Filter Results for "Column"

Words have consequences. This past Veterans Day, President Bush sat down with reporters from CNN and reflected upon his years as president. When asked if he had any regrets, the president readily admitted that there have been moments that he has come to regret. "I regret saying some things I shouldn't have said," Mr. Bush said. He then recalled how his wife, Laura, had warned him that, "as president of the United States, be careful what you say." And this is my unsolicited piece of advice to President-elect Barack Obama. As leader of the Free World, it is an undeniable fact that when the president of the United States speaks, his words have consequences. Mr. Obama proved on the campaign trail that he is a gifted speaker. He was also disciplined in his campaign messages on domestic and foreign-policy issues. He must govern with the same type of discipline, especially when it comes to comments about the economy.

In October, the Reuters/University of Michigan's index of consumer confidence suffered the largest point drop in its history, and the gauge of expectations for six months from now, which economists consider a proxy for future spending, also declined sharply. This precipitous drop in consumer confidence is extremely troubling for our future economic prospects. When troubled consumers cut back on their spending, companies respond by cutting back on production and services, and the result is increased job losses and an overall deeper economic slump. The harsh reality is that our economy is largely dependent upon consumer spending. So, any plan to revitalize our economy put forth by President Obama and my Democratic colleagues in the House and Senate is automatically doomed to failure if the American people and American businesses simply hoard their money; and that is exactly what they will do if they are not confident about their economic future. Similarly, from the global war on terror to health-care reform to tax cuts to homeland security, none of what Congress does would be possible if the powerhouse that is the American economy is not moving forward.

Words do have consequences. And what our government says can either help create the conditions for growth and prosperity or create the conditions to power the economy down a notch or two or more. The consumer's confidence is not driven wholly by facts; it is also driven in part by how those facts are presented by the president and other public figures. In other words, what our new leaders say can either help convince people to resume their normal lives and spend their money reasonably - or help convince them to bury more of their cash in the backyard.

Mr. Obama has said that he is looking to the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt for guidance on how to guide our nation through the current economic crisis. I sincerely hope he is taking the words of FDR´s first inaugural address to heart. In that speech, FDR said: "I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impel. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." If we are to pull ourselves out of our current economic malaise, President Obama must similarly speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly; that "this great nation has endured, will revive and will prosper."

Throughout the Bush presidency, my Democratic colleagues - then-Sen. Obama included - spent much of their time spinning every piece of economic news negatively in an effort to score political points. It worked. Success can easily breed contempt and I fear that many of my Democratic colleagues may be sorely tempted to continue to harp on, even exaggerate, bad economic news in order to provide a substantive rationale for their big government programs. Now that we really do have huge, and worldwide, economic problems, however, the incoming administration and Congress must stop the politics and start being pragmatic. Injecting more fear and anxiety into the minds of consumers than is warranted by the hard evidence creates a negative self-fulfilling prophecy.To overlook or ignore this risk threatens not only the incoming administration and Congress´ ability to pursue their pet projects, vital national interests, and the optimism and opportunities of ordinary Americans. A message strategy that unnecessarily exacerbates consumer fears (nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terrors) – is not the right way for our nation's new leaders to provide a new dialogue in Washington.

So, once again my unsolicited advice to Mr. Obama is this: Words do indeed have consequences. Your words can help restore the American people´s confidence in the economy and put us back on the road to prosperity, or they can destroy consumer confidence and prolong our economic pain. The choice is yours. The American people are listening and history is watching.

Rep. Dan Burton, Indiana Republican, was recently re-elected to a 14th term.

The best energy policy is nonpartisan

With the current national average for a gallon of gasoline over $4, and creeping steadily toward $5, Americans are draining their pocketbooks at the gas pump while Congress continues to engage in the age-old pastime of political finger-pointing. We are in the midst of the gravest energy crisis this nation has seen since the oil embargos of the 1970s. Americans are increasingly looking to Washington for leadership. But there has been no leadership, no solution, and not even a constructive debate.

This must end now. Republicans and Democrats must cast aside prior grievances, extreme partisanship, and the scoring of cheap political points in favor of a nonpartisan energy solution for America. It took more than 30 years to get ourselves into this position, and the pain is not going to end overnight Yet an end to the energy crisis is at our fingertips, if Republicans and Democrats are willing to risk the wrath of special interest groups and grab hold of it.

Traditionally, Republicans focus on increasing our domestic oil supply, by drilling off the Outer Continental Shelf and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Democrats, on the other hand, argue that oil itself is the problem. Their solution entails curbing public demand for oil and utilizing more wind and solar power. I believe that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Any discussion of a viable energy solution must begin with a philosophy that goes something like this: "Our society is too dependent upon fossil fuels to go cold turkey so we must increase our domestic oil supply while we transition to cleaner renewable alternative energy sources as quickly as possible."

How do we pursue that strategy? In the short term, we begin by utilizing the energy that sits beneath our own soil. This means drilling for oil in Federal lands and waters off the continental shelf, where it is currently prohibited. We can also utilize the oil shale deposits in the West, which could yield between 1.8 trillion and 8 trillion barrels of oil. In the Midwest, we have a coal supply with more energy capability than Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined. If it were fully utilized via currently available coal-to-liquid technology, it would equate to 5 million barrels of oil per day by 2030. As we begin to fuel our own nation, our reliance on oil imports from volatile areas of the world will decline, and we will have a more dependable, cheaper source of oil to fuel our cars and heat our homes. With new power plants, refineries, and drilling sites to build and manage, we will also create good paying jobs, right here at home.

I believe those are the options for the short term. If my Democrat colleagues find some of these energy opportunities unacceptable - and they probably do - then so be it. Republicans must be willing to compromise by perhaps agreeing to utilize only a portion of these resources, while ensuring that they are extracted in an environmentally responsible fashion, and using some of the revenue generated to accelerate research into new alternative sources of energy. Democrats, on the other hand, must be willing to compromise by allowing more domestic oil and gas exploration and drilling.

For the long term, investment in alternative energy is a must. We will also need to change our national mindset about how we use energy and phase down the use of fossil fuels, as alternative energy technologies come online. From the way our homes and businesses are built, to the vehicles we drive every day - and how we drive them - Americans will need to be much more conscious of how much energy they consume. Again, Republicans must be willing to defy some traditionally conservative stances if we want to reach a compromise with the Democrats and solve this problem. Similarly, Democrats must be willing to compromise by supporting initiatives such as making nuclear power part of the alternative energy grid, scale back environmental reviews to speed the construction of wind and solar power plants (spending billions of taxpayer dollars to develop viable solar and wind technologies is pointless if we can't build solar power plants) and placeing reasonable limits on frivolous lawsuits designed to delay or stop construction projects.

This is not rocket science. We have the tools to get through this energy crisis if we are willing to use them. If we can muster the political will, we can beat these high gas prices today, and turn our current hardship into an opportunity to lead the world in the pursuit of alternative fuels and new technologies that can dramatically reduce our global addiction to fossil fuels. Our nation was founded on the principle of compromise. I call upon my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to sit down with me at a table today, and hash out compromise legislation that is not perfect for Republicans, or Democrats, but is practical for America. We can do it; the American people expect us to do it. So let's get started.

This article was published in the Washington Times on July 17, 2008

In coming weeks, an international confrontation is likely to occur among the United States, the European Union, and Russia over an issue most Americans have long since forgotten: Kosovo, where a few hundred Americans remain deployed as part of a NATO force protecting a shaky interim peace that ended the 1999 U.S.-led intervention.

For most Americans this obscure Serbian province, with its mainly Albanian Muslim population and its hundreds of Serbian Christian churches and monasteries, may be a little-remembered footnote to the breakup of Yugoslavia. However, now is the time for clear thinking about next steps if Kosovo is to avoid revisiting its history as a hotbed of regional instability and violence.

The international mission in Kosovo for the last eight years has not met its original goals regarding establishment of an open, multiethnic and multireligious society. True, there has been no return to large-scale fighting. But remaining Christian Serbs are confined to NATO-protected enclaves for fear of endemic Muslim Albanian violence. A quarter of a million expellees — some two-thirds of the Serbs, Roma, Croats, and all the Jews — still cannot return safely to their homes. More than 150 Christian holy sites have been burned, blown up or desecrated. Organized crime is rampant, with allegations of corruption reaching into the upper levels of the U.N.-supervised local administration and unemployment outside these criminal elements remains more than 50 percent.

Even Albanian officials have expressed concern at the growth of radical Wahhabist influence, and the reality of a dangerously segregated society, as hundreds of Saudi-financed mosques have sprung up to replace the destroyed churches.

Although the situation on the ground in Kosovo has been a case study in U.N. mismanagement, there is no question of Kosovo's legal status as part of Serbia. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1244, which ended the 1999 war, reaffirmed Serbia's territorial integrity and sovereignty while calling for substantial autonomy and self-government for Kosovo within Serbia.

But against this clear standard for Kosovo's future, the U.S. State Department has insisted the only possible solution for Kosovo is not autonomy, but independence — even though Serbia refuses to give up 15 percent of its territory. Even worse, during his recent trip to Albania, President Bush suggested that if a Russian veto blocks any new Security Council Resolution to separate Kosovo from Serbia, the U.S. might take the lead in recognizing a unilateral declaration of Kosovo independence with no legitimate claim of authority at all. Within Europe itself there are growing misgivings and decisions about this course.

This is a terrible idea. To start with, our policy is in contravention of international laws and will create a dangerous precedent. Also, there is no reason to suppose an independent Kosovo would be a viable state, either economically or politically. Terrorist and organized crime influences, already rampant in Kosovo, would be granted a consolidated haven for their operations. Independence would likely be followed by renewed anti-Serb attacks, at least against the smaller enclaves, if not against Northern Mitrovica, where most of the remaining Serbs enjoy relative security. Unrest in neighboring Albanian-dominated areas of southern Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia, even Greece, could be reignited.

Perhaps most damaging, an imposed separation of Kosovo from Serbia would send a message to other trouble-spots, not just in the Balkans, that state borders are up for grabs.

The American relationship with Serbia would suffer badly if we insist on inflicting on a democratic country of 10 million people an offense they cannot accept and never will forget. An imposed separation of Kosovo, the cradle of Serbia's national and spiritual life, would alienate Serbs of all political stripes and could very well result in the implosion of Serbian democracy, with incalculable negative consequences. In short, an imposed independence of Kosovo could set the region back another decade.

As an original cosponsor of a House resolution calling for the U.S. to support a mutually agreed solution for the future status of Kosovo and reject an imposed solution, I believe we can no longer proceed on a policy that is trapped in assumptions formed years ago. Instead of an imposed preconceived outcome, any viable solution for Kosovo must result from give-and-take negotiations between Serbia and the Kosovo Albanians, balancing Serbia's legitimate concern for its sovereignty and the Albanians' legitimate right of self-governance.

It must be consistent with accepted international principles, including guarantees of both the territorial integrity of states as well as of human rights and self-determination. The U.S., the U.N., the European Union, Russia, or any other interested actor must not impose a solution on either of the parties, or bow to threats of violence if one of the parties' demands is not met.

As with any genuine negotiation, the eventual outcome cannot be foreseen with certainty. However, it is certain that unless we hit the reset button and reevaluate the situation, Kosovo may once again become a trouble-spot requiring American and NATO attention at a time we can least afford it. As Kosovo re-emerges from years of obscurity, we neednow to take another serious look at America's options and long-term interests. As I stated before, the solution must come from negotiations between Serbia and Kosovo Albanians.

This article appeared in the Washington Times on August 20, 2007

Yesterday the White House brought Latin America back to the forefront of the Bush administration's agenda as it hosted the Conference on the Americas. Unfortunately, progress in the administration is being undercut by a lack of initiative in Congress. A review of the June 19th Foreign Affairs Committee hearing titled, "The United States and South America: How to Fix a Broken Relationship," displays how many members in the House of Representatives continue to back track and embarrass our allies in the Southern Hemisphere.

It is interesting to note that the two Democrat-invited expert panelists who testified at the hearing begged the members of Congress to "uphold U.S. agreements" and not make a "terrible mistake" in the region by failing to ratify signed trade agreements. All of the expert witnesses seemed to agree that there is still a viable relationship between our countries that must be salvaged.As the U.S. administration continues to work with various South American counties on trade agreements and stability measures, it will be the U.S. legislature that turns its back on the relationship if we do not follow through on the negotiated agreements.

One hearing panelist, Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue, explained that halting the current Free Trade Agreements will decisively hurt Latin American countries. Dr. Jaime Daremblum, former Costa Rican ambassador to the United States, agreed with Mr. Shifter saying "Latin American countries cannot find a way to expand job opportunities and growth without being tied to the international market."Consensus calls for our Southern Hemisphere to be devoid of gangs, violence, drugs, dictatorships and inequality, yet how can we ever expect burgeoning democratic societies to overcome such challenges if we fail to act on these job-creating initiatives? Even worse, the ensuing damage of failing to pass the negotiated trade agreements will harm U.S. interests in addition to isolating vulnerable countries in Latin America. For example, after Canada established its Free Trade Agreement with Chile, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) estimated that tariff rates cost U.S. exporters $800 million per year in sales, affecting 10,000 U.S. jobs. This unsatisfactory status quo was maintained until the United States struck its own FTA with Chile. If the United States continues to send mixed messages with our international trade policy, various sectors within our economy will absorb the hard-hitting costs of such actions.

While many Democrats in Congress spend their time blaming the Bush administration's lack of involvement in the hemisphere for all current evils in the region, the president has been gearing up for yesterday's White House Conference aptly themed, "Advancing the Cause of Social Justice in the Americas." The president is addressing root problems through substantive discussions on investing in education, meeting health care needs, expanding economic opportunity and building public-private partnerships.

On the other hand, breaking promises, labeling the relationship as "broken" and turning away from opportunities for job growth appears to be the approach many Democrats would advocate. With that approach, I would agree that we could soon see the dire consequences of a doomed Western Hemisphere foreign policy. Fortunately, there is still hope; those pointing fingers in Congress should first take note of how President Bush is moving ahead in a productive manner, and second, utilize their ability within the House and the Senate to pass the current trade agreements and effect real change by facilitating new opportunities for joint investment with our Latin American neighbors.

For over a year, my Democrat colleagues have been calling for our withdrawal from Iraq because it was politically advantageous to do so. They have tried many strategies, from demanding adherence to artificial time tables to trying to force negotiations with Iran and Syria, countries known to be inciting the violence in Iraq, all to no avail.  Now an emboldened Democrat-controlled Congress, eager to court favor with the far-left of their party for the forthcoming 2008 presidential election, has embraced a new strategy for American defeat in Iraq:  a resolution to prevent the President from implementing his strategy of sending additional troops to Iraq to end the violence.

This resolution has already been approved by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and, while it is non-binding, it is clearly intended to send a message to the President that this Congress can – and won’t hesitate to – “cut and run” if the going gets tougher as it is sure to do.  It also sends a dangerous message to our fighting men and women in Iraq, that this Democrat Congress is not serious about supporting them.  It seems to me that this resolution, binding or not, aims precisely to precipitate withdrawal at the cost of more American lives, for purely political purposes, and I find it shameful.

If our troops don’t receive the vital support they need – support that would come from the President’s surge – they won’t be able to execute the missions necessary to secure Iraq, which means more bloodshed.  Eventually we would reach a point where militarily, our battle for Iraq would be unwinnable, and we will have no choice but to withdraw from Iraq. 

America has invested heavily in Iraq, in both blood and treasure.  Despite what the war’s critics would like to think, Iraq has become the central front in the Global War on Terror, and the terrorists know it.  If we withdraw from this pivotal front in the War on Terror before we defeat the terrorists, we will pay for it with the lives of our many men and women already in Iraq, and we will pay for it in the future, on even bloodier battlefields.  American defeat would be detrimental to our long-term security, to say nothing of what it would do to the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East.  

  Our military certainly faces hardships going forward, but one of those hardships should not be the knowledge that Members of Congress are actively plotting to derail the President’s new way forward before it even gets off the ground, at the cost of American lives.

I know that Americans, constantly bombarded with nothing but bad news from the media about Iraq, are growing war-weary.  But sometimes courageous decisions must be made no matter how unpopular they are, and the President has done that: he has admitted the mistakes of the past and as Commander-in-Chief, he has put forward a new strategy encompassing the lessons learned from those mistakes, which promises a new way forward to a secure Iraq. 

Our struggle will not end once Iraq is secured, as many Democrats seem to think it will.  This myopic view prevents them from seeing that, while Iraq is the current focal point of our fight against terrorism, there is a much bigger picture here which we continue to ignore at our peril:  the major source of conflict in the Middle East is now coming from Iran, which continues to perpetuate the problems of insurrection in Iraq, Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon, and Hamas in Israel.

We need to give our troops the chance to secure Iraq so we can move onward to the next phase in the Global War on Terror, and not allow our decisions to be governed by pollsters and potential election results.  Playing politics with our national security is bad enough; we should never play politics with American lives.