I am not suggesting, and this amendment is not suggesting, that American businesses cannot go any place in the world, whether it is dictatorships or nondictatorships, developing world or developed world, and do business. They are welcome to do so. The major question is whether or not the taxpayers of this country should be subsidizing these enterprisers who go overseas, should be subsidizing them and offering them loan guarantees, et cetera, and direct loans, through the Export-Import Bank. These people still can go to the private sector and get their loans, they can still participate in whatever project they want, but they cannot expect the American taxpayer to subsidize ongoing socialist projects overseas or ongoing projects in these dictatorships where they own the enterprises, and so it becomes a bolstering of the regime rather than just a business enterprise. This amendment would exclude no one from doing business overseas; it would end the taxpayer subsidy of this type of business.
Dana Rohrabacher: “I am not suggesting, and this amendment is not suggesting, that American businesses cannot go any place in the world…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing taxpayer subsidies for American businesses operating overseas.
Share
More from Dana Rohrabacher
Well, thank you, Mr. Meeks. I have a few questions of my own. But let me note that we are spending $833 billion more this year than we are taking in.
We need to now show in the age that we are in exactly how this is going to have an impact--positive impact on the United States because we are borrowing that money from our grandchildren.
We need to be--make sure that the Muslim population of the world knows that we are not against their religion.
Congressman Rohrabacher's H.R. 5724, Restoring Community Oversight of Sober Living Homes Act of 2018 is the second bill in two years attempting to clarify local control to come to the Judiciary Committee.





