Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, at this time I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield myself such time as I may consume. You know, Mr. Speaker, I think Israel continues to do everything they can to bring about a peaceful solution to the problems in the Middle East regarding the Palestinian issue, but they don't have a partner, and the Palestinians continue to do an end run around the negotiation process. Number one, it isn't going to work. Number two, it shows the insincerity of the leadership of the Palestinian Authority when it talks about peace. In the past 5 years, we have given over $2 billion in assistance to the Palestinian Authority, and we have been reinforcing and rewarding bad behavior on the part of the Palestinian Authority when it has proven to us, by doing the things it is doing right now, that it is really not worthy of the support we are giving it. We should finally hold the Palestinian Authority leaders accountable. A couple of things really bother me. One is when I hear the leader of the Palestinian Authority and the PLO, Abu Mazen, praise the recently deceased mastermind of the PLO's massacre of the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. This is the leader, and he is praising the massacre that the whole world abhorred. He also expressed what he called his ``firm rejection of the so-called Jewishness of the State of Israel,'' saying, ``This issue is over for us. We have not and will not recognize it.'' That's a heck of an attitude for people to have who say they want a Palestinian state and who say they want to negotiate while, at the same time, they're making these statements and are doing an end run around the entire process. Last year, Abu Mazen said, ``Presently, we are against armed struggle because we cannot cope with it, but things could be different at some future phase.'' That indicates again and again and again their insincerity of negotiating in good faith. They are talking about at some point in the future having another armed struggle. Israel has gone beyond the pale time and again. Bibi Netanyahu, the Prime Minister, has taken that extra step time and again. Until we see real concern and real sincerity in the negotiating process, we ought to take a very hard attitude toward the Palestinian Authority. In my opinion, that means cutting off any funding for it until it is willing to seriously sit down and negotiate a peaceful settlement to the problem. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise, as do others on our side of the aisle today, as a supporter of efforts to combat child marriage in developing countries but in opposition to the Senate bill that we are considering today. I want you to know, before I make all my remarks, that I have actually seen forced child marriages in countries like Saudi Arabia firsthand. And it is a horrible thing, and I am very supportive of stopping that practice. It's truly distressing to know that there still are countries where underage girls, like in Saudi Arabia, are compelled to marry much older men and lose their innocence and hope forever. The health of such young girls can suffer, as can their future opportunities to lead productive lives filled with normal social and economic opportunities, lives in which they can contribute with their full potential to their societies and their economies. Concern over this problem is not a partisan issue. For example, in response to the plight of such young women and to ensure that the prevention of child marriage is an integral part of U.S. efforts to promote respect for fundamental universally recognized human rights, in May of last year, Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen of the Foreign Affairs Committee expressly included pertinent language in the Republican alternative version for the State Department authorization bill, H.R. 2475. However, much has changed in our domestic fiscal environment over the course of the last 2 years. Here at home, we have Americans who are losing their houses, their homes, State and local governments that are on the verge of bankruptcy, cities that are reducing their police and firefighting forces, an economy that is close to stalling due to lack of growth, and I could go on and on. But in light of all these facts, even the provision that had been included in the Republican proposal, or the authorization of State Department operations, last year would now need to be revised to cut spending and address the budgetary challenges that we face. Regrettably, the bill adopted by the Senate that we are considering today does not reflect the current fiscal realities. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that the manner in which the provisions of this bill are drafted would result in $108 million of authorized funding and $67 million in actual outlays over the next few years, which is different than what we have heard here on the floor. Further, despite inquiries to the Congressional Research Service and, through CRS, the State Department and Agency for International Development, there is apparently no available confirmed figure on exactly how much aid the United States already provides to fight child marriage overseas. We do know that such U.S. assistance programs, programs that specifically include the prevention of child marriage as an objective, are already underway. But no one can tell us how much taxpayer funding is already being used to fight child marriage in developing countries. To achieve the policy objectives we seek, while taking into account the economic challenges and limitations our Nation, our constituents are facing, this week Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen introduced a bill on the prevention of child marriage which enjoys the support of several of our colleagues in this House. That bill reflects modifications that Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen had sought to make to the Senate text before it came to the floor, but they were not accepted. Instead of the $67 million in outlays over the next 5 years in the Senate text before us, the provisions of that bill would have resulted in less than $1 million in potential costs. The Republican alternative proposed the following: First, we make it clear that child marriage is a violation of human rights and that its prevention should be a goal of U.S. foreign policy; Second, since there's currently no legislative requirement for a U.S. strategy for assistance to prevent child marriage, we require the creation of such a multiyear strategy; Third, we require a report within 1 year that would inform us on the progress of the required strategy and, perhaps more important, give us a comprehensive assessment of what we already are doing and funding in the effort to fight child marriage; and Finally, that the practice of child marriage in other countries be reported each year as part of the annual Human Rights Report, and that the practice of child marriage also be reported for those countries that are potential recipients of U.S. security assistance. I believe the alternative approach that was proposed would have achieved the goals we desire without adding to our economic burdens. Regrettably, we are faced with S. 987 and its price tag of $67 million. Mr. Speaker, having outlined my concerns with the bill before us today, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. May I make an inquiry of my colleague, Mr. Speaker. Do you have any time you would like to yield to our side?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will let Mr. Smith of New Jersey take that 1 minute and I thank him for his generosity.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, I have 2 minutes remaining.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I am happy to yield 1 minute to my good friend from Louisiana (Mr. Cao).

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just like to say that I think it has been proven conclusively by my colleagues here speaking tonight that Christians, Buddhists and Catholics have been prodded with electric prods; they have been beaten; they have been gagged; and they have been mistreated. There is a very strong concern among many of us in Congress that the CPC designation should be reimposed. If the State Department says that Hanoi in Vietnam has turned a corner, the corner that it has turned is down a very dark alley, and we need to enlighten that to let the Vietnamese people know that we stand with them for religious freedom. I rise in vigorous support of this resolution which reiterates the call of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom that Vietnam be re-designated as a Country of Particular Concern, CPC. The State Department, when it lifted the CPC designation for Vietnam, largely for commercial reasons, stated that Hanoi had ``turned a corner.'' Well, as the facts listed in this resolution amply demonstrate, a corner was indeed turned when it comes to religious freedom in Vietnam and we then ended up in a grim, dark alley. This is the dark alley where the Vietnamese regime's security officers gagged prominent advocate for religious freedom Father Ly (LEE) during his trial, a mere four months after the State Department claimed Vietnam had supposedly turned a corner. This is the dark alley from which agents sprang to detain a Norwegian citizen outside a Buddhist monastery where she had gone to present a prestigious human rights award. This is the dark alley of the Communist regime in Vietnam where guests of a Congressional delegation, invited by the United States Ambassador to discuss human rights and religious freedom, were blocked from entering his residence by armed Vietnamese police. This is the dark alley where Protestants have been beaten and Buddhist monks have been harassed and detained. This is the dark alley where members of a Catholic funeral procession last spring were beaten with batons and tortured with electric rods. Can the State Department continue to credibly claim that the Vietnamese regime has turned a corner on religious freedom and is on a positive trend? If so, would State Department diplomats be willing to walk the walk with Vietnamese monks and priests around that corner to confront what lurks in the shadows beyond? The facts more than justify Vietnam's re-designation as a country of particular concern with regard to religious freedom. The Vietnamese regime must be held accountable for its fundamental violations of religious rights. The Vietnamese people need to know that the U.S. stands with them and unequivocally supports and defends their right to exercise their religious freedoms unimpeded. This resolution is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to offer their vigorous support.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I was unable to be on the House Floor for rollcall votes 581, 582, 583, 584, 585, 586, 587, 589, 590, 591 and 592. Had I been present I would have voted: ``Yea'' on rollcall vote 581; ``yea'' on rollcall vote 582; ``nay'' on rollcall vote 583; ``nay'' on rollcall vote 584; ``yea'' on rollcall vote 585; ``yea'' on rollcall vote 586; ``nay'' on rollcall vote 587; ``nay'' on rollcall vote 588; ``nay'' on rollcall vote 589; ``yea'' on rollcall vote 590; ``yea'' on rollcall vote 591; and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 592.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 1576, expressing the Support of the House of Representatives for the establishment of a National Day of Recognition for parents of special needs children. I would like to thank the members of the Education and Labor Committee, especially Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Kline for their effort to bring this resolution to the floor today. As the author of the resolution, I also would like to extend my sincere appreciation to all my colleagues who agreed to co-sponsor this resolution. Finally, I would like to thank Representative Turner of Ohio--a leading co-sponsor of the resolution--who inspired this resolution based on the experiences of one of his constituents, a Mr. George Brooks. Mr. Brooks, who himself is a disabled veteran, worked for 2 years as an attendant on a handicapped school bus for Centerville City Schools in Ohio. Every day he realized how demanding his job was just providing a safe trip to and from school for these children. However, the more he thought about it, the more he realized that the challenges he faced paled in comparison to what the parents of these children had to cope with every single solitary day of their child's life. As many of my colleagues already know, my own grandson is autistic, so I know firsthand the kind of challenges Mr. Brooks was contemplating. In addition, as an autism advocate I have talked with countless families who struggle to deal with the most severe behaviors associated with autism such as seizures with severe breakdowns and explosive behaviors which have caused injury to their child, as well as other children. For these families, broken bones and stitches have become a part of their everyday life. I have also spoken with families who have mortgaged their homes and gone into bankruptcy in their pursuit of treatments to help their children cope with their autism--some treatments, which have helped but are not covered by any insurance, driving these families thousands of dollars into debt with no end in sight. And autism, although it affects an average of 1 in 110 children in the United States according to Centers for Disease Control's latest figures, is simply one of the many medical and educational special needs that families may face. Cancer and heart defects, muscular dystrophy and cystic fibrosis; chronic conditions like asthma and diabetes; congenital conditions like cerebral palsy and dwarfism; and health threats like food allergies and obesity; ADHD, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, Tourette Syndrome, Down syndrome, dyslexia; Mr. Speaker, the list could go on and on. It has been said that if you pick any two families of children with special needs, you would think that they have very little in common; as a family dealing with developmental delays has different immediate concerns than one dealing with chronic illness, or one dealing with mental illness or learning problems or behavioral challenges. Yet the truth is that all of these families share a common thread, their incredible love and devotion to their children. And it is this love and devotion that gives them the strength to fight for appropriate care and accommodations for their children; for their children to be accepted in their extended family, school and community; plan for their children's uncertain future; and constantly adjust routines and expectations to meet their children's needs. H. Res. 1576 is a very straight-forward resolution; it: (1) recognizes the importance of honoring the Nation's parents of special needs children; (2) expresses the sense that a National Day of Recognition for Parents of Special Needs Children should be established to honor such parents; and (3) urges the President to issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe such a day with appropriate ceremonies, programs, and activities. Parents of children with special needs are often more flexible, compassionate, stubborn and resilient than other parents because they have to be. And I strongly believe it is appropriate for this House to honor their sacrifices. To that end, I respectfully ask all of my colleagues to support H. Res. 1576.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, today I rise to celebrate and honor the service of Army Master Sergeant Jeffrey Mittman for receiving the Osborne A. ``Oz'' Day AbilityOne Awareness Award. The prestigious ``Oz'' Award is presented by the Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled to an employee at a federal agency who demonstrates exceptional service promoting the AbilityOne Program throughout the federal, state and local communities. Now, the National Account Manager for the National Industries for the Blind's Midwest Region, Master Sergeant Mittman supports a mission of employment for others with disabilities by promoting the AbilityOne Program through the federal procurement process in Indiana's 5th Congressional District. This patriot's story is a remarkable one, for his story does not start nor finish here with this award. Master Sergeant Mittman's indefatigable commitment to serve his fellow Americans began as a soldier in the United States Army in 1989. Having fought in Operation Desert Storm, Operation Desert Shield, Operation Enduring Freedom, and in 2003, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Master Sergeant Mittman was the All-American hero who never turned down defending his country. It wasn't till his return to Iraq in 2005 as a special advisor to the Iraqi Department of the Interior that he came face to face with death changing his life forever. Tragically, an improvised explosive device exploded near his vehicle in Iraq, leaving Master Sergeant Mittman without a nose, lips, most of his teeth, and the majority of his vision. Since that time, he has endured more than 40 operations and spent over four years recovering physically and emotionally. To his great credit, he has traveled the country sharing the lessons he learned from these experiences with the world. He is noted for saying it is the veteran who has to take that very first step to recovering and that he realized this after attending the Blinded Veterans Association Conference in 2006, where he met people who were blinded years ago who are now attorneys, teachers and business executives. After realizing life can be good in spite of having a disability, he decided to help others who also have disabilities find jobs and lead meaningful lives. Master Sergeant Mittman, a 40-year-old decorated warrior, husband of 17 years, father of two and outspoken military veteran was and forever will be an All-American hero whose determination and selflessness continue to serve our country and inspire our hearts. Today, we salute you.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I rise today to take a moment to pay my respects to road traffic victims in honor of World Day of Remembrance, this Sunday. Since 1993, this special Remembrance Day responds to the great need that road crash victims and their loved ones harbor for public recognition of their loss and pain. The sense of grief and distress of this large group of people is all the greater because many of the victims are young and many of the crashes could have been prevented. The response to road death and injury is often experienced as inadequate, cruelly unsympathetic, and inappropriate to a loss of life or quality of life. In 2005, the United Nations took it global, endorsing it to be the third Sunday in November each year, encouraging NGOs, such as the Association for Safe International Road Travel to commemorate this day. Clinton Oster, an environment and public policy professor at Indiana University in Bloomington, served as chairman of a committee that wrote a report on reducing traffic deaths in our Nation, released on Tuesday. According to the report, transportation safety authorities in other countries have been successful at reducing fatalities by taking a different overall approach, with an emphasis on demonstrating and documenting programs that work and then aggressively making their case for those programs with political leaders and the public. It is estimated that 1.3 million people die in road crashes each year. Unless action is taken, road traffic injuries are predicted to become the fifth leading cause of death by 2030. As Oster said, if such programs were widely adopted in the U.S., it's probable that thousands of lives could be saved each year. It is my hope that recognizing Remembrance Day will signal the importance the issue of reducing road danger to government.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I support this bill, but I think there's something of an immediate import that needs to be discussed, so I'm going to diverge just a little bit from the subject matter. Yesterday, Ahmed Ghailani, 36, who was involved in the killing of Americans at the embassies in Tanzania and elsewhere in Kenya that killed 224 people, including 12 Americans--the military tribunal down at Guantanamo was prepared to try him, but the administration and our Justice Department said he should be tried in civil court in New York and there would be justice meted out. He was indicted on 286 counts for murdering Americans and others at our embassies in those two countries, and he was let off on all but one count. Two hundred eighty-five counts were ruled out. He killed Americans. He's a terrorist. He worked with Osama Bin Laden. He bought dynamite. He bought the telephone that set off the dynamite. He took the detonators to his house and stored them there. He is a murderer. He is a terrorist. Now, right now we have American men and women serving in our embassies around the world, and this is the kind of message we're sending, that terrorists can get away with killing Americans in our embassies. It's unconscionable that this administration and the Justice Department should let this happen. If you look back in history, this kind of an incident would have been tried in a military tribunal, and they wanted to do it. But our Justice Department and our President said no, they would get justice in the civil court. They got justice all right. But did we, the American people? We've sent a message to terrorists around the world that, hey, you can kill Americans, but you'll get off pretty light if you get into an American courtroom. Isn't that tragic? It's tragic. They're cutting off heads of people, they're blowing up embassies, they're blowing up ships. They flew a plane into the World Trade Center on 9/11. The mastermind behind that is down at Guantanamo. Are we going to try him in a civil case in New York? That's what they want to do. And if they do that, are we going to let him off? He was the mastermind behind 9/11 that killed over 3,000 people. I would just say, if I were talking to the President--and I wish I could--I would say, ``Mr. President, this is a travesty of justice, and your Justice Department should be instructed to try these people in military tribunals.'' No more of this baloney. American lives are at stake and the security of America is at stake.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, there was an article, I guess it's on FoxNews.com, today, and it's called ``America's Third War: Texas Strikes Back.'' Captain Stacy Holland with the Texas Department of Public Safety said, ``I never thought that we would be in this paramilitary type of engagement. It's a war on the border.'' It's a war on the border. That border is 1,980 miles long, and the President sent 1,200 National Guard people down there. Now, I don't know how many that is per mile, but it ain't much. And now I understand, from information I got today, that they're going to withdraw some of those because of the cost. Now, they sent 17,000 National Guard troops down when they had the oil spill in the Gulf. Granted, that was a real problem. But the border between us and Mexico is a war zone, a war zone, according to the Texas Department of Public Safety. I want to read to you, Mr. Speaker, some of the things he said. He said, they--the terrorists, drug dealers, people who are kidnapping people--``They cross the border with AK-47s on their backs, wearing military camouflage. They recruit in prisons and schools on the American side. Spotters''--people from Mexico--``sit in duck blinds along the Rio Grande and call out the positions of the U.S. Border Patrol.'' And they do that on the American side. ``To combat the cartels, the Texas Department of Public Safety is launching a counterinsurgency. Tactical strike teams send field intelligence they gather to Austin to a joint operation intelligence center, or JOIC in military terminology. `It certainly is a war in a sense that we're doing what we can to protect Texans and the rest of the Nation from clearly a threat that has emerged over the last several years,' said former FBI prosecutor Steve McCraw, who runs the undeclared `war.' ``And now that there is added pressure on the cartels, the drug runners are employing new techniques, known as a splash down. When the heat is on, they attempt to return to Mexico with the drugs, oftentimes in broad daylight. And because the Texas law enforcement's authority ends at the border--in this case the river--they even have time to put on their life jackets.'' I don't understand why this White House doesn't understand that this is a war on our border, our front yard. And in Arizona they have signs that say--80 miles into the United States in Arizona--they say don't go south of here because it's not safe. In the United States. And the President sent 1,200 National Guard troops down there, and they are withdrawing some of them. I just don't understand this White House. I understand that we have to deal with Afghanistan and Iraq and other places around the world. But this is our front yard. And they are withdrawing. They sent 17,000 down to the Gulf oil spill, and they send 1,200 down there to the border, which is nothing, and now they are withdrawing some of them. The former FBI agent goes on to say, ``The cartels may be ruthless, they may be vicious, they may be cowardly, but they're not stupid. They'll adapt their tactics, and recently they've adapted their tactics to utilize smaller loads, cross with rafts, stolen vehicles on our side. ``President Barack Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano have recently said the Mexican border is more secure now than it has been in 20 years.'' I want to tell you, that is such bull. That is just bull. I can't say that the President of the United States is misleading the people. But, boy, that sure ain't the truth. And if you don't believe that, talk to Congressman Poe from Texas and some of the others from Arizona. Instead of doing what they can to protect American citizens to stop this flood of drugs coming in as well as illegal aliens and others, they are suing the State of Arizona because they say they are trampling on Federal statutes. I tell you, I just can't understand this administration. We are talking about the safety of the United States, and in particular all the people who live on the Texas border, the Arizona border and the New Mexico border. This is something that's unforgivable. And if I were talking to the President, I would say, Mr. President, wake up. This is the American citizens you're supposed to protect. Let's get on with the job.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the Speaker for yielding time to me. About 3 weeks ago, I and four of my colleagues wrote a letter to the President of the United States. Mr. Poe of Texas, my good friend, Ralph Hall of Texas, Pete Olson, and Ed Royce of California wrote a letter to the President talking to him about the horrible, deteriorating problem that is taking place on our southern border. We have a border between the United States and Mexico that is 1,980 miles long, and the problems are getting worse every single day. There have been reports on numerous television channels over the past few weeks talking about how really bad it is getting down there, and there is absolutely nothing being done by the administration to really deal with it. Now, in the letter that we wrote to the President, we said it was extremely important to get on with dealing with this problem very quickly, and we gave the President a few ideas on how this could be accomplished. First, we said, it became apparent that the Mexican Government and law enforcement authorities in Mexico are either unwilling or unable to address this problem. Therefore, we believe it is imperative that our President meet very quickly and begin a serious dialogue with President Calderon of Mexico on building a comprehensive framework in the spirit of Plan Colombia that will better coordinate a more aggressive and proactive strategy to turn the tide. This needs to be done immediately. Second, we must complete construction of the border fence. The money has been appropriated for that and it has been stopped. We need to get that completed. Any responsibility we have to minimize the impact of the fence on the physical landscape or native species in the region pales in comparison when measured against the value of human lives that will be lost if we don't seal the border. And, finally, we said to the President in this letter, we believe it is critical that we deploy additional National Guard troops to the border. Media reports indicate that 17,000 National Guard troops were deployed to the Gulf region during the recent oil spill, 17,000; yet the administration has pledged only 1,200 to the 1,980-mile border of Mexico. Twelve hundred National Guard troops to protect that border; that is nothing. It will not work. When you talk to sheriffs and Border Patrol agents who are down on the border, they will tell you that it is a war zone and it is spilling over into the United States, and American citizens are being killed on the Mexican side of the border. But bullets are actually coming across the border and hitting things in the United States in Juarez and elsewhere. It is extremely important that we address this problem before it gets completely out of control. And some people say we are already there. We have signs in Arizona 80 miles into the United States, 80 miles into the United States, saying, ``Don't go south of here toward Mexico because it is dangerous.'' Can you imagine? We are sending troops halfway around the world to fight for people's freedom and to secure our country from terrorist attacks, and yet we have the prospect of terrorists and drug dealers and everybody coming across that border because we are not protecting it, and it is in our front yard, 1,980 miles, and it is unprotected. They are coming across at will. The President needs to get on with doing what is necessary. I believe he needs to authorize at least 15,000 troops down there and work with the Mexican government to seal both sides of the border and get on with it as quickly as possible. If we don't, the problem is going to get worse and worse and worse. If you don't believe what I am saying tonight, and if I were talking to the President, I would tell him directly this: ``If you don't believe this, Mr. President,'' I know he watches television once in awhile, and if I were talking to the President I would say, ``Watch what is going on and do your job, Mr. President, instead of fighting the Governor of Arizona and the people in Texas, the law enforcement agencies along the border who are staying up day and night trying to defend their constituents in the border area.'' People are being threatened. Their houses are being threatened to be burned to the ground if they even take pictures of the people coming across the border. This is a tragic situation, and if I were talking to the President tonight, I would say, ``Mr. President, you are being derelict in your responsibility to the people of the southwest part of the United States by not addressing this problem in a very thorough and comprehensive way.'' Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, October 26, 2010. Hon. Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: We are writing to you today to express our extreme concern regarding the deteriorating security situation along our Nation's southern border. It seems that every day brings a new report of some atrocity; the most recent being the apparent murder of a U.S. citizen at Falcon Lake, Texas; yet little if anything appears to be being done by our government or the Mexican government to stop the bloodshed and bring the perpetrators to justice. Protecting our borders and our citizens is a paramount responsibility of the Federal government; enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution. It would be an unforgivable breach of our constitutional responsibilities if we do not take stronger measures not only to prevent the upward spiral of violence from further spilling over into the United States and threaten the safety of U.S. citizens on American soil but to reclaim those areas of our border already overrun by smugglers and criminals. We can no longer pretend that this is simply Mexico's problem. The time has come to recognize that the drug violence along the border is a direct threat to the United States and act accordingly. First, it has become apparent that the Mexican government and law enforcement authorities are either unwilling or unable to address this problem unilaterally. Therefore, we believe it is imperative that you immediately begin serious dialogue with President Calderon on building a comprehensive framework, in the spirit of Plan Colombia, that will better coordinate a more aggressive and proactive strategy to turn the tide of this conflict. Second, we must complete construction of the border fence. Any responsibility we have to minimize the impact of the fence on the physical landscape or native species in the region pales in comparison when measured against the value of human lives that will be lost if we do not seal the border. Finally, we believe it is critical that we deploy additional National Guard troops to the border. Media reports indicate that 17,000 National Guard troops were deployed to the Gulf region to respond to the recent oil spill. Yet, you have only pledged 1,200 National Guard troops to protect the border--and according to media reports only a small fraction of those troops have arrived to date. It is unrealistic, if not pure insanity, to believe that a mere 1,200 National Guard troops, even with the support of the Border Patrol, can effectively cover the nearly 2,000 mile long Southwestern border of the United States. We must put additional bodies on the ground and we must give them the weapons and specify rules of engagement that give them the authority to do whatever is necessary to secure the border. A National Guard trooper armed with only a pistol and given no authority to engage the enemy is useless against a criminal armed with military grade weapons and ammunition. Mr. President, we implore you to view this situation for what it is, a war and to act accordingly. Sincerely, Dan Burton, Ralph Hall, Ed Royce, Ted Poe, Pete Olson.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, adoption was very near and dear to the heart of a friend of mine who passed away a few years ago. His name was Dave Thomas. Many of you have heard of him because he started a chain of restaurants called Wendy's, which is now known worldwide. Dave was a child who was adopted. His adoptive mother died, and his father, because he couldn't take care of him, left him in Fort Wayne, Indiana, at a YMCA when he was about 14 years old, and he was left pretty much to fend for himself. Because of that experience that Dave wrestled with as a boy, he ended up becoming one of the strongest advocates for adoption that I have ever known. He worked very hard to get a postage stamp adopted--it was adopted-- which spelled out the need to adopt children who didn't have homes. On every one of his restaurant maps, he had the ways to adopt a child, and he had pictures of children who should have been adopted. So, from a person who had that personal experience, who was Dave Thomas, I learned that adoption was extremely important for the security and the future of these children. Now there are these children we are talking about from Haiti. Obviously, the problems there are herculean. Right now, there is a cholera epidemic down in Haiti, and it's probably going to get worse. They're talking about maybe thousands of people becoming infected with this deadly disease. Can you imagine if any of these children had to be sent back there under Haiti's current conditions? Even if they didn't have that kind of an epidemic, you wouldn't want to send them back there. So I think the legislation this young lady is talking about is extremely important. It sends a message that we really care about those who don't have homes and who need to be adopted. I sincerely hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will do everything they can to make sure this gets passed and to the President as quickly as possible.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Indiana, the Honorable Marlin A. Stutzman, be permitted to take the oath of office today. His certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to his election.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Thank you, Madam Speaker. As dean of the Indiana delegation on our side, it is my honor and privilege to introduce our newest Member, Marlin Stutzman. Marlin is a fourth-generation farmer who grew up on a farm in Howe, Indiana. He is the oldest of four children, all of whom worked on the family farm from a very young age. Marlin and his father operate Stutzman Farms, and he's also owner of Stutzman Farms Trucking. Marlin and his wife, Christy, who my wife tells me has a beautiful voice--she said you sang the ``Star-Spangled Banner'' today and it was fantastic, so we're going to have to use her talents down the road. Marlin and his wife, Christy, have two children, sons Payton--named after Walter Payton, the great football player--and Preston. They're very active in the Community Baptist Church and in foreign mission work. Marlin is a member of the NFIB, the NRA, and the Northeast Indiana Right to Life as well. Marlin was first elected to the Indiana State House of Representatives in 2002, at the age of 26--I didn't know there was anybody that young--becoming the youngest member of the Indiana legislature. While serving in the Indiana House, Marlin fought for lower taxes, less regulation, and balanced budgets. He consistently received 90 percent ratings or above from the Chamber of Commerce and other small business associations. In 2008, he won the Small Business Champion Award from the Indiana Chamber of Commerce. In 2008, Marlin won a seat in the Indiana State Senate. As dean of the Indiana delegation on the Republican side, it is my distinct honor and privilege to introduce to the House of Representatives Mr. Stutzman, but first I would like to yield to the senior Member from Indiana on the Democrat side, Mr. Visclosky.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. It is now my distinct honor to introduce the newest Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Representative Marlin Stutzman.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to call the attention of the House to the ongoing unrest in Kashmir. Although this conflict is a world away from our shores, it directly impacts our sons and daughters fighting the Global War on Terror in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The mountainous region of Kashmir has been a flashpoint between India and Pakistan for more than 50 years because many of the people living in Indian- administered Kashmir -especially in the Muslim-majority Kashmir valley--do not wish to be governed by India. They would prefer to be either independent or part of Pakistan. In fact, India and Pakistan have militarily clashed over the territory three times in 1947/48, 1965 and 1971, and nearly fought another war over the territory in 2001-- which could have involved nuclear weapons. Several years ago, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and then Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf agreed to begin a dialogue aimed at narrowing their differences on the issue of Kashmir, and launch a series of confidence-building measures aimed at promoting trade and normal relations. I was encouraged by their efforts to improve the security situation in Kashmir, and was hopeful that cooperation between India and Pakistan would continue and ultimately lead to a sustained peace in Kashmir. President Musharraf is now gone and Prime Minister Singh has either been unable or unwilling to carry forward the initiative he began some six years ago. As a result, the simmering frustrations of an entire generation of Kashmiris who have grown up and come of age in an environment of repression once again exploded into violence this summer. Regrettably, the conflict has garnered little attention from the American media and zero attention from the White House. During the Presidential campaign, President Obama pledged to appoint a special envoy to the region and declared, ``. . . that solving the `Kashmir crisis' was one of his `critical tasks.' '' So far, this has been a promise unfulfilled. Madam Speaker, I believe an end to the violence and uncertainty in Kashmir would be widely welcomed in India and Pakistan as well as by our military commanders in Afghanistan. The longer the Pakistani Government focuses on staring down India along the Line of Control in Kashmir the harder it will be to defeat the extremists groups threatening the stability of the Pakistani Government, as well as the elements of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda using Pakistan as a safe haven to launch attacks against coalition forces in Afghanistan. I do not know how the problem in Kashmir will ultimately be solved. However, I personally believe that the people of Kashmir should be given the plebiscite they were promised by the United Nations decades ago. And I ask unanimous consent to place in the Congressional Record an op-ed by Dr. Ghalam-Nabi Fai--Executive Director of the Kashmiri American Council--which puts the case for the plebiscite in context. I encourage my colleagues to read it. Whatever the solution, resolving the dispute over Kashmir is crucial to defeating the militants and stabilizing Pakistan, and winning the War in Afghanistan. The status quo is simply unacceptable. [From the Guardian, Aug. 31, 2010] The People of Kashmir Must Be Allowed To Vote on Their Own Future (By Ghulam-Nabi Fai) Pankaj Mishra's article was a concise and accurate examination of the Kashmir crisis (Why silence over Kashmir speaks volumes, 14 August). He pointed out that the protesters ``have a broader mass base than the Green Movement does in Iran. But no colour-coded revolution is heralded in Kashmir by western commentators? Virtually everyone--men, women and children--of the capital city of Kashmir, Srinagar, has taken to the streets to lodge a non-violent protest at the office of the United Nations against the continuance of Indian occupation. But such non- violent protests have received little or no press coverage, even though they have been taking place, as Mishra reports, since 2008. Is it any wonder that Kashmiris feel ``that theirs is the voice of a neglected people''? Mishra speaks about the Indian media amplifying ``the falsehoods and deceptions of Indian intelligence agencies in Kashmir'', which argue that the Kashmiri protests are the work of Islamic fundamentalists and/or terrorists. But in the case of Srinagar, the population of a major town cannot be composed entirely of such elements. Kashmiris simply demand a speedy implementation of the pledge solemnly extended to them by India and Pakistan and the UN--to be allowed to decide their future through an unrigged and uncoerced vote. The protests are an unmistakeable expression of Kashmiris' resentment against the indifference of world powers--and their failure, largely because of toxic power politics, to implement international agreements. As Mishra stated: ``India is a counterweight, at least in the fantasies of western strategists, to China.'' This contributes to the policies of inaction. So Kashmir continues to bleed under a renewed outpouring of revolt against occupation, as the world continues to ignore it There is a deliberate and direct targeting of young people by the military forces, intent on crushing the anti- occupation movement. Mishra states: ``Already this summer, soldiers have shot dead more than 50 protesters, most of them teenagers.'' Their weapons? Rocks and stones. Hardly the tools of terrorists. Apart from the magnitude of violence unleashed by the military forces against protesters, the most poignant aspect of the situation is the acute suffering of the whole population caused by the frequent curfews, disregard of normal life, arrests, detentions and sometimes disappearances of innocent civilians by the authorities. This is a situation without precedent in the south Asian subcontinent and with few parallels in the world today. During his U.S. presidential campaign, Barack Obama pledged he would appoint a special envoy to the region--as Mishra says, ``he declared that solving the `Kashmir crisis' was one of his `critical tasks' ''. However: ``Since then the U.S. president hasn't uttered a word about this ur-crisis that has seeded all major conflicts in south Asia.'' If only Obama would keep his promise, it would certainly hasten the process of peace and stability in south Asia--home to one-fifth of the human race.