[Congressional Record: March 12, 2009 (House)]
[Page H3393-H3398]
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 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
[[Page H3394]]
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.''
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.
[[Page H3395]]
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, 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
[[Page H3396]]
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. 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
[[Page H3397]]
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 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.''
[[Page H3398]]
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.
____________________
