Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, we are all still reeling from the senseless violence that was perpetrated on the community of Boston. I live a long way from Boston; but, like many Americans, I'm trying to make sense of the senseless.

How can someone so cowardly kill with such randomness--targeting innocent people who just wanted to enjoy a great American tradition in a great American city?

Last night, I read a Boston Globe article about the attack. Two runners, a father and a daughter, were in the 26th mile when they heard the explosions. Natalie Stavas' immediate reaction was to run to the scene, as depleted as she was, leaping over a barricade. The police then yelled at her to stop, but she yelled back, ``I'm a pediatric doctor; you have to let me through.'' She began to tend to the wounded. Her father, Dr. Joe Stavas, noticed that the other runners were quickly growing cold. He tended to an elderly man who had no pulse and who was experiencing hypothermia.

Both Natalie and Joe are Nebraskans--good Americans who reacted with great selflessness in the midst of great tragedy.

Mr. Speaker, we engage in so much Washington speak in our debates--words like ``sequestration,'' ``continuing resolutions,'' and ``debt ceiling''--that the structure of our debates, I feel, can be off-putting to many Americans. So let's try to be a little more straightforward.

The reality is that we have a huge mismatch between revenues and expenditures. We all know that this is a struggle, but we have to get our fiscal house in order, just like American families do, businesses do and even local governments do; but instead of hashing through the same old debates, perhaps there is an easier way forward.

Right here, Mr. Speaker, is a Government Accountability Office report that came out this week. It's a new report that builds upon former reports. There are more than 300 areas in which we can tackle redundant spending across the Federal Government. So here is the right place to start, Mr. Speaker--in delivering a smarter and more effective government while also saving money.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak today about the sequestration and fiscal affairs facing our country.

Earlier this month, I was back home in Lincoln, and I went to one of the local diners and saw my friend Norm, and Norm asked me a question. He said: Jeff, what are they doing about that word they keep using in Washington?

Well, Norm was referring to ``sequestration,'' which took effect March 1. ``Sequestration'' is that inside-the-Beltway term for automatic spending reductions to the Federal budget. These reductions will be $85 billion in the first year, with roughly half applied to military programs and half applied basically to everything else the government does, with the exception of retirement, health care, and other income support programs.

Mr. Speaker, I think it might help everyone if we had a little bit of history to clarify how we got to this moment.

A year-and-a-half ago, there were negotiations in Washington over what we call the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling must be lifted by us in Congress if the Federal Government cannot pay its bills and we must borrow more. We give that authority to the administration. The negotiation ended with three outcomes:

First, Congress would cut spending by an amount greater than the rise in the debt ceiling;

Second, a supercommittee would be formed to negotiate the right type of tax reform and the right type of spending reductions;

Third, automatic spending cuts, now known as the sequester, would take place--this was proposed by the President and agreed upon by us in Congress--if this supercommittee failed.

These automatic cuts to the budget, the sequestration, were supposed to be so distasteful to everyone that it was going to motivate us all to find creative and reasonable solutions to fix the budget crisis. But the supercommittee failed; now the sequester has kicked in.

Mr. Speaker, 70 percent of Americans want this deficit reduced. I imagine those numbers are probably higher in Nebraska, where I live, where fiscal responsibility is a core characteristic of family life, business ethics, as well as good governance. People know economically, mathematically, or intuitively that you can't spend more than you have. Citizens also want to see their government act in a reasonable fashion.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal budget deficit has been running more than $1 trillion in the last few years, and our cumulative debt will top $17 trillion this year, the size of our overall economic output in the country. The overspending and debt are serious impediments to economic recovery, and they also create national security problems.

Some in Washington want to halt any spending reductions at all. I don't believe this is an option. Washington must begin living in the real world. Something must be done. Two principles should be at work here: there must be reasonable budgetary reductions, while at the same time there must be deliberate delivery of smart and effective government services. While the sequester serves as a trigger for the first principle, it does not balance it with the second. Automatic cuts do not allow for discretion in determining which programs should stay or expand and which should be revised or eliminated due to ineffectiveness.

The sequestration also hits our military in a disproportionate manner and disrupts procurement and planning decisions that cannot operate on a short-term budgetary horizon. Mr. Speaker, we should keep the spirit of the sequestration--and preserve the fullness of these reductions-- but continue to revise its implementation with the flexibility to make more precise cutbacks. The House recently passed a funding bill for the remainder of the fiscal year which gives the military this needed flexibility.

Mr. Speaker, as well, the Appropriations Committee recently held a hearing with the head of the Government Accountability Office, known as the

GAO. I raised the issue of GAO findings that cited 132 areas within the Federal Government with duplicative missions, with about 300 potential areas of action items that could be undertaken to tackle this redundancy problem. Consolidation of programs could officially save tens of billions of dollars, and unofficial estimates put that number in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Further questioning revealed that there is approximately $385 billion of uncollected Federal revenue. The GAO report could serve as a guidepost on how we might achieve the right balance between reductions and more effective service delivery.

All in all, the fiscal disorder in Washington, Mr. Speaker, and the inability to budget in a responsible manner is undermining the ability of our economy to turn around. The careening from one governmental drama to another is undermining confidence in the institutions of government. While it is painful, the sequestration is serving as a call to all of us to promptly budget with propriety and boldness to get America's fiscal house in order.

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

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 48 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, March 15, 2013, at 9 a.m.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, this Friday, hundreds of thousands of people will gather in Washington for a peaceful march, exercising the most American of values--the right to assemble and the right to freedom of speech. Among the people who will come are multitudes of young persons from all over America--young people who are the inheritors of the great civil rights traditions of this land. These young people are pro-life. Mr. Speaker, they're really saying something pretty simple.

They are saying that the time for honesty has come, that the time for a new national conversation has come, that the time for the violence to end has come, and that the time since the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand some 40 years ago has inflicted a deep wound on ourselves and the very soul of this country.

Over the past few decades, we have witnessed an evolving desensitization to abortion. It has become too easy to think of abortion as a procedure, as something clinical, somehow normal, removed. Disguised in the mantle and vocabulary of health, minds and hearts can easily become numb to what abortion really is, to what it really does and to who really dies.

But the youth among us, they know better. They know that women deserve better.

Abortion is so often the result of abandonment. A woman, in not knowing where to turn, falls into the grasps of the abortion industry, which says, We can quietly make this go away. There are no consequences here; just pay over there. But the consequences are so very real. Abortion is an act of violence. The woman so often carries the wound from this act of violence imposed upon her. Her unborn child dies. The abortion industry profits from this pain, and the other responsible party--the man--escapes his responsibilities. This is why the early feminist movement saw abortion as another form of male domination over women.

Mr. Speaker, young people, they know this. They sense this. They know instinctively that the Supreme Court's decision was a dinosaur decision, not based on science. They know that the consequences of abortion are very real, and they're simply saying there's a better way. There has to be a better way. We should be loving enough and caring enough. We certainly are big enough. We certainly have resources enough to rally as a community and help a person no matter how difficult her circumstances. They are saying no woman should be left alone or in isolation. We are a community committed to the beautiful gift of life. Mr. Speaker, that's the message from these young people who will gather by the tens of thousands this Friday in Washington, and I'm proud to stand with them.

With that, I yield to my good friend, Congressman Smith.

If the gentleman would perhaps be interested in entering into a bit of a dialogue, and I'm sorry I missed your earlier statement, but let me say to you, thank you for your stalwart leadership, your deep commitment to the beautiful gift of life, for saying to America consistently, constantly, fervently, with heart and emotion for 30-plus years, I think you've been here.

There is a better way. We can do better than this. Women deserve better. But in your last comment, you touched upon the issue of sex-selected abortion, and I wonder if in your earlier comments you talked about policies, such as the one-child policy in China, which are taking hold, sadly, in other parts of South Asia, how they are affecting population imbalance and how it ends up being the little girls, the unborn little girls who are primarily the targets of these state-imposed coercions on families. So you have this very significant imbalance in the population because of the targeting of unborn little girls in the womb for sex-selected abortion. Perhaps you touched on that earlier.

It's a very important part of this overall discussion, to talk about the consequences of where all of this leads. And in a country like China, which has imposed this brutality upon its own people, the women who have come here undercover, we've had them in our hearings. They've had to be behind screens because they fear reprisal from the Chinese Government toward their families, who've talked about being victimized by coercive abortion, that issue plus the issue of how this is created, and it is targeted primarily at unborn girls, the grave injustice of that.

I know you're so learned and have such details on that subject, perhaps you can re-raise that if you didn't earlier talk about it.

If the gentleman would yield for a moment, I think it's important, an important tangent. It's not tangential. It's an element of this discussion because it shows once we give up on this basic fundamental human right, once we let go of our civil rights tradition and we don't include every person, including those who are most vulnerable in the womb, we can see the consequences. Maybe not here just yet, to a large degree, but we can certainly see the consequences of what I talked about earlier in terms of the desensitization of what abortion really is.

So in other places it's lent itself to coercive population control, and even to the shocking horror of taking the life of little girls simply because they're a girl. Now, that still bothers our conscience here in this country, but you can see how it's related to the deeper problem of once we start down this pathway, we desensitize ourselves to the hard, to the important reality that the life within is deserving of protection; that women who perhaps are in very difficult circumstances deserve better than this, deserve a fullness of commitment from you and me and the United States Congress and communities of concern everywhere that there is a better way.

We do not have to do this to one another. We do not have to impose this wound upon women. We do not have to think in this paradigm when there are hard circumstances. We can do it differently.

And I think it's important to have a discussion about the broader consequences of what is happening all around us because we desensitize ourselves in what I call a dinosaur decision, because it wasn't based on science. We didn't have the fullness of technology back then, which fortunately helped so many of us understand just how that small, tiny little life is viable, is real, and is growing and can reach its fullness of potentiality if we just nurture it.

And sometimes people who are in circumstances that are tough and difficult and need a little help with that nurturing, they deserve that support and help. That's our message. That's our message.

So if we can turn this back and build upon a new ideal that life is beautiful, life is a gift, it is worthy of support, not only just from individuals but from the culture at large, I think we'll go a long way towards stopping this aggressive, horrific assault that is happening, primarily in other places but is a threat to potentially happen here, where you're even going so far as to select out the little girl for termination because she's a girl.

This is particularly hard for me, to be honest with you, because I have five daughters. Just kind of happened that way. And I remember, in our last ultrasound for the baby, she's 7, I still call her a little baby, but when we saw that child in the womb, my youngest one at that time looked at me and said, Dad, I hope it's a boy so you have someone to play with.

But technology has helped us understand that life, the nature of that life. And so that's why the Supreme Court decision was not scientific, terribly misguided, has inflicted a deep wound upon us, has given us a false notion of choice and freedom, which tickles the ear, sounds good at one level, but the consequences are oh so deep and real for the individual, for those who are responsible and have been able to escape their responsibility, for geopolitical movements now that have ended up in coercive population control measures, which is grievously unjust, particular to women in far away places.

Going back to what I said as well, if you'd like, describe some of the testimony that we heard from the women who came from China in secret, who had to be, again, behind screens because we were fearful, and they were as well, for reprisals against their families back in China simply because they dared stand up and say, the government should not impose coercive abortion upon me.

There was one woman, as I recall, who was in tears. She had four abortions imposed upon her by the government.

You recall that hearing last year because you were responsible for it, and I think it's a great credit to your leadership.

But again, as hard as this is to look at, as painful as it is, I don't think there's been a more powerful hearing in which I've participated in the United States Congress, hearing from the victim of a government-imposed, coerced abortion and what the consequences were on her.

I'm sorry. Perhaps you had raised that earlier. I didn't have the privilege of hearing your earlier talk, but I think that perspective is important as well.

As we're winding down here--we only have a few moments left--I think perhaps we can talk about some good news as well as some common ground. Because everybody listening to this and this important dialogue, this highly sensitive dialogue, may not agree with us. But the vast majority of Americans do agree that the government should not be entangled in this. In other words, taxpayer money should not be going for the provision of abortion. That's one bit of good news.

The second bit of good news, I think, is, again, those of us who have been here a little while, who have been in these trenches trying to beg and plead for an increase of awareness as to what the consequences of abortion are, young people are recognizing that, again, there's got to be a better way. They've lived with this through their generation. They've seen the scars, seen the wounds, seen the effects on society. And they're coming forward and saying, Women deserve better. Can't we be loving enough, can't we be big enough to do something different here?

And I think that's a great sign of encouragement for two reasons. One is, projecting forward, maybe we can reshape society. But also, heal the wounds that have already occurred. Because they are substantive and deep. And I think it's important. And young people, I believe, recognize this. They're there saying, Don't make this choice. It's a false choice, particularly if you feel coerced or abandoned. There are people here ready to help, love, get you through. But if there is that deep wound, we're also here to heal and help. And I think it's just such a beautiful message.

It inspires me that so many young people would come to the Capitol and say, Legislators, older generation of America, let's change this paradigm. Let's change this idea. Because it's not serving our country. It's not serving our people. It's leaving us deeply, deeply hurt. And we can do better.

And men.

Again, I thank the gentleman for your poignant words, your passion, your deep belief in this. So I think now is the time to let the healing begin. Let's put the past behind us. Let's look forward, marching arm-in-arm with the new civil rights movement that these young people are the great inheritors of, to say that we as a Nation can all stand for the beautiful gift of life.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment XXIV:

Section 1:

``The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.''

Section 2:

``The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.''

Amendment XXV:

Section 1:

``In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.''

Section 2:

``Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.''

Section 3:

``Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize one of Lincoln, Nebraska's most courageous sons, and one of my constituents, Dawson Cox. I had the honor to take him and his sisters Stevie and Nessa on the floor of the House during our vote, and spend time with him and his family. Dawson's Make A Wish, was to come to Washington D.C. and visit the new Dr. King Jr. Memorial, and to stand on the very spot where the I Have A Dream speech was given. Dr. King is his hero. And Dr. King would be proud of Dawson too for his courage! Dawson toured the Capitol, and met many members of Congress and one of the House's true Icon's John Lewis. Congressman Lewis, is the only surviving member left who spoke on that day. His new friend Bert, was so impressed with his courage and faith, and his spirit, that he penned this poem in his honor. Our prayers and our thoughts go out to Dawson and his family, during his most courageous battle.

Dawson, You Are So Awesome, You Are So Dawsome, As Can Be!

Dawson!

You are so Awesome!

You are so Dawsome!

As Can Be!

You're Major ``D''!

For you are one of Nebraska's,

most courageous of all sons so to be!

Yea, you are a Husker!

Who can so muster!

The will and the courage,

and the faith to so overcome!

To Fight The Good Fight!

As Thy Will Be Done!

With all of your might!

For inside of you, but shines such a light!

For You are Major!

You're Major ``D'', and yet your so young!

And mini me, you so complete me!

You see,

because heroes come in all shapes and sizes,

but it's all about what's within their hearts,

that which so comprises . . .

Of what they so can be!

He's The Man!

Even Washington has his initials DC,

Dawson Cox understand!

Because, In The Game of Life . . .

Dawson, you are a winner so very bright!

And if ever I had a son,

I so wish that he could be like you this one!

With that smile,

that tells me all the while,

that the heart of a champion so beats in this one!

And when you walked on that House floor,

they say the ratings on Cspan shot up so much more!

That's because you are Major ``D''!

And you are so Awesome Mr. Dawson can't you see!

For you are as brave as can be,

as any Navy, Air Force, Army, or United States Marine!

Because,

you and your families just like them and theirs,

fight a war and the good fight continually!

For you are all so much alike in so many ways!

And yet Dawson,

you are just a little boy!

Who out of such heartache can still find so much joy!

And yet,

already so much you so understand!

And what we could so learn from you,

if we but so walked hand in hand!

If Dr. King,

is a King Among Men!

Then, you Dawson . . .

are but a Prince Among Children!

For he's for MLK Jr.,

all the way

Heroes,

our children should not so have to be,

but sometimes this is what our Lord has chosen for us to

teach!

To be inspired!

To take and lift our hearts higher!

To show us all that against all odds they never tire!

All in their profiles of courage don't you see?

And to remind us to hold our families close!

To so remember what so but means the most!

And to against all odds to always so believe!

And, that is why . . .

with tear in eye Dawson you so complete me!

Dawson!

You Are So Awesome!

You Are So Dawsome!

So Dawsome As Can Be!

Because,

it's with your heart you so run!

On earth as it will be in Heaven,

as Thy Will Be Done!

And that smile,

and that wit,

and that mind,

so very creative and so quick I'll carry with me every day!

Because, you are my new best friend. . .

Dawson, your Major ``D'' . . .

And you are as Awesome as Awesome so can be!

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Before my colleague Dan Burton leaves the Chamber, I just want to say thank you. Thank you for your thoughtful reflections here.

I should tell the Speaker, as well as everyone who might be watching, that we were teasing you a moment ago because you said you were only going to speak for 10 minutes, and I said, Dan Burton, you've never spoken for 10 minutes in your life. You're going to go a lot longer than that.

You held it to about 10, and your words were not only precise but deeply thoughtful and meaningful, and I think they're an outstanding tribute to you in leaving this body. I want to thank you for your personal friendship to me and for your words of admonition to the rest of us to try to be a little bit kinder, a little bit gentler.

I think it's important for people to know--and you alluded to it-- that, over a decade ago, your own wife died. The caregiver for your wife, as she had cancer, was Samia, who became your friend and who became a friend of your family's, and your own children encouraged you to, perhaps, pursue a relationship with her, and now she is your lovely wife. It has been a pleasure to see you so happy in these last years of public service, but we really appreciate your dedication and passion to serving this Nation. So thank you so much.

Madam Speaker, I would like to turn to another topic now. I sat in my office last night, looking at the pictures of the precious little children who were killed in Connecticut last Friday. What can you say? My heart breaks for them and their parents and for the people of Newtown. I looked at the picture of little Caroline Previdi, one of the 6-year-old children who died. I'm sure she was a happy child, full of life's potential just like my own little Caroline, who just turned 7 a few days ago. What can you say? It's unthinkable that a person would kill innocent little children with such cravenness and violence. These children's Christmas presents are still under the tree. Their moms and dads are still looking at them.

In this town where we pride ourselves on rhetorical flourish, precision of thought, and volume of words, what can you say? What can you do other than stand in solidarity, in spirit, with the grieving families, and perhaps--just perhaps--hug those you love a little bit tighter?

Now the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy is sparking a national debate about how and why this happened and about how it might have been prevented. That debate is understandable and needs to happen. In the coming weeks, Congress will be called on to react. Questions have already arisen about guns and school safety and emergency preparedness. But these concerns and debates may bypass altogether some of the deeper, more difficult issues involved, like what we grappled with after the tragic shootings of the young people at Columbine High School and on the Virginia Tech campus.

What we must do is be honest. Yes, there were guns involved. Yes, there are issues of school safety. Yes, there was a collapse of mental health intervention. But I have not heard a significant discussion of the broader cultural context in which this and other tragedies have happened.

All of these tragedies happened against a backdrop of a culture that increasingly devalues and degrades human life. Graphic acts of violence and inhumanity pervade popular culture, entertainment, and other venues that vie for our attention. In flipping through the channels recently, I saw on a ``Law and Order'' show, ironically, a man shot in an elevator and the blood splashing on his attorney. Seconds later, we move on to the next scene or to the next commercial without consequence.

We are supposedly entertained by this, and of course the producer gets the profit, but who really pays? Society grows increasingly numb to the increasing levels of wanton brutality, cruelty, and indignity, all celebrated for profit. Perhaps most of us can shake it off or just turn it off, but what happens when a person of limited stability sees these images over and over again? We preach tolerance for one another, but we fill our culture with grotesque and inhuman depictions and expect that there will not be consequences.

Madam Speaker, I am sure there are any number of Ph.D.s out there who will somehow refute that there is a correlation between this aggressive assault of images constantly before us and the recurring violence that is all around us. Instead, we want simple answers and quick fixes, and then we'll just move on.

I suggest that we look inward to regain a deeper understanding of what it means to be in community, in a common bond with neighbors, where persons are not in isolation, where check mechanisms are so ordinary that persons are not simply roaming around, disconnected from communities of concern, family life, mental health treatment, or swift enforcement action, whatever is needed. A single and simple policy response from Washington cannot fix this. We all want to have a more caring and supportive society, but the fragmentation of family, civic, and our Nation's community life lends itself to isolation, anger and, for some, even despair.

Let's be clear: this tragedy is the result of a deeply disturbed person who committed unspeakable crimes. That is where the blame rests. But perhaps an outcome deserving of these children who died is that we all take some responsibility for the degradation of culture--what we think about, the way we conduct ourselves--and perhaps strive for that which is noble, for that which is good, and for that which is just.

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

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, December 4, 2012, I was inadvertently detained and thus missed rollcall votes Nos. 614, 615, and 616. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on all rollcall Nos. 614 and 615 and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 616.

Madam Speaker, last year, an intense debate was under way in Congress as to how to respond to the turmoil in Libya. The imminent slaughter of the people of Benghazi by former dictator Qadhafi led the United States to sustain a NATO-led coalition to stop the bloodshed. Now our Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, is dead--killed by the very people we went there to save. Americans can tolerate ingratitude; Americans can tolerate insult, but Americans cannot tolerate the senseless killings of the official representative of our country and three other diplomatic personnel.

The governing structures of Libya must respond in the strongest way. They should publicly state their condemnation and commitment to restoring order. Democracy is not an election. It is the understanding of the protection of the inherent dignity and rights of each person supported by the structures that bring about the just rule of law.

We honor Ambassador Stevens, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and two others whose names I do not yet have for their heroic service. May they rest in peace.

Similarly, in Cairo, Egypt, the storming of our Embassy represents an attack on America. By the norms of international law, custom and tradition, the scaling of the walls of our Embassy severely threatens America's longstanding relationship with Egypt so fruitfully solidified after the peace accords in the Middle East in the 1970s.

President Morsi must decide: Will his government tolerate chaos and violence? Will he abandon Egypt's leading role as a force for stability in the Middle East? Will he use democracy for the consolidation of power while rejecting its central tenets?

The responsibility of President Morsi's is also to speak swiftly and state clearly that the Egyptian Government, duly elected, is committed to its international responsibilities and the deeper responsibilities of self-government.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the leader of the

Ag Committee for his important leadership on this issue and many, many others.

Mr. Speaker, just like in Nebraska where we're hoping for rain, I'm actually hoping for a long-term farm bill. Agriculture remains the only bright spot in the American economy, and it is critical that we build a multi-year farm bill that is built upon our strengthens and provides certainty for our Nation's agriculture producers.

Last month, with bipartisan support, the House Agriculture Committee, under Chairman Lucas's leadership, approved such a bill. The House should act on it before the current farm bill expires this September.

While the 5-year proposal is not perfect, it provides adequate protections for farmers and ranchers. It supports young and beginning farmers and embraces new market opportunities domestically and internationally while also reducing spending. The proposal charts a new way forward for America's farmers and ranchers while respecting the Federal Government's severe budgetary constraints.

Mr. Speaker, agricultural policy is essential to America's food security. But agriculture is also critical to our energy policy, environmental policy, even our national security policy. A new farm bill is imperative for the future of the agriculture sector, but also for the well-being of our country.

While I'm disappointed that we are not acting on a long-term bill, it is important that we consider this legislation, and I support its passage. Drought conditions are affecting many parts of the Nation. This bill reinstates past legislative provisions--there's nothing new here--and it gives relief to livestock producers. The measure is paid for and actually reduces spending, while attempting to remain appropriately sensitive to important conservation programs. I urge its passage.

I thank the gentlelady from Minnesota for yielding, and thank you for your stalwart and courageous stand for life tonight.

Women deserve better than abortion, and of course celebrating an extraordinary organization such as Priests for Life who have tried to heal the wounded and protect those who are most vulnerable is, of course, an extraordinary cause.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues and I gather on the floor, I am going to turn the subject to another matter because we are marking what could possibly be considered one of the most significant turning points in the history of our Nation. But it is not a cause for celebration.

In America, where we have a legacy of principle that undergirds our Nation and makes it possible to create prosperity--not just material means, but a flourishing of the potential of each person--where does that principle come from? Well, we've all heard the line from the earliest of our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, which goes like this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are

created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with

certain unalienable rights, that among these are life,

liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This is the operative philosophical paradigm of our culture, so much so we don't even think about it--that our rights are not conferred by a king or a government. They are inherent, based upon the dignity of each person.

And as we worked this out in the early stages of our development of our country, we wrote a Constitution which basically did one thing: It defined power, and it defined power as coming from the consent of the government, consistent with our operative philosophical paradigm of the inherent dignity and rights and responsibilities of each individual person.

Beyond that, the consent of the governed turns that power over to representatives who then make prudential judgments about what is in the common good. We make the law and are held accountable by the people in elections.

We then spread that power out. We developed three branches of government: the Congress makes the law; the President enforces the law; and the judiciary interprets the law in order that we have even more balance of power to ensure that it is not abused.

But then we took it a step further. There were still concerns that we had defined where power is coming from--from the natural inherent dignity of the person--but we also wanted to define what government must not do, and so we wrote the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. And the First Amendment starts with these words:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or

abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the

right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition

the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the threats to religious liberty in our country are often more subtle than in other parts of the world. But as a legislator, what has grieved me deeply is that, for the first time in the history of health care in the United States, Americans are being forced to choose to either obey the government or violate their personal convictions. Buried in the President's 2010 health care law was a provision empowering the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, to issue rules on preventative services.

Who could have predicted that she would use her authority, sanctioned by President Obama, to force everyone to purchase drugs and procedures--including abortion-inducing drugs--that violate the fundamental ethical sensibilities of many Americans.

No American should be forced to choose between their conscience and their livelihood. No American should be forced to stand for their deeply held, reasoned beliefs, or stand convicted by government coercion. No American should be forced to choose between their faith and their job. This is wrong. It is a false choice. It is unjust. It is unnecessary. It is un-American, and it is an affront to the very purpose of our government derived from the consent of the governed.

America owes its unique character and strength to empowering, protecting, and upholding the inalienable rights of her citizens. Health care should be about the common good, caring for the sick, and healing the wounded. Health care policy should not be a vehicle to drive divisive ideology, forcing Americans to violate deeply held beliefs. The Health and Human Services mandate violates the fundamental principle of religious liberty and the rights of conscience so dear to this country. America owes its unique character and strength to empowering, protecting, and upholding those rights of her citizens.

Mr. Speaker, Karen McGiveny-Llechtl, one of my constituents, sent me this email:

As a woman's health practitioner and a Catholic, I need the

ability to stay within my faith boundaries. I would be unable

to work if I was required to provide the services this

mandate has imposed.

Indeed, it is sad that the Health and Human Services ruling seems most perniciously targeted at faith-based providers who are the backstop of compassionate care for our most vulnerable. Throughout our history, the U.S. health care service has in large measure owed its success to the doctors, nurses, and health care providers staffing faith-based institutions. These institutions, including hospitals and university clinics and nonprofit health institutions, serve the common good of all Americans. The government should celebrate the contribution of these faith-based entities, which fulfill the mission of helping the sick and serving the poor. Without them, we will see reduced access to high-quality care, especially for vulnerable persons who have

traditionally relied on these benevolent organizations of civil society. Several health care practitioners have told me personally that they would choose to leave their professions rather than compromise their beliefs. But undoubtedly, some will not obey the government. And our government has effectively condemned them.

Another man who was condemned for his beliefs had this to say:

I submit that an individual that breaks a law that

conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the

penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the

community over its injustice, is, in reality, expressing the

very highest respect for the law.

So wrote Dr. Martin Luther King from the Birmingham jail.

The purpose of our government is to create just structures for societal order, empowering liberty, beginning with the affirmation of the natural rights of the person, including the most basic right of conscience. In my office, there is a copy of a draft of the Bill of Rights. The rights of conscience were initially included in that draft. But by the final version, that right was formalized by the concept of religious freedom, perhaps given that the rights of conscience were such an ordinarily understood concept that its fullness did not need provision. James Madison, the architect of the Constitution, wrote that ``conscience is the most sacred of all property,'' linking conscience rights to the foundation of religious liberty.

In 1809, Thomas Jefferson stated that:

No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man

than that which protects the rights of conscience against the

enterprises of civil authority.

The Health and Human Services mandate violates the fundamental principle of religious liberty and rights of conscience so dear to our country. No American should be forced to choose between violating their conscience in order to serve the public. From the faith-based hospital to the business person providing health care coverage in their insurance plan to their employees, to the school established for children with special needs, no American should be forced to choose between their faith and their job.

This is why so many people of goodwill, regardless of their religious traditions or their political affiliation, consider the Health and Human Services mandate to be a gross affront to the very essence of what it means to be an American. And all of us must choose our response. This is not simply a religious issue. It's not a Catholic issue. It's not an Evangelical issue. It's an American issue. We all have a responsibility to decide, informed by our faith, what our country means to us, and what it demands of us in this moment.

Last Friday, there was a Federal judge who ruled in a court case in this regard, and I think Federal Judge John Kane in Hercules v. Sebelius got it right. He had this to say:

The government's interests are countered, and indeed

outweighed, by the public interest in the free exercise of

religion.

I thank the gentlelady from Minnesota for her leadership on this important issue, and so many others.

I thank the gentleman from Florida for the time and for your leadership on this critically important bill.

Mr. Chairman, in the push and pull and give and take of the congressional appropriations process we have had many important debates on the proper role of the Federal Government in society. But despite our differences and competing priorities, it is clear that Americans believe in a Federal Government that provides a strong common defense as a priority.

American military leadership is important for our own security but also for global stability and global human rights. It is also important for my home State of Nebraska. Over the past 10 years, Mr. Chairman, 15,000 Nebraskans in uniform have served overseas. Today, 17,000 men and women stationed in Nebraska work tirelessly to strengthen our national security. American troops are steadfast, selfless, and undeterred in their service and deserve our unwavering support.

This bill, I believe, reflects responsibly the challenges of our times. Further amendments may actually strengthen the bill creatively in balance with our fiscal responsibility obligations, but moving forward with our primary obligation to govern in defense of our Nation should be our guiding principle here.

Let me add, Mr. Chairman, that I learned in this debate that this is Mr. Dicks' retiring session, and I also want to add my thanks for your many years of good service.

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, this weekend back home in Lincoln, Nebraska, at a small business, a shop owner named Mary and another woman were engaged in conversation.

She looked up when they were done and saw me, and she said, Oh, I can ask you this question, Who is going to pay for this health care bill? I basically responded, Yes, that's the right question.

Right now, we are seeing some benefits from some reasonable reforms, such as being able to keep children on the health care policies of their parents until they're 26, such as allowing people who have significant pre-existing conditions some hope for affordable insurance. But there are other hard realities that must be faced here. This bill shifts costs to more unsustainable government spending. It cuts Medicare, and it erodes health care liberties. The total cost is now projected to be $1.7 trillion, and it has 21 new taxes in it. Many small businesses are going to actually drop coverage or cut jobs as this moves forward.

Mr. Speaker, there is a better way to move forward. We need the right type of reform that will actually improve outcomes while reducing costs and protecting vulnerable persons.

Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently missed the vote on rollcall No. 442. My vote would have been ``yes.''