Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Burton of Indiana

Amendment No. 19: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Burton of Indiana

Amendment No. 20: Page 35, line 15, after the dollar amount

insert the following: ``(reduced by $51,865,000)''.

I move to strike the last word.

Let me just say to the gentlelady that this is an emotional issue, and those of us who do not agree with you feel strongly about it.

Now, I believe, if you put that amendment in, it could very well jeopardize the ag bill. I don't think you want to do that, so I hope you will reconsider withdrawing this amendment. In committee, your amendment was defeated. There are a lot of people in this country who feel very strongly on both sides of this issue, but the American public, whether or not you agree with them, feels very strongly, as Mr. Moran said, so I hope you will change your mind.

Regarding some of the things I've heard about these horses starving to death on the plains and everything--and I was not going to speak on this--there are a number of people in this country who are willing to put up millions and millions of dollars. In fact, I know some of them. They have bought ranches and want to take these wild horses and put them into an area where they will be safe, where they will be

protected, where they will be cared for. We are talking about, in addition to the ranches, maybe another 600,000 or 700,000 acres that would be used for these horses and for them to be able to survive.

If you have ever looked at the way they transport these horses to slaughter, they cram 20 horses into a truck that's built for 10. They don't feed them. They don't water them properly. And those horses are so mistreated, it's unbelievable, when they go to slaughter. And that's why they close these slaughterhouses. In addition, you ought to see what they do in these slaughterhouses for these horses. They hang them up by a hook while they're still alive and they're squealing, and they kill them in a very inhumane way.

I am not for changing our agricultural attitudes in this country. We have to have the slaughter of pigs and cows and chickens and that sort of thing. So a lot of times people say if we're against horse slaughter, we want to do something to hurt the agriculture community. That couldn't be further from the truth. We just want to make sure that these animals are treated in a humane way, number one, and, number two, that the American taxpayer is not paying for the French to get horse meat.

So let me just say to the lady one more time, I sincerely hope that she will reconsider. We have a disagreement. I hope you will reconsider and withdraw this amendment because I don't think something of this emotional status should impede or impair something as important as the ag bill.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, more than 2 years ago, Democrats claimed that their trillion dollar stimulus package would keep unemployment below 8 percent, and we know now it is above 9 percent.

Recently, the CBO released their annual budget and economic outlook report which projects the 2011 deficit will reach $1.48 trillion and our national debt, as everybody knows, is over $14 trillion. We are borrowing nearly 42 cents of every dollar we spend, much of it from the Chinese, and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren. Every child born today owes $45,500 to the debt.

For the past few years, the American people have been told that government spending is the answer. They had their chance to prove this economic model, but it failed. It is time we changed our approach, because our country has a spending problem and not a revenue problem. Debt by the public is estimated to increase to 94 percent over the next 10 years. Over 10 years, the annual government spending will consume an average of 23.5 percent of GDP, which is significantly higher than the post-World War II average of 20 percent.

In a 2010 article for the Cato Policy Report, economists Jason Taylor and Richard Vedder outlined the lessons of the largest public sector drawdown in our country's history--the cuts to government spending after World War II. Taylor and Vedder point out that the Federal spending fell from $84 billion in 1945 to $30 billion in 1946, a reduction of more than 60 percent.

The point is that despite these warnings from economists that this withdrawal of Keynesian stimulus would sure lead to a second Great Depression, civilian employment grew by over 4 million between 1945 and 1947, with unemployment remaining under 4\1/2\ percent in the first three postwar years. The postwar era provides a classic illustration of how government spending ``crowds out'' private sector spending and how the economy can thrive when government's shadow is dramatically reduced. The lesson from the 1945-1947 era is that a sharp reduction in government spending frees up assets for productive use and leads to renewed growth.

When spending is slated to reach an all-time high of $3.7 trillion this year and we're living through the weakest jobs recovery since the Great Depression, it's time to get our fiscal house in order. Vigorous and sustained economic growth, fueled by investment and entrepreneurship, is needed for the private sector to create more jobs and increase incomes of the poor. In turn, this will generate the revenues that governments need to expand access to health, education, and infrastructure services and help improve productivity. Spending cuts work; tax increases

don't. Despite the evidence, many liberals continue to call for more spending, more taxing, and red tape.

These ideas won't solve the problem; they are the problem. Washington needs to stop creating uncertainty and get out of the way.

I commend the Appropriations Committee, Chairman Rogers, and Chairman Kingston for crafting a bill that's $5.041 billion, or 22.6 percent less than the President's fiscal year 2012 budget request, and $2.672 billion, or 13.4 percent less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. However, I believe the financial catastrophe facing our Nation requires us to do even more, and so I hope my colleagues will realize this and do what is necessary to get our fiscal house in order.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I don't know how old my colleague is who just spoke, but Lyndon Johnson worked very hard to pass what was called the Great Society. And when he passed the Great Society, he said we're going to do away with hunger, we're going to do away with poor people, we're going to do away with all the problems facing mankind in the United States. And what happened? Things are worse now than they've ever been with all these social programs.

I just spoke a couple of minutes ago about what happened after World War II. In 1945 the spending was $84 billion. In 1946 it dropped 60 percent to $30 billion. So a 60 percent reduction in spending, but it freed up money for the private sector, and as a result, in the next 2 years there were 4\1/2\ million new jobs.

All these giveaway programs and all these programs that you guys talk about indicating that we don't care about seniors, we don't care about kids, we don't care about anybody, we're heartless, the fact of the matter is the thing that's heartless is 9.1 percent unemployment. The President, when he took office, said he was going to keep it under 8 percent. It's 9.1 and it's going up, not down. The economic figures we see today are terrible. Yet you want to continue to just keep spending money and spending money and spending money.

What we need to do is we need to cut spending. We need to cut taxes so people will have more disposable income. We need to cut business taxes so that business has more money to invest so they'll create jobs and create plants and equipment. But, no, you want to just keep spending on these programs and don't want to make any cuts.

Spending is out of control. The shortfall this year is going to be over $1.46 trillion. We don't have the money. The national debt is over $14 trillion right now, and it's going to get worse over the next 10 years by about a trillion dollars a year.

And yet every time we come down here and want to cut spending, you start saying we don't care about the poor, we don't care about the kids, we don't care about seniors. And then you see ads on TV with the little old lady's foot dragging as we throw her over the cliff.

What kind of nonsense is that? If we don't get our fiscal house in order, we're all going over a cliff. This country is in terrible fiscal shape right now, and we have to get control of spending. And it really bothers me every time I come down here and I hear you guys talking about we don't care about the children, we don't care about the seniors, we don't care about anybody.

What we care about is jobs and creating an economy that's growing so

that we can once again become the great economic power of the world. But everything that's going on with this administration and everything that you guys keep advocating is putting us more and more in the tank.

And let me tell you something: The American people get it. And if you don't think they get it, look at what happened in the last election. People are tired of the spending, tired of the runaway, giveaway programs. They want jobs that will create a growing economy. And we're not going to get it with more and more spending.

Keynesian economics, socialistic approaches to government do not work. Free enterprise does. And once again I want you to listen to these statistics:

After 1945 we increased jobs by 4\1/2\ million. At the same time we cut spending by 60 percent because we freed up the free enterprise system. That's what we ought to be doing right now if we're going to lower unemployment and get this economy back on track.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman from Georgia's amendment to cut $20.9 million from the Department of Agriculture's Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments account and redirect those funds for deficit reduction.

I commend the Appropriations Committee, Chairman Rogers and Chairman Kingston for crafting a bill that is $5.041 billion or 22.6 percent less than the President's FY 2012 budget request, and $2.672 billion or 13.4 percent less than the FY 2011 enacted level. However, I believe the financial catastrophe facing our Nation today requires us to do even more.

Recently, the CBO released their annual Budget and Economic Outlook report which projects that the FY 2011 deficit will reach an all time record high of $1.48 trillion; the third year in a row our Nation's budget deficit has exceeded $1 trillion. Our national debt is a staggering $14.2 trillion, almost more than our entire economy.

We are borrowing nearly 42 cents of every dollar we spend, much of it from the Chinese, and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren. Every child born today already owes $45,500 in debt they didn't create.

Now, more than ever, it is clear that we must be bold and take the steps necessary to tackle the unprecedented deficits and debt facing our country and get our economy moving again. I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to work together on this bill to cut spending where we can, get our fiscal house in order, and protect the American Dream for our future generations.

In light of the looming and ever growing Federal deficit, an amendment like this is simply common sense. It merely cuts $20.9 million a modest cut of only 10 percent; a very measured step that reduces spending without threatening the mission of the Department of Agriculture.

Our country has a spending problem--not a revenue problem; support the Broun Amendment.

Let me say that this is not a partisan issue. I hear a lot of partisan rhetoric, but it is not a partisan issue. This is an issue about where we deploy troops, who has the authority to do it and whether or not what the President has done is constitutional.

I will probably support both resolutions, but one of the concerns I have about the Speaker's resolution is that

it says the President shall not deploy, establish or maintain the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya.

Most of our wars that we fight now are fought from the air or from battleships. We've had about 250 missiles fired in Libya, and about 226 of them are American. We've spent almost three-quarters of $1 billion already, and it probably will go over $1 billion. ``Boots on the ground'' says that we're not going to put troops into Libya, but we've got ships offshore; we've got planes in the air; we've got airmen who are at risk every single day; and we're committing military forces in Libya even though we don't have boots on the ground.

This goes further than boots on the ground. The President does not have the constitutional authority to do what he did.

Now, I think that the Boehner resolution is a good step in the right direction, except for one thing: it limits it to no boots on the ground. We shouldn't have any troops over there.

This was not approved by Congress, by the people. It was approved by the Arab League. It was approved by the United Nations. It was approved by the French and English, but not the American people. And it's costing billions of dollars, or will cost billions of dollars. This is something that should not have happened, and it should never happen again.

Now, if we limit this to boots on the ground, what if the President decides in a week, while we're out on recess, to go into Syria. And they say, well, it says no boots on the ground. He could still attack Syria, Assad there in Syria, with airplanes and missiles.

We must stop this President from making unilateral decisions that the American people do not support and the Congress of the United States does not support.

Let me just say that the Constitution of the United States and the War Powers Act prohibit the President from doing what he did. And I'm kind of torn because I stayed up late last night thinking about this whole issue. I believe that we shouldn't have gone into Libya in the first place, and we certainly shouldn't go into Syria or another place without the authorization of the Congress of the United States.

And that's the reason why I cosponsored the Kucinich resolution, because we have to send a very strong signal that we're not going to go to war without the people of this country supporting it. And the President did this unilaterally after talking to the Arab League and the U.N. and others without the consent of the people of this country. That's the first thing.

The second thing is the Boehner resolution I'm going to support, but it doesn't go far enough. As far as it goes, it's fine. But it talks only about boots on the ground. Most of the wars in which we've been involved are fought in the air with drones, missiles and airplanes. And about two-thirds of the missiles and over half of the sorties flown by the airplanes that are involved in this war, over two-thirds of those are used by the United States. This is an American conflict. And so when we talk about boots on the ground, that's not sufficient.

Now, I'm going to support it as far as it goes because the Speaker is trying to move this in the right direction, but we shouldn't just limit this to boots on the ground. It should involve no military operation whatsoever without the consent of the Congress and the people of this country. And when the Speaker says boots on the ground only, unless we are going in to save one of our troops that are downed in an air fight or shot down when they go in on a bombing run, then that, in effect, is putting boots on the ground anyhow to get those people out of there.

So, I will support the Boehner resolution, but I prefer the Kucinich resolution because it sends a very strong signal and tells the President, in no uncertain terms, that he cannot take us to war without the consent of the people of this country.

I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding.

I want to start off by saying this is not a partisan issue. I am very happy to cosponsor this legislation because it's the only legislation we are discussing today that has teeth in it. It really deals with the problem.

Now, Qadhafi is a bad guy and he ought to be replaced. There are a lot of tyrants around the world that ought to be replaced. But should the United States go to war any place we want to to get rid of a bad guy unless it's in our national interest, or unless we're at risk, or unless there's been a declaration of war? No. We could go to war anyplace we want to if we just say this guy's a bad guy and he's killing his own people. We could do it in Syria, we could do in Ivory Coast, we could do it all over the place.

But the Congress of the United States is the body that's supposed to be consulted by the President before we go to war. The President did not do this. We are contributing about two-thirds, or at least half of the war effort. It's cost over $700 million, and it will be over $1 billion before it's all over. And the President has taken us into this conflict without the authority of the Congress, without the support of the Congress.

He did get the Arab League, he did get the United Nations. He did talk to the French and the English. But he didn't talk to the people's House, the Congress of the United States. And the President did not have the authority do this.

Now, the reason I support the Kucinich resolution is it sends a clear message to the White House they cannot do this again. They cannot unilaterally go into Syria or the Ivory Coast or anyplace else without talking to the Congress that represents the people all across this country. The President should not have done this. And the only legislation that really deals with the problem today is the Kucinich resolution, which I cosponsored. I am a coauthor of it.

Now, I am going to vote for the Boehner resolution because it does send a signal. But it does not solve the problem. The only way to solve the problem is to let the President know he cannot, should not, and will not be able to do this again.

Mr. Speaker, I was disturbed this morning when

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts raised an issue just a minute ago that he said we should be discussing regarding the War Powers Act. And I certainly agree with him. I would just like to inform him that right now the Foreign Affairs Committee is holding hearings on a number of pieces of legislation that will deal with and refine the War Powers Act, and hopefully correct some of the loopholes that are in it so that Congress is included in the loop.

So I would just like to inform him of that, because although I would like to see this in this particular legislation that we are talking about and discuss this in some detail, I think the hearings that are going on right now will go into in depth the problems that we face with that bill. The one thing that I would say is that I think we all agree, Democrats and Republicans alike, that this body and the other body ought to be involved in the decisionmaking

process before we go into any conflict. And this issue of Libya is a perfect example of where the executive branch has run away from the Congress without consulting with us. And that's something that should never happen in the future, especially when we are risking American lives and American money.

Mr. Speaker, President Obama's recent speech on the Middle East turmoil was billed as a ``reset'' of America's relationship with the Arab world. We were promised a new era of American diplomacy.

Instead, what we got was the same-old failed policies of throwing money at a problem, which could end up having a detrimental effect on our friend and ally, Israel.

President Obama is supporting movements in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and Syria while at the same time he is in effect telling Israel ``you're on your own.'' The President with our tax dollars is supporting who? We don't know! Will it be the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or radical Islamists in Libya, Syria, or Tunisia? And, what about Bahrain or Yemen?

Israel is our greatest ally in the Middle East yet President Obama is urging a Palestinian State; one that governs in partnership with a known terrorist, Israel-hating group--Hamas.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, by choosing to partner in government with Hamas, has proven he has no desire for peace with Israel.

President Obama's endorsement of the Palestinian demand for their own State based on the pre-1967 borders completely reverses our longstanding policy that borders must be determined through negotiations and puts our relationship with Israel in peril.

The Palestinians have been conducting a diplomatic campaign to portray Israel as a renegade, pariah State flouting the will of the international community, in prelude to demanding that the United Nations General Assembly unilaterally recognize a Palestinian State based on the 1967 borders.

By essentially announcing his support of that proposal, President Obama has made that action very likely.

The President, in his speech, espoused policy changes that will lead to more problems for Israel, while he leaves them on their own. Buried toward the end of the President's speech was a statement that challenges the current U.S.-Israel security alliance.

The President said, ``As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself--by itself-- against any threat.''

It appears as though the President--either intentionally or unintentionally--is throwing Israel to the wolves. A statement like that gives encouragement to those who seek Israel's destruction and could serve as a spark for continued unrest in the Middle East.

It is the wrong message to send and it is my hope that the President will reassess his ill-advised position and acknowledge this reality before it is too late.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the future of Taiwan. I have been a long-time supporter of Taiwan and hope that my colleagues and I will continue to improve relations not only between the United States and Taiwan but between Taiwan and the international community. All Americans should be proud that Taiwan and the United States have enjoyed a strong and durable relationship. Taiwan is one of our largest trading partners and the cultural exchanges between our two peoples are as vibrant as they have ever been. Taiwan has stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States to combat the scourge of global terrorism; and the people of Taiwan have always given generously in our greatest times of need with monetary contributions to the Twin Towers Fund, Pentagon Memorial Fund and through offer of humanitarian assistance to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Taiwan and the United States are not merely allies; we are friends and partners in the truest sense of the words.

But, I think it would be fair to say that Taiwan's future is uncertain. Just yesterday, Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou took part in a video conference with the Center for Strategic and International Studies to discuss Taiwan's vision for the future of the Republic of China's National Security. I include a copy of President Ma Ying-jeou's speech into the Congressional Record. And I urge my colleagues to read the remarks because whatever the future holds of Taiwan, I believe that the people of Taiwan deserve to have a voice in shaping that future.

Building National Security for the Republic of China

President Hamre, distinguished guests, ladies and

gentlemen, good morning!

It gives me great pleasure to be addressing my friends at

the Center for Strategic and International Studies once

again. We last met two years ago on the occasion of the 30th

Anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act, a milestone in the

history of the Republic of China on Taiwan. And this year,

after a long journey of blood, toil, tears and sweat, the

Republic of China is achieving a greater milestone, its

centennial anniversary. This year also marks the third year

of my presidency. Therefore, it is time I shared with you how

I am building three lines of defense for the ROC's national

security, so as to ensure its longevity for many more

centuries to come. These three lines of defense are

institutionalizing the Cross-Strait rapprochement, enhancing

Taiwan's contributions to international development and

aligning defense with diplomacy.

The First Line of Defense: Institutionalizing the Cross-Strait

Rapprochement

The Cross-Strait rapprochement that began three years ago

continues to bear fruit and increase regional peace and

stability. We witness this in so many aspects of our society.

The arrival of nearly three million mainland Chinese visitors

has created a tourism boom in Taiwan almost 10 times than

before. The increase in Cross-Strait trade also boosted

Taiwan's total trade volume to a record high of 526 billion

US dollars in 2010. Since the Cross-Strait Judicial Mutual

Assistance Agreement was signed in

2009, a joint crackdown on Cross-Strait crimes by the police

forces of both Taiwan and mainland China has seen more than

100 fugitives repatriated to Taiwan, up 50% from before, and

has cut cases of fraud in Taiwan by more than a quarter. And

in education, more than 5,600 mainland exchange students

studied in Taiwan's universities in 2010, paving the way for

another 2,000 students to arrive in the fall semester this

year. We have also seen a surge in Taiwanese companies with a

heavy investment presence in mainland China returning to list

their companies on the Taiwan Stock Exchange, rather than on

the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, a dramatic reversal of previous

practices.

I owe much of my administration's success to our new

approach to Cross-Strait relations. The new way of thinking

revolves around moving beyond the outdated mode of

unilateralism that previously characterized, and also

hindered, relations between the two sides. As the renowned

diplomatic historian Paul Schroeder concluded in his study of

the events that led up to the Congress of Vienna peace era,

``One must have change of thought, before one can have change

of action.''

Before I came to office, we had all witnessed the spread of

instability, unpredictability and especially insecurity in

Cross-Strait relations. I had long recognized that Cross-

Strait relations required a new mindset, one that would

emphasize the commonalities, take advantage of our shared

interests, capitalize on our mutual opportunities and de-

emphasize our political disagreements. Former KMT Chairman

Lien Chan undertook some of the first steps towards

instilling this new mindset when he embarked on his ``Journey

of Peace'' to the mainland in 2005. His speech at Peking

University, calling for the two sides to join together to

``beat swords into plowshares,'' captured the essence of this

new idea. The decades-old rivalry between Taiwan and mainland

China was thus given a rare window of opportunity for change.

After I came to office in 2008, I worked hard to accelerate

this change. All around me, the world was changing at

breakneck speed while the ill-founded policies of the last

decade were threatening to sideline Taiwan in the Asia-

Pacific region. I knew I had to break out of the Cross-Strait

deadlock for the sake of Taiwan's economic future and

national security. Hence, I championed a ``three-no'' policy

of ``no unification, no independence, and no use of force''

under the ROC Constitution. This has changed the fundamental

structure of, and created a ``virtuous cycle'' for, Cross-

Strait relations.

I then adopted the ``92 Consensus'' as the cornerstone for

the Cross-Strait negotiations. The 92 Consensus, meaning

``one China, respective interpretations'', has proven crucial

to paving the way forward. It was under this Consensus that

the six rounds of Chiang-Chen Talks were able to take place,

and the two sides were able to achieve so many practical,

indeed incredible, breakthroughs. By ``putting Taiwan first

for the benefit of the people,'' we and Beijing have thus far

signed 15 agreements that tackle the issues of greatest

concern to the people in Taiwan. At the same time, my

administration managed to institutionalize convenient,

predictable and stable channels for Cross-Strait

communications. It was only through this groundwork that the

next milestone--of signing an Economic Cooperation Framework

Agreement (ECFA) last year--could be realized and its

benefits fully exercised. One econometric study has even

shown that the ECFA will eventually add 4.4% to our GDP, once

the dynamic gains of structural adjustments have time to be

fully implemented. And that is not even including other

potential spillover benefits as a result of an improved

services, trade and investment environment.

It is also my belief that increased exchanges across the

Strait will lead to increased exchanges with other countries,

for both sides. This will enhance mutual understanding

between Taiwan, the mainland and other countries, which will

in turn help Cross-Strait relations evolve even further. That

is, the virtuous cycle in Cross-Strait relations has positive

consequences for the international community, which then adds

even greater momentum to improvements in Cross-Strait

relations. For example, due to the diplomatic truce between

the two sides of the Strait, the number of diplomatic allies

that Taiwan has remained constant at 23, compared to a loss

of six allies by the previous administration. Taiwan has also

joined the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) and become

an observer in the World Health Assembly (WHA) after a hiatus

of 38 years. Taiwan has expanded its visa waiver programs

from 53 to 113 countries and regions--with the United States

as a notable exception, as well as working-holiday

arrangements for young people from 2 to 6 countries.

This just shows what can be achieved by merely changing the

way one thinks. This I believe is also the essence of good

governance: never to interfere, but to build the necessary

structures that encourage the right conditions for growth in

society. And it is through this process

of institutionalization that we created explicit or

implicit principles, norms, rules, and procedures around

which the expectations of both sides can converge. This

very convergence has created predictability and mutual

understanding in our relations, leading to stability

across the Taiwan Strait and in the region as a whole. The

idea of institutionalizing the Cross-Strait rapprochement,

therefore, is not only to reduce the possibility of

miscalculation but, more importantly, to increase the cost

of reversing this trend.

The Second Line of Defense: Enhancing Taiwan's Contributions to

International Development

Although the incredible breakthroughs achieved in Cross-

Strait relations have ensured a brighter future for Taiwan

and the region, Taiwan's national security is also heavily

dependent on how it contributes to the international

community. I envision Taiwan contributing on two primary

fronts: the economy, and foreign relations. In terms of the

economy, Taiwan already has the infrastructure and conditions

in place to attract the best talent and become East Asia's

next commercial center. Without a doubt, the expansive

business and personal networks Taiwan has built up throughout

the region over the last 60 years are an invaluable asset.

Its historical ties and cultural and language affinity with

the mainland give it a competitive edge in the vast Chinese

mainland market. At the same time, Taiwan also has a special

partnership with Japan, as we share many cultural traits,

common interests, ideas and even the same fashion sense.

Therefore, many Japanese and Taiwanese businessmen have

decided to work together to enter the mainland Chinese

market. And this type of win-win partnership can be

successfully repeated with other countries.

Taiwan is located at the geographical center of East Asia,

and could not be in a better position for tapping into

business opportunities in the region. Any businessman or

multinational company based in Taiwan has convenient access

to the whole Asia-Pacific region. With direct air and sea

links, Taiwan is connected to all major cities in the Chinese

mainland, from the coastal metropolises of Shanghai and

Beijing, to the fast developing cities in the Chinese

hinterlands. At the same time, all other major cities in the

region--such as Tokyo, Seoul, Singapore, New Dehli, or

Sydney--are well within reach.

Taiwan is also endowed with many ``soft-power'' attributes

that make it an ideal place for both domestic and

multinational companies. Its democracy and rule of law ensure

that the rights of individuals and companies, including

intellectual property rights, are guaranteed. The country's

modern and comprehensive transportation, healthcare and

education infrastructure ensures that those who live here

enjoy access to very good quality services. We also have a

highly educated, innovative and skilled labor force just

waiting for foreign companies to tap into. We have created an

enviably safe society where anyone out at night walking their

dogs or buying food at the grocery store can feel safe. And

improvements are happening all the time, making our society a

better place to live and do business in. Against a backdrop

of stable Cross-Strait relations, Taiwan's regional

connections, geographic advantages and soft-power attributes

make it poised to ride the next wave of opportunities in the

region, and to help others do the same if they choose to join

us.

With respect to foreign relations, there is also a lot of

value that Taiwan can add to the global community. And as a

maturing democracy, I believe Taiwan must learn to fully

shoulder its own responsibilities in the world. In fact,

Taiwan's national security is inseparably tied to its role as

a responsible stakeholder. Our nation's political and

economic survival depends entirely on how well we uphold the

peace and stability of the international system. This is the

same system that is making Taiwan prosperous, and allowing

our government and people to connect with the rest of the

world in ways that are enriching our nation even further. So,

Taiwan certainly has a vested interest in putting a stop to

improper diplomatic practices and in adopting a foreign aid

policy that is more in line with international standards and

norms. This is exactly what we have been doing over the last

three years. Humanitarian work has especially become an

important platform for Taiwan's contributions to the

international community. Taiwan's democracy and economic

prosperity have combined to give rise, to a vibrant society

of numerous non-profit organizations. In almost every major

disaster that has occurred in the world recently, Taiwan has

been an important contributor, whether providing financial

aid to help rebuild homes in Sichuan, or giving life-

sustaining medical aid to Haitian children. We were also one

of the first to arrive with emergency relief supplies and

rescue teams when Japan was struck by the triple disaster of

an earthquake, tsunami and nuclear incident. Deeply saddened

by the devastation, my wife and I were personally on hand to

answer calls from donors at a major fundraiser in Taiwan last

March. An equivalent of 27 million US dollars was raised that

night. My administration had also pledged another 3 million

US dollars. In fact, Taiwan ended up donating more than 200

million US dollars in total, which is Japan's biggest donor

so far. But, as you may know, our humanitarian contributions

in that crisis extended beyond Japan. Our China Airlines was

chartered to help fly out scores of US expatriates to Taipei

before they headed back home to the United States. This

second defense line aims to give Taiwan a higher moral ground

in international politics.

The Third Line of Defense: Aligning Taiwan's Defense with Diplomacy

From securing the Cross-Strait rapprochement to enhancing

Taiwan's contributions in

international development, I now come to the last but equally

significant part of the ROC's national security: aligning

Taiwan's defense with diplomacy. I have two priorities.

First, I want to continue to build up Taiwan's credibility

and trust with our closest allies, especially the United

States. To be a trustworthy partner, Taiwan must be keenly

aware of how its actions in the international system affect

the interests of the big powers. This means ``never rocking

the boat'' and ``full consultation.''

Second, Taiwan has the resolve to defend itself. My

administration wants to enhance Taiwan's defense capability

on a newly designed volunteer military system. This is a huge

undertaking, as we need to overcome difficulties in training,

organization, finance and military doctrines. However, we are

confident that we will succeed in building a small but strong

military force. Complementary to our defense capability is

Taiwan's democratic values, rule of law, and an advanced

civil society, which could make Taiwan an indispensable

reference for socio-economic development in the Chinese

mainland. This is, it could be said, a soft-power approach to

national defense.

Given the high stakes that America has invested in the

region, I am sure the US, of all countries, can appreciate my

administration's commitment to being a responsible

stakeholder. For example, President Barack Obama expressed

earlier this year his support for the progress that has been

made to reduce Cross-Strait tensions, and in particular how

its continuation will be in the interests of the region and

the United States. However, for Cross-Strait relations to

continue advancing, the US must help Taiwan level the playing

field. Negotiating with a giant like the Chinese mainland is

not without its risks. The right leverage must be in place,

otherwise Taiwan cannot credibly maintain an equal footing at

the negotiation table. This is why I continue to urge the US

to provide Taiwan with necessary defensive weaponry, such as

the F-16 C/Ds and diesel-powered submarines, to keep its

aerial and naval integrity intact, which is key to

maintaining a credible defense. As Secretary of Defense

Robert Gates wrote in Foreign Affairs last year, the US can

best help itself by ``helping others defend themselves.'' At

the same time, American presence in the very system it helped

create decades ago is crucial to that system's survival. In

the end, only a strong US commitment, backed by its

credibility in East Asia, can guarantee the peace and

stability of this region.

Concluding remarks

In conclusion, a country's overall strategy for security

requires a sound political foundation in the domestic

setting. My approach to Taiwan's national security is based

on my administration's unwavering identification with the

Republic of China and its Constitution. This is a common

denominator for our vibrant democracy, which has a wide

spectrum of political views ranging from those who prefer de

jure Taiwan independence, to those who enjoy the status quo

and to those who favor reunification with mainland China. Any

deviation from or equivocation on this common denominator

will only cause unnecessary uncertainties and risks in

Taiwan's domestic politics, Cross-Strait relations and

international politics. Given that the stakes for all the

countries in East Asia and for Taiwan's future development

are high, I am confident my approach to the ROC's national

security is already at an optimum.

My friends in America, the future of the region holds

enormous opportunities, but also many potential pitfalls.

Changes in both Taiwan and the mainland's domestic politics

could derail much of what has been achieved. Intransigence,

overconfidence or unilateral pursuit of national interests

could lead to a losing scenario for all relevant parties. So

it will be essential to keep track of these moving pieces in

the future. For my part, the process of transforming Taiwan

into a valuable member of the global community, and thus

ultimately enhancing its own security, will continue full-

steam ahead under my administration. The same-old ``no

frills, no surprise''diplomacy will also continue to be the

operational code for my administration's conduct of foreign

policy. That said, I hope this year will mark the start of a

new 100 years that will be known as the century when the

Taiwan-US partnership achieved its greatest accomplishments.

Thank you!

President Ma's Closing Remarks

Dear friends and colleagues, as the famous American poet

Robert Frost once wrote, ``I took the road less travelled by,

and that has made all the difference.'' The past three years

have witnessed unprecedented breakthroughs and positive

developments in Taiwan and the region. Yet for the road

ahead, we still need to be patient and careful in our

political rhetoric, in the signals we send, in the gestures

we make, and in the reputation we cultivate. I draw

reassurance from the positive developments that continue to

unfold across the Strait and in the international community,

and I have full confidence in my administration's roadmap. On

a deeper level the improvement of Cross-Strait relations in

the past three years reflects the result of something

fundamentally more significant: the comprehensive overhaul of

Taiwan's strategic approach to the world. An approach that

has coupled Cross-Strait relations, the economy and foreign

relations together in such a way as to fully maximize

Taiwan's potential value in the global community. Taiwan has

to transform itself into a peacemaker, a contributor of

humanitarian aid, a center for innovation and business

opportunities, a major promoter of cultural exchange and the

standard bearer of Chinese culture. As the Republic of China

reaches its centennial anniversary, I believe my

administration's grand strategy will make the Republic more

secure, more prosperous for many, many years to come. I also

firmly believe America's friendship will be an inseparable

part of the Republic of China's future, as it has been in the

past one hundred years.

Thank you!

Mr. Speaker, as co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on Korea, I rise today to commend the Republic of Korea's pledge of an additional $500 million over 5 years in aid to Afghanistan. It is unfortunate that this tremendous contribution was not heralded by the international media because Seoul's commitment to aiding in the development and reconstruction in the war-torn nation is remarkable in several ways and deserves our recognition and gratitude.

This latest $500 million is in addition to the $180 million Seoul has already contributed to Afghanistan. And, currently, there are about 90 South Korean aid workers and police serving in Afghanistan secured by more than 200 Korean troops. This increased level of assistance will go a long way in supporting existing programs run by Korea's Provincial Reconstruction Team in the northern province of Parwan. Korea's Provincial Reconstruction Team will be able to enhance their work in the areas of education, health and medical service, rural development, improved governance and police training.

Korea has been and continues to be one of the most reliable partners we have in Afghanistan. For example, from 2002 to 2007, Korea deployed military medics and engineers in Afghanistan; provided medical service to 260,000 people; and helped build the U.S. Bagram Air Field.

What impresses me the most about Korea's fortitude and role in the international community is its tremendous progress over the last half century. Not so long ago South Korea was a recipient, rather than a donor, of Official Development Assistance, ODA. According to the Congressional Research Service, U.S. economic assistance to South Korea totaled $3.8 billion from 1945 to 1971. However, by the mid-1970s U.S. assistance began to shrink to zero. In 2009, South Korea became the first major recipient of Official Development Assistance to become a major donor of ODA. In just two years, 2008 and 2009, South Korea contributed economic aid of $1.7 billion to other countries, including Afghanistan.

Through sound economic policies, a strong commitment to free enterprise, and a turn from autocratic to democratic governance, South Korea has become one of the world's fastest-growing, most resilient economies with an equally resilient and stable civil society.

In 1980, the Republic of Korea's gross domestic product, GDP, per capita was $2,300, about one-third of nearby economies such as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan. Since then, South Korea has advanced into a developed economy that had a GDP per capita of $30,000 in 2010, almost thirteen times the figure thirty years earlier. The country's overall GDP increased from $88 billion to $1,460 billion in the same period.

Today, South Korea's economy ranks fifteenth in the world by nominal GDP and twelfth by purchasing power parity. It is one of the G-20 major economies and it is a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. As of 2010, South Korea was the sixth largest exporter and tenth largest importer in the world. Korea is the United States' seventh-largest trading partner, with a pending free trade agreement that will bring multiple benefits to both of our countries in terms of increased trade and investment. We must pass the pending U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement KORUS FTA as soon as possible.

The conflict in Afghanistan is as controversial in Korea as it is in the United States, which makes the Republic of Korea's pledge of an additional $500 million (over 5 years) in aid to Afghanistan all the more significant. It sends a signal to the world that Korea is a dedicated partner in peace and an ally that the U.S. can count on.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me today in saluting the Republic of Korea and people of Korea for their continued partnership in helping to rebuild the economy and society of Afghanistan.

Madam Speaker, about a week or so ago, a good friend of mine from Indiana, Rex Early, who has been very active in not only political circles but in civic events for a long, long time, brought to my attention some extraordinary things that have been done by a young man who is in our military.

Corporal Sean Leahy graduated from Hamilton Southeastern High School in 2006 in Fishers, Indiana, and he is now a 23-year-old marine and squad leader with the 1st Platoon, Kilo Company. He recently completed his second tour of duty, initially having served with distinction in Iraq.

Sean was preparing to leave the Marine Corps to pursue a college degree; and when made aware that his unit would be sent to Afghanistan, instead of leaving to pursue college, he again decided to answer the call, and he reenlisted instead of going to college. He didn't have to risk his life again, but he wanted to be with his unit, and he promptly joined his brethren in preparation for their next deployment.

He was deployed to Sangin in the Helmand province of Afghanistan, an area where our troops have sustained heavy losses and heavy wounds in recent months. But Leahy and his good friend Matthew Bland served side by side with honor, guiding and protecting their platoon.

When called into duty, Corporal Leahy answered the call to action without any hesitation. And I think that's really amazing for a 23- year-old fellow who has a great college career ahead of him to pass that up to go back with his unit into a combat situation. When he was presented with the opportunity to pursue a calmer life here in the States after completing his tour in Iraq, he instead chose to stand shoulder to shoulder with his fellow Marines.

Madam Speaker, this kind of bravery and love for one's country is too often neglected, overshadowed by our chaotic news cycle and conjecture regarding the latest Hollywood gossip. The heroic actions of people like Corporal Leahy can often go unnoticed. But today I rise to give a heartfelt thank you to Corporal Leahy and to the many men and women like him in our armed services who have chosen to risk everything day after day to ensure our country's safety in the face of terror.

The words I have just spoken don't express enough the sentiment that most of us in America feel toward the people who are defending our freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct privilege of rising in honor of one of our fine fighting men who has recently returned from a tour in Afghanistan.

Cpl. Sean Leahy, who graduated from Hamilton Southeastern High School in 2006 in Fishers, Indiana, is a 23-year-old Marine and squad leader with the 1st Platoon, Kilo Company. He has recently completed his second tour of duty, initially having served with distinction in Iraq.

Sean was preparing to leave the Marine Corps to pursue a college degree, when he was made aware that his unit would be sent to Afghanistan. Instead of leaving to pursue college, he again decided to answer the call, reenlisted, and promptly joined his brethren in preparation for their next deployment.

He was deployed to Sangin in the Helmand province of Afghanistan, an area where our troops have sustained heavy losses in recent months. But Leahy, and his good friend Matthew Bland, served side-by-side with honor, guiding and protecting their platoon. When called into duty, Cpl. Leahy answered the call to action without hesitation.

When he was presented with the opportunity to pursue a calmer life here in the States after completing his tour in Iraq, he instead chose to stand shoulder to shoulder with with his fellow Marines. Mr. Speaker, this kind of bravery and love for one's country is too often neglected, overshadowed by our chaotic news cycle and conjecture regarding the latest Hollywood gossip.

The heroic actions of people like Cpl. Leahy can often go unnoticed. But today, I rise to give a heartfelt thank you to Corporal Leahy and the many men and women like him in our Armed Services who have chosen to risk everything, day after day, to ensure our country's safety in the face of terror.

I would now like to proceed with the rest of my Special Order.

There was an article, Madam Speaker, in a number of our papers around the country after Osama bin Laden was killed. These articles kind of troubled me, not because we haven't been aggressive in going after Osama bin Laden for 10 years but because of the message these articles sent possibly to the terrorist leaders around the world. It indicated that the President wanted to reach out to the Muslim radicals now that Osama bin Laden has been killed, as if to say, ``Let's solve this problem and not have any further conflict.''

Now, that kind of rhetoric may sound good to many people in this country, but it troubles me because it may give the impression that we're trying to appease the terrorists in order to get them to stop their terrible, terrible terrorist activities around the world.

I would like to put into the Record a few things that were said prior to World War II that I would like, if the President were paying attention, to listen to, because there's an old saying, ``Those who don't profit from history are destined to make the same mistakes.''

The first quote is from Lord Chamberlain, who was the Prime Minister of England prior to World War II:

``This morning, I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine. We regard the agreement signed last night, and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.''

That was a speech that he made at Heston Airport on the 30th of September, 1938. It was part of the ``Peace for Our Time'' approach that Lord Chamberlain was taking.

He said, later on in a letter that he sent to his wife in December of 1939:

``I stick to the view I have always held that Hitler missed the bus in September 1938. He could have dealt France and ourselves a terrible, perhaps a mortal, blow then. The opportunity will not recur.''

He was trying to say that the reason he signed that agreement with Hitler was because they weren't prepared for war and so he decided to give the Sudetenland to Hitler without any kind of a conflict. The thing that bothers me about that is what he said to the Czechoslovakian people:

``When we were convinced, as we became convinced, that nothing any longer would keep the Sudetenland within the Czechoslovakian State, we urged the Czech Government as strongly as we could to agree to the cession of territory, and to agree promptly. The Czech Government,'' because of the pressure that was brought upon them, ``through the wisdom and courage of President Benes, accepted the advice of the French Government and ourselves. It was a hard decision for anyone who loved his country to take, but to accuse us of having by that advice betrayed the Czechoslovakian State is simply preposterous.''

But, in fact, it was a terrible decision that was made by Lord Chamberlain, because what happened was, because of the appearance of weakness by going to Munich and signing a peace agreement on Hitler's terms, giving the Sudetenland, which was part of the Czechoslovakian Republic, to Hitler, it was the green light, because he suspected and felt that the free countries of the world were afraid of him and would back down in any case that might arise. As a result, World War II started and 50 to 60 million people were killed.

It is very important that we realize today, as they did after Lord Chamberlain made this terrible mistake, that we should not in any way give the appearance of appeasing the radical Islamists, because they may think because we got rid of Osama bin Laden, we don't have the intestinal fortitude to keep after them to destroy them so that they can never be a threat to the free world again.

I think it's important that we remember what Winston Churchill, who was an outcast in the British Parliament at the time, what he said for years and years and years. Quoting Churchill:

``The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.''

He was predicting that World War II was going to start, and this was as far back as 1936.

He went on to say later on:

``People say we ought not to allow ourselves to be drawn into a theoretical antagonism between Nazism and democracy; but the antagonism is here now. It is this very conflict of spiritual and moral ideas''-- that's what we're facing right now, spiritual and moral ideas of the radicals--``which gives the free countries a great part of their strength.''

Winston Churchill, who was vilified, was absolutely correct. They should have prepared for war. They should have let Herr Hitler know that there was going to be no giving of any quarter to him, and it might have prevented World War II and maybe saved 40, 50, 60 million lives.

Winston Churchill went on to say after the war was about to begin in the House of Commons in 1938:

``Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonor. They chose dishonor, and now they will have war.'' And they did have war.

Churchill also said:

``And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning.''

I hope our government realizes that this is not the end of the war with the terrorists. This is still going on. Although bin Laden has been killed, there's still a lot of terrorists out there that believe we're weak and that we're not going to follow through and that they can prevail in the long run. We need to send a message like Churchill did prior to what Lord Chamberlain did by going to Munich that we're going to be tough and we're going to follow through. I think the President needs to send that message very loud and clear, instead of reaching out, now that bin Laden is gone, and saying to the terrorist world, ``Now that bin Laden's gone, your leader's gone, we ought to sit down and work this thing out.'' That is a sign of weakness. And I hope the President when he makes this speech makes absolutely clear to the terrorists that we're willing to do whatever it takes to protect America and the free world.

As Churchill went on to say, ``This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.'' That was in October of 1938.

We're in a war against terrorism. It's something that hasn't been seen since the 12th century when the radical Islamists tried to take over western Europe. A lot of people don't remember that. But they did. And there's always those radicals who want to foist upon the rest of the world their religious beliefs and the way they think the world should be run. We have to when they rise up again and again and again as they will throughout history, I'm sure that there will always be radical Islamists who will want to make sure the rest of the world believes the way they do as far as their religious beliefs are concerned. Whether it's now, or whether it was in the 12th century, or whether it's going to be in the future, the free world has to be resolute of purpose and make absolutely sure that the message is sent loud and clear that we are willing to do whatever it takes to defeat the terrorists. That means doing whatever it takes to get information from their leaders to make sure that we find the terrorists in whatever hole they've dug themselves in to protect themselves.

I'm very happy we got Osama bin Laden. I think it's a great step forward in the quest for peace. But the war is not over. It's going to go on for some time, until the terrorists know that there's no possibility of winning, and the threat to our homeland from terrorism, the threat to the free world from terrorism, goes on.

I would like to end, if I could, to say to the President--I know I can't talk to him because he's not here--but if I were talking to the President, I would say: Mr. President, when you make this speech, allegedly to reach out to the Arab world, make it absolutely clear that we're going to do whatever it takes to defeat the terrorists as long as it takes.

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

Mr. Speaker, on April 30th in San Francisco, the 2011 John Carroll Awards were presented to five exceptional individuals whose achievements exemplify the ideals and traditions of Georgetown University. Named after the University's founder, Archbishop John Carroll, the John Carroll Award was established by the Georgetown University Alumni Association in 1951 and is the highest honor awarded by the alumni association. Recipients have distinguished themselves through achievement and unparalleled service to Georgetown University, and the 2011 recipients embody the true meaning of Magis. Magis is a Jesuit phrase that means ``the more.'' It is taken from Ad majorem Dei gloriam, a Latin phrase meaning ``for the greater glory of God.'' It is an expression of an aspiration and inspiration. Magis reflects the Jesuit concept of a continuous commitment to excellence, grounded in gratitude.

The 2011 John Carroll recipients are Mary Taylor Behrens, Philip T. Inglima, the Honorable M. Margaret McKeown, Paul F. Pelosi, and Michael L. Vespoli. I congratulate them all on their achievements. All five of them are esteemed members of the Georgetown community, but today, I rise to give special recognition to Philip Inglima, known as Phil, to his friends.

An exemplar of the Jesuit tradition of women and men for others, Phil Inglima has found no shortage of ways to give back to the alumni community. It would be hard to find a volunteer post at Georgetown that Phil hasn't occupied. As an undergraduate, he served as the co-chair of his senior class gift committee. He has chaired many of his undergraduate and law classes' reunion committees, served on the board of regents and worked as vice chair of the law annual fund. A member of the board of governors since 1997, Phil served as president of the alumni association and was a well-respected member of the board of directors for two years.

After graduating in 1984 with a degree in English, Phil remained at Georgetown as an assistant to the Rev. Timothy S. Healy, S.J., then president of the university. He spent two years working closely with Father Healy while studying at the Georgetown University Law Center. His dedicated work for the Juvenile Justice Clinic earned him the honor of being named ``Outstanding Advocate.''

Phil began his law career as a clerk to the Honorable June L. Green of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before entering private practice with criminal defense legend Plato Cacheris (F'51, L'56). Since then, he has amassed more than two decades of experience as a litigator specializing in white

collar criminal law, including two years as a special prosecutor.

Now a partner at Crowell & Moring LLP, Phil defends criminal and civil matters in trial and appellate courts. He has been recognized repeatedly in the premier legal review guide, Chambers USA, as well as in Super Lawyers and The Best Lawyers In America, as a leading lawyer in white collar criminal defense.

Georgetown University with its rich, Jesuit tradition runs through Phil's veins. In addition to serving the alumni community, Phil teaches a course in federal white collar crime at the university's Law Center.

Phil met his beautiful wife, Elizabeth Wieser (C'86, L'92), at Georgetown. They have three children--Joseph, Rosalia and Paulina--who were all born at the Georgetown University Hospital. Phil Inglima is a great friend, father, husband as well as one who excels professionally. He makes those individuals and institutions that he touches better.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I don't know that there is a great deal more to add to what he has just said about permits and about the issue that has been discussed just recently.

The thing that really bothers me is just a few years ago, 25 years ago, we were importing about 28 percent of our oil. Today we are importing 62 percent of our oil, more than double what we were doing just a few years ago, and the American people are paying the price. Instead of $1.50 or $2 a gallon for gas, they are spending $4 a gallon for gasoline.

Nationwide, there are 86 billion barrels of oil. Fifty-one percent of that is in the Gulf of Mexico, which means there are 44 billion barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, and there are 240 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. For us to continue to be dependent on foreign energy sources is crazy. We ought to start drilling and doing what needs to be done here in America. And we can do in an environmentally safe way. We can do it in Alaska, offshore, we can do it in a number of places. But to sit by and continue to send our money to Saudi Arabia and other countries around the world that aren't our friends just doesn't make any sense, and the American people understand it.

I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle ought to go back and talk to their constituents, who are paying the price at the gas pump.