Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to rise and pay tribute to Gretchen VanNatter, a dedicated civil servant, a loving mother and truly great Hoosier. Gretchen is being honored this week for her 37 years of public service with the Social Security Administration. Gretchen is a second generation Social Security Administration employee, as her mother is a retired Claims Representative for the Administration. Gretchen began her career with the Social Security Administration in 1975 as an Administrative Aide to the District Manager. From there she worked her way up the Social Security Administration's ladder, attaining positions as Claims Representative, Management Support Specialist, Operations Supervisor and finally in her current position as District Manager of the Marion, Indiana office. Gretchen has been a tireless supporter and ambassador of the Social Security Administration, and has been a valuable resource not only to countless numbers of Hoosiers throughout the Marion area, but as a resource to members of my staff in Marion as well. Throughout her career Gretchen has delivered countless speeches to local organizations, attended fairs to educate the community on administration services, and has worked tirelessly with senior citizens' organizations to ensure that they are properly receiving their Social Security benefits.

The pride in public service Gretchen has exhibited during her career is only eclipsed by her dedication to her family. Gretchen is a loving and devoted wife to her husband Bob VanNatter. The VanNatters are proud parents of 3, along with 3 wonderful grandchildren.

It is my distinct honor to congratulate Gretchen VanNatter for her dedicated public service to the Social Security Administration. She will always have a special place in the hearts of all those who have had the opportunity to work with her over the years, and especially the countless lives she has touched through her unwavering commitment to the Social Security Administration and the citizens of the great state of Indiana.

Congratulations Gretchen!

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the World Bank formally selected Dr. Jim Yong Kim, president of Dartmouth College, and an expert in public health, as its next president. Dr. Kim's selection continues a long-standing practice of having an American lead the institution; which is appropriate as the United States is the single largest financial contributor to the bank. Typically, the selection of a new World Bank president draws little notice but this year, in the most open and transparent selection process in the bank's 68 year history, the Board of Directors had three well-qualified candidates to choose from.

Although the United States supported Dr. Kim, and I agree with his selection, it should be noted that the other two candidates, former Colombian finance minister Jose Antonio Ocampo and Nigeria's current finance minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, were equally qualified for the position. Mr. Ocampo has a strong record of public service with both the United Nations and the Government of Colombia, most notably serving as the United Nations' Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs; Executive Secretary for the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean; and in Colombia as Minister of Finance and Public Credit and Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. Likewise, Ms. Okonjo-Iweala is a globally renowned Nigerian economist best known for her two terms as Finance Minister of Nigeria (her current position) and for her work at the World Bank, including several years as one of its Managing Directors. The Board of Directors was clearly blessed to have three outstanding candidates to choose from.

I commend Mr. Ocampo and Ms. Okonjo-Iweala for driving a spirited and appropriate debate about the future direction of the World Bank. It is always good to obtain new perspectives and to explore new ideas. Indeed, in accepting his new position yesterday, Dr. Kim recognized the growing influence of our colleagues in the world's emerging economies-- as represented by Mr. Ocampo and Ms. Okonjo-Iweala--and pledged to ``seek a new alignment of the World Bank Group with a rapidly changing world.'' And he also committed himself to fostering a bank that, among other things, ``amplifies the voices of developing countries and draws on the expertise and experience of the people we serve.''

I hope that Mr. Ocampo and Ms. Okonjo-Iweala will take up Dr. Kim's call to work with him to reshape the World Bank into a more potent tool for helping to resolve some of the world's most intractable problems. And I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing all three outstanding World Bank president candidates for their dedication to service.

Mr. Speaker, last week, the despotic regime in North Korea

launched a rocket under the guise of sending a ``weather satellite'' into outer space. Fortunately, the three-stage missile failed within two minutes and crashed into the sea, a setback for the North Korean military but a moment of relief for that country's peace-loving neighbors.

While this missile test was a failure--so spectacular a failure that even the propaganda arm of North Korea's government admitted it--that does not mean that any next such test will also fail. This launch was another slap in the face to the United States by a regime that has repeatedly violated agreements we have made in good faith. The Obama Administration has yet again attempted to negotiate with a terrorist regime that uses every negotiation opportunity to buy time to develop its nuclear program. Meanwhile, thousands of North Koreans are starving.

In the most recent ``Leap Day Agreement'' entered into with the United States, Pyongyang agreed to suspend major elements of its nuclear program and refrain from any long-range missile launches. We, in turn, would provide another 240,000 tons of nutritional assistance. Now we have once again provided the regime with food which they reportedly sell for hard currency in order to continue to prop up their military programs. North Korea yet again chooses to violate violates its part of the deal.

I have read reports that estimated the cost of the failed rocket launch at $850 million. The same report said that the cost of the launch cost would have been enough money to buy 2.5 million tons of corn and 1.4 million tons of rice--or enough for the North Korean Government to feed millions of its starving people. This to me is criminal behavior. This launch was a gesture of contempt for the efforts of the United States, the Republic of Korea, and our other partners in Northeast Asia who have been working to prevent nuclear proliferation on the Korean peninsula and to damper North Korea's belligerence.

We must remain vigilant not only in preventing missile tests but also in preventing North Korea's further attempts to develop nuclear weapons.

For more than six decades, it has been the policy of the U.S. government to promote peace, stability, and security in Northeast Asia and in the Korean Peninsula.

South of the Demilitarized Zone, these efforts have seen tremendous and unparalleled success. Since the armistice ended the Korean War in 1953, our ally South Korea has grown economically and matured politically. Korea is now a model democracy, one of the most successful in East Asia, and it shares with the United States the values of liberal governance, free enterprise, and regional security.

By contrast, North Korea is ruled by a family dynasty that disdains those values and seeks to undermine them.

South Korea now has the 11th-largest economy in the world. It is the seventh-largest trading partner with the United States. Over the past six decades, Americans have fought side-by-side with our allies from the Republic of Korea not only in the Korean War, but also in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Over two million Americans of Korean descent live in our country, raising families, building businesses, and contributing to their communities. Thousands of South Korean students are enrolled in American colleges and universities. Many Korean tourists and business travelers visit the United States each year.

The bonds between the United States and Korea are strong and long- lasting, dating back to the 1882 Treaty of Amity and Commerce--130 years ago.

We have no ill wishes for the people of North Korea, whose government does not represent them. That 1882 friendship treaty was made with all of Korea and we look forward to the day when all Koreans and all Americans may participate fully in amity and commerce.

Sadly, the belligerent nature of the North Korean regime has postponed that bright day.

For that reason, in this time of tension in Northeast Asia, I urge my colleagues to condemn, unequivocally, North Korea's programs to develop both nuclear bombs and long-range missiles. We must insist that these projects be ended in the interest of peace and stability.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.

A question: Does the President prevaricate? Does he mislead? I've been watching him on television the last couple of days, and he says that we only have 2 percent of the oil reserves, and we've been doing more drilling over the past couple, 3 years than we've ever done before. So let's look at the facts, and I hope somebody at the White House may be paying attention.

According to the American Petroleum Institute, the number of new permits to drill issued by the Bureau of Land Management is down 40 percent from an average of 6,444 permits in 2007 2008 to an average of 3,962 in 2009 2010. The administration is stopping drilling on public lands. During this same time period, the number of new wells drilled on Federal land has declined by 40 percent. And yet he keeps telling us the reason gas prices are going up is for a number of other reasons. The fact is, we're not drilling here. We've got more oil in oil shale in public lands than they have in Saudi Arabia, and we're not exploring for it.

President Obama cites that oil production is at an all-time high during his administration. However, oil production on Federal land fell by 11 percent last year. Oil production on private and State-owned land--land beyond the Federal Government's grip--grew by 14 percent. So what he's talking about is where he can't touch it, on private land, the drilling is up a little bit. But that's only a small portion of the oil that's available.

Federal lands hold an estimated--get this--116.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil, enough to produce gasoline for--get this--65 million cars and fuel oil for 3.2 million households for 60 years. And, yet, the administration keeps saying, oh, we can't do it; we're doing everything we can.

The American people need to know the truth. The truth is, if we use our own natural resources, in 5, 10, 15 years we could be energy independent. But this administration wants to put more control in the Federal administration.

This administration wants to put more and more control in the Federal Government, in health care, in energy, in every other area, because he believes in a European-style, socialistic approach to government. And the American people need to know that. He isn't giving us the facts.

I want to thank Nan and my good friend, Greg Meeks, for introducing this bill. Greg and I recently were in Budapest, and we were there for a celebration at the statue of Raoul Wallenberg; and it is something that I'll never forget. It was a good time and a very important time.

What do you say about somebody like Raoul Wallenberg or Schindler? These people risked their lives to save people who were going to be killed, going to be put in gas chambers, never to be heard from again. And 6 million people died because there weren't more people like Raoul Wallenberg and Schindler.

So, I just want to say I've heard from my colleagues today the things that I would like to have said, and they said it very well; but I just say, in closing, thank God that there are people who are willing to risk their lives to help their fellow man. There just aren't enough of them. When I look around the world and see the horrible tragedies that are taking place in Africa and elsewhere, it makes you wonder if we're ever going to see people like that again, but thank God we have somebody like Raoul Wallenberg.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First of all, let me say this about Joe. Joe and I have been friends for a long time and have played golf together, and he is one of the best sticks around. I have never heard a more thorough conversation about a person since I've been in Congress. You must have spent weeks doing this, but you said everything I was going to say, so I'll just talk about the Jack Nicklaus from what I know of him.

I've been playing golf along with you, Joe, for a long time. One of the things that I've always wanted to do was to meet the Big Three. Remember the Big Three: Nicklaus, Player, and Palmer? You did him not too long ago. And then Lee Trevino. I had the opportunity to meet all of them but Nicklaus, and I said before I die that I want to meet Jack Nicklaus.

This year, believe it or not, I was at an airport with my wife, and I had an opportunity to run into him, and he was one of the nicest guys that I've ever met. He stopped and took the time to talk to people that were with us and took pictures with us, and he is just a very good and friendly guy. There are no airs about him. He is down to Earth. It's like talking to your next door neighbor. He is a very nice guy.

The things that really appealed to me were the things that you talked about, Joe. He really cares about his fellow man, and people on the tour all respect him. There are some members that you have a problem with; but with him, he's at the very top. In addition to winning 18 majors--to win all of the tournaments that you talked about just boggles my mind.

So I would just like to say if Jack Nicklaus might be watching today--I had an opportunity--and I think you have too, Joe--to play with President George W. Bush. I would say to Jack Nicklaus if he were here: You really need to teach him how to putt. He's one of the worst putters I've ever seen.

Mr. President, I hope you'll forgive me for that.

In fact, I want to tell you a little story. We were playing on the 18th hole out at Andrews, and the President had putted so poorly that he had about a 10-footer left on the last hole, and we gave it to him.

Mr. President, forgive me.

Let me just say it's a real honor to be included with those who are honoring Jack Nicklaus tonight. He's one of the finest people in sports. He is a credit to humanity, and he is somebody that every one of us can look up to.

Mr. Nicklaus, I'm proud to be a part of recognizing you tonight, and I'm glad you're going to get this gold medal.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, this past break that we were just on, I had an occasion to visit a great friend and ally in the Persian Gulf area. If we ever needed allies in that area because of Iran, we sure need them right now. I'm talking about the country of Bahrain.

Bahrain is a great friend, not only because they have been historically a friend of the United States, but we have the Fifth Fleet there, and the Fifth Fleet is there to protect the interests of that part of the world as well as the United States of America. The Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf are right there, and the Fifth Fleet is there to guarantee that shipping of oil from that part of the world can get through. So Bahrain is extremely important to the United States, as well as being a friend and an ally. In addition to that, Bahrain is also a free trade agreement partner. We have a great free trade agreement with them, and they've been absolutely great as far as trade is concerned. I think we have a trade surplus with them.

The reason I've brought this up tonight, Mr. Speaker, is because I watch television, and I've seen where there has been a repressive government in Bahrain. There is no question there have been problems in the past. There has been overreaction by the police in certain instances in the past year, year and a half. As a result, there were people who were hurt severely when they were demonstrating in the streets of Bahrain. But the King and the Crown Prince have worked very hard to solve this problem.

One of the problems they have over there is the Iranian Government is working to try to undermine many of the countries in the Persian Gulf, and Bahrain is one of them; and there have been people coming from Iran into Bahrain to try to work with the demonstrators to undermine that government and overthrow it. People from Bahrain who are fairly radical have gone to Iran and Iraq to learn tactics to employ against the government there.

We have found that just recently there have been firebombings of homes of police. There have been firebombings of police in the streets. Some of them have burned to death. Just recently, at one of the homes of a policeman there who was gone, his wife and child were there and their house was firebombed.

The police have been ordered by the government, the King, and the Crown Prince to be very careful in how they react to the demonstrators. As a matter of fact, they don't use ammunition; they use tear gas to control the crowds. So there is no attempt right now to hurt the people there who are trying to hurt the police and the government.

I think it's important that we get the proper perspective on what's going on over there because this is one country that is extremely important to the United States because of energy that we get as well as trade and other things. If the Strait of Hormuz were to be closed down, if the Persian Gulf was closed down, if they sank some ships in there or if they put mines in the Strait of Hormuz or the Persian Gulf, the Fifth Fleet would have to go in and clean those out to make sure that commerce continued through the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. So Bahrain is extremely important.

Now I want to make a couple of points tonight that are extremely important.

First of all, the government and the police have made mistakes in the past; there is no question about that. Demonstrators, as I said before, have been infiltrated by outside radical elements. The demonstrators have used terrorist tactics, as I said, to try to destroy and undermine the government, and the Molotov cocktail is one of the things that they've been using. They've also been learning other things from the radicals that come in there or have been trained by the Iranians.

The government has attempted to solve the problems. As a matter of fact, the King appointed an outside commission, and this is the commission report: Report of the National Commission Charged with the Recommendations of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) Report. This is a huge report. It's not by the Government of Bahrain. It's by an outside group of people who were being fair and objective when they made these recommendations to the government. The King and the Crown Prince and the government are doing everything they can to implement these recommendations, and we need to applaud them for doing that.

They are reaching out to the demonstrators and the more radical elements to try to get them to the conference table to solve these problems. So far the demonstrators, supported in large part by these radical elements, will not come to the conference table and discuss these issues. The government is trying to reach out to them, but the demonstrators don't want to. That's something I think the world needs to know and the people in this country need to know. I hope our State Department is paying attention to this, because the State Department has a different view in many respects than what I found when I was there.

I want to stress very clearly tonight that the government has reached out to the demonstrators to discuss their grievances, but they can't get them to sit down with them. The government is reaching out, but the radical elements of the demonstrators are trying to make sure that the government continues to be undermined and stopped.

Let me just end by saying that we don't have a lot of friends in that part of the world. We have seen all kinds of problems in Libya. Libya is now in a state of confusion. If you look at Egypt right now, radical elements are trying to take over the Government of Egypt. That's the biggest country in that area. We see the problems in Syria. People are being killed, and we're trying to see a resolution of that problem through the mitigation of the United Nations and the former head of the United Nations.

But that entire area is in a state of flux, and we need all the friends that we can get. One of the best friends we have in the world, in my opinion, is Bahrain. Since they are our friend and the Fifth Fleet is there and since they are a great trading partner, I think

that we should make sure that the American people and the rest of the world know how important Bahrain is to this country and to the world.

Thirty-five to 40 percent of our energy comes through the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. If that area were to be bottled up, we would be in big trouble. Lights would go off. Energy would be curtailed. We would have electricity curtailed, and it would be bad for the industry and the commerce of this country. So the Fifth Fleet being there is extremely important.

Bahrain has been very supportive of our military, very supportive of our intelligence, very supportive of the Navy and the Fifth Fleet, and we need to make sure that that relationship continues for as many years as possible. The best way to do that is to make sure there is stability in the government, and the information that has been coming back through the State Department and others is that the Government of Bahrain has been repressive and that we ought to be putting pressure on them to make positive changes. They have made the changes. They are using tear gas only to stop the demonstrators.

They have reached out to the demonstrators to get them to the conference table to support and change rules and regulations and laws there that will solve the problem. This, again, is a report, an independent report, by outside entities, experts, that came up with a very voluminous report on things that should be changed in Bahrain by the royal family and the government to make sure that everybody can live together in peace and that there will be stability in the region.

I want to stress one more time the demonstrators will not come to the conference table. So tonight I'd like to urge those who are demonstrating to take a step back, take a deep breath and reach out and take the hand of the government, sit down at the conference table and work things out because that's what they want to do. If they do that, I'm sure there will be peace and harmony in Bahrain, and it will be great for the United States of America because a great friend, a great ally and a great government over there will be secure and be able to protect our interests as well as other interests that are very important to the entire world.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, last week President Obama was in an oilfield in New Mexico, and the President said:

Under my administration, America is producing more oil

today than at any time in the last 8 years. That's a fact.

That is a fact.

He went on to say:

You have my word that we will keep drilling everywhere we

can, and we'll do it while protecting the health and safety

of the American people.

And he said:

A recent independent analysis showed that over the last 36

years, there's been no connection between the amount of oil

that we drill in this country and the price of gasoline.

``There's no connection,'' he went on to say. And then the President added:

Even if we drilled every square inch of this country, we'd

still only have 2, 3, or 4 percent of the world's known oil

reserves.

That's just not true. It's just simply not true. Today, on television, the former president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister, said-- and he ought to know, he was in the oil business. He says that there is a trillion--a trillion, get that; not a billion, but a trillion-plus barrels of oil in America, more oil than there is in Saudi Arabia, and it's not counted by the President, and he's misleading the American people.

The reason he said that is because when the President talked about the increase in oil production, he was talking about the increase in oil production on private land outside the Federal Government's grip.

When you talk about the Federal lands, where we know there's tons of oil, oil production fell by 11 percent last year. It went down. So we're not drilling for that oil. We're not drilling off the Continental Shelf. We're not drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. We're not drilling in Alaska and the ANWR. We're not using coal oil shale for oil.

And so we could have another trillion barrels of oil, much more than we'll ever need, more than in Saudi Arabia, if we just did what the President says that we're already doing. But we're not doing it.

I'm going to be down here on the floor next week, and I'm going to show that the applications for permits to drill in this country have gone down, gone down by 36 percent since President Obama took office in 2008. So he says we're drilling everywhere. The permits that have been requested by the oil companies and those who will produce gasoline in this country have gone down by 36 percent since the President took office.

Now, let me just end up by saying this: the price of gasoline, from 2000 to 2009, was an average of $2.09 a gallon. The average retail price of gasoline when President Obama took office was $1.85 a gallon. And the average price of gasoline today is $3.88 a gallon, and everybody in America knows that. That's an increase of 86 percent.

So when the President goes on these trips around the country to make statements to the American people about the great things they're doing for energy production in this country, he should get his facts correct. Either he's misleading us intentionally or somebody's giving him the wrong information. But we have an abundance of energy in this country that's not being tapped.

I have no problem with us looking at alternative energy sources like solar, wind, geothermal, all those things, nuclear, but those things are going to take a long time, and we're still going to have to depend on oil and fossil fuels for many years to come. And the President needs to tell the truth and get with the program.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, let me just say, if I may, that I try my best not to direct any comments to the President. When I speak on the floor, I usually say, ``If I were talking to the President.'' So I always qualify that.

Thank you very much. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my good friend Congressman Poe from Texas a few minutes ago, and I was wondering if the President at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, if he is in town and not campaigning someplace, is paying any attention. If I had a chance--and I know I can't address the President from the well, but if I could address the President from the well, I would say:

Mr. President, the people of this country are hurting; inflation is taking off on all kinds of food products and anything else that is being transported by truck. It is because of the energy costs. Gasoline is at an almost all-time high, and you, Mr. President, should be paying attention to it. We ought to be drilling off the Continental Shelf and in the ANWR and in the Gulf of Mexico, and we ought to be fracking. We ought to be also using coal and oil shale. Mr. President, you're not doing any of those things, and the people are suffering. Stay home. Pay attention, Mr. President. It's your job.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the twentieth anniversary of Kazakhstan's independence from the Soviet Union.

On December 25, 1991, the United States became the first country to recognize Kazakhstan as an independent nation. Two decades later, Kazakhstan remains an important U.S. partner and a leader in Central Asia.

During the Soviet era, The Kazakh Steppe served as an important testing ground and launch site for the Soviets' nuclear weapons program. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan was left with a substantial nuclear arsenal consisting of over a thousand strategic nuclear warheads as well as delivery systems including intercontinental ballistic missiles and long-range bombers. This stockpile left Kazakhstan as the world's fourth largest nuclear power.

The Kazakh people understood the devastating power of these weapons, having hosted over 500 Soviet nuclear tests. Rather than embrace its new found status as a nuclear power, Kazakhstan, under the leadership of President Nazarbayev, became the first country to voluntarily renounce its nuclear arsenal. The country subsequently signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1994. By 1995 the last of Kazakhstan's nuclear weapons had been transferred to Russia, with substantial assistance from the United States through the Comprehensive Threat Reduction program. Kazakhstan and the United States continue to cooperate through this program to secure remaining nuclear material as well as chemical and biological weapons, including Anthrax, left over from the Soviet era. After twenty years of independence, Kazakhstan remains a leader on the nonproliferation and an example to others that the path to prosperity does not require nuclear weapons.

Upon independence, Kazakhstan immediately began working to reform its Soviet-style economy. Today, Kazakhstan boasts the most developed economy in the region. The country has the potential to become an energy power house and to provide a stabilizing influence on global markets. In addition, the government's decision to create a National Oil Fund will help ensure that Kazakhstan's mineral wealth benefits the Kazakh people.

Despite its mineral wealth, Kazakhstan is committed to diversifying its economy and as a result has made significant progress toward membership in the World Trade Organization. This progress is exemplified by the recently signed WTO bilateral market access agreement between Kazakhstan and the United States. This agreement will allow U.S. service providers to benefit from significantly expanded opportunities in Kazakhstan's markets once it joins the WTO. Membership in the WTO is good for Kazakhstan as well as for the major American companies that are increasingly attracted to this developing market.

In the months prior to September 11, 2001, President Nazarbayev voiced his concern that the situation in Afghanistan threatened regional security. Soon after the attacks on the United States, Kazakhstan began supporting coalition operations in Afghanistan by providing access to Kazakh airspace. Since 2009 the Kazakh rail network has been a key link in the Northern Distribution Network which provides an increasingly important supply route into Afghanistan. In addition to its support for military operations, Kazakhstan continues to support Afghanistan's development in a number of ways, including by providing Afghan students with scholarships to study at Kazakh universities.

As a result of policies such as those outlined above: the rejection of nuclear weapons, the embrace of economic reforms, and support for allied operations in Afghanistan, Kazakhstan has become a pillar of stability, and an engine of development in Central Asia. This leadership was reflected in the decision of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to grant Kazakhstan the chairmanship of the organization in 2010.

I respectfully urge President Nazarbayev and the Kazakh people to build on this solid foundation by actively pursuing democratic reforms including the development of a free press, an independent judiciary, a robust civil society, and a transparent political system. Democratic development will not only benefit the Kazakh people but will preserve and strengthen the leadership role that Kazakhstan plays in Central Asia and on the world stage.

In the past twenty years Kazakhstan has become a key ally of the United States. As Kazakhstan continues to develop, we must continue to work to build this important relationship. I congratulate President Nazarbayev and the Kazakh people on twenty years of independence.

Madam Speaker, yesterday a good friend of mine, Senator John McCain, became the first U.S. Senator to publicly call for U.S.-led air strikes to halt the violence in Syria.

Respectfully, I disagree with the Senator from Arizona. Our main goal in the Middle East is to protect our interests and the interests of our major ally, Israel.

If we are to be dragged into a civil war in Syria for humanitarian reasons, I would respectfully remind Senator McCain and the President that they do not have the power to unilaterally start a war. The authority to initiate war is vested by the Constitution exclusively in Congress. The War Powers Act was enacted into law over a Presidential veto--not an easy thing to accomplish--to fulfill the intent of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States in requiring that the President has to seek the consent of Congress before the introduction of the United States Armed Forces into hostile action.

Section 2(c) of the War Powers Act provides that no attempt by the President to introduce the United States Armed Forces into hostile action may be made under the War Powers Act unless, number one, there is a declaration of war; number two, a specific authorization; or, number three, a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possession, or its Armed Forces.

The Constitution and the War Powers Act are not a list of suggestions; they are the law of the land, the law the President of the United States and every Member of Congress swears to protect and defend. Contrary to Defense Secretary Panetta's assertion before the Senate Armed Services Committee the other day, international permission does not trump congressional permission. If the President is even remotely entertaining the idea of engaging in military action in Syria, he must seek formal authorization from Congress to attack Syria first.

While the violence is Syria is appalling and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is certainly no friend of the United States, before any military action is taken, the President must tell Congress and the American people by what right we attack Syria. Syria has not declared war on the United States nor attacked the United States, our territories, possessions, or Armed Forces. It is not our responsibility to intervene simply because violence erupts in another nation. If it were, then bombs should be falling on a number of countries, including Yemen, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Sudan, Rwanda, North Korea, Burma, and I could go on and on.

In fact, just this past Tuesday, March 6, the former top United Nations humanitarian official in Sudan warned that the country's military is carrying out crimes against humanity in the country's southern Nuba Mountains in acts that remind him of the 2003 2004 genocide in Darfur. Sudan President Omar al-Bashir is under indictment for war crimes by the International Criminal Court for killings and rapes committed in Darfur. Roughly 5,000 people have died in Syria compared to 400,000 in Darfur. How are the actions of al-Assad any worse than the actions of al-Bashir? Where is the call to bomb Sudan?

Madam Speaker, we could have a war of the week if we went after every tyrant that is committing these kinds of atrocities. Well-respected organizations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have documented the crimes committed by Burma's military. Many of the abuses committed by the Burmese regime represent some of the world's most horrific ongoing atrocities. For example, the regime has destroyed over 3,300 ethnic minority villages in eastern Burma alone, recruited tens of thousands of children, child soldiers, forced up to 2 million people to flee their homes as refugees and internally displaced, and used rape as a weapon of war against the women of Burma. How is the violence going on in Syria any worse than the destruction and degradation committed by the Burmese junta?

North Korea is widely acknowledged to be the worst violator of human rights in the world. The regime cares so little for its people that authorities are imprisoning, for 6 months in labor training camps, anybody who did not participate in the organized gatherings during the mourning period for the late Kim Jung Il, or who did participate but didn't cry and didn't seem genuine. Six months in a labor camp for not crying? North Korea is a recognized state sponsor of terror, a proliferator of nuclear weapons, and a direct threat to United States forces in South Korea, yet no one is urging the bombing of North Korea.

The world is full of despotic and oppressive regimes. The sad fact is that even in 2012, more of the world labors in the shadow of tyranny than in the daylight of democracy and the rule of law. Many of the world's leaders are at least as bad as Qadhafi and al-Assad, and many are even worse. We are not the world's policeman.

Even if we are willing to ignore the hypocrisy of using military force in Syria for ``humanitarian reasons'' while we turn a blind eye to the other equally pressing humanitarian crises around the world, there are several practical issues surrounding an operation in Syria that make it ill-advised, and this case should be made to the Congress if the President or Senator McCain push for military action against Syria.

Libya and Syria are very different countries with different geographies and different militaries. The Libyan army of Qadhafi was far less capable than Syria's army under al-Assad. Its forces were not as well-trained, well-fed or well-armed. In fact, Qadhafi had decisively turned on his military forces after a series of military coup attempts in the 1980s and 1990s. In the place of a professional military, Qadhafi increasingly relied on the revolutionary committees, many of whom defected en mass within days of protests breaking out against his rule.

Even against such a weak opposition, NATO's bombing campaign only succeeded in pushing the loyalist forces back. The rebels were unable to advance very far. As the battle turned in a stalemate, NATO and others were forced to raise their commitment, and the United States spent billions of dollars in that conflict as well, without congressional approval. Trainers were sent in, and NATO personnel shared space in the rebels' operations room in Benghazi. Qatar had to ship in approximately 30 consignment of Milan antitank cannons and Belgian FN rifles. During the final assault on Qadhafi's compound, Qatari forces even found themselves leading the charge.

Nearly a year into the civil war to oust President al-Assad, the Syrian army remains largely intact. In addition, Syria has a substantial chemical and biological weapons capability and thousands of surface-to-air missiles and shoulder-launched missiles, making Syria much more of a threat to attacking air forces than anything Libya had. How will the American people react if an American pilot is shot down and captured by the Syrian army, or worse, Syria's terrorist proxy, Hezbollah? And that's why Congress must be consulted before we take any action; and I would urge any of my colleagues who are considering urging the President to take unilateral action, that they remember the War Powers Act and the Constitution.

In addition, if air power is to be used against Assad's regime, as it was to overthrow Qadhafi's, then it is certain that the venture will take longer than the 6 months it took in Libya. The price in Syrian blood on both sides, the rebels and the government, will be higher, and the geography of the country, without the vast stretches of desert between towns that were turned into shooting galleries when Qadhafi tried to remove his forces, would guarantee more civilian casualties from NATO bombs than occurred in Libya. How many civilian casualties are acceptable to prevent a humanitarian crisis?

Other questions that need to be addressed: What will Israel do if Hezbollah responds to Western military actions against Syria by launching rockets into Israel? What will Iran do to protect its ally in Damascus?

Finally, brutally, we must ask the question: Is the devil we know better than the devil we don't know? And here I'd like to divert just a minute from my prepared text.

When we saw the changes in Libya, we didn't know who was going to take over. We didn't know that sharia law was going to be the rule of law there, which took them back into a more radical stance.

In Egypt, the elections that have taken place after Mubarak was removed from power have led to the suspicion, very strong suspicion, that sharia law will be imposed in Egypt as well. We don't know what that will do to the Camp David Peace Accords and whether or not that could cause our ally, Israel, to be in more danger. We need to know, before we get into a war to change regimes, what we're getting in place of the people we are removing.

Qadhafi, as bad as he was, and I didn't like him at all and I think he should have been removed, was no threat to the United States or our allies. He was a threat to his own people. And yet we decided unilaterally to go in and get him, and we did, along with the French and our NATO allies. And now some of my colleagues are talking about going into Syria and removing al-Assad without congressional approval, unilaterally by the President, and we don't know what we'll be getting.

We have found recently from reports that al Qaeda forces are in Syria assisting the rebels. Now we have to make sure that if al-Assad goes, that we don't have a base of operations for the enemies of freedom in Syria. We know what we've got. We don't like it, but we better be careful before we start making a regime change there that al Qaeda doesn't take over or have a big influence in Syria that will cause problems for the United States, our ally Israel, and others in the Middle East later on.

While Senator McCain, my good friend, may angrily deny it, the assessment of the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, and half a dozen intelligence reports and independent news agencies is that al Qaeda has inserted themselves inside armed operations groups in Syria, as I just said. Al Qaeda is there. They're the mortal enemy of everything that we believe in, and they're involved with the rebels, and we need to be sure that we're doing the right thing if we participate and if the Congress approves of some action in Syria.

Do we really want to undertake a ``significant military commitment''--those are the words of Marine General James Mattis, head of the U.S. Central Command--to create so-called safe havens in Syria to deliver weapons and supplies to al Qaeda fighters from Iraq?

I believe that the sun is slowly setting on the Assad regime in Syria. I sincerely hope that we are not pushed into a war we do not fully understand and that we don't really need to be in.

I must remind my colleagues in both the House and the Senate one more time: Neither the President nor a few Senators nor Members of Congress have the right to demand or push for unilateral action by the United States without the Congress of the United States being involved in the decisionmaking process. That has happened in other countries in the past. It happened in Libya. But it should not happen anymore because the Constitution, the War Powers Act, and the rule of law must be maintained by the Congress of the United States.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my colleague from Texas, and I would like to say that she is a pleasure to travel with. She is a real gentlelady.

The reason I take the floor for just a couple of minutes is one of our dearest friends in the Capitol is a fellow named Joe Quattrone. He is a barber down in the House barber shop, and on March 1 he celebrated 42 years cutting hair in the Capitol of the United States. He came to the United States when he was 18 years old from Italy. He said he has lived the American Dream, and he's one of the nicest people that I think you'll ever meet.

Everybody who has ever worked with him or had their hair cut by Joe understands that he is a very caring person and one that they respect. He has cut the hair of every Speaker of the House except two--Nancy Pelosi, and I don't think she goes to the men's barber shop; and John Boehner, the current Speaker. And I'm going to talk to Speaker Boehner as soon as we get back from break and get him down there so Joe can say he's cut every Speaker's hair since he has been a barber at the House barber shop.

He has cut the hair of Vice Presidents, Presidents, the President of Italy, the Secretary of Transportation, ambassadors, Governors, admirals, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; but his favorite person, besides me, is Tip O'Neill, the Speaker of the House when Tip was the Speaker sometime back.

He worked before he came here at Andrews Air Force Base and the Pentagon.

I would just like to say to Joe the Barber, because I'm going to give him a copy of this floor statement, Madam Speaker, that he has been a credit to the institution of Congress. He is liked by everybody who has ever been in his chair, and I just want to congratulate him on 42 years of working here in the Capitol. And I don't think anybody has ever complained about him. He's really a nice guy. He started March 1, 1970, and he's here now 42 years later.

I just say Joe, congratulations. I'll be down to see you in 2 weeks.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to acknowledge Lois Wagoner, a loving mother, dedicated civil servant, and a truly great Hoosier. This week, Lois is being honored for her 50 years of service to the Military and Veterans Regional Office in Indianapolis. Lois began her career as a clerk in 1961 at Fort Sill, Oklahoma and worked at various military installations prior to coming to the VA in 1971 as a program support clerk in the Finance Division of the Indianapolis Regional Office. In 1974, she was promoted to be a Veterans Benefits Counselor and supervised the regional office telephone unit. By 1990, she had become the Congressional Liaison and has worked tirelessly with every Congressional office in Indiana to ensure the welfare of our returning heroes.

During her 50 years of service, Lois has earned the reputation of being one of the most loyal, kind, and honest advocates of our Veterans living in Indiana. She also has the great distinction of being the mother of a Lieutenant Colonel with the U.S. Army in Afghanistan, so while she has been serving at the VA, she did so with the rare empathy of someone keenly aware of not only the sacrifices of our brave service members defending freedom abroad, but the daily concerns of their family members here at home.

The pride in service Lois has exhibited during her career is only eclipsed by her dedication to her family. Her other son lives close by and is a local meat cutter for Kroger. She has eight grandsons and one granddaughter and one great granddaughter.

It is with great honor that I extend hearty congratulations to Lois for her tireless service. She will always have a special place in the hearts of all those who have had the opportunity to work with her over the years, most especially the countless veterans whose lives she has touched.

Congratulations Lois.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

You know, we judge, as Congressmen, our colleagues based upon their ability and how hard they work. But the thing I liked about Don Payne, as a colleague with whom I worked for 24 years on the Foreign Affairs Committee, was he was a nice guy. He was really a nice guy. Even when we had our differences--and there were many when we served on the Africa Subcommittee together--we would debate, and then we would walk together down the hall and talk as friends and still discuss our differences, but we did it in such a friendly way, and I really liked the guy.

One of the things I think is so important is we really don't get to know each other too much in this place. We have 435 of us. And people come who are wealthy and some who are very poor, some who came from bad beginnings and tough beginnings and some come from the top; and we don't get to know each other very well. But I knew Don Payne because he worked so hard for the people he represented in Newark, and he really fought for them.

He wanted a garage in Newark because of the business downtown. I remember I fought him on that garage and we were able to stop it. And I think one of the things I'll regret the day I leave this place is that I stopped that garage because I think Don Payne, as the kind of guy he was, really felt like it was needed for Newark. And Don, if you're listening, if I had a chance, I'd vote differently on that thing.

But anyhow, he was a nice guy. He was a credit to the Congress of the United States and to everybody who knew him. I'd like to say to his family that I extend my deepest sympathies, as the other speakers have said, but I'd also like to say that to his staff. I

know his staff is going through a difficult time right now as well as his family, so I want to extend my deepest sympathy to them as well.

Mr. Speaker, I was talking to my good friend on the other side of the aisle, a Democrat, Greg Meeks, and Greg said that if we would raise taxes, put taxes on the table, that he would be willing to put cuts and entitlements and other things on the table in an equal measure; and I told him that there was no way that we could raise taxes enough to offset the things that really needed to be dealt with.

We have got to control spending. We have got to cut spending. We have got to look at the entitlements and the rules and regulations that we have to live by and make dramatic changes in government if we're going to balance the budget.

This year, we have reached over $15 trillion in debt--$15 trillion. That kind of goes right past most people because they can't imagine what a trillion dollars is. But $15 trillion, just to put it in perspective, it took the Presidencies of George Washington all the way to Bill Clinton to amass the same amount of debt that President Obama has racked up in 32 months.

Now, think about that: from George Washington to Bill Clinton, the amount of money in debt that we've added has been reached in 32 months by President Obama.

We have to get control of spending. It's absolutely essential. Otherwise, we'll be in the same shape as many of those countries in Europe, like Greece.

The President's solution to the burgeoning problem is to increase taxes, as I said. So I went through the amount of taxes it would take and what we would have to do to reach the goals that the President talks about.

Now, if you raise the taxes on everybody that makes over $250,000 to 100 percent--in other words, you take every dime that they make, 100 percent, above $250,000--that would yield about $1.4 trillion, and that would keep government running for 141 days. So if we took all the money that people make over $250,000, you would still only run government for less than half a year.

If you gave the $400 billion of profits that was reaped by the Fortune 500 companies and gave them the same 100 percent tax treatment, you could add another 40 days to the amount of time that we could run the government.

So taxing is not going to solve the problem.

Now, Herbert Hoover, when he was President, decided--a Republican-- that the way to help stop the economic tragedy that was about to occur was to raise taxes on businesses and individuals, and what happened? We ended up with the greatest depression in the history of this country.

Now, President Obama said the one thing that you don't want to do during a time of recession is raise taxes, and yet that's what he's advocating and my Democrat colleagues are advocating right now: raise taxes during a time of economic recession.

When people talk about unemployment in this country, they say, well, now it's 8.2 percent. But if you look at the people who dropped off the unemployment rolls and those who are underemployed, the unemployment rate

is probably closer to 15 percent. So the figures we are getting from the administration are really not that accurate.

It's extremely important that the administration, and my Democrat colleagues here in the House and especially in the Senate, take a hard look at where we're going. The projections are over the next 10 years we're going to increase the deficit by at least $1 trillion a year. We cannot afford that. This country will go completely bankrupt. You'll see inflation that you won't believe.

Right now the Fed is printing money to cover the expenditures that we're incurring day after day after day. That money they're using, they're buying bonds with it, Treasury bonds. So that money is not actually being seen in circulation. But the fact is that we're increasing the debt by printing money at the Fed on a daily basis. In Europe, the European Central Bank is doing the same thing with the euro. This country and the rest of the world is heading toward an inflationary problem that's going to be unbelievable.

Now, people say in this country right now we haven't seen any inflation. If you look at the figures that are coming out from the administration, inflation last year went up about 1 to 2 percent, but they're including in that figure all the new technologies that are taking place. They're not going to the grocery store.

I went to the grocery store last week and bought four apples at a cost of almost $5. Three tomatoes cost almost $5. If you go to the gas pump today--and my colleague from Indiana (Mr. Pence) talked about that just a few minutes ago. If you go to the gas pump today, it's almost $4 for a gallon of gas. So the inflation rate on staples, on things that we use on a daily basis is probably well over 10 percent, maybe even higher than that.

We don't know, but the administration says it's only 1 to 2 percent. Talk to the wives and husbands of people that are really strapped for cash right now, and you will find that it's costing them a great deal more than that on a daily basis for gasoline, food, clothes, and everything else.

It's extremely important that we get control of spending. This is not the time to raise taxes. The President has said that himself, especially back in 2008 and 2009. Yet now they are taking a different tack and saying we need to raise taxes.

That would be like throwing gasoline on a fire. We should not be raising taxes. We should be addressing the spending side of the ledger; and if we do that, we will get this country back on the right track.

I just got back from Europe. I took a codel over there to Brussels to meet with the finance people in the European Union to find out where they are heading, and they're heading in a very difficult direction right now. If Greece goes belly up, it's very likely that you're going to see other countries go belly up. And we have investments in money market funds and bonds that we've purchased in those countries. And if those countries default, it's going to affect the United States as well. So we need to get our house in order so that we don't end up in the same bailiwick that Europe is in right now that could cause severe economic problems in this country.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'll end by saying it's important to get control of spending. This is not the time to raise taxes. A poll was taken recently by the Politico magazine here on Capitol Hill, and 75 percent of the people in this country that were polled said not to raise taxes. So the people get it. I just hope that the White House will.

The United States still finds itself in a spending driven debt crisis.

The National Debt has now surpassed an unprecedented $15 trillion dollars.

House Republicans approved a budget that would have put a stop to spending money that we don't have as well as cutting $6.2 Trillion Dollars more than the President's budget. The Democrats blocked it.

The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is now officially over 100 percent (approx. 110 percent at the end of 2011).

To put the severity of this crisis into perspective, it took from the presidencies of George Washington to Bill Clinton to amass the same amount of debt that President Obama has racked up in the past 32 months.

The President's solution to the burgeoning problem his Administration's reckless behavior has caused? Increase Taxes.

The Problem, according to the President is simply that the most successful among us simply aren't paying their fair share . . .

This sentiment has most recently manifested itself in the President's proposed budget, in which he has increased taxes to the tune of $1.5 Trillion Dollars.

The simple reality of the situation is that this is nothing more than campaign rhetoric, employed in hopes of fomenting class warfare and dividing the American people.

``You cannot tax your way into prosperity.''

We learned this after the 1929 stock market crash when Herbert Hoover, a Republican, signed legislation to sharply increase taxes on businesses, who were seen as the catalyst for the market crash.

Hoover's draconian tax increases, fueled by a similar populist outcry heard today, ultimately served as the first salvo in a series of policy missteps that would ultimately lead to the Great Depression of the 1930's.

Keep In Mind That:

Even If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield $1.4 Trillion Dollars. That would keep the government running for 141 days.

The problem is there are 224 more days left in the year.

If we gave the $400 Billion Dollars of profits reaped by the Fortune 500 the 100 percent tax treatment . . . We Could fund the Government for another 40 days.

It was not too long ago that President Obama himself was quoted as saying, ``You do not raise taxes during a recession.''

If only he had the resolve to heed his own advice.

The American people also believe that the course of action taken by Hoover and endorsed by Obama is not the right way forward.

In a recent poll in The Hill Newspaper, 75 percent of American's polled felt that, the ``most appropriate top tax rate for families earning $250,000 or more'' is 30 percent or less. This would be 5 percent less than what this income group currently pays.

This is in stark contrast to the 40 percent tax rate that Obama and like-minded Democrats in the Congress have called for to enact in 2013.

When one couples this with the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts . . . We are creating an environment where the entire tax code as we know it will cease to exist.

If we continue in this vein, in 2013:

The 8 out of 10 businesses in America that file taxes as individuals will see their tax rate go to 44.8 percent.

This will effectively kill what little growth our embattled economy has left.

Despite the top marginal tax rate varying between 35 percent and 91 percent since 1960, Federal tax collections have been between 15 and 20 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product every year since 1960.

From this we can infer whether taxes are high or low, people make adjustments in their economic behavior so as to keep the government tax take at 15 to 20 percent of the GDP.

History has proven unequivocally that tax rates have always had a greater impact on economic growth than they do on Federal revenues.

It is no longer good enough to kick the can down the road and make this the next Congresses' or next President's problem.

Unless we wish to bring the problems of Europe to our shores it is incumbent on us to champion responsible spending restraint; a repaired safety net; reforms that ensure real health and retirement security; and a simplified tax code oriented toward economic growth.

I yield back the balance of my time.