Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the future of Taiwan. I have been a long-time supporter of Taiwan and hope that my colleagues and I will continue to improve relations not only between the United States and Taiwan but between Taiwan and the international community. All Americans should be proud that Taiwan and the United States have enjoyed a strong and durable relationship. Taiwan is one of our largest trading partners and the cultural exchanges between our two peoples are as vibrant as they have ever been. Taiwan has stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States to combat the scourge of global terrorism; and the people of Taiwan have always given generously in our greatest times of need with monetary contributions to the Twin Towers Fund, Pentagon Memorial Fund and through offer of humanitarian assistance to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Taiwan and the United States are not merely allies; we are friends and partners in the truest sense of the words. But, I think it would be fair to say that Taiwan's future is uncertain. Just yesterday, Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou took part in a video conference with the Center for Strategic and International Studies to discuss Taiwan's vision for the future of the Republic of China's National Security. I include a copy of President Ma Ying-jeou's speech into the Congressional Record. And I urge my colleagues to read the remarks because whatever the future holds of Taiwan, I believe that the people of Taiwan deserve to have a voice in shaping that future. Building National Security for the Republic of China President Hamre, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, good morning! It gives me great pleasure to be addressing my friends at the Center for Strategic and International Studies once again. We last met two years ago on the occasion of the 30th Anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act, a milestone in the history of the Republic of China on Taiwan. And this year, after a long journey of blood, toil, tears and sweat, the Republic of China is achieving a greater milestone, its centennial anniversary. This year also marks the third year of my presidency. Therefore, it is time I shared with you how I am building three lines of defense for the ROC's national security, so as to ensure its longevity for many more centuries to come. These three lines of defense are institutionalizing the Cross-Strait rapprochement, enhancing Taiwan's contributions to international development and aligning defense with diplomacy. The First Line of Defense: Institutionalizing the Cross-Strait Rapprochement The Cross-Strait rapprochement that began three years ago continues to bear fruit and increase regional peace and stability. We witness this in so many aspects of our society. The arrival of nearly three million mainland Chinese visitors has created a tourism boom in Taiwan almost 10 times than before. The increase in Cross-Strait trade also boosted Taiwan's total trade volume to a record high of 526 billion US dollars in 2010. Since the Cross-Strait Judicial Mutual Assistance Agreement was signed in 2009, a joint crackdown on Cross-Strait crimes by the police forces of both Taiwan and mainland China has seen more than 100 fugitives repatriated to Taiwan, up 50% from before, and has cut cases of fraud in Taiwan by more than a quarter. And in education, more than 5,600 mainland exchange students studied in Taiwan's universities in 2010, paving the way for another 2,000 students to arrive in the fall semester this year. We have also seen a surge in Taiwanese companies with a heavy investment presence in mainland China returning to list their companies on the Taiwan Stock Exchange, rather than on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, a dramatic reversal of previous practices. I owe much of my administration's success to our new approach to Cross-Strait relations. The new way of thinking revolves around moving beyond the outdated mode of unilateralism that previously characterized, and also hindered, relations between the two sides. As the renowned diplomatic historian Paul Schroeder concluded in his study of the events that led up to the Congress of Vienna peace era, ``One must have change of thought, before one can have change of action.'' Before I came to office, we had all witnessed the spread of instability, unpredictability and especially insecurity in Cross-Strait relations. I had long recognized that Cross- Strait relations required a new mindset, one that would emphasize the commonalities, take advantage of our shared interests, capitalize on our mutual opportunities and de- emphasize our political disagreements. Former KMT Chairman Lien Chan undertook some of the first steps towards instilling this new mindset when he embarked on his ``Journey of Peace'' to the mainland in 2005. His speech at Peking University, calling for the two sides to join together to ``beat swords into plowshares,'' captured the essence of this new idea. The decades-old rivalry between Taiwan and mainland China was thus given a rare window of opportunity for change. After I came to office in 2008, I worked hard to accelerate this change. All around me, the world was changing at breakneck speed while the ill-founded policies of the last decade were threatening to sideline Taiwan in the Asia- Pacific region. I knew I had to break out of the Cross-Strait deadlock for the sake of Taiwan's economic future and national security. Hence, I championed a ``three-no'' policy of ``no unification, no independence, and no use of force'' under the ROC Constitution. This has changed the fundamental structure of, and created a ``virtuous cycle'' for, Cross- Strait relations. I then adopted the ``92 Consensus'' as the cornerstone for the Cross-Strait negotiations. The 92 Consensus, meaning ``one China, respective interpretations'', has proven crucial to paving the way forward. It was under this Consensus that the six rounds of Chiang-Chen Talks were able to take place, and the two sides were able to achieve so many practical, indeed incredible, breakthroughs. By ``putting Taiwan first for the benefit of the people,'' we and Beijing have thus far signed 15 agreements that tackle the issues of greatest concern to the people in Taiwan. At the same time, my administration managed to institutionalize convenient, predictable and stable channels for Cross-Strait communications. It was only through this groundwork that the next milestone--of signing an Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) last year--could be realized and its benefits fully exercised. One econometric study has even shown that the ECFA will eventually add 4.4% to our GDP, once the dynamic gains of structural adjustments have time to be fully implemented. And that is not even including other potential spillover benefits as a result of an improved services, trade and investment environment. It is also my belief that increased exchanges across the Strait will lead to increased exchanges with other countries, for both sides. This will enhance mutual understanding between Taiwan, the mainland and other countries, which will in turn help Cross-Strait relations evolve even further. That is, the virtuous cycle in Cross-Strait relations has positive consequences for the international community, which then adds even greater momentum to improvements in Cross-Strait relations. For example, due to the diplomatic truce between the two sides of the Strait, the number of diplomatic allies that Taiwan has remained constant at 23, compared to a loss of six allies by the previous administration. Taiwan has also joined the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) and become an observer in the World Health Assembly (WHA) after a hiatus of 38 years. Taiwan has expanded its visa waiver programs from 53 to 113 countries and regions--with the United States as a notable exception, as well as working-holiday arrangements for young people from 2 to 6 countries. This just shows what can be achieved by merely changing the way one thinks. This I believe is also the essence of good governance: never to interfere, but to build the necessary structures that encourage the right conditions for growth in society. And it is through this process of institutionalization that we created explicit or implicit principles, norms, rules, and procedures around which the expectations of both sides can converge. This very convergence has created predictability and mutual understanding in our relations, leading to stability across the Taiwan Strait and in the region as a whole. The idea of institutionalizing the Cross-Strait rapprochement, therefore, is not only to reduce the possibility of miscalculation but, more importantly, to increase the cost of reversing this trend. The Second Line of Defense: Enhancing Taiwan's Contributions to International Development Although the incredible breakthroughs achieved in Cross- Strait relations have ensured a brighter future for Taiwan and the region, Taiwan's national security is also heavily dependent on how it contributes to the international community. I envision Taiwan contributing on two primary fronts: the economy, and foreign relations. In terms of the economy, Taiwan already has the infrastructure and conditions in place to attract the best talent and become East Asia's next commercial center. Without a doubt, the expansive business and personal networks Taiwan has built up throughout the region over the last 60 years are an invaluable asset. Its historical ties and cultural and language affinity with the mainland give it a competitive edge in the vast Chinese mainland market. At the same time, Taiwan also has a special partnership with Japan, as we share many cultural traits, common interests, ideas and even the same fashion sense. Therefore, many Japanese and Taiwanese businessmen have decided to work together to enter the mainland Chinese market. And this type of win-win partnership can be successfully repeated with other countries. Taiwan is located at the geographical center of East Asia, and could not be in a better position for tapping into business opportunities in the region. Any businessman or multinational company based in Taiwan has convenient access to the whole Asia-Pacific region. With direct air and sea links, Taiwan is connected to all major cities in the Chinese mainland, from the coastal metropolises of Shanghai and Beijing, to the fast developing cities in the Chinese hinterlands. At the same time, all other major cities in the region--such as Tokyo, Seoul, Singapore, New Dehli, or Sydney--are well within reach. Taiwan is also endowed with many ``soft-power'' attributes that make it an ideal place for both domestic and multinational companies. Its democracy and rule of law ensure that the rights of individuals and companies, including intellectual property rights, are guaranteed. The country's modern and comprehensive transportation, healthcare and education infrastructure ensures that those who live here enjoy access to very good quality services. We also have a highly educated, innovative and skilled labor force just waiting for foreign companies to tap into. We have created an enviably safe society where anyone out at night walking their dogs or buying food at the grocery store can feel safe. And improvements are happening all the time, making our society a better place to live and do business in. Against a backdrop of stable Cross-Strait relations, Taiwan's regional connections, geographic advantages and soft-power attributes make it poised to ride the next wave of opportunities in the region, and to help others do the same if they choose to join us. With respect to foreign relations, there is also a lot of value that Taiwan can add to the global community. And as a maturing democracy, I believe Taiwan must learn to fully shoulder its own responsibilities in the world. In fact, Taiwan's national security is inseparably tied to its role as a responsible stakeholder. Our nation's political and economic survival depends entirely on how well we uphold the peace and stability of the international system. This is the same system that is making Taiwan prosperous, and allowing our government and people to connect with the rest of the world in ways that are enriching our nation even further. So, Taiwan certainly has a vested interest in putting a stop to improper diplomatic practices and in adopting a foreign aid policy that is more in line with international standards and norms. This is exactly what we have been doing over the last three years. Humanitarian work has especially become an important platform for Taiwan's contributions to the international community. Taiwan's democracy and economic prosperity have combined to give rise, to a vibrant society of numerous non-profit organizations. In almost every major disaster that has occurred in the world recently, Taiwan has been an important contributor, whether providing financial aid to help rebuild homes in Sichuan, or giving life- sustaining medical aid to Haitian children. We were also one of the first to arrive with emergency relief supplies and rescue teams when Japan was struck by the triple disaster of an earthquake, tsunami and nuclear incident. Deeply saddened by the devastation, my wife and I were personally on hand to answer calls from donors at a major fundraiser in Taiwan last March. An equivalent of 27 million US dollars was raised that night. My administration had also pledged another 3 million US dollars. In fact, Taiwan ended up donating more than 200 million US dollars in total, which is Japan's biggest donor so far. But, as you may know, our humanitarian contributions in that crisis extended beyond Japan. Our China Airlines was chartered to help fly out scores of US expatriates to Taipei before they headed back home to the United States. This second defense line aims to give Taiwan a higher moral ground in international politics. The Third Line of Defense: Aligning Taiwan's Defense with Diplomacy From securing the Cross-Strait rapprochement to enhancing Taiwan's contributions in international development, I now come to the last but equally significant part of the ROC's national security: aligning Taiwan's defense with diplomacy. I have two priorities. First, I want to continue to build up Taiwan's credibility and trust with our closest allies, especially the United States. To be a trustworthy partner, Taiwan must be keenly aware of how its actions in the international system affect the interests of the big powers. This means ``never rocking the boat'' and ``full consultation.'' Second, Taiwan has the resolve to defend itself. My administration wants to enhance Taiwan's defense capability on a newly designed volunteer military system. This is a huge undertaking, as we need to overcome difficulties in training, organization, finance and military doctrines. However, we are confident that we will succeed in building a small but strong military force. Complementary to our defense capability is Taiwan's democratic values, rule of law, and an advanced civil society, which could make Taiwan an indispensable reference for socio-economic development in the Chinese mainland. This is, it could be said, a soft-power approach to national defense. Given the high stakes that America has invested in the region, I am sure the US, of all countries, can appreciate my administration's commitment to being a responsible stakeholder. For example, President Barack Obama expressed earlier this year his support for the progress that has been made to reduce Cross-Strait tensions, and in particular how its continuation will be in the interests of the region and the United States. However, for Cross-Strait relations to continue advancing, the US must help Taiwan level the playing field. Negotiating with a giant like the Chinese mainland is not without its risks. The right leverage must be in place, otherwise Taiwan cannot credibly maintain an equal footing at the negotiation table. This is why I continue to urge the US to provide Taiwan with necessary defensive weaponry, such as the F-16 C/Ds and diesel-powered submarines, to keep its aerial and naval integrity intact, which is key to maintaining a credible defense. As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wrote in Foreign Affairs last year, the US can best help itself by ``helping others defend themselves.'' At the same time, American presence in the very system it helped create decades ago is crucial to that system's survival. In the end, only a strong US commitment, backed by its credibility in East Asia, can guarantee the peace and stability of this region. Concluding remarks In conclusion, a country's overall strategy for security requires a sound political foundation in the domestic setting. My approach to Taiwan's national security is based on my administration's unwavering identification with the Republic of China and its Constitution. This is a common denominator for our vibrant democracy, which has a wide spectrum of political views ranging from those who prefer de jure Taiwan independence, to those who enjoy the status quo and to those who favor reunification with mainland China. Any deviation from or equivocation on this common denominator will only cause unnecessary uncertainties and risks in Taiwan's domestic politics, Cross-Strait relations and international politics. Given that the stakes for all the countries in East Asia and for Taiwan's future development are high, I am confident my approach to the ROC's national security is already at an optimum. My friends in America, the future of the region holds enormous opportunities, but also many potential pitfalls. Changes in both Taiwan and the mainland's domestic politics could derail much of what has been achieved. Intransigence, overconfidence or unilateral pursuit of national interests could lead to a losing scenario for all relevant parties. So it will be essential to keep track of these moving pieces in the future. For my part, the process of transforming Taiwan into a valuable member of the global community, and thus ultimately enhancing its own security, will continue full- steam ahead under my administration. The same-old ``no frills, no surprise''diplomacy will also continue to be the operational code for my administration's conduct of foreign policy. That said, I hope this year will mark the start of a new 100 years that will be known as the century when the Taiwan-US partnership achieved its greatest accomplishments. Thank you! President Ma's Closing Remarks Dear friends and colleagues, as the famous American poet Robert Frost once wrote, ``I took the road less travelled by, and that has made all the difference.'' The past three years have witnessed unprecedented breakthroughs and positive developments in Taiwan and the region. Yet for the road ahead, we still need to be patient and careful in our political rhetoric, in the signals we send, in the gestures we make, and in the reputation we cultivate. I draw reassurance from the positive developments that continue to unfold across the Strait and in the international community, and I have full confidence in my administration's roadmap. On a deeper level the improvement of Cross-Strait relations in the past three years reflects the result of something fundamentally more significant: the comprehensive overhaul of Taiwan's strategic approach to the world. An approach that has coupled Cross-Strait relations, the economy and foreign relations together in such a way as to fully maximize Taiwan's potential value in the global community. Taiwan has to transform itself into a peacemaker, a contributor of humanitarian aid, a center for innovation and business opportunities, a major promoter of cultural exchange and the standard bearer of Chinese culture. As the Republic of China reaches its centennial anniversary, I believe my administration's grand strategy will make the Republic more secure, more prosperous for many, many years to come. I also firmly believe America's friendship will be an inseparable part of the Republic of China's future, as it has been in the past one hundred years. Thank you!

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, as co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on Korea, I rise today to commend the Republic of Korea's pledge of an additional $500 million over 5 years in aid to Afghanistan. It is unfortunate that this tremendous contribution was not heralded by the international media because Seoul's commitment to aiding in the development and reconstruction in the war-torn nation is remarkable in several ways and deserves our recognition and gratitude. This latest $500 million is in addition to the $180 million Seoul has already contributed to Afghanistan. And, currently, there are about 90 South Korean aid workers and police serving in Afghanistan secured by more than 200 Korean troops. This increased level of assistance will go a long way in supporting existing programs run by Korea's Provincial Reconstruction Team in the northern province of Parwan. Korea's Provincial Reconstruction Team will be able to enhance their work in the areas of education, health and medical service, rural development, improved governance and police training. Korea has been and continues to be one of the most reliable partners we have in Afghanistan. For example, from 2002 to 2007, Korea deployed military medics and engineers in Afghanistan; provided medical service to 260,000 people; and helped build the U.S. Bagram Air Field. What impresses me the most about Korea's fortitude and role in the international community is its tremendous progress over the last half century. Not so long ago South Korea was a recipient, rather than a donor, of Official Development Assistance, ODA. According to the Congressional Research Service, U.S. economic assistance to South Korea totaled $3.8 billion from 1945 to 1971. However, by the mid-1970s U.S. assistance began to shrink to zero. In 2009, South Korea became the first major recipient of Official Development Assistance to become a major donor of ODA. In just two years, 2008 and 2009, South Korea contributed economic aid of $1.7 billion to other countries, including Afghanistan. Through sound economic policies, a strong commitment to free enterprise, and a turn from autocratic to democratic governance, South Korea has become one of the world's fastest-growing, most resilient economies with an equally resilient and stable civil society. In 1980, the Republic of Korea's gross domestic product, GDP, per capita was $2,300, about one-third of nearby economies such as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan. Since then, South Korea has advanced into a developed economy that had a GDP per capita of $30,000 in 2010, almost thirteen times the figure thirty years earlier. The country's overall GDP increased from $88 billion to $1,460 billion in the same period. Today, South Korea's economy ranks fifteenth in the world by nominal GDP and twelfth by purchasing power parity. It is one of the G-20 major economies and it is a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. As of 2010, South Korea was the sixth largest exporter and tenth largest importer in the world. Korea is the United States' seventh-largest trading partner, with a pending free trade agreement that will bring multiple benefits to both of our countries in terms of increased trade and investment. We must pass the pending U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement KORUS FTA as soon as possible. The conflict in Afghanistan is as controversial in Korea as it is in the United States, which makes the Republic of Korea's pledge of an additional $500 million (over 5 years) in aid to Afghanistan all the more significant. It sends a signal to the world that Korea is a dedicated partner in peace and an ally that the U.S. can count on. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me today in saluting the Republic of Korea and people of Korea for their continued partnership in helping to rebuild the economy and society of Afghanistan.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, about a week or so ago, a good friend of mine from Indiana, Rex Early, who has been very active in not only political circles but in civic events for a long, long time, brought to my attention some extraordinary things that have been done by a young man who is in our military. Corporal Sean Leahy graduated from Hamilton Southeastern High School in 2006 in Fishers, Indiana, and he is now a 23-year-old marine and squad leader with the 1st Platoon, Kilo Company. He recently completed his second tour of duty, initially having served with distinction in Iraq. Sean was preparing to leave the Marine Corps to pursue a college degree; and when made aware that his unit would be sent to Afghanistan, instead of leaving to pursue college, he again decided to answer the call, and he reenlisted instead of going to college. He didn't have to risk his life again, but he wanted to be with his unit, and he promptly joined his brethren in preparation for their next deployment. He was deployed to Sangin in the Helmand province of Afghanistan, an area where our troops have sustained heavy losses and heavy wounds in recent months. But Leahy and his good friend Matthew Bland served side by side with honor, guiding and protecting their platoon. When called into duty, Corporal Leahy answered the call to action without any hesitation. And I think that's really amazing for a 23- year-old fellow who has a great college career ahead of him to pass that up to go back with his unit into a combat situation. When he was presented with the opportunity to pursue a calmer life here in the States after completing his tour in Iraq, he instead chose to stand shoulder to shoulder with his fellow Marines. Madam Speaker, this kind of bravery and love for one's country is too often neglected, overshadowed by our chaotic news cycle and conjecture regarding the latest Hollywood gossip. The heroic actions of people like Corporal Leahy can often go unnoticed. But today I rise to give a heartfelt thank you to Corporal Leahy and to the many men and women like him in our armed services who have chosen to risk everything day after day to ensure our country's safety in the face of terror. The words I have just spoken don't express enough the sentiment that most of us in America feel toward the people who are defending our freedoms. Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct privilege of rising in honor of one of our fine fighting men who has recently returned from a tour in Afghanistan. Cpl. Sean Leahy, who graduated from Hamilton Southeastern High School in 2006 in Fishers, Indiana, is a 23-year-old Marine and squad leader with the 1st Platoon, Kilo Company. He has recently completed his second tour of duty, initially having served with distinction in Iraq. Sean was preparing to leave the Marine Corps to pursue a college degree, when he was made aware that his unit would be sent to Afghanistan. Instead of leaving to pursue college, he again decided to answer the call, reenlisted, and promptly joined his brethren in preparation for their next deployment. He was deployed to Sangin in the Helmand province of Afghanistan, an area where our troops have sustained heavy losses in recent months. But Leahy, and his good friend Matthew Bland, served side-by-side with honor, guiding and protecting their platoon. When called into duty, Cpl. Leahy answered the call to action without hesitation. When he was presented with the opportunity to pursue a calmer life here in the States after completing his tour in Iraq, he instead chose to stand shoulder to shoulder with with his fellow Marines. Mr. Speaker, this kind of bravery and love for one's country is too often neglected, overshadowed by our chaotic news cycle and conjecture regarding the latest Hollywood gossip. The heroic actions of people like Cpl. Leahy can often go unnoticed. But today, I rise to give a heartfelt thank you to Corporal Leahy and the many men and women like him in our Armed Services who have chosen to risk everything, day after day, to ensure our country's safety in the face of terror. I would now like to proceed with the rest of my Special Order. There was an article, Madam Speaker, in a number of our papers around the country after Osama bin Laden was killed. These articles kind of troubled me, not because we haven't been aggressive in going after Osama bin Laden for 10 years but because of the message these articles sent possibly to the terrorist leaders around the world. It indicated that the President wanted to reach out to the Muslim radicals now that Osama bin Laden has been killed, as if to say, ``Let's solve this problem and not have any further conflict.'' Now, that kind of rhetoric may sound good to many people in this country, but it troubles me because it may give the impression that we're trying to appease the terrorists in order to get them to stop their terrible, terrible terrorist activities around the world. I would like to put into the Record a few things that were said prior to World War II that I would like, if the President were paying attention, to listen to, because there's an old saying, ``Those who don't profit from history are destined to make the same mistakes.'' The first quote is from Lord Chamberlain, who was the Prime Minister of England prior to World War II: ``This morning, I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine. We regard the agreement signed last night, and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.'' That was a speech that he made at Heston Airport on the 30th of September, 1938. It was part of the ``Peace for Our Time'' approach that Lord Chamberlain was taking. He said, later on in a letter that he sent to his wife in December of 1939: ``I stick to the view I have always held that Hitler missed the bus in September 1938. He could have dealt France and ourselves a terrible, perhaps a mortal, blow then. The opportunity will not recur.'' He was trying to say that the reason he signed that agreement with Hitler was because they weren't prepared for war and so he decided to give the Sudetenland to Hitler without any kind of a conflict. The thing that bothers me about that is what he said to the Czechoslovakian people: ``When we were convinced, as we became convinced, that nothing any longer would keep the Sudetenland within the Czechoslovakian State, we urged the Czech Government as strongly as we could to agree to the cession of territory, and to agree promptly. The Czech Government,'' because of the pressure that was brought upon them, ``through the wisdom and courage of President Benes, accepted the advice of the French Government and ourselves. It was a hard decision for anyone who loved his country to take, but to accuse us of having by that advice betrayed the Czechoslovakian State is simply preposterous.'' But, in fact, it was a terrible decision that was made by Lord Chamberlain, because what happened was, because of the appearance of weakness by going to Munich and signing a peace agreement on Hitler's terms, giving the Sudetenland, which was part of the Czechoslovakian Republic, to Hitler, it was the green light, because he suspected and felt that the free countries of the world were afraid of him and would back down in any case that might arise. As a result, World War II started and 50 to 60 million people were killed. It is very important that we realize today, as they did after Lord Chamberlain made this terrible mistake, that we should not in any way give the appearance of appeasing the radical Islamists, because they may think because we got rid of Osama bin Laden, we don't have the intestinal fortitude to keep after them to destroy them so that they can never be a threat to the free world again. I think it's important that we remember what Winston Churchill, who was an outcast in the British Parliament at the time, what he said for years and years and years. Quoting Churchill: ``The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.'' He was predicting that World War II was going to start, and this was as far back as 1936. He went on to say later on: ``People say we ought not to allow ourselves to be drawn into a theoretical antagonism between Nazism and democracy; but the antagonism is here now. It is this very conflict of spiritual and moral ideas''-- that's what we're facing right now, spiritual and moral ideas of the radicals--``which gives the free countries a great part of their strength.'' Winston Churchill, who was vilified, was absolutely correct. They should have prepared for war. They should have let Herr Hitler know that there was going to be no giving of any quarter to him, and it might have prevented World War II and maybe saved 40, 50, 60 million lives. Winston Churchill went on to say after the war was about to begin in the House of Commons in 1938: ``Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonor. They chose dishonor, and now they will have war.'' And they did have war. Churchill also said: ``And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning.'' I hope our government realizes that this is not the end of the war with the terrorists. This is still going on. Although bin Laden has been killed, there's still a lot of terrorists out there that believe we're weak and that we're not going to follow through and that they can prevail in the long run. We need to send a message like Churchill did prior to what Lord Chamberlain did by going to Munich that we're going to be tough and we're going to follow through. I think the President needs to send that message very loud and clear, instead of reaching out, now that bin Laden is gone, and saying to the terrorist world, ``Now that bin Laden's gone, your leader's gone, we ought to sit down and work this thing out.'' That is a sign of weakness. And I hope the President when he makes this speech makes absolutely clear to the terrorists that we're willing to do whatever it takes to protect America and the free world. As Churchill went on to say, ``This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.'' That was in October of 1938. We're in a war against terrorism. It's something that hasn't been seen since the 12th century when the radical Islamists tried to take over western Europe. A lot of people don't remember that. But they did. And there's always those radicals who want to foist upon the rest of the world their religious beliefs and the way they think the world should be run. We have to when they rise up again and again and again as they will throughout history, I'm sure that there will always be radical Islamists who will want to make sure the rest of the world believes the way they do as far as their religious beliefs are concerned. Whether it's now, or whether it was in the 12th century, or whether it's going to be in the future, the free world has to be resolute of purpose and make absolutely sure that the message is sent loud and clear that we are willing to do whatever it takes to defeat the terrorists. That means doing whatever it takes to get information from their leaders to make sure that we find the terrorists in whatever hole they've dug themselves in to protect themselves. I'm very happy we got Osama bin Laden. I think it's a great step forward in the quest for peace. But the war is not over. It's going to go on for some time, until the terrorists know that there's no possibility of winning, and the threat to our homeland from terrorism, the threat to the free world from terrorism, goes on. I would like to end, if I could, to say to the President--I know I can't talk to him because he's not here--but if I were talking to the President, I would say: Mr. President, when you make this speech, allegedly to reach out to the Arab world, make it absolutely clear that we're going to do whatever it takes to defeat the terrorists as long as it takes. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on April 30th in San Francisco, the 2011 John Carroll Awards were presented to five exceptional individuals whose achievements exemplify the ideals and traditions of Georgetown University. Named after the University's founder, Archbishop John Carroll, the John Carroll Award was established by the Georgetown University Alumni Association in 1951 and is the highest honor awarded by the alumni association. Recipients have distinguished themselves through achievement and unparalleled service to Georgetown University, and the 2011 recipients embody the true meaning of Magis. Magis is a Jesuit phrase that means ``the more.'' It is taken from Ad majorem Dei gloriam, a Latin phrase meaning ``for the greater glory of God.'' It is an expression of an aspiration and inspiration. Magis reflects the Jesuit concept of a continuous commitment to excellence, grounded in gratitude. The 2011 John Carroll recipients are Mary Taylor Behrens, Philip T. Inglima, the Honorable M. Margaret McKeown, Paul F. Pelosi, and Michael L. Vespoli. I congratulate them all on their achievements. All five of them are esteemed members of the Georgetown community, but today, I rise to give special recognition to Philip Inglima, known as Phil, to his friends. An exemplar of the Jesuit tradition of women and men for others, Phil Inglima has found no shortage of ways to give back to the alumni community. It would be hard to find a volunteer post at Georgetown that Phil hasn't occupied. As an undergraduate, he served as the co-chair of his senior class gift committee. He has chaired many of his undergraduate and law classes' reunion committees, served on the board of regents and worked as vice chair of the law annual fund. A member of the board of governors since 1997, Phil served as president of the alumni association and was a well-respected member of the board of directors for two years. After graduating in 1984 with a degree in English, Phil remained at Georgetown as an assistant to the Rev. Timothy S. Healy, S.J., then president of the university. He spent two years working closely with Father Healy while studying at the Georgetown University Law Center. His dedicated work for the Juvenile Justice Clinic earned him the honor of being named ``Outstanding Advocate.'' Phil began his law career as a clerk to the Honorable June L. Green of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before entering private practice with criminal defense legend Plato Cacheris (F'51, L'56). Since then, he has amassed more than two decades of experience as a litigator specializing in white collar criminal law, including two years as a special prosecutor. Now a partner at Crowell & Moring LLP, Phil defends criminal and civil matters in trial and appellate courts. He has been recognized repeatedly in the premier legal review guide, Chambers USA, as well as in Super Lawyers and The Best Lawyers In America, as a leading lawyer in white collar criminal defense. Georgetown University with its rich, Jesuit tradition runs through Phil's veins. In addition to serving the alumni community, Phil teaches a course in federal white collar crime at the university's Law Center. Phil met his beautiful wife, Elizabeth Wieser (C'86, L'92), at Georgetown. They have three children--Joseph, Rosalia and Paulina--who were all born at the Georgetown University Hospital. Phil Inglima is a great friend, father, husband as well as one who excels professionally. He makes those individuals and institutions that he touches better.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I don't know that there is a great deal more to add to what he has just said about permits and about the issue that has been discussed just recently. The thing that really bothers me is just a few years ago, 25 years ago, we were importing about 28 percent of our oil. Today we are importing 62 percent of our oil, more than double what we were doing just a few years ago, and the American people are paying the price. Instead of $1.50 or $2 a gallon for gas, they are spending $4 a gallon for gasoline. Nationwide, there are 86 billion barrels of oil. Fifty-one percent of that is in the Gulf of Mexico, which means there are 44 billion barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, and there are 240 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. For us to continue to be dependent on foreign energy sources is crazy. We ought to start drilling and doing what needs to be done here in America. And we can do in an environmentally safe way. We can do it in Alaska, offshore, we can do it in a number of places. But to sit by and continue to send our money to Saudi Arabia and other countries around the world that aren't our friends just doesn't make any sense, and the American people understand it. I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle ought to go back and talk to their constituents, who are paying the price at the gas pump.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the ongoing democratic transition occurring in the Kyrgyz Republic. This transition began in April 2010 when former President Kurmanbek Bakiyev fled the capital as a result of mass protests over his regime's corrupt and repressive rule. Less than a month after taking power, the interim government of President Roza Otunbayeva formed a commission to draft a new constitution. The constitution produced by this commission was overwhelmingly passed by a national referendum and will take effect after elections are held in December of this year. Monitors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe reported that the October 2010 election to fill the 120 seats of the country's legislature, the Jorgorku Kenesh, ``constituted a further consolidation of the democratic process and brought the country closer to meeting its international commitments on democratic elections.'' I applaud this achievement and accept the view of Morten Hoglund, head of OSCE observer mission, that ``this election reflected the will of the people of the Kyrgyz Republic.'' I, along with some of my colleagues, was honored to meet President Otunbayeva when she visited Washington in March to accept the State Department's 2011 International Women of Courage Award. President Otunbayeva deserves this award not only for her leadership in a time of crisis, not only for being the first female Head of State of a Central Asian nation, but foremost for her promotion of a constitution that recognizes her status as an interim leader and prohibits her from running for reelection. President Otunbayeva repeated her intention to step down during our conversation. I believe this willingness to allow the democratic process to move forward is the true sign of the President's courage. Despite the existence of a new constitution and the upcoming election, the Kyrgyz Republic's democratic transition is not complete. President Otunbayeva's government, as well as the government of her successor, must continue to fully investigate incidences of violence in the southern part of the country and to prosecute those responsible. In addition the government of the Kyrgyz Republic must continue to work with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to reform its law-enforcement agencies to ensure that these agencies are properly trained to prevent and respond to incidents of violence. The Kyrgyz Republic is a key ally in the fight against terrorism. The country declared its support for the United States immediately after September 11, 2001 and quickly granted the United States access to Kyrgyz airspace in support of counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan. Since December 2001, the Manas Transit Center located at Manas International Airport near Bishkek has served, according to the U.S. Air Force, as the ``premier air mobility hub supporting military operations in Afghanistan.'' In addition to serving as a key transit point for personnel and materials moving into Afghanistan, the Manas Transit Center supports aerial refueling and medical evacuation operations. I applaud President Otunbayeva's continued support for the Transit Center and call on her successor to honor the agreement made between the United States and the Kyrgyz Republic in 2009 that guarantees American use of the facility through 2014. Under the leadership of President Roza Otunbayeva, the Kyrgyz Republic is moving in the right direction; however, the country's democratic transition must continue. I call on the government of President Otunbayeva and the Kyrgyz people to continue developing strong institutions that uphold the fundamental rights of all citizens and residents of the Kyrgyz Republic and to hold free and fair presidential elections in December.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank my good friend, Congressman Stutzman, for his remarks, and I really appreciate you taking your time to come down here tonight. Congressman Stutzman talked a little bit about the military, and I really appreciate that because we have thousands, hundreds of thousands of men and women in the military defending our freedoms all around the world, in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and we have them in Germany and we have them in Korea. We have them in bases all around the world making sure that the freedoms we enjoy today and tonight will be there tomorrow for us and our kids and our grandkids. But tonight I'd like to read a little bit of an article that was written just yesterday by a fellow named Marc Ambinder with the National Journal. And I think it's really well done, and it points out all the hard work that went into going after Osama bin Laden. The team that killed Osama bin Laden were members of the counterterrorism unit for the Navy, known as the Navy SEAL Team 6. It's a highly elusive group that was developed in the 1980s to rescue American hostages in Iran. They exist outside the military protocol and engage in operations that are at the highest level of classification. The fact that Team 6 is front page news today is a measure of how important the publicity about bin Laden's killing is to the U.S., because normally you don't hear about these guys. The President gave the order on Friday morning for the operation to pursue bin Laden. The strike began early Sunday morning, at the Ghazi Air Base in Pakistan, the MH-60 helicopters made their way to Osama bin Laden's tightly guarded compound, which is 70 miles from the center of Islamabad. The helicopter carrying the team of SEALs malfunctioned. Can you imagine that? They're over their target and the helicopter stops working. As it hovered outside the high walls, the pilot gently landed inside the walls of the 3-story condo, but he couldn't get the helicopter going again. And yet the assault team disembarked to raid the massive, walled compound, prepared to take bin Laden dead or alive, even though they knew there was a chance they wouldn't have a ride back. Their lives were at risk, and yet they went ahead and carried out their mission. Bin Laden was discovered using women as human shields as American forces fired at him. One of the women was his wife. Bin Laden was shot in the face by the SEALs during a firefight after resisting capture. Three other males were killed along with bin Laden. One of them was his adult son. With the team still in the compound, the commander on the ground told a remote commander that they had found bin Laden. The Special Forces blew up the malfunctioned chopper, helicopter, then escaped in a reinforcement close to 4:15 p.m., just 40 minutes after they landed. The West Wing staff worked most of the day on the operation. President Obama joined senior national security officials in the Situation Room that afternoon as the firefight was monitored. Leon Panetta, one of our old colleagues here, was in his conference room at the CIA headquarters, which he had turned into a conference center to give him constant contact with the tactical leaders of the strike team. And I want to compliment Leon as well. I hope he's paying attention to this. Less than 12 hours after the raid, bin Laden's body was taken to the aircraft carrier, USS Carl Vinson, and he was buried in the North Arabian Sea overnight. A DNA match from the remains confirmed that bin Laden was dead at age 54. And of course President Obama made the official announcement of his death from the East Room of the White House at 11:35 p.m., and he said what all of us really agree with: ``Justice has been done.'' But we still have a lot of those guys out there that we have to watch out for; and the message needs to be sent again and again today and in the days to come that anybody that takes up the mantle of leadership like Osama bin Laden, we're going to go after them. And we have the elite military people, the Special Forces, the people in the Air Force, the Marines, and the Navy SEALs, that will get the job done. They know how to do it, and they are willing to risk their lives to get it done. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to go through a minute-by-minute description of what happened. And once again, it's an article that was written on national security by the secret team that killed bin Laden. It was an article written for the National Journal by Marc Ambinder, and it's very well done. I'd like to go through this with my colleagues because it tells almost everything that took place during this operation. ``The two sides of the Joint Special Operations Command Challenge Coin, which was given out by the JSOC Commander, Vice Admiral William McRaven. ``From Ghazi Air Base in Pakistan, the modified MH-60 helicopters made their way to the garrison suburb of Abbottabad, about 70 miles from the center of Islamabad.'' ``Aboard were Navy SEALs, flown across the border from Afghanistan, along with tactical signals, intelligence collectors, and navigators using highly classified hyperspectral imagers. ``After bursts of fire of over 40 minutes, 22 people were killed or captured. One of the dead was Osama bin Laden, done in by a double tap--boom, boom--to the left side of his face. His body was aboard the choppers that made the trip back. One had experienced mechanical failure and was destroyed by U.S. forces, military and White House officials tell National Journal. ``Were it not for this high-value target, it might have been a routine mission for the specially trained and highly mythologized SEAL Team Six, officially called the Naval Special Warfare Development Group, but known even to the locals at their home base Dam Neck in Virginia as just DevGru. ``This HVT was special, and the raids required practice, so they replicated the 1-acre compound. Trial runs were held in early April. ``DevGru belongs to the Joint Special Operations Command, an extraordinary and unusual collection of classified standing task forces and special missions units. They report to the President and operate worldwide based on the legal (or extra-legal) premises of classified Presidential directives. Though the general public knows about the special SEALs and their brothers in Delta Force, most JSOC missions never leak. We only hear about JSOC when something goes bad (a British aid worker is accidentally killed) or when something really big happens (a merchant marine captain is rescued at sea), and even then, the military remains especially sensitive about their existence. Several dozen JSOC operatives have died in Pakistan over the past several years.'' These are heroic people that go in and risk their lives on a daily basis on special operations to kill and destroy the enemy before they get to us. ``Their names are released by the Defense Department in the usual manner, but with a cover story--generally, they were killed in training accidents in eastern Afghanistan. That's the code.'' So they don't get the glory that is due them because they know that they have gone into a secret mission that cannot be exposed, and they risk their lives defending this country. And many of them will never be known, but they fought and died to save us all. ``How did the helicopters elude the Pakistani air defense network? Did they spoof transponder codes? Were they painted and tricked out with Pakistan Air Force equipment? If so--and we may never know--two other JSOC units, the Technical Application Programs Office and the Aviation Technology Evaluation Group, were responsible. These truly are the silent squirrels, never getting public credit and not caring one whit. Since 9/11, the JSOC units and their task forces have become the U.S. government's most effective and lethal weapon against terrorists and their networks, drawing plenty of unwanted, and occasionally unflattering, attention to themselves in the process.'' When things don't go exactly right, they get criticized, even though they are going in and risking their lives without being glorified or being well-known. And yet, when something goes wrong, they are criticized, but they rarely get the credit that's due them. ``JSOC costs the country more than $1 billion annually. The command has its critics, but it has escaped significant congressional scrutiny and has operated largely with impunity since 9/11. Some of its interrogators and operators were involved in torture and rendition''-- and I don't believe that's the case. I would take issue with this part of the article, because I never did think waterboarding was torture. I think it was a system that was used to get information that would save us from terrorists, and that waterboarding may very well have led to the information that got Osama bin Laden a couple of days ago--``and the line between its intelligence-gathering activities and the CIA's has been blurred. ``But Sunday's operation provides strong evidence that the CIA and JSOC work well together. Sometimes intelligence needs to be developed rapidly, to get inside the enemy's operational loop. And sometimes it needs to be cultivated, grown as if it were a delicate bacteria in a petri dish. ``In an interview at CIA headquarters 2 weeks ago, a senior intelligence official said the two proud groups of American secret warriors had been `deconflicted and basically integrated'--finally--10 years after 9/11. Indeed, according to accounts given to journalists by five senior administration officials Sunday night, the CIA gathered the intelligence that led to bin Laden's location. A memo from CIA Director Leon Panetta sent Sunday night provides some hints of how the information was collected and analyzed. In it, he thanked the National Security Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency for their help. NSA figured out, somehow, that there was no telephone or Internet service in the compound. How it did this without Pakistan's knowledge is a secret. The NGIA makes the military's maps but also develops their pattern recognition software--no doubt used to help establish, by February of this year, that the CIA could say `with high probability' that bin Laden and his family were living there. ``Recently, JSOC built a new Targeting and Analysis Center in Rosslyn, Virginia. Where the National Counterterrorism Center tends to focus on threats to the homeland, TAAC, whose existence was first disclosed by the Associated Press, focuses outward, on active `kinetic'--or lethal--counterterrorism missions abroad. ``That the Center could be stood up under the nose of some of the Nation's most senior intelligence officials without their full knowledge testifies to the power and reach of JSOC, whose size has tripled since 9/11. The command now includes more than 4,000 soldiers and civilians. It has its own intelligence division, which may or may not have been involved in last night's effort, and has gobbled up a number of free-floating Defense Department entities that allowed it to rapidly acquire, test, and field new technologies. ``Under a variety of standing orders, JSOC is involved in more than 50 current operations spanning a dozen countries, and its units, supported by so-called `white' or acknowledged, special operations entities like Rangers, Special Forces battalions, SEAL teams, and Air Force special ops units from the larger Special Operations Command, are responsible for most of the `kinetic' actions in Afghanistan. ``Pentagon officials are conscious of the enormous stress that 10 years of war have placed on the command. JSOC resources are heavily taxed by the operational tempo in Afghanistan and Pakistan, officials have said. The current commander, Vice Admiral William McRaven, and Major General Joseph Votel, McRaven's nominated replacement, have been pushing to add people and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance technology to areas outside the war theater where al Qaeda and its affiliates continue to thrive. ``Earlier this year, it seemed that the elite units would face the same budget pressures that the entire military was experiencing. Not anymore. The military found a way, largely by reducing contracting staff and borrowing others from Special Operations Command, to add 50 positions to the JSOC. And Votel wants to add several squadrons to the `Tier One' units--Delta and the SEALs.'' And, boy, he will have my vote for that. ``When General Stanley McChrystal became JSOC's commanding general in 2004, he and his intelligence chief, Major General Michael Flynn, set about transforming the way the subordinate units analyze and act on intelligence. Insurgents in Iraq were exploiting the slow decision loop that coalition commanders used, and enhanced interrogation techniques were frowned upon after the Abu Ghraib scandal. But the hunger for actionable tactical intelligence on insurgents was palpable.'' I want to add one more time, and this was not in the article, but I really believe when we are talking about dealing with terrorists and getting information that will stop terrorists from attacking us in the United States or elsewhere in the world, we ought to use whatever techniques that we possibly can to get that information. And I'm not talking about torture. Some of the newspaper people and news people that we see on television have actually experienced waterboarding on television to show how it works, and it was not torture and it is not torture, and we ought to use those techniques to make sure we protect our homeland and our people here and abroad. ``The way JSOC solved this problem remains a carefully guarded secret, but people familiar with the unit suggest that McChrystal and Flynn introduced hardened commandos to basic criminal forensic techniques and then used highly advanced and still-classified technology to transform bits of information into actionable intelligence.'' ``One way they did this was to create forward-deployed fusion cells, where JSOC units were paired with intelligence analysts from the NSA and the NGA. Such analysis helped the CIA to establish with a high degree of probability that Osama bin Laden and his family were hiding in that compound where he was hit. ``These technicians could `exploit and analyze' data obtained from the battlefield instantly, using their access to the government's various biometric, facial-recognition, and voice-print databases. These cells also used highly advanced surveillance technology and computer- based pattern analysis to layer predictive models of insurgent behavior into real-time observations. ``The military has begun to incorporate these techniques across the services. And Flynn will soon be promoted to a job within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, where he will be tasked with transforming the way intelligence is gathered, analyzed, and utilized.'' That article tells just about everything about how this all came about and how it was carried out. But the one thing that isn't really hit hard enough, in my opinion, is the men and women in the military who do the job for us every single day. Sometimes we fight about spending in this body. We fight about who gets the money. But the one thing we should never fight about is the money that goes to our Armed Forces, our men and women who do risk their lives every single day. My hat goes off to those who were in the command that got Osama bin Laden, and the people, the Navy SEALs that got the job done, even though their helicopter failed to work. They went in, 40 of them, and risked their lives, knowing that they might not come out. They got Osama bin Laden, they got 22 others, they got his body out of there, and they got back to freedom without any casualties. So my hat goes off to you, Navy SEALs, and to all of those in the military who risk their lives every single day protecting and preserving our freedoms. And for those Special Ops guys in all the branches of the service, well done.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a momentous occasion. The headlines all across the country say the same thing: Osama bin Laden has been killed and justice has been done. I think everybody ought to celebrate the tenacity of the American military and this administration as well as the Bush administration for being dedicated to bringing this man to justice for the things that he has done not only to the United States but to the entire world. I would like to start off this Special Order by giving a little bit of history of Osama bin Laden and what he has done. In 1990, he started criticizing the Saudi regime for allowing the Americans to establish a base of operations there. In 1991, he was expelled from Saudi Arabia and disenfranchised or disowned by his family. He immediately went out and started working to establish al Qaeda, to establish a terrorist network that would kill people who didn't agree with his views and to terrorize the world until they started acceding to his wishes. Let me just read a few of these things, and these are widely attributed to al Qaeda, or al Qaeda-inspired groups, which was headed by Osama bin Laden. In December of 1992, there was a bomb attack that killed two people at Gold Mihor Hotel in Aden, Yemen. One hundred U.S. military personnel were stationed in the hotel awaiting deployment into Somalia for Operation Restore Hope. In February of 1993, a 500-kilogram bomb was detonated beneath the World Trade Center--we all remember that--in New York City. Six were killed and 1,000 were injured. In March of 1993, 250 people were killed and 700 injured in a series of 13 bomb explosions that took place in Bombay, India. In October of 1993, 18 U.S. servicemen were killed in the Black Hawk Down incident in Somalia. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for arming the Somali factions who battled and killed those U.S. forces. In November of 1995, five Americans were killed in the bombing of the U.S. military advisory facility in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. In June of 1996, 19 U.S. airmen were killed in the bombing of Khobar Towers near Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. In November of 1997, 62 people were killed by gunmen in the massacre at Luxor in Egypt. In August of 1998, 223 people were killed when the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were attacked. In October of 2000, 17 U.S. sailors aboard the USS Cole were killed in a ship-borne suicide bombing while the Cole was docked in Aden, Yemen. On September 11, 2001, 2,974 Americans and others were killed when hijacked planes are flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I don't think America will ever forget that day. In December of 2001, attempted bombing of an American Airlines flight from Paris to Boston by al Qaeda operative Richard Reid, a/k/a the Shoe-Bomber. In October of 2002, 200 people killed and 240 injured in a series of bombings in the tourist district of Kuta, Bali, Indonesia. In November of 2003, 57 people killed and 700 injured by four truck bombs in Istanbul, Turkey. In February 2004, 116 people killed in the bombing and subsequent sinking of the ferry SuperFerry 14 in the Philippines. In March 2004, 191 people were killed and 2,000 wounded in a bombing of the Madrid commuter train system. In May of 2004, 22 people killed and 25 injured in attacks on two oil industry installations, the Arab Petroleum Investments Corporation building and the Petroleum Centre near Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia. In July 2005, 56 killed and 700 injured in an attack on the London transportation sector. Three bombs were detonated on the London Underground and one on a double decker bus. In July 2005, 88 killed and 200 injured in a series of bomb blasts in the Egyptian resort city of Sharm el-Sheikh, located on the southern tip of the Sinai Peninsula. In November 2005, 60 were killed and hundreds wounded in a suicide bomber attack on three hotels in Amman, Jordan. In July 2006, 209 killed and 700 injured in a series of seven bomb blasts on the Suburban Railway in Mumbai (Bombay) India. In April 2007, 33 people killed in twin bombings in Algiers, Algeria. In June of 2008, six people killed and several injured in a car bomb attack against the Danish Embassy in Pakistan. Al Qaeda issued a statement after the bombings claiming that the attack was a response to the 2005 publication of the Mohammed cartoons. In December 2009, an attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 to Detroit by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. In May 2010, an attempted car bomb in Times Square, New York. Faisal Shahzad, a 30-year-old Pakistan-born resident of Bridgeport, Connecticut, admitted attempting the car bombing and said he had trained at a Pakistani terrorist training camp. In October 2010, an attempted bombing of a U.S.-bound cargo plane. Two packages, each containing a bomb consisting of 300 to 400 grams of plastic explosives and a detonating mechanism, were found on separate cargo planes. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula took responsibility for that plot. April 28, 2011, 16 killed in a bomb attack on a market in Marrakesh, Morocco. April 29, 2011, an attempted attack in Germany. Police arrested three alleged members of al Qaeda who had been planning attacks in the country. This is the legacy that Osama bin Laden leaves behind: blood, murder, maiming, all across the world because he had radical views that he did not believe the rest of the world should not encompass and enjoy. This is a terrible tragedy, a terrible thing that occurred in this world by one human being. He has been brought to justice now, and we should compliment President Bush and President Obama for being tenacious in going after this man. One of the things--and I will talk about this later after I yield to my colleague--that I think should be sent around the world is this message: No matter where you go, no matter where you hide, if you're a terrorist who attacks the free world, we will come and get you. The allied countries who fight terrorism, including the United States, will not rest until you're brought to justice. It took us 10 years to get Osama bin Laden, but we got him. I want to thank once again President Bush for taking the initiative originally and President Obama for signing the attack message just a couple of days ago to make sure we brought him to justice. With that, I would like to yield to my colleague from Indiana's Third District for whatever time he may consume.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, because of business in my District yesterday my return to Washington, D.C. was delayed and therefore I was unable to be on the House Floor for rollcall votes 254, 255 and 256. Had I been present I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 254; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 255; and ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 256.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, a while ago, one of my colleagues was down here talking about ObamaCare and what a problem it was going to cause for this country from a financial standpoint as well as causing rationing of health care and a whole host of other things. But what I want to do right now is bring to the attention of my colleagues and anybody else that's paying attention a decision that was just made by U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer that affects everybody on Social Security who wants to have a health care plan besides Medicare. I'm going to read you an op-ed that just was in the Washington Examiner and also in The Wall Street Journal that I think every single American ought to be aware of because this has wide-ranging impact on everybody in this country. Here's what it says. ``A recent court ruling has helped President Obama push ahead with a mandate that all citizens be required to have government health care. This court ruling would mandate that every citizen in this country has government health care.'' Socialized medicine. ``In a March 16 decision, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, who previously served as General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, ruled that seniors who elect to opt out of Medicare coverage must forfeit their Social Security benefits as well and repay all past Social Security benefits prior to opting out.'' I hope everybody is getting that in their offices. If you don't take Medicare coverage and you're a senior and you opt out of Medicare coverage because you want another form of health care, maybe a better form of health care, then you have got to lose your Social Security payments and pay back all the Social Security payments that you received in the past. Now, anybody who is paying attention is going to say, ``You know, that didn't really happen,'' but I'm telling you that decision was made on March 16 by Judge Rosemary Collyer, a U.S. district judge here in this area. The ruling relates to a lawsuit that was filed in 2008 in--and this is the name of the case--Hall v. Sebelius. Several senior citizens challenged a 1993 Clinton administration program rule, and they sued the Federal Government for their right to opt out of Medicare without losing their Social Security benefits. The plaintiffs all paid their Medicare taxes throughout their employment histories and did not request reimbursement of the money. So they'd paid into Medicare for the entire time that they'd been working. These individuals simply wished to engage other health insurance plans. They wanted to get some other health insurance plans besides Medicare. They'd paid into Medicare and they'd paid into Social Security, but they wanted to get other health insurance besides Medicare. It goes on to say that they believed it would provide better coverage than that of the government's Medicare program. In addition, these seniors contributed to Social Security while they were working, and accepted these benefits upon retirement. Now, here is what the seniors' lawsuit argued: Both the Social Security and Medicare acts state that the application for Social Security benefits and Medicare are voluntary and that applications for each program are not dependent upon each other. Forced participation in Medicare violates an individual's constitutional right to privacy. The Clinton-era rules were promulgated without undergoing the required notice and comment rulemaking requirements, which is a violation of the Federal Administrative Procedure Act. The judge stated that, in its arguments, the Obama administration ``extols the benefits of Medicare and suggests that plaintiffs would agree that they are not truly injured if they were to learn more about Medicare, perhaps through discovery.'' Note the familiar condescending Obama administration tone: Take the Medicare, and then find out what's in it. You'll like it when you do. We had that problem before on legislation. You'll remember the previous Speaker of the House. When asked about ObamaCare, she said, Well, we've got to pass the bill. Then we'll find out what's in it. That really made a lot of sense--but once again, this is pretty much the attitude of the administration. Here is what the judge went on to say: ``The parties use a lot of ink disputing whether plaintiffs' desire to avoid Medicare part A is sensible.'' Translation: If Americans don't want government-run health care, well, they just don't have much sense. After all, the government knows what's best for them, and they don't. What is most astounding about this case is that, as of late 2009, this same judge, Judge Collyer, supported the plaintiffs' claim and even refused the Obama administration's request to dismiss the suit. Her ruling then was that neither the statute nor the regulation specifies that plaintiffs must withdraw from Social Security and repay retirement benefits in order to withdraw from Medicare, which means simply that, if they decide not to take Medicare, they can continue to get their Social Security that they paid into, as they should, and they wouldn't have to pay back the Social Security benefits they'd received in the past. That makes sense. She changed her mind. This judge made this ruling in 2009. Now she changes her mind, and she argues in her stunning reversal, ``Requiring a mechanism for plaintiffs and others in their situation to `dis- enroll' would be contrary to congressional intent, which was to provide `mandatory' benefits under Medicare part A and for those receiving Social Security retirement benefits. Plaintiffs are trapped in a government program intended for their benefit. They disagree and wish to escape,'' Collyer wrote. ``The court can find no loophole or requirement that the Secretary provide such a pathway.'' According to Collyer, an ``entitlement'' is mandatory. You have to take it. Now, here is the government saying you have to take Medicare, and her opinion will undoubtedly be relied upon by the Obama administration as support for claims of mandatory entitlements, such as that which is the crux of ObamaCare, which could be Medicare for everyone. Everyone would have to be covered, not by their own individual health care plans that they have or by their employers' health care plans or a group plan they're on, but everyone would have to be covered by Medicare, which is a government-run, socialized medicine approach, which ultimately would ration health care and cost a great deal more. ObamaCare, when you run it out for 10 years, you'll find is going to cost literally trillions of dollars at a time when we have a $14 trillion national debt. This year alone, we're exceeding our revenues by $1.4 trillion. The Wall Street Journal reported that Kent Masterson Brown, the lead attorney for the seniors, commented that, if Americans wonder how bureaucrats will write ObamaCare's rules, they need look only to this ruling. ``When they do,'' he said, ``they will realize nothing will be optional.'' This is an alarming decision that came about in a disturbing manner. Collyer's ruling is a danger to freedom-loving Americans. Let's look to the plaintiffs' appeal--they're appealing--to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for more favorable results. That's where we are today. If she is not reversed, that means anybody who gets Social Security, who may have another health care plan and who may not want to be on Medicare, will either have to take Medicare or will have to pay all their Social Security benefits back; plus, they don't get Social Security in the future. Now think about that. You don't want to take Medicare for whatever reason, and you've been paying into Social Security all of your life. You're getting Social Security benefits, and because you won't take Medicare, they say, Uh-oh. You've got to pay all your Social Security benefits back to when you received them, and you can't get any more in the future. That is just absolutely crazy. I want to read to you some information that I have from the actual wording of the statute, and this is very, very important because it can only be interpreted one way. Yet this judge and the Obama administration are changing it so that it will fit their desired objective. Let me read this to you. Be patient with me while I read this and get all the information before me. Here is what the Medicare statute says. My colleagues in your offices, see if you get from this that the people have to take Medicare if they're getting Social Security or if they have to pay the payments back and not get any more of their Social Security benefits. Here is what the Medicare statute says: The Medicare statute provides that only individuals who are entitled--entitled--to Social Security are entitled to Medicare. If you're ``entitled'' to Social Security. You have to be entitled to Social Security in order to be entitled to Medicare, but it does not say if you're entitled to Social Security that you have to take Medicare. It only says, if you're entitled to Social Security, you're entitled, if you want to, to take Medicare. This judge is changing the words that are in the statute to mean, if you take Social Security, you have to take Medicare; but the law does not say that. She is making law on the Federal bench, but that's not what our Founders contemplated when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Listen to this again: The Medicare statute says that only individuals who are entitled to Social Security are entitled to Medicare. Therefore, the judge is arguing the only way to avoid entitlement to Medicare part A at age 65 is to forgo the source of that entitlement, i.e., Social Security retirement benefits. So she is standing the law of the country, the Medicare law and the Social Security law, on their heads. This will mean to every single citizen of this country that, if the government says, ``Here is something we want you to do. If you don't do it, we're going to take away another benefit you have or another government program,'' you will have to do it, because that's what this judge's ruling simply means. If the government is giving you a benefit like Social Security and they decide that there's another benefit that you're entitled to, then say you have to take it, but you don't take it, they will be able to withdraw your Social Security and say you have to pay back all of the benefits of the past. This is absolutely insane. It is government run amuck, government run out of control. And this judge, if I had the ability, would be fired. I can't remember the exact date, but in 2008 she ruled in favor of the plaintiffs saying if you have got Social Security and you don't want Medicare because you have got another health care plan, you don't have to take it; and now she's reversed herself and said if you get Social Security, you have to take Medicare. And once again, before I give up the floor, Mr. Speaker--and I see my good friend's here, I'm going to yield to you the balance of my time-- this is what the law says: the law says that only individuals who are entitled to Social Security are entitled to Medicare. But that does not say if you're entitled to Social Security you have to take Medicare, and she's saying--and I hope everybody's getting this--she's saying that if you're getting Social Security, you have to take Medicare. You've got another health plan, if your employer has another health plan, doesn't matter; you've got to get rid of those, and you have to join Medicare or you lose your benefits. Now, this case is on appeal, and I hope it goes all the way to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court will reverse it because, if it does not repeal this decision by Judge Collier, then what's going to happen is that everything that government says will have to be done, and you will have almost complete government control over every aspect of our life. If they can say you get Social Security, you've got to take Medicare and if you have got a separate health care plan, to heck with it; and if they can go far enough to say that, they can say anything they want to to make you jump through a hoop. And that is just dead wrong, and it flies in the face of everything that we believe as far as the free people and a free government is concerned. I just can't believe some of the things that are happening around here; and the thing that bothers me, Mr. Speaker, is the American people who are involved in so many things that they can't pay attention to all the things that are going on. They rely upon their elected Representatives because we have a democratic Republic to study these bills and make decisions that are best for the entire country. And that's the reason they do this, because we've got 300 million people here, and they can't read every bill or watch every court decision. But the fact of the matter is, these courts, a separate part of our government, our Forefathers said we've got a judicial branch, a legislative branch, and an executive branch, and they're supposed to be coequal. But here you have a Federal judge making a law that will transcend laws that we have on the books and change the way of life for every single American. Remember what this does. The law says if you're getting Social Security, you may take Medicare, and what the judge is saying, if you get Social Security, you have to take Medicare, no matter what other health care plan you have; and if you don't do what the government tells you, you have to do it, then you're going to lose your Social Security benefits; and not only that, you have to pay back, probably with interest, every Social Security check you received. That is horrible. This administration and this judge ought to be taken to task for it; and with that, I'd like to yield to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Can I just say one thing. My colleague, a good friend of mine, Representative Gohmert points out the fallacy and the problems with the ObamaCare bill, and that is bad, very bad and it should not be in law, and that's why we moved H.R. 1 to repeal it. But this decision that I was talking about, Louie, even goes further than that. It says if you're getting Social Security, you have to take Medicare, and what they're doing is they're saying everybody in this country is ultimately going to have to be under a government-run program, Medicare or ObamaCare, which means socialized medicine and an entirely different approach to medicine which will be controlled by government bureaucrats.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I'm sorry to interrupt you, Louie, but one thing I think that my colleagues and anybody that is paying attention ought to know is, first of all, I have heard that the Republicans don't have an alternative health care plan. We've had one for 2 years, and the media keeps saying that we haven't provided an alternative. We do, one that will work and won't cost the taxpayers and the future generations almost everything that they will ever expect to earn. That's number one. The other thing that concerns me is that the administration and now their complicit persons in the court and the media are trying to do everything they can to move this country in a direction that nobody has ever anticipated and that is complete government control over our lives. And I know that you and all of our colleagues from this side of the aisle are very committed to making sure that doesn't happen. The last thing I would like to say is, we need to cut government spending. You know this. And we're sending legislation over there to try to cut $100 billion or $61 billion out of this year's spending, $61 billion. The projected deficit this year is $1.4 trillion, so $61 billion is a drop in the ocean. It's nothing. Yet they don't want to cut anything or any programs. And if we don't cut spending, this country will not only be bankrupt, but we'll be giving a legacy to our kids and grandkids that they will never forgive us for. So I just hope my colleagues are really aware of that. We don't want to shut the government down. We are committed to cutting spending. They are the ones that, when we send a spending cut over there, won't let the bill pass; and we're cutting in a responsible way. So they're the ones that are causing the problem. We do not want the government shut down.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank my colleague for coming down to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained during the last series of rollcall votes. Had I been here, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 207 (Mica Amendment); ``nay'' on rollcall vote 208 (Garrett Amendment); ``nay'' on rollcall vote 209 (DeFazio Amendment); ``nay'' on rollcall vote 210 (Hirono Amendment); ``nay'' on rollcall vote 211 (Capuano Amendment); and ``aye'' on rollcall vote 212 (Gingrey Amendment).

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Well, there you have it, folks. I was very psychic. I told you he would be talking about government spending and how we can get control of this budget. And so with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I wish every one of my colleagues and everybody in America would listen to this Special Order tonight, not because I want the attention, but I just think there are some facts that the American people ought to know and my colleagues ought to know about our dependence on energy from other parts of the world. It really bothers me that we continue to depend so much on our adversaries or people that aren't our friends rather than we do on ourselves. We could be energy independent within a relatively short period of time, and I am talking about 5 to 10 years, if we just did certain things. So tonight what I want to do is I want to point out to my colleagues and anybody else that might be paying attention where the energy is in America, what it is, and how difficult it would be to extract it. Now, right now, people that are paying attention in their offices know that we are paying $3.60 or more for a gallon of gasoline. Diesel fuel is over $4 a gallon. And my chief of staff went to the grocery store the other day, and he told me he bought two tomatoes and it cost $5. He bought one avocado and it cost $3. People are telling me there is no inflation. That is baloney. The cost of food is going up. The cost of gasoline is going up. The cost of everything is going up, and in large part it is going up because the cost of energy is rising very, very rapidly. And it need not be that way. I talked to a fellow the other day that came in to see me about new technologies, and he told me if we developed our coal shale, converted it into oil, we could lower the price per barrel of oil from $105 a barrel to $30 a barrel. Do you know what that would do to the price of gasoline if we were to do that? It would lower the price of gasoline from $3.60 down to about $1.40 or $1.30 a gallon. And what do you think that would do to the economy and what would that do to lowering the prices of goods and services that we go all the way across the country in dealing with? Yet we are not doing anything. So I want to read tonight a little bit about where we are, what we could do, and what we can accomplish if we just start paying attention to what is here in the United States. The old adage goes that those who don't learn from history are going to make the same mistakes over and over again. And apart from creating what we call the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in this country, we haven't done anything over the last 30 years to become energy independent. Now, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a reserve we set up so that if we have an emergency, we will have some oil in the ground that we could use for energy purposes. And it goes for maybe 90 days, but 90 days is not a very long time, and we could exhaust that in a very short period of time if we don't move toward energy independence. Right now on the northern tier of Africa, everybody that is paying attention knows we have got problems in Libya. We have problems in Egypt, problems in Tunisia, problems all along the Persian Gulf coast, Bahrain and the other countries, and we have got Iran there; and there is a real possibility that we could see a terrible problem occur there in the future which would minimize our ability to get oil from that part of the world. We get over 30 percent of our energy from countries in that region and other places in the world where people don't like us very much. And if that place goes up in smoke, the cost of energy, the cost of gasoline, the cost of everything that we have is going to skyrocket. So we have to do something about that. In 1972, we imported 28 percent of our oil and energy from outside this country. Do you know what it is today? It is 62 percent. So we said we are going to be energy independent. It was 28 percent in the seventies. We said we were going to be energy independent. A lot of people remember the long gas lines when OPEC tried to do us in. They remember people carrying gas cans to get 5 gallons of gas to get to work. They remember all that. But we didn't do anything but create the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is only a 90-day supply. So we imported 26 percent or thereabouts in the seventies, and today, instead of being energy independent, we are importing 62 percent. We are more dependent on Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and other parts of the world now than we were then by more than double, more than double our dependency on foreign oil. So today oil has gone up to over $105 a barrel. It may be down a little bit now. We are paying in many parts of the country close to $4 for gasoline and over $4 a gallon for diesel fuel, which transports our goods and services across this country. Oil is the lifeblood of this country. It supplies more than 40 percent of our energy needs and 99 percent of the fuel that we use in our cars and trucks. They talk about the new Volt automobile, electric car, that that is going to solve our problems. They talk about windmills that are going to solve our problems. They talk about nuclear energy, which is very problematic right now. They talk about all these other things, including solar energy. But all of that combined will not put a dent, not even a dent, in our energy needs. And as we know right now, 99 percent of the fuel that we need for our cars and trucks comes from oil, and our current energy demand is about 21.5 million barrels a day. What a lot of people don't realize is for every one penny that it costs more for gasoline, it increases the cost to consumers by $4 million a day. So every time you go to the gas pump and you see the gas price has gone up a penny or a nickel or 10 cents, for each penny it is a $4 million hit on our economy each and every day. Now, there are a lot of things I want to talk about, but I won't have time to get into all of them tonight. But the thing that is very disconcerting to me is that we have the energy that we need right here. For instance, if you look at this chart, this is the oil production in this country. If we use the recoverable oil we have, the natural gas we have and the coal resources that we have, that is equivalent to 1.3 trillion barrels of oil, 1.3 trillion. Now, when you realize we are using only about, what, 21 million barrels of oil a day, you can see we would have an almost inexhaustible supply of oil if we just used the resources that we have. Let me just give you some examples. In the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we have about 10.4 billion barrels of oil, more than double the proven reserves of the entire State of Texas and almost half of the total crude reserves in the U.S., which is 22 billion barrels of oil. That is in ANWR alone, almost half of what we need. If we drilled in ANWR, we could increase our reserves by nearly 50 percent in that one area. President Clinton vetoed the ANWR energy production in 1995, and the United States could be today getting almost 1.5 million barrels of oil a day if we did that. But instead of moving toward energy independence, we continue to talk about it, but we don't do anything about it. Currently, the President of the United States will not allow us to get new permits to drill offshore in the Gulf of Mexico or off the continental shelf or in ANWR or anyplace else. We just aren't drilling, so we continue to import oil. Now, a lot of people don't realize this, but we spill more oil from the oil tankers that bring oil from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, we spill more oil each and every day than the oil that was spilled from that horrible tragedy that took place in the Gulf of Mexico. And yet we continue to import with these tankers, and we say it is an environmental problem because look at what happened in the Gulf of Mexico. That is an excuse to not drill in this country, because we are wasting energy by not getting it right here. And, as I said before, we are spilling more out of those tankers than we had in the Gulf of Mexico tragedy. So we ought to be drilling. And we could do it in an environmentally safe way if the government of the United States and our regulators made sure they watched these oil wells. The technology is there. Now, as I said before, we have 1.8 trillion barrels of oil and as much as 8 trillion barrels of oil if we use the deposits that we have in oil shale. Maybe I haven't said that yet, but we do have. Now, listen to this. I had a fellow come in to me the other day, and I may have mentioned it to some of the people earlier, and I sometimes get mixed up because we have covered this thing before, but he told me if we drilled here and used oil shale, we could reduce the cost of oil dramatically, dramatically, as much as 60 or 70 percent, and it would reduce overall costs of energy dramatically to our houses, our cars and our trucks which bring goods and services and food all across this country. Currently, the United States produces roughly 30 trillion cubic feet of natural gas every year, 30 trillion feet of natural gas every year. If we went after the Marcellus shale formation where they have 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, we could more than double our domestic production of natural gas almost immediately, and we could use that natural gas to move our trucks. I had some of the leaders in the natural gas industry come to see me not too long ago, and they told me if we just converted our 18-wheelers that transport goods and services across this country and food, if we just converted those to natural gas, we could cut our dependency on foreign oil by 50 percent. Just that one thing. Yet we're not drilling for that natural gas because the administration will not give the permits and move to utilize those resources that we have. The Obama administration, for whatever reason, I don't know if it's intentional or just because of ignorance, they're not using our resources and not exploring for our resources. It makes we wonder sometimes if the environmental extremists in this country don't want us to go back to horse and buggy and using wood to heat our houses. They wouldn't want wood to be used to heat our houses because obviously they're concerned about things like the spotted owl. But the fact of the matter is we in this country could reduce our cost of living, could reduce our dependency on foreign oil. All we have to do is use our resources, but we need the administration to do what is necessary. And at a time when the world is on the precipice of some major wars, we need to move toward energy independence. If the Persian Gulf goes up in smoke, it's going to be disastrous for this economy. If Venezuela and President Chavez down there, who's a Communist dictator, if he decides not to let us have the oil that we've been buying from him, it will be tragic for this country. And he's working with Tehran. They have flights going back once every week--back and forth--and they're working together for things other than the good of the United States of America. And so we're dependent on people that don't like us, would like to see our free enterprise system and the freedoms we enjoy dissipate into nothing, and we're continuing to depend on them for foreign energy. The President has said it's a real danger to drill in the Gulf of Mexico; we want to protect the environment. Yet we just sent $1 billion down to Brazil so they could drill offshore. Now think about that. We're concerned about the environment, and yet we're sending billions of our taxpayers' dollars to a country like Brazil so they can do deepwater exploration for oil. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The administration--just to let people know what is going on in their offices--the administration canceled 77 onshore drilling leases in Utah just weeks after taking office. So we had 77 onshore, in the Continental United States, drilling leases in Utah that were going to be used to bring oil to the surface--and natural gas--and they stopped those weeks after they took office. And they later re-offered only 17 of them. So we lost 60 potential areas of oil and gas. The administration has consistently delayed oil and shale development leases. The administration has repeatedly blocked development, as I said before, in places like the ANWR. And I've been up to Alaska. People talk about how it's going to hurt the environment up there and the bears and all the other animals. The ANWR is way out in the boondocks. It's not going to hurt a thing. People don't realize Alaska is 3\1/2\ times the size of Texas. There's only 500,000 people up there. There's tremendous oil and other natural gas resources up there, and we can't drill for them because of environmental concerns. It makes absolutely no sense. No sense whatsoever. America's reliance on oil and natural gas is going to continue for decades to come. There's no question about it. When the administration says we have to transition to other forms of energy--nuclear and solar and wind and hydro ways of getting energy--that's great. All of us want to do that. We all want a clean environment, but in the meantime we have to rely on fossil fuels because we're not going to be able to get where they want us to be by relying on these other sources of energy for at least 10, 15, 20 years. So what are we supposed to do in the meantime? I don't think we should continue to depend on foreign sources of energy. America's reliance on natural gas, as I said, is going to continue for decades to come; and trying to ignore that reality by arguing that it takes time for new fields to come online is simply passing the buck to the next generation. If we responded to the widespread outcry to drill 3 years ago, the last time oil and gasoline prices were over $3.50 a gallon, we would be that much closer to having additional supplies of domestic energy. But we aren't. We're importing 62 percent of our energy, and just a couple of decades ago it was only 26 or 28 percent. Expanding America's energy production will lower prices, create new jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and strengthen our national security and raise revenue to help tackle our historic $14 trillion in national debt. One of the things that I hope all young people in this country will realize and all the seniors will realize is that we're passing on to that young generation $14 trillion in debt. The debt has increased in the last 3 years by $4 trillion. From the beginning of the Republic to the last 3 or 4 years, we didn't come close to that kind of spending. Yet we increased the debt in 3 years by $4 trillion. ObamaCare is going to add a great deal more to that, in addition to rationing health care and all the other things that people have heard about. But the thing that concerns me the most is the standard of living that we have today and what we're passing on to the future generations. By not becoming energy independent, by running up these huge debts because we're coming up with these new programs that we can't afford, by creating a bigger bureaucracy in Washington, including 15,000 new IRS agents to implement the rules and regulations of things like ObamaCare, all those things are going to add to the debt and the quality of life that I've had and my parents had is going to deteriorate. I'm afraid we will pass on to our children and our grandchildren higher taxes, higher inflation, a lower standard of living because we're living way beyond our means today. Natural gas and coal shale and oil are ways that we can cut our dependence on foreign oil and reduce that dependency on government and lower the cost that we're incurring as far as our national debt is concerned. I don't know what we have to do to convince the administration. Sometimes I wonder if it's because they're not aware of the future, they're not aware of what is going on, or maybe they're just doing it on purpose because the President believes in more government control over various parts of our society. One-sixth of our society is health care; and that's been nationalized by the ObamaCare plan, which we're trying to repeal because that will create long lines to get to see a doctor and socialized medicine. That's all a result of more government control and more government spending and more national debt. Can you imagine what it would be like if we came back in 50 years-- and I probably won't be around then; I'm sure I won't--but we come back in 50 years and there's some young person struggling to get along and they say, Why in the world did our fathers and grandfathers leave this kind of a society for us? They lived so much better. The cost of living was lower. The cost of energy was lower. The cost of health care was lower. Everything was lower. They lived so much better than us. Why didn't they do something to make sure we had that quality of life? And the answer is simply: we're not doing it. We're opening up the government credit card, we're charging all this money, we're depending on other sources of energy from other countries, and the credit card just keeps gathering steam and gathering more debt and gathering more debt and gathering more debt. If my colleagues in their offices are paying attention right now and they said to their wives, We overspent last month by $5,000; what are we going to do, their wives and the wives of the people that might be paying attention would say, We've got to cut back on spending. We've got to budget our money. We can't live like this. We'll go bankrupt. And I tell you right now, America is in the same situation. We will go bankrupt. In fact, we are bankrupt, but we're printing money as fast as we can to keep from declaring bankruptcy. They talk about Social Security being insolvent in 15 or 20 years. If you go into the vaults and look at Social Security receipts, it's all a bunch of paper. They've used that money for other purposes. We're robbing Peter to pay Paul for Medicare and Social Security as we live today. So we just add to the debt and add to the liability that we leave to the future generations. So if I were talking to the President tonight, Mr. Speaker, I would say: Mr. President, if you love this country as much as we love this country, then take steps to do what's necessary to cut spending, to do away with a lot of these wasteful programs that aren't accomplishing anything, to make sure that we come up with a health care plan that does not create a dependency on government but on the private sector by doing tort reform and coming up with savings accounts that people can deduct from their taxes so that they can pay for a lot of their own health care needs. There's a whole bunch of things we can do without socialized medicine. So I would say: Mr. President, let's look at the other avenues. Let's reevaluate ObamaCare and come up with a solution that's not going to put this country in red ink ad infinitum. And I would say, These new programs you're talking about are the programs that we've tried for years and years that have been nothing but a drain on taxpayers' dollars but haven't improved anything. Let me give you one example. I hate to digress from this energy issue, but I think it's important that we talk about this. If you look at the grade levels in our schools and high schools and our colleges across this country, you will find that the last 20 years, the grade levels have not gotten better. The quality of education has not gotten better. If you look at the chart and see how much we're spending through the Department of Education at the Federal level, you'll find that we're spending billions and billions and billions of dollars, and they're not accomplishing a thing except for paying a lot of bureaucrats' salaries and sending money back to some of the unions that feel like they need that money to take care of their union members, and those union members continue to support people who want to keep that gravy train going. So there are things we can do. We could say let's leave education where it belongs, at the State and local levels, which is where it has always been, instead of spending all this money at the local level. Do away with the Department of Education. We could do that and save hundreds of billions of dollars, and that money could be passed on to debt reduction and to lower our dependence on the future generations of this country. I'd like to just end tonight, Mr. Speaker, by saying that, if you look at these charts, you'll see, first of all, we have--it's unbelievable--trillions and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas in the United States. All these pink spaces here show where shale gas is in the lower 48 States, and it doesn't even include Alaska. Those trillions of cubic feet of natural gas could be brought out of the ground and used to take care of our energy needs to a very large degree. As a matter of fact--and let's put that chart up here--as to the coal shale that we have, they estimate that the amount of coal shale we have in this country would create 1.8 to 8 trillion barrels of oil--1.8 to 8 trillion barrels of oil--right here in this country and that it would immediately reduce our dependency on foreign oil. If you think that the Saudis and the others wouldn't lower their prices per barrel very quickly if they thought we were producing that, you're just not paying attention, because if they saw that we were becoming energy independent, they would want to keep their market share, and they would lower their prices as quickly as possible. Then you talk about coal, itself. We have tremendous resources of coal--584.5 billion tons. Our reserves in coal at these blue places that you see on the map are 4 trillion tons of coal. Now, they say that that will hurt the environment. Well, we've got to make sure that we protect the environment, and that we've got scrubbers on the generating plants and all kinds of things that do protect the environment, but even if we had an environmental problem, we would still work to clean that up. Even if we had that, do we still want to be dependent for our existence, for the defense of this Nation, for the economy of this Nation on foreign sources of energy like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and others that don't like us and would love to see us go down? Go under? We need to use our resources, and the President is succumbing to pressure from radical environmentalists and others to not drill for these resources--natural gas, coal shale--that can be converted into oil, oil that we have onshore and offshore, and coal, itself. It is time that we realize that we can be energy independent. The future of America can be great. We can see this city, as Ronald Reagan said, in 20, 30, 40, 50 years as a shining city on a hill if we move toward energy independence. That one thing alone would help solve our economic problems. It's a defense issue as well as a national economic issue. So, like I said, if I were talking to the President tonight--and I presume, from time to time, the White House does watch what we're doing on the floor--I would say: Mr. President, if you love this country--and I believe you do--I would start doing what's necessary to move toward energy independence. You will be revered as a great President if you do that, and you'll probably get reelected. But if we continue with this huge deficit spending that, in large part, is caused by our dependence on foreign energy, then you run the risk of being a one-term President. So I think the President, being a patriotic citizen as I believe and hope he is, will take to heart what we're talking about in this body and become as close as possible to energy independence within the next 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 years. If he would do this, his legacy that will be left behind will be something that we'll all be proud of. If we don't do that, and if I were talking to the President, I would say: Your legacy will not be very bright, Mr. President. I don't think any President wants to leave behind for history that kind of a legacy. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will just say that I hope that everybody has paid attention to this tonight, and I will be back on the floor to talk about this in the future. Mr. Speaker, I am told we have another colleague who wants to come over, so I'm not going to do my imitation of Al Jolson or tap dance, but I guess I could talk about the deficit a little longer. All right. Well, let's give you some facts and figures while my colleague is on his way over here. I was going to save this for my next Special Order, but we'll cover it right now. The total demand for coal reached 1.12 billion tons in 2008. Over half of our electricity is generated from coal, so you can imagine, if we don't do what's necessary to get coal out of the ground, we're going to become more dependent on foreign sources of energy. Nine out of every 10 tons of coal mined every year in the U.S. is used for domestic electricity. So, when they tell you we can't use coal anymore because of environmental concerns, well, what are we going to do?--because 9 out of every 10 tons of coal is used for electric generation. Each person in this country and everybody who is paying attention uses 3.7 tons of coal a year. So what are we going to do without it if we don't have it? Coal is the most affordable source of power fuel per million Btus historically, averaging less than a quarter of the price of gas and oil. There are approximately 600 coal-generating facilities generating 1.4 generating units in manufacturing utilities across this country, according to the U.S. Energy Information. Coal accounts for 32 percent of U.S. total energy and 23 percent of total energy consumption. Now, that's all I want to talk about as to coal, but it's important that we realize that we are dependent on that source of energy and that we need to continue to use it until we come up with an alternative that's going to work and will be with us. Solar and wind and the other sources will replace that over time, but we are still going to need oil, coal, and gas for at least 10 or 15 or 20 years at the levels or at more than the levels that we're using today. May I inquire of the time remaining?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I can talk about anything, I guess, but I don't want to bore my colleagues back in their offices or bore anybody else who's paying attention to this other than to say these charts that we have here are things that everybody ought to be familiar with, and I will be happy to make these available to my colleagues. It shows that we have plenty of oil, coal, natural gas, and coal shale to take care of our energy needs within the next decade if we'd just get on with it. I am told everybody has gone home. Everybody is going back to their districts. It's kind of interesting that these issues that we're talking about here tonight are so important, and yet people are going back to their districts to talk to their constituents. I wish I had been able to talk to them before they left and give them copies of all these illustrations so that they could go to their town meetings and show the people of this country that we do have the energy we need to be independent. I will try to do that next week, the next time we have a recess and they go back to their districts for their town meetings. For those who are wondering why I'm standing down here, the rules of the House are that when we adjourn at night we have what's called Special Orders, and when we have Special Orders, each side gets 1 hour, and I'm taking the leadership hour on the Republican side. Each side gets 1 hour to discuss issues of relevance to the American people and to their colleagues. And then after that, each side gets a half an hour, and we go back and forth like that until we've used up 4 hours of time. So my colleague, Mr. Gohmert, who is on his way over here right now, is going to use, I presume, part of our first half-hour when he gets here, and I imagine Louie is going to be talking about constitutional law because he was a judge, and he will also be talking about the national debt and the legacy we're leaving behind for our kids. And so when Louie gets here, after I hit him in the nose for not being here on time, I will turn it over to him and let him talk about these issues. What are you laughing at? We have the staff up here, and I think they're getting a little giggly since we're here not talking about anything of relevance. Where is Louie? Coming from the Moon? I mean, we've got the press up there that's being entertained. Oh, it's St. Patrick's Day. You don't think he's been having a little green libation, do you? I guess I should digress and talk about some of the other issues facing this country. There are so many. But I don't want to get started on that and then have Louie come in and have to stop my discussion right in the middle of our talk. You need to write about this in the papers, folks. Well, there's a new movie out. You know, last night they had an Irish American function here in the Capitol, and they had some of those Irish dancers that were extraordinary. And I was watching television this morning, and they had Michael Flatley on, who's got a new movie that's coming out today about the Irish dancers, and I would urge all of my friends and neighbors to go see that movie if they like Irish dancing. Folks, I want you to know that Judge Louie Gohmert, with his green tie, has just arrived, and Louie, what are you going to talk about tonight?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce The Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act of 2011. This legislation closes a loophole that has allowed the United States Embassy in Israel to remain in Tel Aviv, despite the passage of the Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995 and the passage of multiple resolutions (passed with overwhelming and bipartisan support) affirming the U.S. commitment to relocate the embassy to Jerusalem. The Jerusalem Embassy Act declared that it is the official position of the United States that Jerusalem is, and rightly ought to remain, the undivided capital of Israel. On June 4, 2008, while still serving as a United States Senator, President Obama pledged that: ``Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.'' United States officials do conduct diplomatic meetings and other business in the city of Jerusalem in de facto recognition of its status as the capital of Israel, but the Embassy remains firmly grounded in Tel Aviv. Despite this declaration of support and due to presidential waivers, the United States has failed to carry out our promise to our Israeli friends and has never acted to move the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Every sovereign country has the right to designate its own capital and the United States maintains its Embassy in the functioning capital of every country. Why is it then that we continue to delay the relocation of this, our most important embassy in the Middle East? Not only have we not relocated the embassy but our President has seemingly weakened the United States' resolve to do so. Presidential Determination 2011-6, which was transmitted by the Administration to Congress just a few months ago, renewed a legally required waiver which allows the Administration to suspend the 1995 law requiring the U.S. Embassy in Israel to move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. While the renewal of the waiver was not unexpected or unusual, the Obama Administration once again neglected to include a key sentence that the previous Administration had included in previous determinations; specifically: ``My Administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem.'' During such an unstable time in the Middle East, it is more important that ever that the United States and this Congress stand firmly behind Israel. From the recent unrest in Egypt and the collapse of the Lebanese government, to the threat of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and many other anti-Israel terrorist groups, Israel is constantly facing new challenges to maintaining its sovereignty and security. We must show that we are dedicated to our alliance and fulfill the commitments that we have made. In a country where security is an elusive goal, Israel should be secure in knowing that the United States will deliver on its promises. I believe it is well past time to revisit the Jerusalem Embassy Act and close, once and for all, the loophole that has continued to allow the diplomatic embarrassment of not having our Embassy located in the capital city of Israel to continue for ten years. That is why I, along with a number of bi-partisan co-sponsors, am reintroducing this bill which mandates the relocation of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, and reaffirms U.S. policy that Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of Israel. I strongly urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this important bill.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the American people are really upset about right now is gasoline is $3.50, and in some parts of the country it is close to $4 a gallon. And the President of the United States and his administration, for whatever reason, is obstructing our ability to become energy independent. On February 17, U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman, who gave the Department of the Interior information on the deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico earlier, he gave the administration 30 days to rule seven deepwater drilling permits okay, to approve them. He overturned the ban put in place in June of 2010 that allowed the government to arbitrarily impose a moratorium that would cause irreparable harm to businesses along the gulf coast. In fact, it will cost as many as 24,000 jobs. But the thing about it that really concerns me is that we have the ability to become energy independent within a relatively short period of time. Everybody would like to see us move towards alternative sources of energy and clean-burning fuels to help the environment. I don't think anybody opposes that. The problem is in the process. Do we want to become more energy dependent on the rest of the world? Now we get between 25 and 30 percent of our energy from the Middle East. Anybody who has been watching the news at all knows that there is a war going on in Libya, Egypt is in turmoil, and Bahrain is having problems. There are potential problems in Jordan and in Saudi Arabia. Now if something goes wrong over there--and Iran is trying to undermine us by, under the covers, doing everything that they can to stop us from getting energy and to put us in a trick bag--if the Suez Canal is bottled up, if the Strait of Hormuz is closed or the Persian Gulf is closed, we are going to lose or have substantially delayed as much as 30 percent of our energy. You can imagine what that would do to this place. The prohibition against drilling in the Gulf of Mexico takes away about 11 percent of our energy, and the President won't allow us to have permits in that area. Now, he says that he is concerned about it because of the environmental damage that was done by the oil spill down there when the derrick blew up. What isn't said is that the tankers that come from the Middle East and from South America spill more oil, spill more oil than that environmental tragedy that took place in the gulf spill. People don't realize that. Now, we can drill in an environmentally safe way and we can do it in a number of places in this country and move rapidly toward energy independence. We can drill up in Alaska in the ANWR, and people in the environmental community say: Well, we're worried about the bears up there and the small animals and so forth. I've been up there. Does anybody have any idea how big Alaska is? It is three-and-a-half times the size of Texas, and there's only 500,000 to 600,000 people who live in Alaska, and all the rest of that is wilderness except where we are drilling. If we drill in the ANWR, we could produce a great amount of oil and energy that would make us less dependent on Saudi Arabia, the Middle East, and on the communist dictator in Venezuela, Mr. President Chavez. So we are not doing what we should do to make sure that we provide energy for this country and make sure that the cost of energy is low so people can afford it, so employers can afford to hire more people and produce more goods that could be sold here and around the world. The President, for whatever reason, is blocking this, and I just can't understand why; but I think the American people need to know that and that they need to be talking to the President, to the administration and to other Congressmen and Senators about this because, if everything goes south over in the Middle East or if the President of Venezuela decides to cut us off, we're going to see oil prices go up, up, up and the cost of gasoline go to $3, $4, $5, $6 a gallon. It's already over $3.50. If it gets to $6 a gallon, it's going to have a devastating impact on this economy. In fact, it already is having a devastating impact. If you talk to 18-wheeler truckers, the people who haul goods and services all across this country, they'll tell you that they can't afford to keep their prices low for trucking our goods and services if the price of diesel fuel goes above $4 by very much a gallon. Yet it is above $4 a gallon right now, and it's trending higher. If we have a problem in the Middle East or in the Gulf or in South America, wherever we get oil, it's going to have a tremendous impact, not only on our ability to buy gasoline at the pump or to provide oil for heating and for our electrical companies to provide electricity to keep our lights on, but it's going to cost us more when we go to Walmart, when we go to the grocery store, wherever we go to buy goods, food and services, because the truckers who truck those goods across the country are going to have to pay more for their fuel, and they'll pass that along to the consumer in higher prices. So this has a devastating impact on our economy because we depend too much on foreign oil. Another thing I think everybody in this country ought to know, Mr. Speaker, is that we have the largest reserves of coal in the world, which could be converted into oil if we were to use coal-to-liquid technology. We could get as many as 5 million barrels of oil a day in the not-too-distant future, and the amount of oil we could get out of coal/shale is up to 8 trillion barrels of oil. In North and South Dakota, they just found one of the biggest oil reserves in the whole world that we could use to bring down the price of energy in this country, but we can't drill there because the President and the administration and the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy are blocking that. Now, I know a lot of people around the country say, well, we've got to be concerned about the environment--and we do have to be--and we ought to be transitioning into these other technologies, but that's going to take 10, 15, 20 years. To get a nuclear plant up takes forever because you have to go through all the permits and all the governmental regulations. Sure, we could get there, but it's going to take time. In that interim period, we're dependent on fossil fuels, and we're getting those from the Middle East, from South America and from the Gulf of Mexico when we can drill there. So it's extremely important, Mr. Speaker, that we pay attention to this and send a very strong signal to the administration that it's time for us to get on with drilling here in the United States in order to become energy independent. I want to talk about one more thing, Mr. Speaker, which I think is extremely important. It deals with our southern border, between us and Mexico. The President of Mexico told President Obama that he did not want any government agents from the United States--the FBI or our DEA-- to be able to carry weapons when they're in Mexico. We just had one of our agents shot to death in Mexico about 2 weeks ago. It was one of our special drug agents that we had in Mexico. These agents have no ability to defend themselves. One of them was killed, and the other was severely wounded. Along the Texas American border, we've had all kinds of problems. We had a Border Patrol agent just shot recently and killed. We have farmers all over the place and ranchers down there who are scared to death to go out of their houses because these people are coming across the border--drug dealers and people who are bringing illegal aliens in. Some of the farmers are even selling their ranches. We have one fellow down there who has had a 6,000-acre ranch in his family for over 100 years, but he sold his farm. Joe Aguilar sold his ranch because he said he's had enough. They're going across his ranch every day. We have another rancher down there who found a cache of narcotics on his land. He turned it over to the Drug Enforcement Agency. Days later, thugs came into his house and beat him and his wife half to death. The thugs said, If you do this again, we'll kill you. Now, how would you like to live in that kind of an environment? Well, you say, That's right on the border. That can't happen here. It's 80 miles north of the Mexican-American border. It's 80 miles into the United States right now. We have signs posted, saying it's not safe for you as an American citizen to go south of here between that 80-mile marker and Mexico. Can you imagine that? Americans are afraid to even walk on American soil because of drug dealers, thugs, illegal aliens, and people who are transporting them into the country who might kill them. We had one Border Patrol agent who was shot and killed about a week ago. When he was shot and killed, we found out that he had told these drug dealers or illegal aliens or people who were bringing illegals in to stop. Since they wouldn't stop, our Border Patrol agents were told they had to use beanbags. Get this. They had to use beanbags to fire at these people who were across the border illegally who may have been drug dealers or whatever. The fellows they were pursuing turned around with AK-47s--automatic weapons with high-velocity bullets--and shot and killed this one Border Patrol agent. The President of the United States told them the first thing they should use if they suspect people of bringing illegal drugs in and they can't get them to stop are these beanbags. I can't imagine anything like that. These people are risking their lives day in and day out. Some are being killed, and some are being taunted day in and day out. They can't even defend themselves down there. President Obama, along with the President of Mexico, agreed that our DEA agents, when they go across the border into Mexico, can't even carry weapons. How many people do you think who are trying to enforce our drug laws and who are sent down into foreign countries to defend this country against drug dealers and drug cartels are going to want to go down into those areas when they can't even protect themselves? Would you want to do it? I wouldn't want to do it. I'd want to have a weapon so I could at least try to survive in the event they tried to kill me. Unfortunately, the President of the United States just said in the last few days that he will not allow any of our agents--FBI, CIA, DEA or any of them--to carry weapons when they go into Mexico because the President of Mexico, Mr. Calderon, said that he doesn't think we should. Well, we're in a war down there on that border. If you talk to the people in Texas, they'll tell you there is a war between us and the drug dealers and the thugs who are coming across that line into our country; and there is a high suspicion that we're seeing al Qaeda- and Taliban-type terrorists coming across the border into the United States as well. There was an article that was written just recently. I'd like to read part of it, Mr. Speaker. It reads: ``In Texas, nearly 8,200 farms and ranches back up to the Mexican border. The men and women who live and work on those properties say they're under attack from the same drug cartels blamed for thousands of murders in Mexico. `It's a war, make no mistake about it,' Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples said, `and it's happening on American soil,' in this country. ``Texas farmers and ranchers produce more cotton and more cattle than any other State, so Staples is concerned this war could eventually impact our food supply, and calls it a threat to our national security. ``To raise awareness, Commissioner Staples launched the Web site ProtectYourTexasBorder.com. It's a place where frustrated and scared farmers can share their stories. ``One Texas farmer, who asked not to be identified, said it's common for him to see undocumented immigrants'' and drug dealers ``walking through his property. `I see something and I just drive away,' he said. `It's a problem. I've learned to live with it, and pretty much I've become numb to it.' '' Isn't that a sad commentary on this country? We can't even defend Americans in Texas and Arizona. Another farmer, Joe Aguilar, who I talked about earlier, said, ``You either have to beat 'em or join 'em, and I decided not to do either,'' so he sold his farm of 6,000 acres that his family had had for 100 years. Our farmers and ranchers can't afford their own security detail, Staples said. We're going to become more dependent on food and commodities from other countries if we don't do something about it. The President sent 14,000 National Guard people or 17,000 National Guard people down to the Gulf of Mexico when that oil spill took place off that derrick, but we've only sent 1,400 National Guard troops down to the Texas American border, which is 1,980 miles long. We are never going to solve that border problem unless we really realize that it is an area that we have to focus on, that it's a war, that our citizens are in danger down there, and that we can't any longer allow drug dealers to have sites in the United States where they have binoculars and weapons so they can watch for the Border Patrol agents and so they can tell their counterparts to bring drugs across the border or to bring terrorists across the border because they know that the coast is clear. This is something that we can't tolerate. We need to protect our border agents. They ought to have guns that they can use to stop these people. They shouldn't be shooting beanbags at them. And we certainly shouldn't be asking our CIA, DIA, DEA agents to go into Mexico to fight the drug dealers and find out what's going on and tell them they can't even have a weapon to protect themselves. This is insane. The other thing I talked about earlier was the oil situation. It's insane for us to become more dependent on foreign energy at a time when our economy is floundering, we've still got unemployment at around 9 percent, business people can't make plans because they don't know what their energy costs are, and the people who go to work are paying $3.50 to $4 for a gallon of gas. We can do better, and the President ought to do better. And I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the message will get to the White House loud and clear before it's just too late and our economy is hurt further. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, last week, President Obama made an unprecedented decision to declare a Federal law unconstitutional and thereby abdicate his responsibility to uphold and defend that law. The law in question is the 1996 ``Defense of Marriage Act'' written ``to define and protect the institution of marriage.'' It allows all states, territories, possessions, and Indian tribes to refuse to recognize an act of any other jurisdiction that designates a relationship between individuals of the same sex as a marriage. This law was properly passed by the U.S. House of Representatives and the United States Senate and properly signed by then-President Clinton. The law was passed to reflect the desire of the American people that we clarify the meaning of ``marriage'' so that the definition of the word could not be changed by activist judges. The Constitution of the United States grants certain powers to the President, but not the power to unilaterally legislate based on personal preference. The power to legislate was given specifically to the Congress and it is Congress' responsibility to pass or repeal legislation. Neither does the Constitution of the United States grant courts the power to legislate, although many activist judges have attempted to redefine the legal definition of marriage through the judicial process. Furthermore, the Constitution does not grant the Federal government the power to regulate marriage. In fact, the Tenth Amendment specifically states: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people.'' The responsibility to regulate marriage properly belongs to the people of the various States and it is time for us to return that power to the people. That is why I, along with a number of my colleagues, am today reintroducing the Marriage Protection Act of 2011. This bill simply states that no courts created by an act of Congress--meaning Federal courts--will have jurisdiction to hear cases regarding same-sex marriage. Additionally, the Supreme Court will not have appellate jurisdiction to hear these cases. In short, the bill makes same-sex marriage an issue to be determined by the people through their State legislatures or via referendum, not to be determined by Federal judges. If this bill is passed then no President, Justice Department official, or Judge will be allowed to unilaterally define marriage. Only the people will have the power to decide the definition of marriage. I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this important and timely bill.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, next week the Prime Minister of Australia, the Honorable Julia Gillard, will be in Washington, DC on a state visit. This will be Prime Minister Gillard's first visit to Washington since becoming Prime Minister in June of last year; and her visit will also mark the 60th anniversary of the U.S.-Australia alliance. In addition to many other official meetings and ceremonies, Prime Minister Gillard will take time out of her schedule to present a $3 million check from the Australian government to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund to help build the Education Center at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Regrettably, a last minute scheduling conflict is going to prevent me from attending this ceremony, but I want to extend my deep appreciation and thanks to the Prime Minister and the Australian people for this very generous contribution. Australia has always been a steadfast ally and partner to the United States. This contribution further underscores the deep ties of kinship and friendship between Australia and the United States. Many Americans tend to think of the Vietnam War as a solely American conflict. In reality the conflict involved troops from a number of nations, including Australia. Between 1962 and 1972 approximately 60,000 Australian military personnel served in Vietnam. Australia's soldiers had a distinguished and remarkable record of service and courage in Vietnam where more than 500 were killed, and some 3,000 were wounded or disabled defending the South Vietnamese people from communist aggression. For Australia, as well as the United States, the Vietnam War was the longest major military conflict in which Australians have been involved. Completed in 1982, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Constitution Gardens adjacent to the Lincoln Memorial has become one of our Nation's more recognized and beloved memorials. Some 3 million visitors each year come to view The Wall and not only reflect upon those who suffered and died in Vietnam but how this nation let that generation of Americans down when they returned home. Ninety-one thousand eight hundred Hoosiers served in Vietnam and the names of the 1,530 who died in Vietnam are etched on The Wall. The Education Center, which will be built adjacent to the Wall, will help educate future generations of Americans by sharing the stories of these exceptional individuals from Indiana and across the America, who served their country with honor. By telling these stories visitors will hopefully understand the courage, sacrifice and devotion of those who fell, those who returned, and those who waited for their loved ones to come home. Along the way, visitors will also discover how the Memorial shaped the way Americans mourn, and the vital part The Wall played in helping to heal the bitter divisions that tore at our nation's heart and soul. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in thanking Prime Minister Gillard for her leadership, her friendship and her dedication to helping us to ensure that the Education Center gets built so that the voice of the 58,000 plus names on the Wall and the millions of Americans--and thousands of Australians--who fought in the Vietnam War can be heard and remembered. And I also ask my colleagues to join me in extending my heartfelt appreciation to the people of Australia for their support and friendship.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, we have severe economic problems in this country. I think everybody understands that. But there is an economic problem staring us in the face that people may not really be aware of yet, and that is the cost of energy. We're not drilling here, we're not drilling in the ANWR, off the coast of the Continental Shelf, not in the Gulf of Mexico. We're not doing anything to become energy independent. And right now in the northern tier of Africa and in the Middle East, there's all kinds of conflict. And if the Straits of Hormuz, if the Persian Gulf or the Suez Canal are blocked in any way, we could lose 30 percent or more of our energy. The lights in this place, the gasoline that we buy would be maybe double what it is today. And the impact of this economy would be unbelievable, and yet we're not doing a thing about it. The President, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, is being derelict in his responsibility in making sure that we're moving towards energy independence. They talk about windmills and solar and nuclear, and that's all great; but that's going to take a lot of time. We have a tremendous amount of energy in this country. We can be energy independent within 10 years if we get on with it. We're too dependent on foreign energy. It's dangerous.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

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