mr. rohrabacher. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. rohrabacher: i thank you very much for providing me this time. i rise in opposition to this rule which prohibits a vote of the house of representatives on an amendment that would prevent the department of justice from using its power and resources to supersede allstate laws that have legalized the medical use of cannabis. for three years, states have been shielded from having the will of their voters and their people by a prohibition of the state -- of the -- on the department of justice that would prevent the department of justice from thwarting the will of the people of the states by superseding those state laws when they have determined in the states that the medical use of marijuana should be permitted with their citizens. the rules committee has thus been basically -- will be changing the law of the land for three years when 50 states have been permitted if they so chose to have the medical use of marijuana. after this vote, because of this rule, we have been prevented from again

mr. rohrabacher talked so eloquently about. and of great concern in a september 6th article from the hill, it stated house gop blocks vote protecting medical marijuana states. and i want to be clear, mr. chairman, it's a prerogative of this committee as opposed to the republican conference with regard to what amendments went forward. in fact, there's a quote from duncan hunter, a neighbor of dana rohrabacher, who said that in the conference, it was discussed that this amendment splits the conference so much, so we're not going to have a vote on it. i just want to ask the chair if duncan hunter is on this committee. >> the gentleman's testimony -- >> i don't see him. i see mr. collins -- mr. collins is gone. i see two democrats and a republican. perhaps i should call into question. but no, the answer is that the republican conference and mr. hunter are not on this committee. the issue is this has been passed by republican majorities for years. 230 republicans voted for a spending bill that has this identical language as part of i

mr. rohrabacher, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. rohrabacher: thank you, mr. chairman. before i get into a rather elongated discussion of one fundamental issue i'd like to mention we have just heard severe criticism of our president and let me just note about president trump and his rhetoric, supposedly, making things worse this korea, the rhetoric of our president has not made the situation worse in korea. what made the situation in korea a major threat to our country and to our people and to the world was that during the clinton administration, president clinton pushed through this congress a package of aid for north korea, yes, we gave billions of dollars of aid in the form of energy and other type of issues and things that they needed and we gave them these billions of dollars worth of aid under the agreement that north korea would not be developing their nuclear weapons. at that time, chris cox, a member of the house of representatives at the time and myself fought aggress ily against that deal and when the north koreans ended u

mr. rohrabacher before he departs. >> i do as a panel member if that's okay? >> let me go to the gentleman from washington. no questions. gentleman from colorado. >> i'm glad you came here today. you made the case better than anybody. can you tell us, has this amendment ever been blocked from the house floor before? >> first few years, but we got the vote. >> blocking the right of the members of congress to vote on it, this is the first time that i have heard that it's possible that we will be blocked from even having a vote on the issue. >> i sure hope it doesn't happen. obviously, the house needs to act on an appropriations bill. in the past, this amendment has been in appropriations bills. has that ever been a poison pill or caused trouble on the republican side of the aisle for republicans who have been here who have voted for those? >> we had victory for the states' rights issue for medical marijuana for several times. and it's been included, by the way, not only in this, but in continuing resolutions, et cetera. we had this in place, this law is in place

mr. rohrabacher. they now go to mr. gerry connolly of virginia. >> thank you mr. chairman and welcome. you know we talk a lot about bipartisanship and we want high partisanship on this committee and in our foreign policy but we don't get high partisanship when we ignore history or when we whitewash statements and actions of the current president with respect to north korea. we have a model that works. of course a lot of people didn't support it and that's called the iran nuclear agreement. recently the united nations certified they are compliant. a rollback a nuclear program. involve cooperation not just with our allies come with their adversaries russia, china and have iran at the table. too wet and is u.s. policy? what i didn't hear from my friends on the other side of the aisle including the chairman in his opening statement, powerful opening statement i support tougher sanctions, always have but it's one part of a policy, not the whole policy. as iran experienced demonstrated there has to be some reward for compliance and cooperation at the end of the day or you are left with the p

mr. rohrabacher. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rohrabacher: asset forfeiture is a crime against the american people committed by their own government. this is opposite what the people who wrote the constitution had in mind. people to take away -- the government to take away someone's property and then say you have to prove you're innocent to get it back, that is totally in contrast to the limited government, individual responsibility, individual freedom, property rights, concepts that our founding fathers had in mind. if we believe in freedom, if we believe in liberty, let's not open up the government to be able to steal our property and then we have to go to court. we've lost all of our due process. we -- it's now our obligation to prove that we are innocent until proven guilty. that is ridiculous. vote for this amendment. protect the freedom of our people. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. amash: mr. chairman, i yield 45 seconds to -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. amash: i yield 30 seconds t

mr. rohrabacher. >> i share my colleague's frustration and scepticism that was just expressed. my father was a korean war veteran. i would hope the very last thing that is on everybody's mind is to try to exercise more influence by putting more american troops in south korea. that is not the path to a solution to this problem. so what are the solutions? obviously we're being told even from everything you're saying in terms of economic sanctions, i agree with mr. sherman. i'm very skeptical any of that is going to have impact. i remember being here and sitting a little bit over there at the time when president clinton proposed and passed through this congress a plan that would give north koreans billions of dollars of american assistance. of course we did that with iranians. -- what is the solution? first of all, what's the challenge. am i mistaken that i have heard quotes from the official head of the north korean government threatening to rain mass destruction of some kind upon the united states? has he actually made threats to in some way kill millions of americans with a nuc

mr. rohrabacher asked a question and suggested that nearly 50 countries currently don't have an aresponsibilitied or confirmed ambassador. >> i'm not certain about that statistic. i'd have to get back to you. if they don't, they have a chargee performing the duties and functions. >> again, there is an urgency to get those ambassador positions filled. >> we need to fill the positions as quickly as possible. >> do we have a south korean ambassador? >> we do not. >> do you have a nomination? >> we have an individual in the vetting process. but the nomination hasn't been announced yet. >> do we have an ambassador to jordan? >> i don't know where that person stands in the process. >> my understanding is currently we don't. >> we don't have an ambassador now, but i thought the question -- >> this is one of the closest allies. a country that is stressed by 1.5 million to 2 million refugees and they're struggling. we have to do everything we can to support jordan. do we have an ambassador to qatar? >> no. we have a chargee. >> do we have an ambassador to saudi arabia? >> for all these reasons you suggest