Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Alabama, Chairman Aderholt.

First, I want to commend his leadership on this appropriations bill concerning the security screenings of children by the Transportation Security Administration. The TSA should absolutely have particular sensitivity in the screening process of children and should minimize children's distress and discomfort. I am very thankful to the gentleman for raising this issue in the manager's amendment and for recognizing this need.

But as this process moves forward, I would encourage the chairman to stress the importance of this same sensitivity to the elderly and the infirm. We have all seen too many images in high-profile news stories about the mistreatment of the elderly and the infirm as well as of passengers with religious or conscience objections. No good American should be forced to check his modesty at the airport door--maybe his luggage but not his modesty.

I also appreciate the fact that the report encourages various alternative screening models that would better preserve the civil liberties and privacy of all passengers by moving toward a more risk- based approach, using intelligence more than relying on technology. I encourage the chairman to continue moving TSA along this path.

Would the chairman be willing to work with me on these issues for the benefit of America's airline passengers?

I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

I thank the gentleman from Alabama again for his leadership on the overall appropriations bill here and for his particular sensitivity to this issue.

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

Amendment Offered by Ms. Wasserman Schultz

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank both the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss an important problem in our Nation's nuclear security infrastructure and for their support of this amendment.

The amendment would reduce funding for the mixed oxide fuel program at the Department of Energy by approximately $17 million and redirect it to the National Nuclear Security Administration's Global Threat Reduction Initiative. Such a redirection of funds would provide for greater security and be a wiser investment of taxpayer dollars.

If there is one thing we can all agree on, Mr. Chairman, it is that dollars are scarce in Washington. And with this in mind, I'm concerned about the amount of money that has been spent on the mixed oxide fuel program, known as MOX, at the DOE.

Under an agreement signed by the United States and Russia in 2000, both countries agreed to dispose of excess weapons-grade plutonium by blending it with uranium to create mixed oxide fuel. The intent was to use it as a fuel in civilian nuclear reactors. Subsequently, the Department of Energy spent billions on the mixed oxide fuel project. The fuel is intended for a market segment that has yet to emerge, and according to a report from the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Energy has had to consider offering subsidies to attract potential customers for the fuel. The most optimistic estimates predict that the mixed oxide production facility will begin operating 6 years behind schedule.

Another problem is that the mixed oxide fuel project poses a new nuclear nonproliferation risk as MOX fuel can be separated into weapons-grade nuclear material. In addition, the Russians have not lived up to their treaty obligations. They have fallen behind on their own MOX production schedule. As a result, the United States has had to step in and provide our own designs for the MOX plant to jump-start Russia's.

As a cofounder of the House Nuclear Security Caucus, Mr. Chairman, I feel confident that the funding removed from the mixed oxide fuel program will be put to much better use protecting our Nation through the global threat reduction initiative.

By the end of the current year, the global threat reduction initiative will have converted or shut down 81 research reactors, removed over 3,400 kilograms of vulnerable nuclear material, and secured nearly 1,400 buildings containing radiological materials. There are other important global threat reduction initiatives as well that could use additional funding.

We should be proud of our work as a country in our nuclear security efforts, but it is abundantly clear that the mixed oxide fuel program is not the most productive use of our constituents' taxpayer dollars. The persistence of nuclear threats demands that we retain the highest sense of vigilance and agility when it comes to our own nuclear security, and for that reason, I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to offer this commonsense amendment to protect American jobs and reduce regulatory burdens. Quite simply, this amendment would block the Department of Energy from implementing unnecessary energy conservation standards for golf cart battery chargers.

Madam Chairman, I recognize that reasonable regulations are necessary to protect human health and the environment; however, we must guard against costly rules that provide no meaningful benefit to the United States but instead encourage this shift of American jobs overseas to lower-wage countries where environmental standards are minimal. The proposed golf cart battery charger rule is clearly such a regulation. The proposed standards would achieve minimal energy savings, and the Department of Energy itself acknowledges that they would result in U.S. manufacturing jobs being sent overseas.

While I support the overall goal of promoting energy efficiency, I am very concerned about this proposed regulation that directly affects more than 100 jobs right where I live.

Madam Chair, last week's unemployment figures highlight the economic challenges we face in our country. Job growth is slowing and unemployment is ticking up. In this kind of economic climate, why would we want to intentionally force American jobs overseas through increased and unnecessary regulation?

I would also like to emphasize that golf cart battery chargers should not even be included in this proposed rule, which is intended to cover consumer products. It is my understanding that about 90 percent of new golf carts are sold to businesses for fleets, while less than 10 percent of new golf carts are for personal use by individuals. This does not meet the significant standard necessary to be considered a consumer product.

It is clear that the proposed rule would make American manufacturers of battery chargers less competitive and it would cost American jobs, so we must ask what would we achieve by implementing this rule. According to the Department of Energy's calculations, making this change would result in energy savings of only about $6 per charger per year. That's because these chargers are already very highly efficient.

With that, Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which will help protect American jobs, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, as I was shopping for some family items recently, I noted how difficult it is to find items that are made in America. While American manufacturing is, encouragingly enough, on the rebound, products ranging from hairbrushes to iPods still carry that ``Made in China'' label. All the while, many questions about China and its economic policies, foreign policies, and human rights records are left largely unexamined.

For the good of our economy, it is essential that we thoroughly understand China's record and their intentions as a country. Our nations have a complicated and lopsided economic relationship. Americans buy great quantities of Chinese-made products. China finances a great portion of America's

debt. Currently, nearly one-third of our debt is foreign owned with China easily being the largest debt holder at nearly $1.2 trillion. Other estimates peg the figure at closer to $2 trillion. The effect of such indebtedness is the shift of our wealth assets into the hands of a foreign nation, losing the market for American-made products to a country with lax labor and environmental standards, which manipulates its currency and creates unbalanced and unfair trading conditions.

China's involvement on the world stage is also of significant concern. While it aggressively pursues its own mercantilistic agenda, China lends little constructive hand to creating conditions for international stability. China is seen as an enabler of North Korea, who is actively pursuing nuclear weapons capabilities; and they continue on their march toward more aggressive missile testing, as well, despite the protest of the international community.

Over recent months, as the U.S. and the European Union have accelerated important efforts to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions, China has been conspicuously absent from the leadership table in this discussion. China continues to be a top buyer of Iranian oil--one of the key leverage points of economic sanctions against Iran. At a discussion I attended, a Chinese official in so many words said the U.S. is to blame for Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons capability. And he went on to say, while China does not desire this outcome, we're going to do business as usual.

Africa is becoming a lost continent, diplomatically and economically, in favor of international players who do not have the same regard for human rights as we do. China's influence in resource-rich Africa is growing rapidly--with disturbing consequences. Direct Chinese investment in Africa has grown exponentially over the last 2 years. One million Chinese nationals now do business in Africa, and Chinese energy and mineral resource companies are quickly acquiring oil fields and mines.

In the process, China has forged strategic alliances with war criminals. According to China's Foreign Ministry spokesman, China shares a ``deep and profound friendship'' with Sudanese war criminal Omar al-Bashir. I should note there was a bright spot this week. When approached by South Sudanese President Salva Kiir for assistance as Sudan and South Sudan march toward war, China's President Hu Jintao echoed the United States in calling for peace and negotiation between the two countries, rather than continuing to back Omar al-Bashir. The international community will look upon China's new role as a diplomatic figure in this conflict with great interest.

Beyond this, an honest discussion is necessary about Chinese industrial virtues. A Chinese official has said that in dealing with ``differences in corporate culture and the degree of openness to the outside world, Chinese companies always take the domestic business practices with them.'' Chinese companies always take ``domestic business practices'' with them. Those practices, according to witnesses who have given congressional testimony, include fertility monitors on factory floors, invasively examining female employees for pregnancy and reporting pregnant women to the Chinese family planning police. China has practiced the violence of forced abortions. China also has tragically high suicide rates for workers, who use suicide as their only means of collective bargaining against dire and oppressive labor conditions.

As China continues to advance as a world economic power, it has a choice. It can join the responsible community of nations in respecting the dignity and rights of all persons while conducting affairs with other nations in an ethical fashion, or it can stand by current practices that exploit relationships in order to fuel its own brand of corporate collectivism, undermining international stability in the process.

Madam Speaker, it is my belief that it is important to seek reasonable and good relationships with China, a country with a rich cultural history, a country which is rapidly ascending onto the world stage. We must do so ideally and practically for the sake of our own national security. But we must do so with open eyes, fully understanding the implications when all of us buy products with that ``made in China'' label.

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

First of all, let me thank the gentleman from Colorado for his leadership in holding this discussion tonight. This is a very important discussion because it is about a fundamental American principle.

As you mentioned, over a year ago, we actually began work on the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act in anticipation that the new health care law may actually be used to undermine religious freedom and the moral precepts, the deeply held beliefs, of many Americans in this country.

You had mentioned that this particular bill--hopefully, we'll get it through this House soon, and there is a companion measure, by the way, in the Senate--would not only protect faith-based organizations, which seem to be most perniciously targeted by this new HHS mandate from the strong arm of government, which is forcing them to pay for drugs and procedures that may violate their ethics norms, but it would also protect all Americans because, right now, these institutions, as well as other people of good will, are being asked to choose: to follow your deeply held, reasoned beliefs or to obey President Obama and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius'

new mandate, which is in violation of your conscience rights.

That's a false choice.

That's un-American.

That violates a deeply held principle of this country, namely religious liberty, which we have held so dear throughout our history.

The Respect for Rights of Conscience Act really does one simple thing: It restores us to where we were a year and a half ago before the new health care law came into being, and it would prevent things such as this new mandate, which is an intrusion of government into the faith life of many Americans, from ever happening.

Again, I'm very pleased for your willingness to hold this hour of discussion with fellow Members. It is a bipartisan bill, by the way. There are Democrats and Republicans on this bill. It is a bicameral bill. There are over 200 House Members who have cosponsored this bill 200, Democrats and Republicans; and there are 37 Members on the companion piece in the United States Senate, dropped by my friend Senator Roy Blunt from Missouri. In fact, Senator Blunt has offered this as potential amendments to must-pass legislation in the other body. We haven't seen that go through yet.

So there is tremendous momentum for this piece of legislation because it's not about politics. It's not about partisanship. It's about a principle, a fundamental American principle: the rights of conscience and religious liberty, as applied in health care.

I'm pleased by the outpouring of support from Members of both sides of the aisle here. I think that is due to the intensity of concern across America about how this time, the government has gone too far.

Again, I appreciate your willingness to hold a good conversation tonight on this fundamental principle of religious liberty and the rights of conscience for all Americans.

Well, I appreciate it. I hope that we continue to hold more conversations about this because America needs to know. America is already speaking. And that is evident in the number of Members who are deeply interested in this bill.

Thank you very much.

I thank the gentleman, my good friend from New Jersey, for the time and for his courageous leadership on this, a central American issue of justice.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this first. What a day this has been. I spent the morning with a group of young Nebraskans who had traveled all this way to participate in the March for Life. And they came here to express one similar purpose, one truth: that all life is worthy of protection. All life should be loved and nurtured.

These young people are saying that we should be big enough, caring enough, loving enough as a Nation to see to it that all mothers and their unborn children are provided for. And these young people are saying that we should make the great woundedness of the Roe vs. Wade decision a thing of the past.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it's important to note that in the same year when Roe vs. Wade was errantly decided by the Supreme Court, stripping unborn children of their dignity and right to life, that Congress came together and enacted a very important law called the Endangered Species Act. This was a very significant piece of legislation to ensure that the majesty and wonder of nature's creations were rightly protected.

I believe the responsible stewardship of our environment is an essential cause, but there is a certain irony here. The life of a child should be of no less value than any other creature on earth. And in 2010, with my support, we passed a bill prohibiting the interstate commerce of videos that were depicting the torture of vulnerable animals. Yet, in that same year, we could not move a bill forward that prohibited interstate abortions of vulnerable children and minors without parental protection. There is a grave inconsistency in these walls.

But, Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you had a chance to look out on the National Mall today. But the hundreds of thousands of young people out there braving both the bite of cold and wind, who understand the principle for which they marched, were saying this. These young people know that abortion hurts women. These young people are saying women deserve better. And they know that abortion is so often the result of a tragic circumstance of abandonment, an unsupportive family or, worse yet, a coercive boyfriend or unscrupulous doctor, and they are saying that we can do better as a country.

Mr. Speaker, I recently received a newsletter in my mailbox at home, and it described some people who were standing in front of an abortion clinic legally, peacefully providing witness to alternatives to abortion.

A car pulled up in the driveway. The car hesitated. The man driving was very anxious and nervous. And these people who were witnessing there walked up and asked if they could be of assistance. The woman who was with him who was going in for an abortion had three children. She was unsure that she could care for a fourth child. In fact, she didn't know where her next meal was coming from.

They talked a bit. The couple decided to seek these nice people's help, who had provided a little bit of assistance, comfort, and care for them. And now 9 months later because of that act of compassion, there is a baby named David.

We should be big enough and loving enough as a country to help people get through no matter how tough the circumstances.

It is that courageous woman who made the decision to keep her child that gives me strength to stand on this floor to defend our shared convictions and fight to see the day when the scales are lifted from our Nation's eyes and we declare the unborn worthy of protection under the 14th Amendment.

Before I conclude and yield back to my good friend from New Jersey, I'd also like to say a word of thanks, Mr. Speaker, to all of the women who are saying they will be silent no more, providing the most powerful example of women who have been wounded by abortion but now who are speaking out against the abortion industry in saying we can do better as a Nation.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked the official end of America's 9-year war in Iraq. In a low-key ceremony in Baghdad, U.S. troops lowered the American flag of command that flew over the Iraqi capital. The 4,000 remaining U.S. servicemembers in Iraq will leave by this year's end.

The Iraq war was a painful and difficult time, extraordinarily costly in terms of Americans, America's lives and resources. Nearly 4,500 Americans, including 45 Nebraskans, were killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. 227 Nebraskans were wounded in combat. Tens of thousands of Iraqis lost their lives. We lost good men and women, individuals full of life and blessed with talent, whose proud families awaited their return to the country they loved so dear and served so well.

But in spite of our wounds, we are proud--proud of our fallen heroes, proud of the veterans who have come back to us, proud of their sacrifice, proud of their noble vision that has significantly changed the global environment where democratic ideals are now making steady gains everywhere.

The work of our troops, steadily done in the midst of extensive public debate and strategy deliberations about the war was the strength of this mission. These troops achieved what was set before them. The victories were theirs. Their unwavering commitment, their skill, and their bravery got the job done.

The troops' efforts unbound an Iraqi people held hostage for decades by an egomaniacal dictator. Insurgencies led by terrorists seeking to wreak havoc and disorder were put down by our troops. Space was created to allow Iraqis the time necessary to build the foundations of a representative government in a more open society.

But there are still challenges and significant obstacles. It would have been preferable, Mr. Speaker, for a small stay-behind force to remain for ongoing response and stabilization efforts.

The way forward will not be easy, but today Iraqis determine Iraq's future. No longer constricted by the dictates of a despot, they have held elections, they have written a constitution, and hopefully they will build a culture that respects the rights and dignity of all of their people.

America and the world needs a stabilized Iraq. Our security is strengthened by it, and we will continue a strong, diplomatic relationship to help achieve it. An Iraq that protects the rights of all of its people, Sunni and Shiite, Christian and Yazidi, and employs a government that maintains order and preserves liberties will be an Iraq that can help transform the entire Middle East looking for a new way forward.

The foundation for this has been laid, after much toil and bloodshed, by valiant American soldiers who return to us now as modern-day heroes.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor and pay tribute to Gregory C. Brady, a fellow Nebraskan and the Principal Deputy General Counsel for the Office of Justice Programs, in the U.S. Department of Justice, who is retiring after forty-six years of remarkable public service in the interests of justice. His tireless dedication to the multi-faceted work of the Department, reflected in his many career accomplishments, have earned him great respect and recognition in the Office of Justice Programs and its component agencies, and throughout the Department and among his fellow attorneys at bar. I want to take a moment to memorialize his extraordinary and inspiring accomplishments.

Greg Brady was born and reared in Nebraska, graduating from the University of Nebraska in 1962, with a Bachelor of Arts degree, and in 1965, with a Juris Doctorate.

Thereafter, Mr. Brady served a three-year tour of duty in the Judge Advocate General Corps of the U.S. Navy (from which, after prosecuting and defending scores of cases, he was honorably discharged with the rank of Lieutenant). Mr. Brady began his service with the Department of Justice in December 1968, as an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Columbia, and has been continuously serving the Department of Justice, and the public, faithfully and in an exemplary manner ever since.

In the United States Attorney's Office, he demonstrated his flexibility of mind and zealous devotion to duty in countless criminal (misdemeanors, felonies, grand juries, etc.) and civil cases that he litigated, at the trial and appellate levels, many of which cases involved groundbreaking questions of law. Mitchell v. Laird, for example, 488 F.2d 611 (D.C. Cir. 1973), was brought unsuccessfully by thirteen members of the U.S. House of Representatives to enjoin the involvement of U.S. military personnel in the Vietnam conflict, and involved complex Constitutional questions of standing, executive prerogative, and justiciability. United States v. Crowder, 543 F.2d 312 (D.C. Cir. 1976)--which Mr. Brady's arguments (opposed by those of Mr. Robert Bennett) initially won at the District Court, then lost before a Circuit Court panel, and then won in an en banc proceeding of the Circuit Court--was the first case in the country to approve use of a search warrant to require a suspect to submit to surgery so the police could obtain a bullet as evidence of his criminal activity. (The case against Crowder (a two-time murderer) for the murder of a prominent Washington dentist was considered weak, because the only evidence known to the police that could link him firmly to the earlier crime were the bullets lodged in his arm and leg, from his murder-victim's gun. It was Mr. Brady's idea to try to obtain a search warrant for the bullets; he also thought of the stratagem of deputizing the (anxious) physicians from Georgetown University Hospital as U.S. Marshals for purposes of the surgery. Judge McGowan's concurrence (as does Judge Leventhal's dissent) goes out of its way to praise Mr. Brady's prosecution for the procedural orderliness and fair play it consistently demonstrated in the case. The case was featured in a Time magazine article.) This kind of legal creativity and strict adherence to the rule of law remains typical of Mr. Brady, nearly thirty of whose cases are officially reported in the published court records.

Having attained the rank of Deputy Chief of the Appellate Division at the United States Attorney's Office here in the City, Mr. Brady began his career with the Justice Department's Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (the predecessor agency to the Office of Justice Programs) in February 1974, formally in the Office of the General Counsel, but actually detailed to assist in the creation and development of grant and support programs to assist States in improving the management of prosecution offices, combating career criminals, and reducing white-collar crime. His prosecutorial experience in the Navy and the United States Attorney's Office made him invaluable to the program, which, itself, is at the heart of the core mission of the Office of Justice Programs. In 1980 (at his request), Mr. Brady returned to the direct practice of law, in the agency's Office of the General Counsel, dispensing advice and rendering opinions on countless matters relating to every conceivable area of administrative law.

In 1984, on account of his vast practical and administrative experience, he was asked to found, and become the first Director of, a new Office of Justice Programs component, which eventually was to become the Office for Victims of Crime--a signal initiative of President Reagan's administration. And he did found that office, on firm and sound lines, co-authoring what eventually was enacted as the Victim Compensation and Assistance Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-473), which clearly sets forth the purposes and organic principles of the office-- purposes and principles that remain in place today. His mission at that office accomplished, some three years later, the leadership of the Office of Justice Programs acquiesced in Mr. Brady's request to return to its Office of the General Counsel, where he has served ever since.

He has been the principal ethics officer at the Office of Justice Programs since 1988 (in which capacity he has provided excellent guidance, training, and advice to the General Counsel, Presidential appointees, and career employees, alike), and in 1996 became the Deputy General Counsel, after having served for years as Associate General Counsel; he became Principal Deputy General Counsel in 2001.

For the last twenty-four years, Mr. Brady has applied a firm sense of purpose and integrity to instructing numberless Department employees in how to negotiate the minefields of ethical situations associated with administration of a multi-billion-dollar-a-year grant-making operation. At a time when the corporate world has endured significant ethical and moral lapses, Mr. Brady's personal efforts consistently have guided officials of the Department with a minimum of public conflict or scandal, and with the result that there is a clear public perception-- necessary to the success of any government program--of even-handedness in the administration of the Office of Justice Programs' criminal- justice grant programs.

Mr. Brady's love of the law and its practitioners in the legal profession manifested itself in his generous devotion of time and attention to mentoring law students and newly-minted attorneys during the critical development stages of their careers. As Deputy General Counsel over the past twenty years, he has guided (even shepherded) them, with his approachable, kindly, and affable manner. His deep understanding and wide experience in the law made him an inspiring and effective teacher. Mr. Brady genuinely delighted in seeing the progress and development of attorneys, and their embrace of the highest standards of the legal profession; and the number and variety of law firms and government agencies that have been affected by individuals originally trained by him is impressive. (These include an Assistant Attorney General, as well as the Executive Director of a Government Corporation and a past Presidential appointee responsible for juvenile- justice issues.) In the Office of the General Counsel, he has demonstrated outstanding legal research, presentation, and advocacy skills, and has been a true role model for all of the attorneys, greatly assisting in their professional development.

And ``role model'' is, in fact, the apt term: for Mr. Brady is no one-dimensional work-is-my-life attorney. Despite his aggressive work schedule, he has lived his vocation as a family man (he is the father of three adored daughters and grandfather to two no-less-adored granddaughters) to the full, and his community has known that he can be depended upon to volunteer his time for others. To give but one example: For over twenty years, he has been a night-time volunteer (i.e., after putting in a full-day's work) at a crisis/suicide hotline in Prince William County, Virginia. In 2001, he was named their ``Exceptional Volunteer of the Year.'' His tireless volunteer work in his community and parish have earned him numerous Attorney-General commendations over the years.

It is no small thing to stress that Mr. Brady has performed all of these tasks with unfailing courtesy, professionalism, and kindness (to say nothing of his ever-present humor and sharp wit). The long and short of it is that Mr. Brady simply is someone who, quietly and unassumingly, has kept the Department of Justice (and especially the Office of Justice Programs) running. Although his career in the Department hardly has been typical (at least in that it does not mostly involve litigation), Mr. Brady epitomizes the ideal of a Department of Justice attorney. For this reason, he has received both the Attorney General's Mary C. Lawton Lifetime Service Award (one of the Department's very highest awards), as well as the Office of Justice Programs' Assistant Attorney General's Lifetime Achievement Award. And for his years of dedicated public service, he received a personal commendation from President George W. Bush.

Gregory C. Brady has dedicated his professional life to public service, and his many accomplishments during the forty-six years of that professional life are a credit to him, to his family, to his home State of Nebraska, to the Department of Justice, and to his local community of which he is such an active, generous, and vibrant member.

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I have long supported a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and I don't take the issue lightly of amending our Constitution, which has endured through strife and dramatic historical shifts with very few amendments. Constitutional amendments should be exceedingly rare, as they have the power to spur sweeping change. But I do believe it is necessary that the same process that guaranteed our hallmark freedoms of speech and religion and freedom from slavery be used to protect our children and future generations from economic collapse.

Most States, including Nebraska, have already enacted balanced budget requirements. My State has to live within its means. The Federal Government needs to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, we are standing at history's door. We can either lead and be bold, making the hard decisions necessary to correct this fiscal trajectory, or stay in our timeworn political lanes, continuing with the status quo that has given our Nation this unsustainable debt burden. We can do something big for this country and our future and make deficit spending a thing of the past.

This is a significant moment. I urge my colleagues that we pass this bill.

Madam Speaker, the Department of Health and Human Services recently proposed a rule that would require all health plans to cover in full and, consequently, every American to subsidize procedures and drugs that are unrelated to medical necessity, traditionally considered electives, and can be very ethically divisive for many Americans. Why when 75 cents on every public health care dollar is spent on the management of chronic conditions, such as cancer, heart disease, and stroke, is the Health and Human Services Department prioritizing free sterilization, for instance?

This is distinctly unrelated to our Nation's health care priority challenges. I can only conclude that this is ideologically driven and most perniciously affects faith-based institutions who are the backstop of compassionate care for the poorest and most vulnerable in society. Many Republicans and Democrats have expressed very serious concerns about this. No American should be forced to choose between their faith and their job.

Madam Speaker, health care is a necessary element to a good and orderly and compassionate society. We all support health, but abortion is not health care.

The vast majority of Americans do not support using their dollars in support of the abortion industry, and Americans should not be forced by the strong arm of the government to subsidize the abortion industry.

Here's the problem. The health care law passed in 2010 contains some serious flaws in this regard. Namely, now the Federal Government will subsidize insurance policies that cover abortion on demand.

The health care law also forces enrollees in health care plans that cover abortion to pay for abortions obtained by others. The health care law also gives license to Federal agencies to mandate abortion coverage.

We have just seen that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, under the guise of preventative care, has now promulgated rules that will force everyone to pay for abortifacient drugs and not to mention sterilization. And this also tramples on the conscience rights of health care entities that do not perform or promote abortion.

Madam Speaker, I believe this: The Protect Life Act is in the interest of the right type of health care for America.

Madam Chair, I missed rollcall No. 599. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Madam Speaker, I missed rollcall No. 600. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce the Department of Energy administration account by $35 million and increase the Global Threat Reduction Initiative by a $35 million amount as well.

As cofounder of the House Nuclear Security Caucus, together with my colleague Mr. Schiff, I am deeply concerned about the potential nuclear security threats and vulnerabilities, and I am committed to strengthening momentum on efforts to secure fissile materials and prevent the proliferation and misuse of sensitive nuclear materials and technologies here and around the world.

I also want to thank Representative Sanchez for her longstanding commitment to this important issue as well.

Mr. Chairman, nuclear terrorism is a threat so serious in its consequences that we often shrink from even contemplating it. But ignoring the problem is not an option. There are some relatively straightforward steps that we can take to reduce our vulnerabilities, and one of these is to strengthen the Global Threat Reduction Initiative.

To date, this important program has converted or verified the shutdown of 76 out of 200 highly enriched uranium research reactors to be converted or verified as shut down by the year 2022. The program has removed 3,085 kilograms of highly enriched uranium and plutonium from 42 countries. The program has eliminated all highly enriched uranium from 19 countries and plans to eliminate all of it from an additional nine countries by December of 2013.

These countries--the 19 it was removed from--include Brazil, Colombia, Latvia, Portugal, South Korea, Bulgaria, Denmark, Spain, Thailand, Greece, the Philippines, Slovenia, Sweden, Romania, Libya, Turkey, Taiwan, Chile, and Serbia.

In addition, the program has also overseen the removal of 960 kilograms of highly enriched uranium. Mr. Chairman, that's enough for 38 nuclear weapons, and this is since 2009.

It is vital that we work together to transcend any differences in this body to prevent our world from sleepwalking to utter disaster. We are at a crossroads. The technical advances that have enabled transnational communication and cooperation for progress have also enabled and benefited individuals and groups bound by ideologies that threaten the very foundations of civil society and government. I consider it our collective mission to ensure that we succeed in controlling nuclear technology and materials to leave a stable global environment for generations.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me and Representative Sanchez in supporting this important amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, in 2008, this body declared that the United States would not provide military assistance to countries found guilty of using child soldiers. With broad bipartisan support, we declared that this is an affront to human dignity and an affront to civilization itself, and we reaffirmed this policy earlier this year in the continuing resolution.

It is the policy of our Nation that children--all children, no matter where they are--belong on playgrounds and not battlegrounds, Mr. Chairman. But that policy is at risk, and this body has an important decision to make. Six governments were found guilty of using child soldiers in 2010--Burma, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. As the law we passed provided, four were granted national security interest waivers last year in the hopes, Mr. Chairman, that they would take serious and aggressive strides toward ending this serious human rights violation. Somalia was also permitted to continue receiving peacekeeping assistance, effectively sanctioning only Burma, a country to which we provided no military assistance anyway.

Mr. Chairman, this administration has been heavily criticized for this decision. And it is no surprise that in the newly released 2011 child soldiers report, the same six countries were listed as violators once again. Mr. Chairman, we must ask, where is the progress? The 2011 report needs to stand as a challenge to President Obama, the administration, and this Congress as well. We are operating inconsistently, obligated by law and civilized order itself to combat this most serious human rights violation--especially prevalent in the world's ungoverned spaces--but we continue with military assistance, with inattentiveness to stopping the pernicious use of child soldiers.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment reaffirms current U.S. policy, lest we forget it. In the 2011 continuing resolution, we extended the Child Soldiers Prevention Act to cover peacekeeping operations, and my amendment is consistent with this. It also clarifies a point of law not mentioned in the Child Soldiers Prevention Act. Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006 provides the Department of Defense the authority to train and equip foreign military forces. But according to its own terms and the State Department, section 1206 authorities may not be used to provide any type of equipment, supplies, or training that is otherwise prohibited by any other provision of law.

Mr. Chairman, children in these countries are being preyed upon, innocent lives are being lost, children are being thrown into psychological hell. Girl soldiers and some boys are being subjected to grotesque sexual slavery and violence. They are property. Their lives are not their own. They are battered, beaten, victimized, stripped of dignity, hope, and a future, made to do unfathomable things by the world's worst criminals.

Mr. Chairman, these criminals just aren't faceless rebels in the bush either. While there are plenty of those, we are talking now about governments that are guilty of this pernicious practice. And we need to make it clear: Are we going to tolerate this or not? William Wilberforce, the British statesman and unyielding abolitionist for whom our anti-human trafficking law is named, once said this: ``You may choose to look the other way, but you can never again say that you did not know.''

We must make it clear to these governments that we do now know and that we cannot look the other way, Mr. Chairman. With that, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

The ACTING Chair. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 minutes.

I rise to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues to ensure that our defense community has the resources necessary to carry out an important security mandate that this body passed this year.

Mr. Chairman, the Lord's Resistance Army has terrorized central Africa for 25 years. But last year, Congress and the administration took unprecedented steps to end the group's campaign of violence. This body passed broadly supported bipartisan legislation called the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act requiring the administration to prepare and present to Congress a comprehensive strategy to bring LRA commanders to justice.

Mr. Chairman, with the administration's strategy released in November, we should move to implement an international strategy to help end the atrocities committed by the LRA, protect innocent civilians, and stabilize a region of Africa that is critical to the United States' national security interests.

Through over 20 years of civil war, this brutal insurgency has created a humanitarian crisis that has displaced over 1\1/2\ million people and resulted in the abduction of over 20,000 children in one of the world's most difficult ungoverned spaces.

With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who is continuing to take a lead role in this international effort, which I appreciate.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his leadership again.

My colleagues and I believe that resources invested in ending this conflict now will not only save innocent lives but will also help reduce the need for very expensive humanitarian aid and promote stability in one of Africa's most volatile regions.

With that said, I would like to yield to our chairman, the gentleman from Florida.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 96 Offered by Mr. DeFazio