Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the life of Patrolman William Edward (Will) Phillips III of Greenfield, Indiana who died on September 20, 2010 while serving the city of Greenfield.

Will's life was one dedicated to duty. After graduating from Elwood Community High School in 1996, he promptly joined the United States Marine Corps, where he served from 1996-2000. Upon his return, he entered the Indiana Law Enforcement Academy, graduating 5th out of 163 students. Will served with the McCordsville Police Department before joining the Greenfield Police Department, where he served on both the Bike Patrol and SWAT Team, dedicating himself to the force for the past 4\1/2\ years. Will's commitment for this community is something we can all be proud of.

On September 30, 2010 Officer Phillips and two other members of the bike patrol team had just finished their shift and were conducting a training ride on department-issued bicycles. While riding westbound on U.S. 40, at approximately 12:45 am, Will was struck from behind by a vehicle, which then fled the scene. Although all of the officers took the proper safety measures, Will sadly lost his life.

This past weekend, during the 6th Annual Indiana Fallen Heroes Memorial Ride in Indianapolis, Hoosiers came out to honor our fallen Police, Firefighters, Military and emergency first responders. Fellow Officers were in attendance to honor Will and keep his memory alive. He will be deeply missed, but the strength of his character and the courage he demonstrated through his service will live on.

Patrolman Will Phillips, husband of 7 years, father of two, and U.S. Marine Corps Veteran was and forever will be an All-American hero whose dedication to the force, determination and selflessness continue to serve our country and inspire our hearts. Today, we salute you.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise today to express my congratulations to The Republic of Korea for successfully winning the bid to host the 2018 Winter Olympic Games. Yesterday, the International Olympic Committee selected the beautiful site of Pyeongchang, in the Taebaek mountain region, as the host city for the 2018 Games.

These 2018 Winter Games will take place 30 years following the successful 1988 Seoul Summer Olympic Games. That year marked the international recognition of the Republic of Korea's maturation as a leading economic power and the emergence of the country as a liberal democracy. In the 3 decades since, South Korea has grown and matured at a remarkable speed so that it now has the world's 11th largest economy and is one of the top trading partners of the United States.

No doubt many Korean immigrants to the United States and their descendants are celebrating as a result of this announcement, and justifiably so. The Olympic Games provide any country the opportunity to shine, and I expect that Korea will shine brightly in 2018.

As co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Korea, I wish to add my voice to the many Americans--both friends of Korea and sports enthusiasts--who today are cheering on the excellent choice of Pyeongchang as the site of the 2018 Winter Olympics.

Mr. Speaker, I came down here today to talk about the Libya issue, the war that supposedly is not a war, but I wanted to start off by talking a little bit about

the rhetoric that's coming out of the White House and from the President.

I was watching the news this morning, and the President indicated that they were going to have these budget talks down at the White House today. And he said, and I quote, that the Republicans, in effect, have a gun to the head of the American people. That just isn't the kind of rhetoric that should be used right now when we're talking about the huge budget deficits we have. And if I were talking to the President, I would try to admonish him to not do that in the future.

And then, when we were talking about Libya, I think it was just about 4 or 5 days ago, he said that we in Congress are making Libya a cause celebre, indicating that it's not an important issue, and we're just trying to puff it up so that we can make political points.

The fact of the matter is it is a war. The President went to the Arab League, he went to the French, the English, he went to the United Nations, and NATO and decided that he was going to be involved in an attack on Libya and Muammar Qadhafi. But the one place he didn't come to to talk about this issue was the Congress of the United States--the House of Representatives and the Senate. The first place that a President ought to go if he thinks we ought to go into a conflict of any kind is the Congress.

The Constitution is very clear on the responsibilities of the President before he goes into a conflict. It has to be a threat to the United States, a threat to our interests, and it has to be approved by the Congress of the United States. The Congress of the United States is the only body that can declare war. He can't do that. He can manage a war. He is the Commander in Chief once we go into war, but he can't start a war unless it's in our national interest or there's a threat to the United States. That was clarified by the War Powers Act during the Nixon administration because there was some question about the latitude a President might have using the Constitution.

The Constitution was explained very carefully in the 1970s in the War Powers Act. Now, that's never been tested in the courts. Some people say it's unconstitutional. But the fact of the matter is it's the law of the Nation. The President cannot violate the law or the Constitution, and in our opinion, he's violated both.

Let me just tell you what's going on in this war that the President says is not a war.

We have flown almost 30 percent of the sorties. That means we have flown 3,475 flights into the combat area. We have dropped bombs and missiles 132 times on targets, and several times we've hit civilians.

Nobody likes Muammar Qadhafi. Nobody wants him in office. But the fact of the matter is, we've been involved in a war to get rid of him.

On May 22, the figure was that of the missiles that were fired, there were 246 missiles fired, and 228 were the United States' missiles--at $1.1 million per missile. And we're paying approximately 60 or 70 percent of the total cost of this conflict through NATO or directly from the taxpayers of the United States.

Now, the reason I came down here today is to say that we should not be in that conflict because it was not in our national interest and there was no threat to the United States and it was a violation of the Constitution and the War Powers Act.

The President said he had to do it because it was a humanitarian issue. If it was a humanitarian issue and we really needed to go in there, he should have come to Congress. The previous President, President Bush, did go to Congress on Afghanistan and Iraq to get approval before he did it, but President Obama decided to do this unilaterally. So we are in a war now, and it's costing the taxpayers close to a billion dollars in a war that we should not be in.

He said it was for humanitarian purposes. If that's the case, we ought to be in a war in the Ivory Coast. Right now in the Sudan, there are thousands and thousands of people being executed and killed. And if that's the case, we ought to be in the Sudan. In Syria, we all know what's going on in Syria right now. If that's the case, we ought to be in Syria. There are wars of opportunity every place.

I just like to end, Mr. Speaker, by saying this: The President should always come to the Congress if it's in our national interest or a threat to this country before he goes to war. It's constitutionally required.

I move to strike the last word.

The Constitution, Mr. Chairman, and the War Powers Act clearly say what the parameters are within which the President must act or follow: number one, a declaration of war; number two, a specific authorization; number three, a national emergency created by an attack

upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces.

None of these criteria were met by the President. He said he went in there because of humanitarian issues. He consulted, as we've said before on the floor, with France, England, the United Nations, NATO, and the Arab League. He had 2 or 3 weeks to do that, but he didn't have time to talk to the Congress of the United States, and he's gone in there and spent almost a billion dollars at a time when we just don't have the money.

Now if you're talking about humanitarian problems, in the Sudan, 2,300 Sudanese have been killed this year alone, and more than 500 people have died in the last 2 weeks. In Darfur, 450,000 to 480,000 have been displaced or killed. Just recently, and one of my colleagues talked about this a while ago, in the Nuba Mountains in the Sudan, they're killing people every single day. Horrible atrocities are taking place. Human rights violations. If you're talking about humanitarian issues, why wouldn't you go in there as well?

You look, also, at Syria right now. In Syria, there have been an awful lot of people killed. We all see that on television every night. There are wars of opportunity. If you go to Liberia, if you go and look back at the Khmer Rouge, we didn't get into those wars, and we're not getting into these wars right now because it's not in our national interest, and it's not a threat to the United States.

The President has taken us into a conflict. He said it's not a war, but it is a war. We've sent about 230 missiles in there at $1.1 million per to kill people. We've flown sortie after sortie over there dropping bombs on people, and the President says it's not a war. It is a war, it's the United States' war, and it's being covered by NATO.

We shouldn't be going to war unless this body and the other body say it's okay. It's in the Constitution. It's in the War Powers Act. We should not be there. Nobody likes Muammar Qadhafi. Nobody thinks he should be there. But we can't be going into wars of opportunity every place, especially at a time when we're fiscally broke. I think it's extremely important that legislation like that which the gentleman from Oklahoma just offered should be passed, and I hope we will pass it. There's a whole host of these amendments that are going to be read today and we're going to be voting on, and we need to send a very clear signal to the White House that this must never happen again.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I won't be redundant. I'll just follow up on what my colleague Representative Foxx said in proposing this amendment for the two of us.

This is merely a move to make sure that legislation that has already passed, the Defense of Marriage Act and in the authorization bill dealing with the Department of Defense, coincides with the appropriation bill that we're talking about today.

There's been some confusion in the Department of Defense, in the facilities at these military bases, that there could be marriages between two men or two women. The Defense of Marriage Act and the authorization bill clearly state that that cannot happen and will not happen because it would be a violation of the Defense of Marriage Act which has passed this body.

And even though the administration has chosen not to be involved in this issue, I believe it's incumbent on the Congress to make this issue very clear so that we don't have confusion on these military bases when we talk about same sex marriages.

I think it is imperative that we make absolutely clear in both the appropriation bill and the authorization bill, as well as the Defense of Marriage Act, what the law is, what it's intended to do, so that it's very clear to the military so they don't have any difficulty in making decisions on this particular issue.

I want to thank my good friend and colleague, Representative Virginia Foxx for introducing this amendment on behalf of the both of us.

She and her staff, especially Javier Sanchez, have thoroughly examined the confusing messages and conflicting protocols within the Department of Defense related to the implementation of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Why is this Amendment Needed?

(1) This amendment reinforces language that was included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 that passed the House on May 26, 2011.

Section 534 of the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act reaffirms the policy of the Defense of Marriage Act by stating that the word ``marriage'' included in any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the Department of Defense (DoD) applicable to a service member or civilian employee of the Department of Defense shall mean only a legal union between one man and one woman.

And, Section 535 establishes that marriages performed on DoD installations or marriages involving the participation of DoD military or civilian personnel in an official capacity, to include chaplains, must comply with the Defense of Marriage Act.

This amendment does not impose a new restriction on the Department of Defense.

It is a straightforward in its purpose and text. It simply aligns the Department of Defense appropriations bill we are considering today with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 that passed the House May 26, 2011.

The amendment ensures that defense dollars are not used to implement policy changes that violate the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

I believe that appropriations and authorization bills should be compatible, where possible, and by adopting the Foxx-Burton amendment, we will do just that for the Defense of Marriage Act.

This is the only opportunity we have to synchronize DoD funding to the DOMA policy provisions contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.

(2) The amendment settles--once and for all--any confusion and/or misinformation within the DoD about the abilities of its personnel to perform same-sex marriages as well as the use of its facilities.

It is important that we pass this amendment, which is a straightforward statement reaffirming Congress' assertion that funds may not be used in contravention of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (Defense of Marriage Act).

The law ensures the States would not have to recognize same-sex marriages from other States, and that the Federal Government would recognize only the union of one man and one woman as marriage.

Offering up Federal facilities and Federal employees for the use in same-sex marriages violates DOMA, which is still the law of the land and binds our military.

(3) President Obama's Administration is on record that it will no longer defend DOMA thus leaving it up to Congress to defend against challenges to DOMA.

I am confident that activist lawyers and judges will begin challenging inconsistencies in marriage status for military personnel. For example, a same-sex couple who was married in a State where same- sex marriage is recognized sues because they are denied military family housing. The resolution of this kind of litigation would propel the courts into policy matters that Congerss should decide.

Bottom line.

This amendment--in conjunction with the Sections 534 and 535 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012--will allow Congerss to speak with one voice on the Defense of Marriage Act.

If Congress fails to speak clearly on this issue, we are certain to see more conflicting and confusing DOMA protocols emerging in the Department of Defense. And, it will be with the blessing of the White House.

Let's keep our Department of Defense focused on the missions at hand.

Congress can and should make it clear that Defense Department funds should not be used in ways that violate Federal laws, including the Defense of Marriage Act.

Support the Foxx-Burton Amendment. Let's leave the guesswork out of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the 2011 recipients of the coveted Ellis Island Medal of Honor. Presented annually by the National Ethnic Coalition, NECO, the Ellis Island Medal of Honor pays tribute to our Nation's immigrant heritage, as well as individual achievement. This year, the Ellis Island Medal of Honor takes on a special significance as 2011 marks the 25th anniversary of these distinguished awards, a milestone which was celebrated this past May with a patriotic ceremony on Ellis Island. The medals are awarded to U.S. citizens from various ethnic backgrounds who exemplify outstanding qualities in both their personal and professional lives, while continuing to preserve the richness of their particular heritage. Since the medal's founding in 1986, more than 2,000 American citizens have received Ellis Island Medals of Honor, including six American Presidents, several United States Senators, Congressmen, Nobel Laureates, outstanding athletes, artists, clergy, and military leaders.

As we all know, citizens of the United States can trace their ancestry to many nations. The richness and diversity of American life makes us unique among the nations of the world and is in many ways the key to why America is the most innovative country in the world. The Ellis Island Medals of Honor not only celebrate select individuals but also the pluralism and democracy that enabled our ancestors to celebrate their cultural identities while still embracing the American way of life. This medal is not about money, but about people who seized the opportunities this great country has to offer and who used those opportunities to not only better their own lives but make a difference in the lives of those around them. By honoring these outstanding individuals, we honor all who share their origins and we acknowledge the contributions they and other groups have made to America. I commend NECO and its Board of Directors headed by my good friend, Nasser J. Kazeminy, for honoring these truly outstanding individuals for their tireless efforts to foster dialogue and build bridges between different ethnic groups, as well as promotes unity and a sense of common purpose in our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing the good works of NECO over these last 25 years and in congratulating all of the 2011 recipients of the Ellis Island Medals of Honor.

2011 Ellis Island Medals of Honor Recipients

Gina Addeo, Setrak O. Agonian, Margaret Ajemian Ahnert,

Carlos E. Alvarez, Hamid Ansari, Michael Aram, Tom Arnold,

Kevork B. Bardakjian, PhD, Stanley M. Bergman, Tejinder

SinghBindra, Col. Matthew Bogdanos, Esq., USMC (Ret.), John

A. Brennan, MD, Paul A. Brinkley, Jerry Cahill, Hon.

Salvatore J. Cassano, Anthony D. Chimino, Steve S. Chon, Jim

Clifton, Darryle D. Clott, James F. Comley, Giancarlo Crupi,

MD, James Jian Cui, MD, PhD, Supt. Joseph A. D'Amico, Marty

D. Davidson, Joseph F. Dean, ADM Bruce DeMars, USN (Ret.),

Nitin V. Doshi, DDS, Pierre Dulaine, CAPT Linda L. Fagan,

USCG, David Fitzpatrick, PhD, Bill V. Gallo, Cyril E.

Geacintov, PhD, John Giuffre, SSgt. Salvatore A. Giunta, USA,

Joseph R. Haiek, Dorothy J. Harber, Lacy J. Harber, Stuart C.

Harvey, Jr., Salah M. Hassanein, Robert S. Hekemian, Hon.

Patrick Henry, Scott H. Herman, Fernando J. Hernandez, John

M. Iacono, O. Wayne Isom, MD, Joel P. Jahraus, MD, MG

Nathaniel James, AUS, Hon. James A. Kaddo, Chief Charles S.

Kammerdener, Dr. Munr Kazmir, Ken Kendrick, Kamran Khavarani,

PhD, Hon. Peter J. Koutoujian, Sr., Cecilia M. La Pietra, OP,

Wai Lap Leung, MD, Jeffrey E. Levine, Jerry Lewis, Weining

Liang, MD, Joanie M. Madden, Babu Rao Mandava, Joseph A.

Martorana, Anthony J. Melita, Joseph S. Micallef, JD, Radmila

Milentijevic, PhD, LTG John F. Mulholland, Jr., USA, Francis

Najafi, Vali R. Nasr, PhD, Younes Nazarian, Denis O'Brien,

James G. O'Connor, John O'Hurley, Gail Talanian O'Reilly,

Harvey E. Oyer, III, Esq., Mustafa Oz, MD, FACS, BG Frederick

M. Padilla, USMC, Fa Y. Park, Patrick M. Park, William L.

Perocchi, Vladimir Prodanovich, Philip Pumerantz, PhD, Fahim

Rahim, MD, Naeem Rahim, MD, Ali C. Razi, Frank L. Regnante,

Doris Roberts, Michele M. Rollins, Esq., Thomas Roma, Bruno

L. Sammartino, Samin K. Sharma, MD, Kevin Chang Yao Shih,

Donald F. Shula, CMSgt Darren A. Silsbee, USAF, Susan Sommer-

Luarca, Joel Szabat, George Veras, Manu K. Vora, PhD, MBA,

Joseph M. Walsh, Shirley Wang, Richard P. Wei, Roger L.

Williams, MD, Walter W. Wise, Jr., Chris Jia Shu Xu, Madlena

Zepter, Philip Zepter, Kenny Weiqun Zhang.

I thank my chairman for yielding.

Israel's right to exist, Madam Speaker, should be guaranteed. And Israel has tried to work out over the years a peace agreement with the Palestinians so that there could be a two-state solution. In fact, twice, once during the term of Prime Minister Barak and again during the term of Prime Minister Olmert, Israel offered the Palestinians a very generous and fair final settlement. Both times those offers were flatly rejected and met with violence.

And what have the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinians done recently? They went and signed an agreement with Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization that has been lobbing bombs and missiles into Israel, trying to destroy the Israeli state. They are committed to the destruction of Israel. And the Palestinians have signed an agreement on May 4 of this year to work with them.

Israel went that extra step when they allowed Gaza to be turned open. And what happened right after that took place? Hamas came in there and took over and started attacking Israel day after day. Innocent women and children were running constantly from bombs being dropped on them because Gaza had been set in a position where they could open up to Hamas.

And so you have got a constant demand by the terrorists--Hamas, Hezbollah and others--to destroy the State of Israel. And Israel has been a great ally of the United States since its inception in 1948.

We need to send a very strong signal--I think we are doing it right now today--a very strong signal that this country, this Congress, and the Senate supports the State of Israel and does not want the Palestinians to go to the United Nations and try to have a unilateral settlement made by that body. This is something that has to be worked out at the conference table between Israel and the Palestinians and not at the United Nations.

So I would just like to conclude by saying that Israel is our best friend and ally in the Middle East. They are a stable element in the Middle East. We need to support them and make absolutely sure that Hamas, Hezbollah, and the other terrorist organizations do not have their way and destroy the State of Israel.

We are committed to that, this Congress is committed to that, and this whole debate has shown very clearly that almost unanimously the people of the United States stand with Israel.

Offered By: Mr. Burton of Indiana

Amendment No. 63: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I've heard a number of people say, well, the Constitution does give the President latitude, but during the Nixon administration Congress passed the War Powers Act, and then when the President vetoed it, Congress overrode his veto, and so the War Powers Act became law. Now whether or not you believe it's constitutional, it has never been tested in the courts, and so it's the law. And the law says, as well as the Constitution, at least this is what most of the people who have looked at the Constitution believe is what it stands for, the Constitution and the War Powers Act say the President cannot do what he did without the support and approval of Congress. Now he's gotten us into the war in Libya and it is, in effect, our war.

People say, well, no, it's NATO. Well, we are providing over 8,000 of the military personnel on the ships and in the air. The majority of the flights that are taking place where they're doing the bombing are done by our airmen and our aircraft. Over 90 percent of the missiles that are being used at over a million dollars per copy are American missiles. This is going to cost billions of dollars. If this were to pass and we were to stay there for over a year, you could count on it costing $2 billion or $3 billion.

My colleague from Arkansas just a few minutes ago talked about us being broke. The American people know, if Congress doesn't, that we're $1.5 trillion short this year, and we're $14 trillion in debt. We're printing money that our kids are going to have to deal with because they're going to have to pay for the debt down the road. Some of us will pay if we live long enough, but our kids are certainly going to inherit the debt. And so we're adding to the debt by going into a war we shouldn't be in and without the approval of the Congress in accordance with the War Powers Act and the Constitution.

Now my big concern is--and I'm going to talk on the other bill that is coming up later on--not just Libya. My big concern is this President, unless we send a very strong message to him, may take us into Syria. There's humanitarian problems in Syria right now, and the reason they went into Libya, they said, was because of the humanitarian problems. He talked to the French, the English, the NATO, United Nations and the Arab League for about 2 weeks before we went into Libya, but he didn't have time to talk to the Congress who appropriates the money and authorizes this stuff. He's the Commander in Chief once we go to war, but he needs the authority from Congress to go into it, and he didn't do it.

There are a lot of wars of opportunity. The President could go into Syria. He could go into the Ivory Coast.

There are a lot of places we could go to war if we choose to do it. There's humanitarian problems around the world. But unless it's a threat to the United States or an attack on the United States, the President does not have the authority to do what he did without the support and approval of Congress.

President Bush came to Congress before he went into Iraq. President Bush came to Congress before he went into Afghanistan, and that's as it should be. This President should not overstep his boundaries. And what I wish we would do, which would exceed the legislation we're going to be talking about today, is to pass legislation to cut off all funds for Libya. I know it would not pass the Senate, but it sure would send a signal to the President and the White House that we're not going to allow him to go into war without the approval of the American people and the approval of Congress.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Somebody said a while ago we ought to be supporting the Arab Spring because there are movements toward democracy over there. We went into Libya to help in a humanitarian effort and get rid of Muammar Qadhafi, but who are we supporting? Nobody at the White House has come down here and said we're supporting this group of people. We don't know if it's the Muslim Brotherhood, we don't know if it's al Qaeda--now we do know there are al Qaeda operatives that came from Afghanistan fighting with the rebels in Libya; are we supporting al Qaeda? Are we supporting the Muslim Brotherhood?

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has opened up the border--or the Government of Egypt, whatever that is right now--has opened up the border between Egypt and Gaza, which provides a mechanism for weapons to get into Gaza to fire on Israel.

So before we start supporting a rebel movement and going after somebody like Qadhafi, we ought to find out who we're for. We're spending billions of dollars before this is over in a war where we don't even know who we're supporting, and it's in violation of the War Powers Act and the Constitution. This is something we should not be doing.

The President should have come down here and made his case. He should have said what our goals are. He should have said who we're supporting and why we're supporting them. We are in a war against terrorism. We may very well end up with terrorists controlling Libya and Egypt, and that is a tinderbox that we don't want. We get about 35 percent of our energy from that part of the world, and if all hell breaks loose because we've gone with the wrong guys, we've got a real problem in this country economically. And the President ought to be thinking about all that and making his case to the Congress in accordance with the Constitution and the War Powers Act before he does it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the people of Hungary whose longstanding commitment to freedom is a testament to the world that freedom and democracy are attainable goals for all people. As Americans, we celebrate with the people of Hungary as they unveil a statue of Ronald Reagan to commemorate his centennial birthday. Hungary is one of America's greatest allies and it warms my heart to know that they rejoice with us in the memory of this hero of freedom.

The U.S.-Hungarian friendship is one of our oldest and most enduring. Throughout this relationship, many Hungarians have also stood for the cause of liberty and are worthy of our recognition here in the House of Representatives.

A Hungarian by the name of Michael Kovats de Fabriczy volunteered his services to Benjamin Franklin, then the American Ambassador in Paris, during the Revolutionary War. This Hungarian patriot, who was essential in creating America's first cavalry unit, was killed in battle near Charleston, South Carolina. Soon after Fabriczy's death Americans gained their independence; unfortunately, freedom for Hungary and her people would require a much longer fight.

A bust of Lajos Kossuth, a politician and journalist who fought for freedom in the 1848 Hungarian Revolution, sits in a vestibule just outside of the crypt of this building. Exiled from Hungary, Kossuth came to America and became just the second foreigner to address a joint session of the United States Congress. An inspiring speaker, Kossuth then traveled across the United States to promote the principle of democratic government.

Nearly two hundred years after our own revolution, in 1956, the people of Hungary rose up against communist rule and succeeded in toppling the government before being crushed by Soviet troops. In the face of that defeat, the courageous people of Hungary continued their fight. Victory came in 1989, when Hungary opened its border with the West. Hungary then became the first of the former Soviet bloc countries to transition to a Western-style parliamentary democracy, holding its first free parliamentary elections in 1990.

In the last twenty years Hungarians have embraced their freedom. The country privatized its economy, adopted free-market principles and joined both the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In 1999, Hungary acceded to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and formally became a military ally of the United States. In 2004, Hungary acceded to the European Union and for the first six months of this year Hungary held the rotating presidency of the EU Council.

In the past three decades, the United States, home to more than 1.5 million Hungarian-Americans, offered Hungary assistance and expertise as the country established a constitutional, democratic political system, and a free market economy. The United States Government provided expert and financial assistance for the development of modern western institutions in Hungary, including those responsible for national security, law enforcement, free media, environmental regulations, education, and health care.

With the Iron Curtain lifted, the Support for East European Democracy Act provided more than $136 Million for economic restructuring while the Hungarian-American Enterprise Fund offered loans, equity capital, and technical assistance to promote private-sector development. Most importantly, direct investment from the United States has had a positive impact on the Hungarian economy.

The progress of freedom within Hungary has also allowed Hungary to support freedom around the globe. Hungary played a critical role in implementing the Dayton Peace Accords in the Balkans by allowing its airbase at Taszar to be used by coalition forces transiting the region. This support has continued, in 2008, the Hungarian military took command of a joint battalion in the Balkans that operates in support of NATO missions in the region.

In 2003, Hungary helped the coalition in Iraq by deploying a 300- strong battalion as part of the Multi-National Force, and by allowing the Taszar airbase again to be used in training the Free Iraqi Forces. In Afghanistan, Hungary leads a Provincial Reconstruction Team and has deployed an Operational Mentoring and Liaison Team, which works in partnership with the Ohio National Guard and other United States military personnel. Perhaps most importantly, Hungary's Papa Airbase is the home to the C-17 operations of the Multinational Strategic Airlift Consortium which supports the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, as well as various U.S., EU and NATO peacekeeping and humanitarian operations around the world.

The Hungarian people's longstanding commitment to freedom has allowed Hungary to become a key American ally and an important strategic partner in Europe. Our common commitment to freedom is based on our common belief in the values of democracy, rule of law, diversity, tolerance, and social mobility. I call on all Hungarians and Americans to continue to uphold these values as our countries continue to work closely to advance freedom across the globe.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take all of the time that is allocated for my Special Order tonight, but I did want to talk about the problem that we are facing in Libya right now.

The President of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to be the Commander in Chief in the event that we have to go into a military conflict. What the President does not have the right to do is to take us into a military conflict without consulting with the Congress of the United States, unless there is an imminent threat to the United States or an attack on the United States.

The Constitution is pretty clear on this subject. Unfortunately, during the Nixon administration there was some question about whether or not President Nixon exceeded his authority, so the Congress of the United States passed what was called the War Powers Act. The War Powers Act was designed to clarify very clearly for President Nixon and all future presidents the authority granted them under the Constitution in the event that there was to be a conflict.

The President vetoed that bill because he thought it was an infringement. I am talking about President Nixon now. He vetoed that bill because he thought it was an infringement of the constitutional powers of the President. The Congress overwhelmingly overrode the President's veto, and so the War Powers Act became law.

Now, there has been a lot of question from some of my colleagues about the constitutionality of the War Powers Act. I have heard some of my friends in the other body say it is not constitutional. I have heard friends of mine within the House of Representatives say that the War Powers Act is not constitutional. The fact of the matter is it has never been tested in court. It has never gone to the U.S. Supreme Court and, as a result, the War Powers Act is the law of the land. It is the law of the United States of America, and it is intended, as I said before, to clarify the constitutional powers of the President of the United States where war is concerned.

Now, the President of the United States, Mr. Obama, decided that we ought to go into Libya for humanitarian purposes. There is nothing in the Constitution or the War Powers Act that gives him the authority to do that unless he has the express approval and support of the Congress of the United States.

When President Bush was the President and he went into Iraq, he first consulted with the Congress. When he went into Afghanistan, he first consulted with Congress. But President Obama said because of the time elements and the time concerns about the humanitarian problems in Libya, that he had to act expeditiously, and he did not have the time to consult with Congress.

Well, for 2 weeks or thereabouts he had time to consult with the French, the English, the United Nations, NATO, and the Arab league, but he did not have the time to come and talk to the Congress of the United States. So I think that was a red herring. I think the President did have the time, but he chose to move of his own volition into Libya and to put the United States in effect at war again. They say it is not a war, but it is a war. They said it was a NATO operation, but if you look at the facts, you find that the United States is carrying the vast amount of the burden of this war.

Let me give you some figures. These figures are a couple of weeks old, so they could be a little outdated.

First of all, of the number of personnel that has been involved in the Libyan conflict, there are about almost 13,000 military personnel that have been involved. Of that 13,000, 8,500 of them are American military. That is over two-thirds.

When you talk about the number of aircraft involved, there is a total of 309, but 153 of those aircraft are United States aircraft.

When you talk about the number of sorties being flown, that is, military actions taken by aircraft, there have been 5,857 sorties, and over 2,000 of those are with American pilots and American planes. That is almost 35 percent.

Then when you talk about the number of cruise missiles that have been fired, the total is about 246, and of the 246, over 90 percent are America's, 228.

So the President has taken us into war in Libya for humanitarian purposes, he said, without consulting with the Congress of the United States, which in my opinion is a direct violation of the Constitution of the United States and the War Powers Act, and we have spent well over $1 billion conducting this war. They say it is NATO's war. We heard the other day that our NATO allies are running short on ammunition and other military equipment, and they are asking the United States to shoulder more of the burden.

One of my colleagues from Virginia, who sits in the Chair tonight, brought up today that many of the countries in Europe, many of the countries in NATO haven't been paying their fair share of the NATO burden, and it has been falling upon the United States to carry out these NATO operations. That just isn't right.

So this isn't a NATO war, in my opinion. This is an American war, and the President has taken us into this conflict without any consultation with the Congress of the United States.

We have talked about this in our conference, and I won't go into all the details of our conference because I think some of that, if not classified, is something that shouldn't be talked about in the public domain. But what I would say tonight is that we need to send a very strong message to the President that we don't want him to do this again.

Many, myself included, believe we ought to give him a timeline within which to withdraw forces from Libya. I am talking about the people flying the military aircraft, the people on the ships offshore, the classified security people that are inside Libya. They say there are no boots on the ground. I guarantee you there are intelligence officers on the ground directing some of the fire from the air and some of the missile targets.

The cruise missiles that are costing over $1 million per copy, we shouldn't be paying for those with taxpayer money to the tune of, I don't know how many million, but over $1 billion total for the military expenditures, at a time when this country is $1.5 trillion short this fiscal year in money to pay for the country's expenses and over $14 trillion in debt.

This is not the time during the history of the United States that we ought to be looking for a war. There is no question probably that there are humanitarian problems in Libya, but there are also humanitarian problems in the Ivory Coast and Syria and many other countries, and if you are looking for a war of opportunity, I am sure the President can find a lot of places to send our troops.

But the Congress of the United States I do not believe would have given him the authority to go into Libya unless it was a direct threat to the United States. So what did he do? He did it without consulting with Congress; not the Senate, not the House, not with any of us.

Now that we are in there, many people in the Congress feel like we can't summarily withdraw because we will be leaving our allies, the French and the English and others in NATO there, to carry the ball. But as one of my colleagues said today, when we take the oath of allegiance to the Constitution, we don't take the oath of allegiance to NATO. We don't take the oath of allegiance to any other country. It is to the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution says the President does not have the authority to declare war and go into a combat situation without consulting with Congress.

I am very confident that all of the people in this country, if consulted, would overwhelmingly say the President should not have done that, and he didn't have the authority to do that. Now, I know tomorrow or Friday we are going to have some legislation on the floor that will say very clearly to the President that not only he shouldn't have done that, that it wasn't constitutional, but that he shouldn't do it again.

That is the thing that I am concerned about. The legislation that we are going to have on the floor will confront the President on his ability or his authority to go ahead and do what he did in Libya, but it doesn't say anything about any future expeditions that he may want to undertake.

I really hope that during the debate that takes place tomorrow or on Friday that we make it very clear to the White House and to the President and to anybody at the White House that may be listening to this Special Order tonight that we do not want the President--and if I were talking to him, I would say, Mr. President, we do not want you to take us into a military conflict without consulting with the Congress and without consulting with the American people because the American people and Congress have a right to be involved in the decisionmaking process. Once a war is started, you're the Commander in Chief and you must do whatever has to be done to win that conflict. But you do not have the authority, Mr. President, if I were talking to him, under the Constitution or the War Powers Act. And Friday or tomorrow we need to make that very clear to him so that he doesn't do it again.

There are problems right now in Syria, and a lot of people say there's humanitarian tragedies that are taking place. But that is not a direct threat to the United States. It's not an attack on the United States. And the Congress of the United States should be involved in the decisionmaking process if we were to do something like go into Syria.

And so I hope the President and the White House is getting this message tonight. They may say, Well, that's just Dan Burton talking on the floor in a Special Order. But I have talked to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I think overwhelmingly they do not agree with what the President has done; and overwhelmingly in the Senate I don't believe they support what the President has done in Libya. And I think very clearly they don't want this to happen again.

I believe that most of the Members of both the House and the Senate would like to see us extricate ourselves from Libya as quickly as possible.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to say that I have a letter to the editor that I wrote that was in The Wall Street Journal that I will put in the Record, as well as the statistical data that I just mentioned.

[From the Wall Street Journal, June 11, 2011]

The GOP Is Right To Challenge Obama on War in Libya

I am disappointed by your editorial ``The Kucinich

Republicans'' (June 6) questioning the House of

Representatives's rebuke of President Obama's actions in

Libya. I cannot speak for my colleagues, but my opposition to

President Obama's actions is motivated by the Constitution.

President Obama has the authority to manage a war but not

the power to start a war. Article 1, Section 8 of the

Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, and the

War Powers Resolution was enacted to fulfill that intent,

unless there is: ``(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific

authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack

upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or

its armed forces.'' None of these conditions existed with

Libya.

Instead, the president argues he couldn't consult with

Congress because immediate action was needed to protect

civilians from massacre. If true, a surgical engagement in

Libya might be justified. But the president's claim is false.

He spent one month consulting with NATO, the Arab League and

the U.N. Security Council. This fact is inescapable. The

president sought permission from foreign leaders but not the

U.S. Congress. Yet Congress is expected to pay for his folly

even as we strive to cut spending to avoid defaulting on

debts.

On September 11, 2001, our nation was attacked. President

George W. Bush still sought authorization from Congress

before going into Afghanistan. Similarly, President Bush

sought congressional authorization before invading Iraq.

President Bush respected

the authority of Congress and the limitations of the

Constitution. President Obama does not.

The Constitution is not a list of suggestions; it is the

law of the land. If members of Congress do not stand up for

Congress's right to declare war, as enumerated in the

Constitution, who will?

Rep. Dan Burton (R., Ind.),

Indianapolis.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 32 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, June 23, 2011, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Offered By: Mr. Burton of Indiana

Amendment No. 16: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Burton of Indiana

Amendment No. 17: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), add the following:

Offered By: Mr. Burton of Indiana

Amendment No. 18: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following: