Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I won't be redundant. I'll just follow up on what my colleague Representative Foxx said in proposing this amendment for the two of us. This is merely a move to make sure that legislation that has already passed, the Defense of Marriage Act and in the authorization bill dealing with the Department of Defense, coincides with the appropriation bill that we're talking about today. There's been some confusion in the Department of Defense, in the facilities at these military bases, that there could be marriages between two men or two women. The Defense of Marriage Act and the authorization bill clearly state that that cannot happen and will not happen because it would be a violation of the Defense of Marriage Act which has passed this body. And even though the administration has chosen not to be involved in this issue, I believe it's incumbent on the Congress to make this issue very clear so that we don't have confusion on these military bases when we talk about same sex marriages. I think it is imperative that we make absolutely clear in both the appropriation bill and the authorization bill, as well as the Defense of Marriage Act, what the law is, what it's intended to do, so that it's very clear to the military so they don't have any difficulty in making decisions on this particular issue. I want to thank my good friend and colleague, Representative Virginia Foxx for introducing this amendment on behalf of the both of us. She and her staff, especially Javier Sanchez, have thoroughly examined the confusing messages and conflicting protocols within the Department of Defense related to the implementation of the Defense of Marriage Act. Why is this Amendment Needed? (1) This amendment reinforces language that was included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 that passed the House on May 26, 2011. Section 534 of the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act reaffirms the policy of the Defense of Marriage Act by stating that the word ``marriage'' included in any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the Department of Defense (DoD) applicable to a service member or civilian employee of the Department of Defense shall mean only a legal union between one man and one woman. And, Section 535 establishes that marriages performed on DoD installations or marriages involving the participation of DoD military or civilian personnel in an official capacity, to include chaplains, must comply with the Defense of Marriage Act. This amendment does not impose a new restriction on the Department of Defense. It is a straightforward in its purpose and text. It simply aligns the Department of Defense appropriations bill we are considering today with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 that passed the House May 26, 2011. The amendment ensures that defense dollars are not used to implement policy changes that violate the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I believe that appropriations and authorization bills should be compatible, where possible, and by adopting the Foxx-Burton amendment, we will do just that for the Defense of Marriage Act. This is the only opportunity we have to synchronize DoD funding to the DOMA policy provisions contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. (2) The amendment settles--once and for all--any confusion and/or misinformation within the DoD about the abilities of its personnel to perform same-sex marriages as well as the use of its facilities. It is important that we pass this amendment, which is a straightforward statement reaffirming Congress' assertion that funds may not be used in contravention of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (Defense of Marriage Act). The law ensures the States would not have to recognize same-sex marriages from other States, and that the Federal Government would recognize only the union of one man and one woman as marriage. Offering up Federal facilities and Federal employees for the use in same-sex marriages violates DOMA, which is still the law of the land and binds our military. (3) President Obama's Administration is on record that it will no longer defend DOMA thus leaving it up to Congress to defend against challenges to DOMA. I am confident that activist lawyers and judges will begin challenging inconsistencies in marriage status for military personnel. For example, a same-sex couple who was married in a State where same- sex marriage is recognized sues because they are denied military family housing. The resolution of this kind of litigation would propel the courts into policy matters that Congerss should decide. Bottom line. This amendment--in conjunction with the Sections 534 and 535 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012--will allow Congerss to speak with one voice on the Defense of Marriage Act. If Congress fails to speak clearly on this issue, we are certain to see more conflicting and confusing DOMA protocols emerging in the Department of Defense. And, it will be with the blessing of the White House. Let's keep our Department of Defense focused on the missions at hand. Congress can and should make it clear that Defense Department funds should not be used in ways that violate Federal laws, including the Defense of Marriage Act. Support the Foxx-Burton Amendment. Let's leave the guesswork out of it. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The Constitution, Mr. Chairman, and the War Powers Act clearly say what the parameters are within which the President must act or follow: number one, a declaration of war; number two, a specific authorization; number three, a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces. None of these criteria were met by the President. He said he went in there because of humanitarian issues. He consulted, as we've said before on the floor, with France, England, the United Nations, NATO, and the Arab League. He had 2 or 3 weeks to do that, but he didn't have time to talk to the Congress of the United States, and he's gone in there and spent almost a billion dollars at a time when we just don't have the money. Now if you're talking about humanitarian problems, in the Sudan, 2,300 Sudanese have been killed this year alone, and more than 500 people have died in the last 2 weeks. In Darfur, 450,000 to 480,000 have been displaced or killed. Just recently, and one of my colleagues talked about this a while ago, in the Nuba Mountains in the Sudan, they're killing people every single day. Horrible atrocities are taking place. Human rights violations. If you're talking about humanitarian issues, why wouldn't you go in there as well? You look, also, at Syria right now. In Syria, there have been an awful lot of people killed. We all see that on television every night. There are wars of opportunity. If you go to Liberia, if you go and look back at the Khmer Rouge, we didn't get into those wars, and we're not getting into these wars right now because it's not in our national interest, and it's not a threat to the United States. The President has taken us into a conflict. He said it's not a war, but it is a war. We've sent about 230 missiles in there at $1.1 million per to kill people. We've flown sortie after sortie over there dropping bombs on people, and the President says it's not a war. It is a war, it's the United States' war, and it's being covered by NATO. We shouldn't be going to war unless this body and the other body say it's okay. It's in the Constitution. It's in the War Powers Act. We should not be there. Nobody likes Muammar Qadhafi. Nobody thinks he should be there. But we can't be going into wars of opportunity every place, especially at a time when we're fiscally broke. I think it's extremely important that legislation like that which the gentleman from Oklahoma just offered should be passed, and I hope we will pass it. There's a whole host of these amendments that are going to be read today and we're going to be voting on, and we need to send a very clear signal to the White House that this must never happen again. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I came down here today to talk about the Libya issue, the war that supposedly is not a war, but I wanted to start off by talking a little bit about the rhetoric that's coming out of the White House and from the President. I was watching the news this morning, and the President indicated that they were going to have these budget talks down at the White House today. And he said, and I quote, that the Republicans, in effect, have a gun to the head of the American people. That just isn't the kind of rhetoric that should be used right now when we're talking about the huge budget deficits we have. And if I were talking to the President, I would try to admonish him to not do that in the future. And then, when we were talking about Libya, I think it was just about 4 or 5 days ago, he said that we in Congress are making Libya a cause celebre, indicating that it's not an important issue, and we're just trying to puff it up so that we can make political points. The fact of the matter is it is a war. The President went to the Arab League, he went to the French, the English, he went to the United Nations, and NATO and decided that he was going to be involved in an attack on Libya and Muammar Qadhafi. But the one place he didn't come to to talk about this issue was the Congress of the United States--the House of Representatives and the Senate. The first place that a President ought to go if he thinks we ought to go into a conflict of any kind is the Congress. The Constitution is very clear on the responsibilities of the President before he goes into a conflict. It has to be a threat to the United States, a threat to our interests, and it has to be approved by the Congress of the United States. The Congress of the United States is the only body that can declare war. He can't do that. He can manage a war. He is the Commander in Chief once we go into war, but he can't start a war unless it's in our national interest or there's a threat to the United States. That was clarified by the War Powers Act during the Nixon administration because there was some question about the latitude a President might have using the Constitution. The Constitution was explained very carefully in the 1970s in the War Powers Act. Now, that's never been tested in the courts. Some people say it's unconstitutional. But the fact of the matter is it's the law of the Nation. The President cannot violate the law or the Constitution, and in our opinion, he's violated both. Let me just tell you what's going on in this war that the President says is not a war. We have flown almost 30 percent of the sorties. That means we have flown 3,475 flights into the combat area. We have dropped bombs and missiles 132 times on targets, and several times we've hit civilians. Nobody likes Muammar Qadhafi. Nobody wants him in office. But the fact of the matter is, we've been involved in a war to get rid of him. On May 22, the figure was that of the missiles that were fired, there were 246 missiles fired, and 228 were the United States' missiles--at $1.1 million per missile. And we're paying approximately 60 or 70 percent of the total cost of this conflict through NATO or directly from the taxpayers of the United States. Now, the reason I came down here today is to say that we should not be in that conflict because it was not in our national interest and there was no threat to the United States and it was a violation of the Constitution and the War Powers Act. The President said he had to do it because it was a humanitarian issue. If it was a humanitarian issue and we really needed to go in there, he should have come to Congress. The previous President, President Bush, did go to Congress on Afghanistan and Iraq to get approval before he did it, but President Obama decided to do this unilaterally. So we are in a war now, and it's costing the taxpayers close to a billion dollars in a war that we should not be in. He said it was for humanitarian purposes. If that's the case, we ought to be in a war in the Ivory Coast. Right now in the Sudan, there are thousands and thousands of people being executed and killed. And if that's the case, we ought to be in the Sudan. In Syria, we all know what's going on in Syria right now. If that's the case, we ought to be in Syria. There are wars of opportunity every place. I just like to end, Mr. Speaker, by saying this: The President should always come to the Congress if it's in our national interest or a threat to this country before he goes to war. It's constitutionally required.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the 2011 recipients of the coveted Ellis Island Medal of Honor. Presented annually by the National Ethnic Coalition, NECO, the Ellis Island Medal of Honor pays tribute to our Nation's immigrant heritage, as well as individual achievement. This year, the Ellis Island Medal of Honor takes on a special significance as 2011 marks the 25th anniversary of these distinguished awards, a milestone which was celebrated this past May with a patriotic ceremony on Ellis Island. The medals are awarded to U.S. citizens from various ethnic backgrounds who exemplify outstanding qualities in both their personal and professional lives, while continuing to preserve the richness of their particular heritage. Since the medal's founding in 1986, more than 2,000 American citizens have received Ellis Island Medals of Honor, including six American Presidents, several United States Senators, Congressmen, Nobel Laureates, outstanding athletes, artists, clergy, and military leaders. As we all know, citizens of the United States can trace their ancestry to many nations. The richness and diversity of American life makes us unique among the nations of the world and is in many ways the key to why America is the most innovative country in the world. The Ellis Island Medals of Honor not only celebrate select individuals but also the pluralism and democracy that enabled our ancestors to celebrate their cultural identities while still embracing the American way of life. This medal is not about money, but about people who seized the opportunities this great country has to offer and who used those opportunities to not only better their own lives but make a difference in the lives of those around them. By honoring these outstanding individuals, we honor all who share their origins and we acknowledge the contributions they and other groups have made to America. I commend NECO and its Board of Directors headed by my good friend, Nasser J. Kazeminy, for honoring these truly outstanding individuals for their tireless efforts to foster dialogue and build bridges between different ethnic groups, as well as promotes unity and a sense of common purpose in our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing the good works of NECO over these last 25 years and in congratulating all of the 2011 recipients of the Ellis Island Medals of Honor. 2011 Ellis Island Medals of Honor Recipients Gina Addeo, Setrak O. Agonian, Margaret Ajemian Ahnert, Carlos E. Alvarez, Hamid Ansari, Michael Aram, Tom Arnold, Kevork B. Bardakjian, PhD, Stanley M. Bergman, Tejinder SinghBindra, Col. Matthew Bogdanos, Esq., USMC (Ret.), John A. Brennan, MD, Paul A. Brinkley, Jerry Cahill, Hon. Salvatore J. Cassano, Anthony D. Chimino, Steve S. Chon, Jim Clifton, Darryle D. Clott, James F. Comley, Giancarlo Crupi, MD, James Jian Cui, MD, PhD, Supt. Joseph A. D'Amico, Marty D. Davidson, Joseph F. Dean, ADM Bruce DeMars, USN (Ret.), Nitin V. Doshi, DDS, Pierre Dulaine, CAPT Linda L. Fagan, USCG, David Fitzpatrick, PhD, Bill V. Gallo, Cyril E. Geacintov, PhD, John Giuffre, SSgt. Salvatore A. Giunta, USA, Joseph R. Haiek, Dorothy J. Harber, Lacy J. Harber, Stuart C. Harvey, Jr., Salah M. Hassanein, Robert S. Hekemian, Hon. Patrick Henry, Scott H. Herman, Fernando J. Hernandez, John M. Iacono, O. Wayne Isom, MD, Joel P. Jahraus, MD, MG Nathaniel James, AUS, Hon. James A. Kaddo, Chief Charles S. Kammerdener, Dr. Munr Kazmir, Ken Kendrick, Kamran Khavarani, PhD, Hon. Peter J. Koutoujian, Sr., Cecilia M. La Pietra, OP, Wai Lap Leung, MD, Jeffrey E. Levine, Jerry Lewis, Weining Liang, MD, Joanie M. Madden, Babu Rao Mandava, Joseph A. Martorana, Anthony J. Melita, Joseph S. Micallef, JD, Radmila Milentijevic, PhD, LTG John F. Mulholland, Jr., USA, Francis Najafi, Vali R. Nasr, PhD, Younes Nazarian, Denis O'Brien, James G. O'Connor, John O'Hurley, Gail Talanian O'Reilly, Harvey E. Oyer, III, Esq., Mustafa Oz, MD, FACS, BG Frederick M. Padilla, USMC, Fa Y. Park, Patrick M. Park, William L. Perocchi, Vladimir Prodanovich, Philip Pumerantz, PhD, Fahim Rahim, MD, Naeem Rahim, MD, Ali C. Razi, Frank L. Regnante, Doris Roberts, Michele M. Rollins, Esq., Thomas Roma, Bruno L. Sammartino, Samin K. Sharma, MD, Kevin Chang Yao Shih, Donald F. Shula, CMSgt Darren A. Silsbee, USAF, Susan Sommer- Luarca, Joel Szabat, George Veras, Manu K. Vora, PhD, MBA, Joseph M. Walsh, Shirley Wang, Richard P. Wei, Roger L. Williams, MD, Walter W. Wise, Jr., Chris Jia Shu Xu, Madlena Zepter, Philip Zepter, Kenny Weiqun Zhang.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank my chairman for yielding. Israel's right to exist, Madam Speaker, should be guaranteed. And Israel has tried to work out over the years a peace agreement with the Palestinians so that there could be a two-state solution. In fact, twice, once during the term of Prime Minister Barak and again during the term of Prime Minister Olmert, Israel offered the Palestinians a very generous and fair final settlement. Both times those offers were flatly rejected and met with violence. And what have the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinians done recently? They went and signed an agreement with Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization that has been lobbing bombs and missiles into Israel, trying to destroy the Israeli state. They are committed to the destruction of Israel. And the Palestinians have signed an agreement on May 4 of this year to work with them. Israel went that extra step when they allowed Gaza to be turned open. And what happened right after that took place? Hamas came in there and took over and started attacking Israel day after day. Innocent women and children were running constantly from bombs being dropped on them because Gaza had been set in a position where they could open up to Hamas. And so you have got a constant demand by the terrorists--Hamas, Hezbollah and others--to destroy the State of Israel. And Israel has been a great ally of the United States since its inception in 1948. We need to send a very strong signal--I think we are doing it right now today--a very strong signal that this country, this Congress, and the Senate supports the State of Israel and does not want the Palestinians to go to the United Nations and try to have a unilateral settlement made by that body. This is something that has to be worked out at the conference table between Israel and the Palestinians and not at the United Nations. So I would just like to conclude by saying that Israel is our best friend and ally in the Middle East. They are a stable element in the Middle East. We need to support them and make absolutely sure that Hamas, Hezbollah, and the other terrorist organizations do not have their way and destroy the State of Israel. We are committed to that, this Congress is committed to that, and this whole debate has shown very clearly that almost unanimously the people of the United States stand with Israel.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I've heard a number of people say, well, the Constitution does give the President latitude, but during the Nixon administration Congress passed the War Powers Act, and then when the President vetoed it, Congress overrode his veto, and so the War Powers Act became law. Now whether or not you believe it's constitutional, it has never been tested in the courts, and so it's the law. And the law says, as well as the Constitution, at least this is what most of the people who have looked at the Constitution believe is what it stands for, the Constitution and the War Powers Act say the President cannot do what he did without the support and approval of Congress. Now he's gotten us into the war in Libya and it is, in effect, our war. People say, well, no, it's NATO. Well, we are providing over 8,000 of the military personnel on the ships and in the air. The majority of the flights that are taking place where they're doing the bombing are done by our airmen and our aircraft. Over 90 percent of the missiles that are being used at over a million dollars per copy are American missiles. This is going to cost billions of dollars. If this were to pass and we were to stay there for over a year, you could count on it costing $2 billion or $3 billion. My colleague from Arkansas just a few minutes ago talked about us being broke. The American people know, if Congress doesn't, that we're $1.5 trillion short this year, and we're $14 trillion in debt. We're printing money that our kids are going to have to deal with because they're going to have to pay for the debt down the road. Some of us will pay if we live long enough, but our kids are certainly going to inherit the debt. And so we're adding to the debt by going into a war we shouldn't be in and without the approval of the Congress in accordance with the War Powers Act and the Constitution. Now my big concern is--and I'm going to talk on the other bill that is coming up later on--not just Libya. My big concern is this President, unless we send a very strong message to him, may take us into Syria. There's humanitarian problems in Syria right now, and the reason they went into Libya, they said, was because of the humanitarian problems. He talked to the French, the English, the NATO, United Nations and the Arab League for about 2 weeks before we went into Libya, but he didn't have time to talk to the Congress who appropriates the money and authorizes this stuff. He's the Commander in Chief once we go to war, but he needs the authority from Congress to go into it, and he didn't do it. There are a lot of wars of opportunity. The President could go into Syria. He could go into the Ivory Coast.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. There are a lot of places we could go to war if we choose to do it. There's humanitarian problems around the world. But unless it's a threat to the United States or an attack on the United States, the President does not have the authority to do what he did without the support and approval of Congress. President Bush came to Congress before he went into Iraq. President Bush came to Congress before he went into Afghanistan, and that's as it should be. This President should not overstep his boundaries. And what I wish we would do, which would exceed the legislation we're going to be talking about today, is to pass legislation to cut off all funds for Libya. I know it would not pass the Senate, but it sure would send a signal to the President and the White House that we're not going to allow him to go into war without the approval of the American people and the approval of Congress.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Somebody said a while ago we ought to be supporting the Arab Spring because there are movements toward democracy over there. We went into Libya to help in a humanitarian effort and get rid of Muammar Qadhafi, but who are we supporting? Nobody at the White House has come down here and said we're supporting this group of people. We don't know if it's the Muslim Brotherhood, we don't know if it's al Qaeda--now we do know there are al Qaeda operatives that came from Afghanistan fighting with the rebels in Libya; are we supporting al Qaeda? Are we supporting the Muslim Brotherhood? The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has opened up the border--or the Government of Egypt, whatever that is right now--has opened up the border between Egypt and Gaza, which provides a mechanism for weapons to get into Gaza to fire on Israel. So before we start supporting a rebel movement and going after somebody like Qadhafi, we ought to find out who we're for. We're spending billions of dollars before this is over in a war where we don't even know who we're supporting, and it's in violation of the War Powers Act and the Constitution. This is something we should not be doing. The President should have come down here and made his case. He should have said what our goals are. He should have said who we're supporting and why we're supporting them. We are in a war against terrorism. We may very well end up with terrorists controlling Libya and Egypt, and that is a tinderbox that we don't want. We get about 35 percent of our energy from that part of the world, and if all hell breaks loose because we've gone with the wrong guys, we've got a real problem in this country economically. And the President ought to be thinking about all that and making his case to the Congress in accordance with the Constitution and the War Powers Act before he does it.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the people of Hungary whose longstanding commitment to freedom is a testament to the world that freedom and democracy are attainable goals for all people. As Americans, we celebrate with the people of Hungary as they unveil a statue of Ronald Reagan to commemorate his centennial birthday. Hungary is one of America's greatest allies and it warms my heart to know that they rejoice with us in the memory of this hero of freedom. The U.S.-Hungarian friendship is one of our oldest and most enduring. Throughout this relationship, many Hungarians have also stood for the cause of liberty and are worthy of our recognition here in the House of Representatives. A Hungarian by the name of Michael Kovats de Fabriczy volunteered his services to Benjamin Franklin, then the American Ambassador in Paris, during the Revolutionary War. This Hungarian patriot, who was essential in creating America's first cavalry unit, was killed in battle near Charleston, South Carolina. Soon after Fabriczy's death Americans gained their independence; unfortunately, freedom for Hungary and her people would require a much longer fight. A bust of Lajos Kossuth, a politician and journalist who fought for freedom in the 1848 Hungarian Revolution, sits in a vestibule just outside of the crypt of this building. Exiled from Hungary, Kossuth came to America and became just the second foreigner to address a joint session of the United States Congress. An inspiring speaker, Kossuth then traveled across the United States to promote the principle of democratic government. Nearly two hundred years after our own revolution, in 1956, the people of Hungary rose up against communist rule and succeeded in toppling the government before being crushed by Soviet troops. In the face of that defeat, the courageous people of Hungary continued their fight. Victory came in 1989, when Hungary opened its border with the West. Hungary then became the first of the former Soviet bloc countries to transition to a Western-style parliamentary democracy, holding its first free parliamentary elections in 1990. In the last twenty years Hungarians have embraced their freedom. The country privatized its economy, adopted free-market principles and joined both the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In 1999, Hungary acceded to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and formally became a military ally of the United States. In 2004, Hungary acceded to the European Union and for the first six months of this year Hungary held the rotating presidency of the EU Council. In the past three decades, the United States, home to more than 1.5 million Hungarian-Americans, offered Hungary assistance and expertise as the country established a constitutional, democratic political system, and a free market economy. The United States Government provided expert and financial assistance for the development of modern western institutions in Hungary, including those responsible for national security, law enforcement, free media, environmental regulations, education, and health care. With the Iron Curtain lifted, the Support for East European Democracy Act provided more than $136 Million for economic restructuring while the Hungarian-American Enterprise Fund offered loans, equity capital, and technical assistance to promote private-sector development. Most importantly, direct investment from the United States has had a positive impact on the Hungarian economy. The progress of freedom within Hungary has also allowed Hungary to support freedom around the globe. Hungary played a critical role in implementing the Dayton Peace Accords in the Balkans by allowing its airbase at Taszar to be used by coalition forces transiting the region. This support has continued, in 2008, the Hungarian military took command of a joint battalion in the Balkans that operates in support of NATO missions in the region. In 2003, Hungary helped the coalition in Iraq by deploying a 300- strong battalion as part of the Multi-National Force, and by allowing the Taszar airbase again to be used in training the Free Iraqi Forces. In Afghanistan, Hungary leads a Provincial Reconstruction Team and has deployed an Operational Mentoring and Liaison Team, which works in partnership with the Ohio National Guard and other United States military personnel. Perhaps most importantly, Hungary's Papa Airbase is the home to the C-17 operations of the Multinational Strategic Airlift Consortium which supports the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, as well as various U.S., EU and NATO peacekeeping and humanitarian operations around the world. The Hungarian people's longstanding commitment to freedom has allowed Hungary to become a key American ally and an important strategic partner in Europe. Our common commitment to freedom is based on our common belief in the values of democracy, rule of law, diversity, tolerance, and social mobility. I call on all Hungarians and Americans to continue to uphold these values as our countries continue to work closely to advance freedom across the globe.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take all of the time that is allocated for my Special Order tonight, but I did want to talk about the problem that we are facing in Libya right now. The President of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to be the Commander in Chief in the event that we have to go into a military conflict. What the President does not have the right to do is to take us into a military conflict without consulting with the Congress of the United States, unless there is an imminent threat to the United States or an attack on the United States. The Constitution is pretty clear on this subject. Unfortunately, during the Nixon administration there was some question about whether or not President Nixon exceeded his authority, so the Congress of the United States passed what was called the War Powers Act. The War Powers Act was designed to clarify very clearly for President Nixon and all future presidents the authority granted them under the Constitution in the event that there was to be a conflict. The President vetoed that bill because he thought it was an infringement. I am talking about President Nixon now. He vetoed that bill because he thought it was an infringement of the constitutional powers of the President. The Congress overwhelmingly overrode the President's veto, and so the War Powers Act became law. Now, there has been a lot of question from some of my colleagues about the constitutionality of the War Powers Act. I have heard some of my friends in the other body say it is not constitutional. I have heard friends of mine within the House of Representatives say that the War Powers Act is not constitutional. The fact of the matter is it has never been tested in court. It has never gone to the U.S. Supreme Court and, as a result, the War Powers Act is the law of the land. It is the law of the United States of America, and it is intended, as I said before, to clarify the constitutional powers of the President of the United States where war is concerned. Now, the President of the United States, Mr. Obama, decided that we ought to go into Libya for humanitarian purposes. There is nothing in the Constitution or the War Powers Act that gives him the authority to do that unless he has the express approval and support of the Congress of the United States. When President Bush was the President and he went into Iraq, he first consulted with the Congress. When he went into Afghanistan, he first consulted with Congress. But President Obama said because of the time elements and the time concerns about the humanitarian problems in Libya, that he had to act expeditiously, and he did not have the time to consult with Congress. Well, for 2 weeks or thereabouts he had time to consult with the French, the English, the United Nations, NATO, and the Arab league, but he did not have the time to come and talk to the Congress of the United States. So I think that was a red herring. I think the President did have the time, but he chose to move of his own volition into Libya and to put the United States in effect at war again. They say it is not a war, but it is a war. They said it was a NATO operation, but if you look at the facts, you find that the United States is carrying the vast amount of the burden of this war. Let me give you some figures. These figures are a couple of weeks old, so they could be a little outdated. First of all, of the number of personnel that has been involved in the Libyan conflict, there are about almost 13,000 military personnel that have been involved. Of that 13,000, 8,500 of them are American military. That is over two-thirds. When you talk about the number of aircraft involved, there is a total of 309, but 153 of those aircraft are United States aircraft. When you talk about the number of sorties being flown, that is, military actions taken by aircraft, there have been 5,857 sorties, and over 2,000 of those are with American pilots and American planes. That is almost 35 percent. Then when you talk about the number of cruise missiles that have been fired, the total is about 246, and of the 246, over 90 percent are America's, 228. So the President has taken us into war in Libya for humanitarian purposes, he said, without consulting with the Congress of the United States, which in my opinion is a direct violation of the Constitution of the United States and the War Powers Act, and we have spent well over $1 billion conducting this war. They say it is NATO's war. We heard the other day that our NATO allies are running short on ammunition and other military equipment, and they are asking the United States to shoulder more of the burden. One of my colleagues from Virginia, who sits in the Chair tonight, brought up today that many of the countries in Europe, many of the countries in NATO haven't been paying their fair share of the NATO burden, and it has been falling upon the United States to carry out these NATO operations. That just isn't right. So this isn't a NATO war, in my opinion. This is an American war, and the President has taken us into this conflict without any consultation with the Congress of the United States. We have talked about this in our conference, and I won't go into all the details of our conference because I think some of that, if not classified, is something that shouldn't be talked about in the public domain. But what I would say tonight is that we need to send a very strong message to the President that we don't want him to do this again. Many, myself included, believe we ought to give him a timeline within which to withdraw forces from Libya. I am talking about the people flying the military aircraft, the people on the ships offshore, the classified security people that are inside Libya. They say there are no boots on the ground. I guarantee you there are intelligence officers on the ground directing some of the fire from the air and some of the missile targets. The cruise missiles that are costing over $1 million per copy, we shouldn't be paying for those with taxpayer money to the tune of, I don't know how many million, but over $1 billion total for the military expenditures, at a time when this country is $1.5 trillion short this fiscal year in money to pay for the country's expenses and over $14 trillion in debt. This is not the time during the history of the United States that we ought to be looking for a war. There is no question probably that there are humanitarian problems in Libya, but there are also humanitarian problems in the Ivory Coast and Syria and many other countries, and if you are looking for a war of opportunity, I am sure the President can find a lot of places to send our troops. But the Congress of the United States I do not believe would have given him the authority to go into Libya unless it was a direct threat to the United States. So what did he do? He did it without consulting with Congress; not the Senate, not the House, not with any of us. Now that we are in there, many people in the Congress feel like we can't summarily withdraw because we will be leaving our allies, the French and the English and others in NATO there, to carry the ball. But as one of my colleagues said today, when we take the oath of allegiance to the Constitution, we don't take the oath of allegiance to NATO. We don't take the oath of allegiance to any other country. It is to the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution says the President does not have the authority to declare war and go into a combat situation without consulting with Congress. I am very confident that all of the people in this country, if consulted, would overwhelmingly say the President should not have done that, and he didn't have the authority to do that. Now, I know tomorrow or Friday we are going to have some legislation on the floor that will say very clearly to the President that not only he shouldn't have done that, that it wasn't constitutional, but that he shouldn't do it again. That is the thing that I am concerned about. The legislation that we are going to have on the floor will confront the President on his ability or his authority to go ahead and do what he did in Libya, but it doesn't say anything about any future expeditions that he may want to undertake. I really hope that during the debate that takes place tomorrow or on Friday that we make it very clear to the White House and to the President and to anybody at the White House that may be listening to this Special Order tonight that we do not want the President--and if I were talking to him, I would say, Mr. President, we do not want you to take us into a military conflict without consulting with the Congress and without consulting with the American people because the American people and Congress have a right to be involved in the decisionmaking process. Once a war is started, you're the Commander in Chief and you must do whatever has to be done to win that conflict. But you do not have the authority, Mr. President, if I were talking to him, under the Constitution or the War Powers Act. And Friday or tomorrow we need to make that very clear to him so that he doesn't do it again. There are problems right now in Syria, and a lot of people say there's humanitarian tragedies that are taking place. But that is not a direct threat to the United States. It's not an attack on the United States. And the Congress of the United States should be involved in the decisionmaking process if we were to do something like go into Syria. And so I hope the President and the White House is getting this message tonight. They may say, Well, that's just Dan Burton talking on the floor in a Special Order. But I have talked to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I think overwhelmingly they do not agree with what the President has done; and overwhelmingly in the Senate I don't believe they support what the President has done in Libya. And I think very clearly they don't want this to happen again. I believe that most of the Members of both the House and the Senate would like to see us extricate ourselves from Libya as quickly as possible. With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to say that I have a letter to the editor that I wrote that was in The Wall Street Journal that I will put in the Record, as well as the statistical data that I just mentioned. [From the Wall Street Journal, June 11, 2011] The GOP Is Right To Challenge Obama on War in Libya I am disappointed by your editorial ``The Kucinich Republicans'' (June 6) questioning the House of Representatives's rebuke of President Obama's actions in Libya. I cannot speak for my colleagues, but my opposition to President Obama's actions is motivated by the Constitution. President Obama has the authority to manage a war but not the power to start a war. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, and the War Powers Resolution was enacted to fulfill that intent, unless there is: ``(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.'' None of these conditions existed with Libya. Instead, the president argues he couldn't consult with Congress because immediate action was needed to protect civilians from massacre. If true, a surgical engagement in Libya might be justified. But the president's claim is false. He spent one month consulting with NATO, the Arab League and the U.N. Security Council. This fact is inescapable. The president sought permission from foreign leaders but not the U.S. Congress. Yet Congress is expected to pay for his folly even as we strive to cut spending to avoid defaulting on debts. On September 11, 2001, our nation was attacked. President George W. Bush still sought authorization from Congress before going into Afghanistan. Similarly, President Bush sought congressional authorization before invading Iraq. President Bush respected the authority of Congress and the limitations of the Constitution. President Obama does not. The Constitution is not a list of suggestions; it is the law of the land. If members of Congress do not stand up for Congress's right to declare war, as enumerated in the Constitution, who will? Rep. Dan Burton (R., Ind.), Indianapolis.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me just say to the gentlelady that this is an emotional issue, and those of us who do not agree with you feel strongly about it. Now, I believe, if you put that amendment in, it could very well jeopardize the ag bill. I don't think you want to do that, so I hope you will reconsider withdrawing this amendment. In committee, your amendment was defeated. There are a lot of people in this country who feel very strongly on both sides of this issue, but the American public, whether or not you agree with them, feels very strongly, as Mr. Moran said, so I hope you will change your mind. Regarding some of the things I've heard about these horses starving to death on the plains and everything--and I was not going to speak on this--there are a number of people in this country who are willing to put up millions and millions of dollars. In fact, I know some of them. They have bought ranches and want to take these wild horses and put them into an area where they will be safe, where they will be protected, where they will be cared for. We are talking about, in addition to the ranches, maybe another 600,000 or 700,000 acres that would be used for these horses and for them to be able to survive. If you have ever looked at the way they transport these horses to slaughter, they cram 20 horses into a truck that's built for 10. They don't feed them. They don't water them properly. And those horses are so mistreated, it's unbelievable, when they go to slaughter. And that's why they close these slaughterhouses. In addition, you ought to see what they do in these slaughterhouses for these horses. They hang them up by a hook while they're still alive and they're squealing, and they kill them in a very inhumane way. I am not for changing our agricultural attitudes in this country. We have to have the slaughter of pigs and cows and chickens and that sort of thing. So a lot of times people say if we're against horse slaughter, we want to do something to hurt the agriculture community. That couldn't be further from the truth. We just want to make sure that these animals are treated in a humane way, number one, and, number two, that the American taxpayer is not paying for the French to get horse meat. So let me just say to the lady one more time, I sincerely hope that she will reconsider. We have a disagreement. I hope you will reconsider and withdraw this amendment because I don't think something of this emotional status should impede or impair something as important as the ag bill. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chair, more than 2 years ago, Democrats claimed that their trillion dollar stimulus package would keep unemployment below 8 percent, and we know now it is above 9 percent. Recently, the CBO released their annual budget and economic outlook report which projects the 2011 deficit will reach $1.48 trillion and our national debt, as everybody knows, is over $14 trillion. We are borrowing nearly 42 cents of every dollar we spend, much of it from the Chinese, and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren. Every child born today owes $45,500 to the debt. For the past few years, the American people have been told that government spending is the answer. They had their chance to prove this economic model, but it failed. It is time we changed our approach, because our country has a spending problem and not a revenue problem. Debt by the public is estimated to increase to 94 percent over the next 10 years. Over 10 years, the annual government spending will consume an average of 23.5 percent of GDP, which is significantly higher than the post-World War II average of 20 percent. In a 2010 article for the Cato Policy Report, economists Jason Taylor and Richard Vedder outlined the lessons of the largest public sector drawdown in our country's history--the cuts to government spending after World War II. Taylor and Vedder point out that the Federal spending fell from $84 billion in 1945 to $30 billion in 1946, a reduction of more than 60 percent. The point is that despite these warnings from economists that this withdrawal of Keynesian stimulus would sure lead to a second Great Depression, civilian employment grew by over 4 million between 1945 and 1947, with unemployment remaining under 4\1/2\ percent in the first three postwar years. The postwar era provides a classic illustration of how government spending ``crowds out'' private sector spending and how the economy can thrive when government's shadow is dramatically reduced. The lesson from the 1945-1947 era is that a sharp reduction in government spending frees up assets for productive use and leads to renewed growth. When spending is slated to reach an all-time high of $3.7 trillion this year and we're living through the weakest jobs recovery since the Great Depression, it's time to get our fiscal house in order. Vigorous and sustained economic growth, fueled by investment and entrepreneurship, is needed for the private sector to create more jobs and increase incomes of the poor. In turn, this will generate the revenues that governments need to expand access to health, education, and infrastructure services and help improve productivity. Spending cuts work; tax increases don't. Despite the evidence, many liberals continue to call for more spending, more taxing, and red tape.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chair, I don't know how old my colleague is who just spoke, but Lyndon Johnson worked very hard to pass what was called the Great Society. And when he passed the Great Society, he said we're going to do away with hunger, we're going to do away with poor people, we're going to do away with all the problems facing mankind in the United States. And what happened? Things are worse now than they've ever been with all these social programs. I just spoke a couple of minutes ago about what happened after World War II. In 1945 the spending was $84 billion. In 1946 it dropped 60 percent to $30 billion. So a 60 percent reduction in spending, but it freed up money for the private sector, and as a result, in the next 2 years there were 4\1/2\ million new jobs. All these giveaway programs and all these programs that you guys talk about indicating that we don't care about seniors, we don't care about kids, we don't care about anybody, we're heartless, the fact of the matter is the thing that's heartless is 9.1 percent unemployment. The President, when he took office, said he was going to keep it under 8 percent. It's 9.1 and it's going up, not down. The economic figures we see today are terrible. Yet you want to continue to just keep spending money and spending money and spending money. What we need to do is we need to cut spending. We need to cut taxes so people will have more disposable income. We need to cut business taxes so that business has more money to invest so they'll create jobs and create plants and equipment. But, no, you want to just keep spending on these programs and don't want to make any cuts. Spending is out of control. The shortfall this year is going to be over $1.46 trillion. We don't have the money. The national debt is over $14 trillion right now, and it's going to get worse over the next 10 years by about a trillion dollars a year. And yet every time we come down here and want to cut spending, you start saying we don't care about the poor, we don't care about the kids, we don't care about seniors. And then you see ads on TV with the little old lady's foot dragging as we throw her over the cliff. What kind of nonsense is that? If we don't get our fiscal house in order, we're all going over a cliff. This country is in terrible fiscal shape right now, and we have to get control of spending. And it really bothers me every time I come down here and I hear you guys talking about we don't care about the children, we don't care about the seniors, we don't care about anybody. What we care about is jobs and creating an economy that's growing so that we can once again become the great economic power of the world. But everything that's going on with this administration and everything that you guys keep advocating is putting us more and more in the tank. And let me tell you something: The American people get it. And if you don't think they get it, look at what happened in the last election. People are tired of the spending, tired of the runaway, giveaway programs. They want jobs that will create a growing economy. And we're not going to get it with more and more spending. Keynesian economics, socialistic approaches to government do not work. Free enterprise does. And once again I want you to listen to these statistics: After 1945 we increased jobs by 4\1/2\ million. At the same time we cut spending by 60 percent because we freed up the free enterprise system. That's what we ought to be doing right now if we're going to lower unemployment and get this economy back on track. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. These ideas won't solve the problem; they are the problem. Washington needs to stop creating uncertainty and get out of the way. I commend the Appropriations Committee, Chairman Rogers, and Chairman Kingston for crafting a bill that's $5.041 billion, or 22.6 percent less than the President's fiscal year 2012 budget request, and $2.672 billion, or 13.4 percent less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. However, I believe the financial catastrophe facing our Nation requires us to do even more, and so I hope my colleagues will realize this and do what is necessary to get our fiscal house in order.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman from Georgia's amendment to cut $20.9 million from the Department of Agriculture's Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments account and redirect those funds for deficit reduction. I commend the Appropriations Committee, Chairman Rogers and Chairman Kingston for crafting a bill that is $5.041 billion or 22.6 percent less than the President's FY 2012 budget request, and $2.672 billion or 13.4 percent less than the FY 2011 enacted level. However, I believe the financial catastrophe facing our Nation today requires us to do even more. Recently, the CBO released their annual Budget and Economic Outlook report which projects that the FY 2011 deficit will reach an all time record high of $1.48 trillion; the third year in a row our Nation's budget deficit has exceeded $1 trillion. Our national debt is a staggering $14.2 trillion, almost more than our entire economy. We are borrowing nearly 42 cents of every dollar we spend, much of it from the Chinese, and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren. Every child born today already owes $45,500 in debt they didn't create. Now, more than ever, it is clear that we must be bold and take the steps necessary to tackle the unprecedented deficits and debt facing our country and get our economy moving again. I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to work together on this bill to cut spending where we can, get our fiscal house in order, and protect the American Dream for our future generations. In light of the looming and ever growing Federal deficit, an amendment like this is simply common sense. It merely cuts $20.9 million a modest cut of only 10 percent; a very measured step that reduces spending without threatening the mission of the Department of Agriculture. Our country has a spending problem--not a revenue problem; support the Broun Amendment.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me say that this is not a partisan issue. I hear a lot of partisan rhetoric, but it is not a partisan issue. This is an issue about where we deploy troops, who has the authority to do it and whether or not what the President has done is constitutional. I will probably support both resolutions, but one of the concerns I have about the Speaker's resolution is that it says the President shall not deploy, establish or maintain the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya. Most of our wars that we fight now are fought from the air or from battleships. We've had about 250 missiles fired in Libya, and about 226 of them are American. We've spent almost three-quarters of $1 billion already, and it probably will go over $1 billion. ``Boots on the ground'' says that we're not going to put troops into Libya, but we've got ships offshore; we've got planes in the air; we've got airmen who are at risk every single day; and we're committing military forces in Libya even though we don't have boots on the ground. This goes further than boots on the ground. The President does not have the constitutional authority to do what he did. Now, I think that the Boehner resolution is a good step in the right direction, except for one thing: it limits it to no boots on the ground. We shouldn't have any troops over there. This was not approved by Congress, by the people. It was approved by the Arab League. It was approved by the United Nations. It was approved by the French and English, but not the American people. And it's costing billions of dollars, or will cost billions of dollars. This is something that should not have happened, and it should never happen again. Now, if we limit this to boots on the ground, what if the President decides in a week, while we're out on recess, to go into Syria. And they say, well, it says no boots on the ground. He could still attack Syria, Assad there in Syria, with airplanes and missiles. We must stop this President from making unilateral decisions that the American people do not support and the Congress of the United States does not support.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me just say that the Constitution of the United States and the War Powers Act prohibit the President from doing what he did. And I'm kind of torn because I stayed up late last night thinking about this whole issue. I believe that we shouldn't have gone into Libya in the first place, and we certainly shouldn't go into Syria or another place without the authorization of the Congress of the United States. And that's the reason why I cosponsored the Kucinich resolution, because we have to send a very strong signal that we're not going to go to war without the people of this country supporting it. And the President did this unilaterally after talking to the Arab League and the U.N. and others without the consent of the people of this country. That's the first thing. The second thing is the Boehner resolution I'm going to support, but it doesn't go far enough. As far as it goes, it's fine. But it talks only about boots on the ground. Most of the wars in which we've been involved are fought in the air with drones, missiles and airplanes. And about two-thirds of the missiles and over half of the sorties flown by the airplanes that are involved in this war, over two-thirds of those are used by the United States. This is an American conflict. And so when we talk about boots on the ground, that's not sufficient. Now, I'm going to support it as far as it goes because the Speaker is trying to move this in the right direction, but we shouldn't just limit this to boots on the ground. It should involve no military operation whatsoever without the consent of the Congress and the people of this country. And when the Speaker says boots on the ground only, unless we are going in to save one of our troops that are downed in an air fight or shot down when they go in on a bombing run, then that, in effect, is putting boots on the ground anyhow to get those people out of there. So, I will support the Boehner resolution, but I prefer the Kucinich resolution because it sends a very strong signal and tells the President, in no uncertain terms, that he cannot take us to war without the consent of the people of this country.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding. I want to start off by saying this is not a partisan issue. I am very happy to cosponsor this legislation because it's the only legislation we are discussing today that has teeth in it. It really deals with the problem. Now, Qadhafi is a bad guy and he ought to be replaced. There are a lot of tyrants around the world that ought to be replaced. But should the United States go to war any place we want to to get rid of a bad guy unless it's in our national interest, or unless we're at risk, or unless there's been a declaration of war? No. We could go to war anyplace we want to if we just say this guy's a bad guy and he's killing his own people. We could do it in Syria, we could do in Ivory Coast, we could do it all over the place. But the Congress of the United States is the body that's supposed to be consulted by the President before we go to war. The President did not do this. We are contributing about two-thirds, or at least half of the war effort. It's cost over $700 million, and it will be over $1 billion before it's all over. And the President has taken us into this conflict without the authority of the Congress, without the support of the Congress. He did get the Arab League, he did get the United Nations. He did talk to the French and the English. But he didn't talk to the people's House, the Congress of the United States. And the President did not have the authority do this. Now, the reason I support the Kucinich resolution is it sends a clear message to the White House they cannot do this again. They cannot unilaterally go into Syria or the Ivory Coast or anyplace else without talking to the Congress that represents the people all across this country. The President should not have done this. And the only legislation that really deals with the problem today is the Kucinich resolution, which I cosponsored. I am a coauthor of it. Now, I am going to vote for the Boehner resolution because it does send a signal. But it does not solve the problem. The only way to solve the problem is to let the President know he cannot, should not, and will not be able to do this again.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I was disturbed this morning when I was watching the news and I saw the President with the Prime Minister having a press conference in England and the President, in his comments, indicated that we are in a war and we're going to be all together to win this war in Libya. As far as I know, the Congress of the United States has not declared war. We have not been really consulted about Libya. Yet we're spending probably a couple billion dollars over there right now. And with the President's remarks, you might wonder if we're going to have boots on the ground and be involved not only in the Middle East but now over in Libya. We don't have the money to do that nor has Congress been consulted. Section 3 of the War Powers Act says: ``The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities.'' He ``shall.'' He didn't. And we ought to be very concerned about that, whether we're Democrats or Republicans. The power to go to war must be vested in the Congress of the United States. Not just the President but the Congress. He is not a king; he's a President. And we must make sure that Congress is involved in the decisionmaking process.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts raised an issue just a minute ago that he said we should be discussing regarding the War Powers Act. And I certainly agree with him. I would just like to inform him that right now the Foreign Affairs Committee is holding hearings on a number of pieces of legislation that will deal with and refine the War Powers Act, and hopefully correct some of the loopholes that are in it so that Congress is included in the loop. So I would just like to inform him of that, because although I would like to see this in this particular legislation that we are talking about and discuss this in some detail, I think the hearings that are going on right now will go into in depth the problems that we face with that bill. The one thing that I would say is that I think we all agree, Democrats and Republicans alike, that this body and the other body ought to be involved in the decisionmaking process before we go into any conflict. And this issue of Libya is a perfect example of where the executive branch has run away from the Congress without consulting with us. And that's something that should never happen in the future, especially when we are risking American lives and American money.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, President Obama's recent speech on the Middle East turmoil was billed as a ``reset'' of America's relationship with the Arab world. We were promised a new era of American diplomacy. Instead, what we got was the same-old failed policies of throwing money at a problem, which could end up having a detrimental effect on our friend and ally, Israel. President Obama is supporting movements in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and Syria while at the same time he is in effect telling Israel ``you're on your own.'' The President with our tax dollars is supporting who? We don't know! Will it be the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or radical Islamists in Libya, Syria, or Tunisia? And, what about Bahrain or Yemen? Israel is our greatest ally in the Middle East yet President Obama is urging a Palestinian State; one that governs in partnership with a known terrorist, Israel-hating group--Hamas. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, by choosing to partner in government with Hamas, has proven he has no desire for peace with Israel. President Obama's endorsement of the Palestinian demand for their own State based on the pre-1967 borders completely reverses our longstanding policy that borders must be determined through negotiations and puts our relationship with Israel in peril. The Palestinians have been conducting a diplomatic campaign to portray Israel as a renegade, pariah State flouting the will of the international community, in prelude to demanding that the United Nations General Assembly unilaterally recognize a Palestinian State based on the 1967 borders. By essentially announcing his support of that proposal, President Obama has made that action very likely. The President, in his speech, espoused policy changes that will lead to more problems for Israel, while he leaves them on their own. Buried toward the end of the President's speech was a statement that challenges the current U.S.-Israel security alliance. The President said, ``As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself--by itself-- against any threat.'' It appears as though the President--either intentionally or unintentionally--is throwing Israel to the wolves. A statement like that gives encouragement to those who seek Israel's destruction and could serve as a spark for continued unrest in the Middle East. It is the wrong message to send and it is my hope that the President will reassess his ill-advised position and acknowledge this reality before it is too late.