 
would have a chance to vote for a Member of Congress and two United 
States Senators. That would be an alternative that I would hope would 
be looked at and given very serious consideration.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would yield.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I would 
say that the voting rights bill that Congresswoman Norton has 
introduced and which has already been passed by the House in the 110th 
Congress, that act provides for an expedited judicial review as to the 
constitutionality of these actions that Congress would take by passing 
this legislation.
  There is also a difference of opinion among constitutional scholars 
about whether or not the Congress has the authority under the 
constitution to actually do what this legislation proposes. There are 
those on both sides of the fence on that.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is correct.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I think it needs to be adjudicated in court. 
This legislation is conducive to that, provides for that, and the fact 
that we are doing something that would cause us to have to go to court 
and defend our powers is no reason to not pass the legislation.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, let me just note that I do 
believe there is an alternative that should be looked at seriously. And 
whatever happens to this legislation, I would hope that this other 
alternative which would permit the people of the District of Columbia 
to vote for not only a Representative but also two United States 
Senators is given some serious thought.
  With that, tonight I rise, Mr. Speaker, in remembrance of a champion 
of freedom who recently passed away, a great man who influenced the 
world in which we live, but left the world with little notice of his 
passing. His name was Dr. Fred Schwarz. He died in his native Australia 
on January 24, 2009, at age 96. Dr. Schwarz was a medical doctor, a 
brilliant thinker, with the most disciplined thought process and 
intellectual honesty than any other person I have ever met. And that is 
saying a lot.
  At an early age, Dr. Schwarz was able to identify the philosophy of 
communism--Marxism and Leninism--as the major threat of that day to the 
human race. He spent decades of his life exploring and exposing the 
basic ideas of Marx and Lenin and other communist thinkers. He was 
sounding the alarm as to the logical consequences of those ideas.
  Most anti-communists in the United States at that time never got in 
greater depth than that of a cliche. They were opposed to communism. 
``The dirty rotten commies.'' But even though they were using these 
cliches, they didn't have an inkling as to what the actual philosophy 
and tenets of communism were all about.
  Dr. Schwarz saw communism as an evil religion that corrupted the 
human sole to the point that idealistic people all over the world, 
humane people, were turned into murderers and mass slaughter was taking 
place. People were executed. And yet, even thoughtful people in our own 
society whose thought patterns were corrupted by Leninism and Marxism 
ignored this mass slaughter that was going on in the communist world, 
and sometimes even excused it. From Lenin to Stalin, from Castro to Pol 
Pot, it was no freak accident that every regime led by people who 
believed in communism ended up with mass killing and the debasement of 
civilized and human values. And yes, ended up with having people who 
flirted with this Marxism and Leninism, were affected in some way by 
the philosophy, ignoring that torturous existence that the people who 
lived under communism had to endure.
  Dr. Schwarz took it upon himself to educate as many people as he 
could, especially opinion makers and future leaders, not only about the 
evil doings associated with communism, but also with the ideology 
itself that resulted in these evil consequences. In fact, one of the 
Dr. Schwarz's favorite quotes was ``ideas have consequences.''

[[Page 7272]]

  Thus, it was vital in the Cold War years that the basic ideas and 
concepts of this evil theory that threatened the world and threaten to 
bring upon the human race death and misery wherever it happened, it was 
vital that we understood the basis of this philosophy and what was 
causing these evil things to happen in the world.
  In those days, communism could propagandize about creating a more 
peaceful world and benevolent society, even as they turned whole 
countries into concentration camps and murdered anyone who resisted 
their power, and murdered anyone who was related to anyone who 
resisted.
  Dr. Schwarz was an Australian, but when he realized that the Cold War 
would be won or lost by the strength and conviction of the American 
people, he moved here and became a major educational force teaching 
young and old alike about the inherent danger that lurked in Marxist-
Leninist philosophy. He was a disciplined intellectual, and had no fear 
in engaging in direct confrontations and disagreements. He was always 
seeking the truth. He would never put up with faulty logic or 
inaccuracy of fact on our side or on their side.
  Now somewhat forgotten, perhaps ignored, the fact is he had a major 
impact. He had a major impact on the American conservative movement, 
giving substance and depth to anti-communist activists that were such 
an important part of that movement. He thus equipped the intellectual 
soldiers who eventually won the Cold War. He equipped them with what 
they needed to understand in order to understand the Cold War.
  I owe so much to Dr. Schwarz. The education he gave me was 
invaluable. From the time I went to Saigon in 1967 during the height of 
the Vietnam War in search of young political leaders to enlist in the 
anti-communist cause, to the time I marched arm in arm with anti-Soviet 
activists in the streets of Prague in 1968, what he taught me could be 
very well seen in those locations in that day of the evils of 
communism. And what he taught me helped me all the way through the time 
I was a journalist, all of the time I spent in the 1980s writing hard-
hitting, anti-communist speeches in the White House for President 
Ronald Reagan. Of course, over these last 20 years as a Member of 
Congress, what Dr. Schwarz taught me has served me well and helped 
equip me to serve my country and to serve the cause of freedom.
  Speaking of President Reagan, it is significant that President Ronald 
Reagan was the master of ceremonies, before he was President, of 
course, at several rallies conducted by Dr. Fred Schwarz during the 
1960s. Dr. Schwarz's Christian anti-communist crusade drew thousands to 
rallies and seminars. And I have no doubt that Ronald Reagan's anti-
communist attitude, as well as his understanding, were to a great 
degree shaped by Dr. Fred Schwarz. Early on as a union leader, Ronald 
Reagan knew that he was anti-communist. But after Dr. Schwarz, Ronald 
Reagan knew why he was an anti-communist.
  I was not the only Ronald Reagan speech writer who subscribed to Dr. 
Schwarz. Tony Dolan, Ronald Reagan's chief speech writer who worked 
with Ronald Reagan on the Evil Empire speech and other historic 
utterances, was a devotee of Dr. Schwarz.
  Dr. Schwarz gave us the intellectual ammunition to relegate communism 
to the dust bin of history. All of us who he equipped to do battle 
remember him and are grateful to him.
  He has been laid to rest now in his native Australia, and I pay 
tribute to him, along with the other Cold War warriors, for the 
contributions that he made to us as individuals and to the cause to 
which we were all so dedicated.
  And yes, we as a global coalition of free men and women defeated the 
Soviet Union without an all-out war with Russia because we defeated 
their ideas and understood their ideas and fought them at that level as 
well as with weapons. One of the factors that helped us win was that we 
understood and defeated the ideology behind that communist tyranny.
  Thank you, Dr. Schwarz, for helping us learn what we needed to learn 
and to know what we needed to know and then to do what we needed to do.
  I will submit for the Record an obituary of Dr. Schwarz to give a 
small background on Dr. Schwarz.

          [From the Christian Today, Australia, Jan. 30, 2009]

                           Fred Schwarz, RIP

                         (By Bill Muehlenberg)

       Jesus once said that a prophet is without honour, except in 
     his own country. One of the greatest Australian prophets of 
     the past century has just passed away, and nothing that I am 
     aware of about his passing can be found in the Australian 
     mainstream media.
       While Australia has many heroes--especially sporting 
     figures and movie stars--perhaps the greatest hero to arise 
     from Australia in recent times has been totally overlooked by 
     our secular, leftist media. I refer to Dr Fred Schwarz, who 
     died earlier this week at age 96.
       Schwarz was a successful medical doctor originally from 
     Brisbane. He left a successful medical practice in Sydney, 
     although with a young family, to devote his whole attention 
     to warning people about the dangers of atheistic communism.
       Born in 1913, he accepted Christ as his personal saviour in 
     1934. In the mid 1940s he began his medical work. He combined 
     this with active Christian work, and also became aware of the 
     threat of Communism during this period. He soon was reading 
     everything he could find on the topic, especially the source 
     materials.
       Each night he devoured the works of the founders of 
     Communism. Thus his wife Lillian would quip that she often 
     found four men in her bed: Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Fred. He 
     soon was debating leading Australian Communists.
       He became aware that most Christians were clueless as to 
     the menace of totalitarian Marxism, and he dedicated his life 
     to educating the public, and the church, about these dangers. 
     He was invited to speak in America in 1950. He was urged to 
     form an organisation dedicated to instructing people about 
     the Communist threat, and how it is the polar opposite of 
     Biblical Christianity.
       In 1953 he established the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade 
     (CACC). He closed his Sydney medical practice in 1955 and 
     devoted the rest of his life to this project, moving to 
     America to fully engage in the work. In 1960 his best-selling 
     book was published, You Can Trust The Communists (to be 
     Communists).
       I picked up a secondhand copy of this book in Madison, 
     Wisconsin in the mid-80s. He said this in the book, ``In the 
     battle against Communism, there is no substitute for 
     accurate, specific knowledge. Ignorance is evil and 
     paralytic.''
       This book and this ministry were profoundly influential. 
     They influenced a generation of Americans who would do battle 
     against the Communist foe. These include such luminaries as 
     Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, Jack Kemp, James Jobson 
     and James Kennedy.
       Schwarz had countless debates with Communists, gave 
     countless speeches and talks on the subject, and wrote 
     countless articles, booklets and books on the topic. His life 
     was energetic, passionate, and committed to standing up for 
     biblical Christianity, and warning against the Marxist evils.
       When asked which was more dangerous, the external or 
     internal threat of Communism, Fred would reply, ``If you were 
     on a ship that was sinking, which would be the greatest 
     danger, the water outside or the water inside? I was 
     illustrating that the external and internal forces were 
     manifestations of the same danger.''
       And the dangers were very real indeed. In one of his first 
     pamphlets Schwarz argued that Communism is a disease: 
     ``Communism has already killed many millions of people and 
     proposes to kill many millions more. Therefore, by 
     definition, it is a disease. It is a threefold disease. It is 
     a disease of the body, because it kills; it is a disease of 
     the mind, because it is associated with systemized delusions 
     not susceptible to rational argument; and it is a disease of 
     the spirit, because it denies God, materializes man, robs him 
     of spirit and soul, and, in the last analysis, even of the 
     mind itself, and reduces him to the level of a beast of the 
     field.''
       And even though atheistic, Schwarz could clearly see that 
     it was a religion, albeit a false religion, and the main 
     contender against Christianity. He noted that many ex-
     Communists have spoken of the religious nature of Communism.
       When people charged Schwarz with bias, he confessed: ``I 
     plead guilty. We are biased in favour of truth, freedom, and 
     life; we are against deceit, slavery, and unnecessary death. 
     We believe that Communism leads to classicide through the 
     liquidation of the bourgeoisie, that it leads to the 
     justification and practice of mass murder.''
       But, critics will complain, what about the good of 
     Communism? ``In rebuttal I explained that a pathologist is a 
     specialist in the characteristics of a disease, not health, 
     and that a mixture of good and evil is often more deadly than 
     an undiluted evil.''
       The complete and incredible story of this modern prophet is 
     told in his autobiography,

[[Page 7273]]

     Beating the Unbeatable Foe (Regnery, 1996). This 600-page 
     story is an inspiring read, and shows us the dedication, zeal 
     and perseverance of this one amazing individual.
       It tells of the waves of opposition, not just from the 
     Communists and the Soviet Union, but from leftist, liberal 
     allies and ``useful idiots,'' to use Lenin's phrase. The 
     lies, deceit, slander, and malicious attacks on Dr. Schwarz 
     were relentless and are mind-boggling to read about. Yet 
     despite all this incessant opposition and attack, he remained 
     steadfast to his calling.
       The book also speaks about how the Christian churches were 
     especially targeted by the Communists. Internal subversion 
     was an important tactic of the Communists. And many churchmen 
     of course were completely taken in by the Communist 
     propaganda.
       One notable thing that struck me as I read this book was 
     that a very similar battle is being waged today, and there is 
     a similar need for accurate information to withstand a 
     vicious enemy. I refer to militant Islam, and the war it is 
     waging against the free West. The parallels between its 
     internal and external attacks are so close to what we found 
     in the Communist offensive.
       And in the same way today many Christians are completely 
     ignorant of the threat to the Christian church, or are being 
     duped by various ``peace'' initiatives and interfaith 
     endeavours. In the same way that many believers were 
     hoodwinked by the Communists last century, many believers 
     today are being deceived by the Islamists and their 
     interfaith supporters.
       Dr. Schwarz eventually returned to Sydney where he has now 
     finally received his eternal reward. This man was a modern-
     day saint, a genuine prophet, and a tireless worker for 
     Christ and his Kingdom. He achieved more in his lifetime than 
     most people ever will.
       Yet incredibly I still cannot find any news of his death, 
     or any obituaries or eulogies about this remarkable man. Like 
     Jesus, he was certainly a prophet without honour in his own 
     land. But his life and work deserve to be widely heralded. 
     And if no one else will, I most certainly will. God bless you 
     richly Fred Schwarz.

  I would also like now to rise in honor of another heroic champion of 
freedom, a distinguished scholar, a Cold War strategist, a man who, 
yes, like Dr. Schwarz did not get all of the recognition that he 
deserved, but those of us who were involved in the final days of the 
Cold War and the implementation of an anti-communist strategy that 
worked, we remember Constantine Menges.
  Constantine Menges passed away in 2004. Again, like Dr. Schwarz, 
there was not a great deal of attention that was paid to his passing, 
yet he had been a powerful force in shaping the world in which we live.
  He was a profound thinker. Constantine Menges had a Ph.D. He was 
someone who thought things out in the long run, and had tremendous 
historical perspectives which he shared with us.

                              {time}  1730

  He was the one who put together the strategies and the maneuvers that 
would end the Cold War with the defeat of the Soviet Union while 
minimizing the chances of all-out war between the Soviet Union and the 
United States.
  Although it wasn't called it then at the time, the Reagan Doctrine--
that strategy of confronting Soviet expansionism without confronting 
the Soviet Army itself with American troops--this idea flowed from a 
basic strategy laid forward originally, as far as my first contact with 
it, from Constantine Menges, who was, at that time, a senior National 
Intelligence Officer for Latin America at the Central Intelligence 
Agency under William Casey--of course that was during Ronald Reagan's 
administration. I remember him showing me that plan.
  I also remember that basic plan later when Dr. Jack Wheeler stepped 
forward and said, I'm going to go out and meet the various people of 
these anti-Soviet insurgencies and anti-Soviet movements throughout the 
world so that we can put a face to that strategy. And then of course we 
had Oliver North, who was then working in the White House to help that 
insurgency in Nicaragua that helped turn the tide there.
  Constantine Menges was the man who strategized these moves, the man 
who then, after working in the CIA--and serving CIA Director Bill Casey 
very well--was brought to the White House. And there in the White House 
he fought the internal battles that made sure that strategy worked. 
President Reagan had signed on to that strategy--the Reagan Doctrine--
of defeating the Soviet Union by supporting those folks in various 
parts of the world who themselves were resisting Soviet expansionism. 
But you would think, well, that just speaks for itself, of course we 
should have done that. Well, in the 1980s, that was not something that 
was just taken for granted.
  The fact is that there were people within the Reagan administration 
itself who were constantly trying to undermine that strategy. For 
example, I just mentioned Oliver North, who was actually in the 
National Security Council, along with others--by the way, for only 1 
year, with our help to the insurgents who were trying to fight the 
Sandinista dictatorship in Nicaragua, only for 1 year was that not a 
legal operation. And the years before we gave hundreds of millions of 
dollars, and the years after that hundreds of millions of dollars were 
given to support that resistance movement. But constantly there was 
this effort by people within the Reagan administration--and also from 
without, I might add, people here in Congress--who were trying to 
undermine our support for those who were trying to force democracy and 
democratic elections on the Sandinista dictatorship.
  And what was one of the major issues? It was whether or not we should 
cease our support for these insurgents before or after the Sandinista 
permitted free elections. And there were those who were trying to 
pressure Ronald Reagan, people within the administration--and I might 
say, I believe that our Secretary of State Schultz supported this 
position--of actually cutting off our arms to the anti-Sandinista 
insurgency before the Sandinista dictatorship actually permitted the 
elections to take place.
  With Constantine Menges constantly at Reagan's side reminding him 
that, no, what would work is only after the elections we will pledge, 
no matter how the elections come out, that we will withdraw our 
military support for those people in that insurgency, without that, we 
would have withdrawn our support and the Sandinistas would never have 
permitted a democratic election because they were committed to the same 
type of philosophy that you have in Cuba and in other communist 
countries; they were Marxist-Leninists. As Dr. Schwarz would say, you 
can trust the communists to be a communist. And Marxist-Leninists don't 
believe in democracy. And unless we were forcing them to, they would 
not have permitted free elections.
  And once those elections happened in Nicaragua--which was a tribute 
not only to the championship and to the courage of those people who 
fought that insurgency, but also a tribute to the Ollie Norths and the 
Constantine Mengeses who were fighting the inside fight. If we would 
not have done that, there would never have been those free elections. 
And with those elections, the Sandinistas were soundly defeated. By an 
American standard, that election was a landslide against them.
  So what happened? There was a solid move to democracy in that region 
because what we had done is we had thwarted the Soviet Union's strategy 
of their own to catch the United States by surprise and undermine our 
security by supporting those pro-communist elements in Latin America, 
supporting the guerrilla movements in Latin America. And that base of 
operations was going to be in Nicaragua. We put the Nicaraguan 
communists on the defensive, and by doing so, we permitted Central 
America to have a chance for freedom.
  And sure enough, the countries in Central America have been stalwarts 
for democracy in the years since the end of the Cold War. They have 
benefited by the Constantine Mengeses, who worked their hearts out 
inside the White House and outside the White House to make sure that 
they had the political support and the strategic support they needed to 
establish democracies there.
  Constantine Menges wrote book after book. His last book that I 
remember dealt with the emerging threat of China, but he was also very 
focused on Latin America and warned us about potential inroads being 
made in Venezuela, for example.
  So tonight we remember Constantine. And we are grateful to Dr.

[[Page 7274]]

Fred Schwarz, we're grateful to Ollie North, we're grateful to Dr. Jack 
Wheeler, we're grateful to Constantine Menges. These are individuals 
whose names most people don't know. Without them, freedom wouldn't have 
had a chance during the Cold War. But yet, we won the Cold War without 
actual warfare between the Soviet Union and the United States and, 
again, democracy was secured in Central America.
  Unfortunately, now in Latin America we see an ominous trend, a very 
ominous trend, when we see the rise of a left-wing, semi-Marxist 
Cedillo in Venezuela, this Chavez, this boisterous anti-American, we 
see him aligning himself with communist Cuba, one of the last communist 
dictatorships in the world. And again, we see this in Bolivia. But yet, 
we see ominous trends. For example, in Nicaragua itself, the pro-
democratic elements of that society were split, and they ended up with 
the Sandinista, the thugs from the old Sandinista Marxist regime 
returning to power even though they only had 40 percent of the vote. 
The 60 percent of the vote that was anticommunist was split, and that 
in itself is an ominous trend. And then of course we have the elections 
that will be coming up this weekend in El Salvador. And from what I 
understand, it is within a margin of error now, it's neck in neck, who 
will be elected to be the government of that country.
  El Salvador has had a solid and a stable democracy all of these years 
since the end of the Cold War, since Ronald Reagan determined we would 
be supporting not right-wing dictators to defeat communism, but 
instead, we would solidly support democratic elements. Otto Reich, one 
of the champions during the Reagan years, testified just yesterday that 
when Ronald Reagan became President of the United States, 90 percent of 
Latin America was under right-wing military dictators. When Ronald 
Reagan left, 90 percent of Latin America was under democratic rule and 
governed by people who had been elected in free elections. What a 
tremendous, tremendous legacy.
  But now that legacy is a threat because the people of these countries 
have learned to take that democracy for granted and to forget the basic 
nature of those Marxists and Leninists who tried to implement, tried to 
impose communist dictatorship on those countries back in the 1980s.
  Well, now the FMLN--which was a terrorist organization, basically a 
Marxist-Leninist military arm back in the 1980s which tried, by force, 
to become the government of El Salvador--since then they have been 
operating within the democratic process; but this same group that would 
have imposed a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship now has a chance of 
winning the elections in El Salvador.
  Free people should be alarmed, especially the people of El Salvador. 
They have learned to take for granted the stability, the progress, the 
democratic rights that they have. The FMLN is made up of people who 
have allied themselves with al Qaeda, Iran, Cuba, and other state 
sponsors of terrorism. For example, the current vice presidential 
candidate of the FMLN, that candidate, a few days after 9/11, 
celebrated the attack on the United States with a demonstration in El 
Salvador and burned American flags and claimed that America had brought 
9/11 upon ourselves. That's the kind of leadership, that's the kind of 
belligerence represented by the FMLN.
  Now, the people of El Salvador have every right to elect whoever they 
want to head their government, whether it's the FMLN, or anyone else--
certainly no one is suggesting otherwise, but obviously there are 
consequences that need to be considered when choosing who your leader 
will be.
  In this case, all of the cooperation, all of the economic 
cooperation, all of the stability that we've had, the friendship that 
we've had could be destroyed if the FMLN, a political party in El 
Salvador that is hostile to the United States--they hate the United 
States. And if you elect someone who hates the United States, then the 
people of El Salvador cannot expect that there will be a good 
relationship between our countries.
  Now, if the people of El Salvador want to have a bad relationship 
with the United States, they don't want to have the same type of 
economic policies, fine, they should elect the Marxist FMLN. But if 
they want to be friends of the United States, they should understand 
that you can't elect people who celebrate 9/11 and say good things 
about al Qaeda and ally themselves with Marxist dictatorships and think 
that they're going to have the same positive relationship with us.
  In this case, we have had very positive economic policies for which 
we bestowed upon the Government of El Salvador because it was 
democratic and because it was friendly to the United States. Those 
economic policies will not stand up if the Government of El Salvador is 
hostile to us or hates us, or is anti-democratic, or starts--as the 
tough guy in Nicaragua has done, he has already started to repress his 
own people and to use a heavy hand in place of a democratic process in 
that country.
  So the people of El Salvador need to think about what relationship do 
you want to have? What will it cost us if we have an anti-American 
government? Well, today there are over $4 billion that come from El 
Salvadorians who are in the United States in remittances, $4 billion 
from these people who are here, who are El Salvadorians, flow into El 
Salvador. Now, they're called remittances. Well, we do not need to 
permit those remittances; we do this as a favor to that country and to 
try to help its economy. But if we have an anti-American government 
there, that issue will be hotly debated in the United States Congress.
  If you have a country that is run by people who burn American flags 
and congratulate al Qaeda terrorists for flying planes into our 
buildings and killing thousands of Americans, yes, we will have an 
honest debate about whether or not we should restrict the billions of 
dollars that now flow in remittances from the United States to El 
Salvador. If people want to vote for that there, they have every right, 
and we respect that. That's democracy. But we, too, will respond. And 
we, too, will have things that we have to do to protect our interests 
if we have a country that is allying themselves with the people who 
slaughtered our American citizens on 9/11. We can't expect to permit 
the free flow of billions of dollars to continue if that's the case. 
That shall be solidly debated if the FMLN is brought to power. So we 
need to make sure that good people who support democracy throughout 
this hemisphere, who we helped during the wars in the 1980s, that they 
do not then become complacent and take all of the democracy and 
progress that has happened there for granted.
  There was tremendous chaos in the seventies and eighties in Latin 
America and Central America. People don't need that anymore. They don't 
need the hatred and the vitriol that was down there and all of the 
anti-Americanism--and the outside interference, I might add, that came 
in when the Soviet Union pumped a billion dollars worth of military 
equipment into Nicaragua thinking they were going to roll up Latin 
America. Well, brave people in Latin America stood against Marxism-
Leninism then. They should continue to do so because, in the end, all 
of us, what kind of country we live in is in our hands. We wish the 
people of El Salvador well; we do, we wish them well. We wish them a 
successful election. We hope that they will remain friends of the 
United States.

                              {time}  1745

  Unfortunately, I know there is a large number of Members of Congress 
who signed on to a letter suggesting whatever happens in the election, 
it's not going to make any difference in American policy. Well, those 
Members of Congress, and many of them are my friends, they have a more 
liberal left outlook in life than I do, and I can say that they're 
misguided in presenting that to the people of El Salvador. The fact is 
that what happens in this election will have impact on our relations, 
and it is not just something that the people can elect an anti-American 
government and expect everything to stay the same.
  So I hope we remain friends. I hope the people of El Salvador vote to 
be

[[Page 7275]]

friends. But if they don't, that is their right to do so. I think it 
would be much more beneficial for the people of El Salvador and other 
Latin American countries to remain good friends of the United States 
rather than attaching their future to the likes of Hugo Chavez and 
other despots and bellicose Cedilloses.
  These military strongmen who are in the right wing that dominated 
Latin America back in the 1960s, that was a tragedy for the people of 
Latin America, and that was a tragedy that the United States did not 
oppose that type of authoritarian rule as much as we should have. And 
it was Ronald Reagan that turned that around, and I am very proud that 
during Ronald Reagan's administration that we stood for democracy, not 
just anti-communism; and that with Constantine Menges there to help us 
strategize, we turned back the tide of communism in Latin America and 
throughout the world, and we created a better world without having the 
kind of nuclear exchange or massive military fight with the Soviet army 
that was predicted so often back in the 1950s and 1960s.
  So tonight we look back on the heroes, the heroes of the Cold War who 
brought about a more peaceful and a more democratic world. And we reach 
out to those people now in Latin America who are making decisions, 
making the decisions as to whether or not they're going to take for 
granted what was accomplished during this pro-democratic revolution 
that took place under Ronald Reagan and took place at great risk and 
great hardship for the people in Central America.
  Now is not the time to go back to Marxism-Leninism with another face. 
Let's again go back to Dr. Fred Schwarz. Dr. Schwarz told us that if 
you really read what the communists and the Leninists believe, you will 
see that they believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat. You will 
see they believe in the centralization of power, the arrogant ``we know 
what's best for everyone'' notion that results in dictatorship every 
time but also results in poverty and results in a decline in the 
standard of living and results in conflict with other peoples. Latin 
America nor anywhere else in the world needs the conflict, needs the 
repression that will come with a resurgence of Marxist-Leninists who 
now put on a democratic face and say, no, we're actually different now. 
Well, maybe they aren't using guns, but putting them in power in any 
way will not make this a better world or a better country. That is for 
people of each country to decide for themselves. We wish all of those 
people, whether in El Salvador or elsewhere, free elections, open 
discussion, open debate.
  I hope that my words today will be seen as part of the debate here as 
to what we should do if indeed a change in policy happens and a change 
in leadership happens in El Salvador so that we will know what policies 
will change if indeed the FMLN, which was a Marxist-Leninist terrorist 
group back in the 1960s and 1970s, whether or not, if that group comes 
to power, what changes will be brought about.
  With that said, Mr. Speaker, I would also put into the Record at this 
point an obituary about Mr. Constantine Menges, dated July 14, 2004.

               [From the Washington Post, July 14, 2004]

               Constantine Menges; National Security Aide

                            (By Joe Holley)

       Constantine Menges, 64, a national security aide for Latin 
     America during the Reagan administration who had a central 
     role in planning the U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983, and 
     who focused on the continuing threat of communism in books 
     and numerous articles, died of cancer July 11 at Sibley 
     Memorial Hospital. He lived in the District.
       At the time of his death, Dr. Menges was a senior fellow at 
     the Hudson Institute, a public policy think tank. His recent 
     work had focused on the threat to the United States of a 
     growing pro-Castro alliance throughout Latin America; state-
     sponsored terrorism, including what he considered Iran's 
     subversion of Iraq; and the rise of China as a superpower.
       Dr. Menges had just completed the manuscript for a book 
     titled ``China, the Gathering Threat: The Strategic Challenge 
     of China and Russia.'' He also was the author of a memoir, 
     ``Inside the National Security Council,'' several other 
     books, and numerous articles.
       Dr. Menges was born in Ankara, Turkey, the son of political 
     refugees from Nazi Germany. The Menges family, fearing that 
     Turkey would enter the war as an ally of the Axis powers, 
     moved from place to place through war-torn Europe. The family 
     arrived in the United States in 1943.
       Dr. Menges received a bachelor's degree in physics from 
     Columbia College and a doctorate in political science from 
     Columbia University. He taught political science at the 
     University of Wisconsin before joining the Rand Corp.
       He entered government service in the late 1970s, first as 
     assistant director for civil rights, then as deputy assistant 
     secretary for education in the Department of Health, 
     Education and Welfare.
       From 1981 to 1983, he was a national intelligence officer 
     for Latin American affairs at the Central Intelligence Agency 
     under Director William Casey. From 1983 to 1986, he worked 
     for the National Security Council as a special assistant to 
     the president, specializing in Latin America.
       In ``President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime,'' author Lou 
     Cannon described Dr. Menges as one of a cadre of National 
     Security Council aides who believed, as did Casey, ``that the 
     West should be mobilized to fight Communists with their own 
     methods.''
       Cannon described Dr. Menges ``as one of the most forceful 
     of these polemicists'' and ``a principled conservative.'' 
     White House and State Department pragmatists, according to 
     Cannon, dubbed him ``Constant Menace,'' a play on his name, 
     for his ardent support of action, covert and otherwise, 
     against Nicaraguan Sandinistas and Salvadoran rebels.
       Deeply involved in White House support for the Nicaraguan 
     contras, Dr. Menges also argued that an American strategy for 
     combating communism in Latin America should include 
     suppression of right-wing death squads and promotion of land 
     reform.
       ``He believed that the United States should compete with 
     the Soviets in sponsorship of `national liberation movements' 
     in Third World nations,'' Cannon wrote.
       Dr. Menges contended that the invasion of Grenada helped 
     avert a possible Grenada nuclear deployment crisis and 
     strengthened President Ronald Reagan's hand in deploying 
     intermediate-range missiles in Europe in late 1983.
       From 1990 to 2000, Dr. Menges was a professor at George 
     Washington University, where he founded and directed the 
     program on Transitions to Democracy. His work on democratic 
     transitions included the post-communist states, Iraq, Iran 
     and the Americas. He also began a project on U.S. relations 
     with Russia and China and the new Russia-China alignment.
       In articles that appeared regularly in The Washington Post, 
     the Washington Times, the New York Times, the New Republic 
     and other publications, Dr. Menges continued to warn that the 
     communist threat persisted.
       In a Washington Post opinion article in 2001, he wrote that 
     ``Russia and China are using mostly political and covert 
     means to oppose the United States on security issues and to 
     divide America from its allies.''
       As a college student, Dr. Menges helped individuals escape 
     communist East Berlin in 1961, and in 1963, he worked in 
     Mississippi as a volunteer for equal voting rights.
       Survivors include his wife of 29 years, Nancy Menges, and a 
     son, Christopher, both of Washington.

  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that in this country we have 
demonstrated to the world something really important, and that is that 
we have had a shift in power in the United States. And I hope people 
see that the Republicans and the Democrats stood there and applauded as 
our new President was sworn in. We wish this country success, and we 
wish this President success. We may have a difference of opinion on how 
to achieve success, but we all are rooting for people who fundamentally 
believe that democratic dialogue like the one I'm talking about and 
democratic process is the answer to the future.

                          ____________________