Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for the time.

Madam Chair, farmers are good Americans. They understand our tight budgetary times and the need to tighten the belt, and they are willing to do their part. But before we vote on this bill, which does some very heavy lifting in this regard, let's consider the profound benefits American agriculture brings to people across the country. It's about food security. Today Americans pay only 10 to 12 percent of their income on food, compared to those in other nations who pay up to 50 percent or more. Ag policy now is also about economic security, energy security, and even national security and global stability.

Agriculture, Madam Chair, is one of the few bright spots in the American economy. Agriculture is consistently one of the few trade areas where the U.S. still holds a positive trade balance. And exports are growing as the world demands more and more American-grown food. Last year, ag exports neared $108 billion, and projections indicate an even stronger total this year.

Agriculture is also helping strengthen our energy independence. From rural wind and solar farms to biofuels and biogas production from livestock waste, we are beginning to see the vast potential of renewable sources found on America's farms and ranches.

Not only does food security bolster our own national security, but it also aids in global stability. Our farmers help feed the world and keep the peace in understated but very important ways. In my home State of Nebraska, for instance, our farmers are rebuilding war-torn fields in Afghanistan, countering the illicit poppy trade and helping to create a new sustainable and lawful agricultural production. I just came from a ceremony where we sent off 57 members of the agricultural unit of the Nebraska Air and Army National Guard, who will be using their farming skills to help the Afghan people with new irrigation techniques and new models for wheat and grassland production.

Our farmers participating in global agricultural training projects achieve key humanitarian goals as well. We have made significant gains in empowering women producers, which gives rise to greater equality and social mobilization and engagement in their local communities. For instance, they are helping to rebuild Haiti's decimated agricultural sector in the aftermath of the terrible earthquake. And through various U.S. agricultural food aid programs, they are combating global hunger.

Again, Madam Chairman, American farmers are ready to do their part and help fix our Nation's fiscal mess. But in cleaning up this mess, it's very important not to forget about the hard work our farm families put in day in and day out to help feed and fuel and protect all of America.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me add as well it's a little difficult for me to sit here quietly and listen to the pontificating about Wall Street bailouts. I didn't support the Wall Street bailout either.

There are now five banks who control over 50 percent of the assets, deposited assets, in the country. Those banks that were deemed ``too big to fail'' in reality are too big to succeed. It's the Main Street bank that's under constant competitive pressure from these large institutions that have been empowered by further consolidations by the actions of this very body. So it's very difficult to sit here and take that.

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

The gentleman has accused our side of the aisle of lying. Is that a cause for having his words taken down?

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's important to address this issue of who's on the side of the American people. We have a $1.6 trillion deficit this year. Over 40 cents on every dollar that the government is spending is borrowed. We have $14 trillion of debt. This is a very tough Agricultural appropriations budget. I don't like it.

The CFTC is a very important organization; it does very important work. I think as well there are structural flaws in the commodities markets. Futures markets that are designed to decrease volatility and mitigate risk are actually increasing volatility and causing risk. There's a structural problem there. But the issue comes down to what are we going to prioritize and where.

The CFTC has received--since the recklessness of Wall Street in 2008 and those bailouts that were voted on by a majority of this body--has received a 53 percent increase in its funding. I wish it didn't have to be reduced, but it's being asked to share in this overall budget of reducing the entire cost of the Agricultural appropriations bill by a margin that is actually less than other parts of the bill.

It's a tough budget. I don't like it either. But we've got to try to tighten our belt in a responsible manner. And given the increases that have occurred, I think it's important to have some historical perspective here.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, before I begin the discussion on the amendment, I'd like to correct the Record in regard to something I said earlier. The CFTC budget is actually decreased by a slightly higher amount than the overall Ag budget, rather than a slightly lower amount.

In addition to that, I do wish to address a number of charges laid before the chairman of the Ag Appropriation Committee. We've heard for hours that this bill is about supporting Wall Street, Big Oil and tax breaks at the expense of food security. I think it's very important to note that food security is an important American value. It's important to me. It's important to many of us. So much so that in a time of very tight budgets, this bill actually raises food and nutrition spending by nearly $7 billion, approximately 7 percent more than current levels, because there are many vulnerable Americans out there who now qualify during these very tight economic times.

Secondly, I also wish to reiterate, I did not support the Wall Street bailouts. Many of us didn't, both Democrat and Republicans. Five banks now control more than 50 percent of the deposited assets in this country. Main Street banks, many of whom had no role in the reckless behavior on Wall Street, are now under the constant competitive pressure from those banks that were deemed too big to fail, but in actuality are too big to succeed.

Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to point out that I did not vote for the tax deal passed at the end of last year, an 11th-hour deal that was cobbled together because of the mismanagement of this institutional process. We could have done much better for the American people, both Democrats and Republicans.

So the reality is this is a very difficult process we're in now to right-size our budget and make government more efficient and effective. In that regard, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to offer an amendment that invests in renewable energy in rural America.

Clearly, America needs a bold new energy vision, and this amendment, I believe, can help. A sustainable energy future must include the integration of conservation and new technologies, powered by clean renewable sources such as wind and solar, geothermal, biofuels, and biomass. Increasing our energy portfolio and the diverse range of opportunities available to produce energy domestically is all the more important in light of skyrocketing fuel prices. Rural America should continue to play an important role in this regard.

Specifically, Mr. Chairman, my amendment would transfer $1 million from the United States Department of Agriculture Office of the Chief Information Officer to the Rural Energy For America Program, also known as REAP. While I recognize the importance of funding for the Office of the Chief Information Officer, and its role in providing enhanced technology for the USDA, I believe it is appropriate to transfer a small amount by Federal standards, $1 million, to our Nation's renewable energy efforts.

The REAP program funds a wide range of renewable energy projects that stimulate rural economies, help create jobs, and address environmental concerns. This funding promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy production, and is directed to farming communities and rural small businesses.

Mr. Chairman, renewable energy is changing today's agriculture and rural communities. It is clearly in our national interest to help rural communities integrate a wide variety of renewable energy sources and technology as we move toward energy independence and environmental security.

New development and signs of interest in renewable energy production are booming, Mr. Chairman. This amendment strengthens Congress' resolve to creatively develop new energy options throughout America, and I urge its adoption.

I want to also thank my colleague from Minnesota (Mr. Walz) for his support of this amendment, a native son of Nebraska.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from California, our ranking member on Foreign Affairs, for the time.

Madam Speaker, this is a very tough call, a tough set of circumstances. There is much complexity here with the convergence of war and diplomacy and geopolitics and allied relations.

What is clear, however, is that the President has not communicated effectively with the United States Congress, nor has he sought this body's authorization for the undertaking in Libya.

Let's have a brief history lesson here, though: Some in this body called for unilateral action against Libya just 3 months ago. That was appropriately resisted by this administration until other nations, particularly the British and the French, were willing to put up their own assets and give structure to a NATO coalition.

However, now U.S. actions, in an important allied effort to save Libyan civilians from imminent slaughter, have clearly moved beyond the scope of humanitarian relief and stabilization efforts.

With that said, an abrupt and imminent cut-off of U.S. participation in Libya causes numerous complications and would be highly disruptive. Yet we should not creep, we must not creep toward opening up a third front in Libya, which is the root cause of this debate.

The general framework for intervention without express congressional authorization has precedent and some parallels within the last 30 years. Let's look at Lebanon in 1982, Panama in 1989, Bosnia in 1995, and Kosova in 1999. All of these interventions had various levels of controversy, particularly the one in Lebanon; but they were undertaken by Presidents of the United States.

The Boehner resolution, considered before this one, gives the President a small window of time to better make his case. If the President cannot, Congress can assert its authority and disapprove.

Raising principled questions about war powers is a laudable goal, and I do want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for his leadership in this important debate. It would not have happened without him.

However, I think we should move forward very carefully. Speaker Boehner's resolution pushes the President for answers but stops short of requesting congressional authorization or abrupt withdrawal of U.S. participation in the Libya mission. If this approach is unfruitful, we can then exercise further options.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to ensure that appropriate funds are provided for the 287(g) program in this bill. The Federal Government must have well-equipped partners to address interior enforcement concerns.

However, the bill does not state specifically all funds for the 287(g) program, which would allow for robust law enforcement capacity.

I want to ensure the record reflects that the administration's request is $68,321,000 and that this bill supports the President's request.

Citizens nationwide are rightfully demanding secure U.S. borders and enforcement of our immigration laws. The desire, Mr. Chairman, in many places across the country to strengthen interior enforcement points to an overwhelming perception throughout the Nation that the Federal Government is not as effectively as possible addressing serious security concerns such as the pernicious criminal activity related to illegal immigration in the border region.

We need to better empower States and local law enforcement, and the 287(g) is a very important program.

In 1996, Congress enacted section 287(g) as an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide necessary immigration enforcement assistance to State and local law enforcement entities. It authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to enter into agreements with State and local law enforcement, equipping them through thorough training to perform important immigration enforcement functions.

Local law enforcement agencies are often closest to the problem. To date, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has trained more than 1,240 State and local officers nationwide pursuant to section 287(g) programs. Since 2006, the 287(g) program, according to ICE, has resulted in the identification of more than 200,300 ``potentially removable aliens--mostly at local jails.'' Sixty-nine separate local law enforcement agencies participate in the program in 24 States, including Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia; and ICE, it appears, has worked very diligently since 2009 to fix concerns with the program by strengthening public safety and improving consistency.

In my home State of Nebraska, there is interest at the local level. The City of Fremont, in particular, has voiced enthusiasm for this program and could directly be impacted by an increase of funds available to help secure their community.

Ensuring full funding for the 287(g) programs preserves a high spirit of federalism in empowering States to work together with the Federal Government on a critical homeland security matter.

Mr. Chairman, America has been, for a long, long time, a just and generous Nation in regards to immigration policy, opening her arms to persons, particularly those facing social, economic or even political persecution, who wish to come here and make a new contribution in a new community to the well-being of their own lives. This should remain the hallmark and spirit of sound immigration policy, but uncontrolled borders are a serious threat to the United States' national security; and with lax interior enforcement authority, we risk our ability to remain a just and generous Nation in regards to immigration policy. So section 287(g) plays a critical role in this process and should be funded at the administration's request.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, May 11, 2011, I was inadvertently detained and thus I missed rollcall vote

No. 309. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Madam Speaker, Americans deserve to know how the government spends their money, and they are right to refuse the use of their tax dollars for highly controversial activities--in this case, abortion. Let me first make my own position clear.

I am pro-life, and I believe that women deserve better than abortion; but certainly, we can all agree that the U.S. Government should not take tax dollars from hardworking Americans to fund abortion. I really believe it is time that we look at the reality of abortion, that we be honest and see the choice for what it is. It is interesting to note that the early feminist movement recognized that abortion is a fundamental injustice. Abortion harms women. It takes the lives of children, and it allows a man to escape his responsibility.

The abortion industry many times profits from all of this pain. Abortion is also so often the result of psychological or physical coercion or even emotional or physical abandonment, which is a tragic social paradigm that has caused a deep wound in the soul of our country. No matter how difficult the circumstances, Madam Speaker, I believe we can and must do better as a society, and at a minimum, taxpayer dollars should not be involved.

This issue has manifested itself again most intently during the health care debate. Unless a prohibition is enacted, taxpayers will fund abortion under the framework of the new health care law. Madam Speaker, abortion is not health

care. The House of Representatives recently voted to stop the use of taxpayer funds for abortions in the District of Columbia. For decades, Congress has proscribed Federal funding for abortion in this piecemeal fashion through the Hyde Amendment and other similar provisions in annual appropriations.

It is time to settle this once and for all as the majority of Americans wish. This bill will provide a comprehensive prohibition on the use of Federal tax dollars to fund the socially divisive issue of abortion, and it is time we stopped it.

Mr. Speaker, any American that may be watching tonight is probably bewildered by all of the discussion of budgets and continuing resolutions and perhaps debt ceilings, as well as the appropriations process. In order to understand where we are currently, it is important to look back at where we were. And what I would like to do tonight is share a little bit of information about what the government spends, where the revenue comes from, and then how we got into this current situation we are in. Right now, we have a $1.6 trillion deficit. We have $14 trillion of debt. That means every man, woman, and child in America, if we were to pay it off right now, owes $45,000. And the trajectory of spending is simply unsustainable. We are borrowing about 40 cents on every dollar that we spend. America cannot continue to do this. We all know that. We all know we are going to have to act with bold resolve to get the fiscal house in order.

But let's look at this chart, Mr. Speaker, for a moment. It shows the President's 2011 budget proposal. There was no budget in 2011, and this is part of the confusion. There was no finishing of the appropriations process. Right now we are trying to finish the appropriations process, cleaning up the mess from last year by passing what is called a CR, continuing resolution, that will fund the government for the rest of the year. But a lot of the numbers are based off a somewhat mythical budget, and it's just easier to talk about, I think, the President's 2011 budget to get a snapshot currently of where we are in terms of the fiscal situation.

Here is what the government spends and the categories in which it spends. If you look at the blue side of that chart there, that is what we in Washington call discretionary spending. And defense is about 20 percent of the discretionary spending here in the United States. The other section of the blue slice of the pie there is what we call non- defense discretionary spending. That's about 14 percent of the overall budget. A lot of the negotiations about reducing the budget at this time have centered around that particular slice of the pie.

The other aspects of government that we fund, Social Security, this maroon slice right here, is about 20 percent of the budget. Medicare is about 13 percent, Medicaid about 8 percent, and then another mandatory spending category, these are programs that are on auto pilot, whatever the demand is, we spend, we write the check. And it has grown very rapidly since the year 2008 when it was 11 percent. It is now 17 percent of the budget. This includes unemployment, welfare, supplemental security income for the disabled, jobs programs, as well as some of the TARP money, the bailout money for banks and Wall Street. That's the lion's share of the budget here, 57 percent. It is called mandatory spending, discretionary, 36 percent spending, that's defense and non-defense discretionary, and then we add interest on the debt, that yellow section right there, and that's about 7 percent. So that's basically what the government spends right here. And that totaled about $3.8 trillion in last year's projected budget for this year.

Now, where did the revenues for the government come from?

It is important to remember this number, $2.567 trillion; $3.8 trillion expenditures; $2.567 trillion in revenues. In this blue area over here, this is the largest area where we obtain income for the government, and that is the individual income tax. That is about 44 percent of overall revenues to the government. About half of Americans are paying income tax. This orange area is what we call payroll taxes. That is about 36 percent. Anybody who is working is going to pay a payroll tax. Corporate income tax, this yellowish area here, is about 12 percent. And then the rest of the budget receipts come from estate and excise taxes, as well as customs and other receipts.

But the important number to remember is $2.567 trillion as opposed to $3.8 trillion in spending. This shows you the imbalance. Again, remember, this was last year's projections. We were projecting $1.267 trillion based upon this spending level and this amount of receipts. But in reality we have just found out that the new deficit estimate is actually about $1.6 trillion. It is skyrocketing. It is simply unsustainable.

Now, let's look at the next chart, which is the budget proposed for this year by the President; and it has spending a little less, down from about

3.8 to 3.7, revenues up slightly from about 2.5 to 2.6, and this is due to some spending reductions as well as tax increases, which gives you a different balance here. You have a deficit projection of $1.1 trillion based upon these numbers.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, I said this is somewhat bewildering given that we don't have a 2011 budget or finished appropriations bill for this year, and we are now beginning to consider a 2012 budget in the midst of potentially, as well, bumping up against a debt ceiling vote shortly.

Again, it is important to understand how we got here with such enormous deficits. If we look back in time, the last 20 years, look at spending. In 1990, it was $1.25 trillion. In 2000, it was $1.79 trillion. This year, $3.8 trillion. The size of the Federal Government has basically doubled in the last decade. If you look at deficits as well, in 1990 we were talking about $200 billion deficits. I was a much younger person then, but I remember how shocking that figure was back then and how there were demands that something be done. In the year 2000, because of extraordinary productivity gains in the late nineties, we had a $200 billion surplus to the Federal Government. But this year, a $1.6 trillion deficit. It is off the charts. Our debt in 1990 was about $3 trillion. In the year 2000 it was close to $6 trillion. Again, this year it will be $14 trillion, and it is set to continue to skyrocket in the coming years.

The debt per person, per capita, $13,000; $12,900. In 2000, it was $20,000. Now it has doubled to about $45,000.

Mr. Speaker, I used to be on the Lincoln City Council in Lincoln, Nebraska. One of the responsibilities we had every year with our $90 million budget was that it had to balance. There was never enough money to have the ideal number of police officers that we wanted or the exact number of firefighting apparatus that we would have preferred or the street or road or park maintenance that we would have liked, but you had to make a decision. You had to make a decision about what were appropriate tax rates and reasonable public services and balance those. And by law, we also had to set a little aside.

Yet Washington doesn't have to do that. It can get away with enormous deficit spending because we have a big credit card. And for a long time, it really didn't matter.

At a negotiating table up here, there are really three factors: spending, benefits, and debt. And guess which one loses every time, Mr. Speaker? Debt. Just pile on the debt, because the consequences can be hidden from the American people. But the numbers now have gotten to be so shocking and the reality is coming home that I believe, I know, most Nebraskans and most Americans want this Congress to act with bold resolve to tighten the belt, to ask for some shared sacrifice to get this fiscal house in order, because this level of spending is unsustainable.

A business can't do it. A family can't do it. A government should not be able to do it, because the consequences are really threefold; and they are no longer hidden. They are out in the open.

This amount of debt and deficits creates basically three problems: one, it pushes off the obligation for the way in which we are currently living and spending onto children and grandchildren in terms of future taxes on them. It is unjust.

The second problem is that it creates the potential for inflation. There is already an argument going on that the Federal Reserve policies are monetizing our debt, basically printing money; and now you are seeing commodity inflation with price hikes in gasoline and other commodities. The effects are very real.

The third problem is we are transferring ownership of America to foreign countries. China officially owns about a trillion dollars of this debt; but if you look at the numbers more closely, it could be as high as $2 trillion. That means a transfer of the assets of this country overseas. So this level of debt, I believe, and I think most Americans know, is actually undermining the ability of the economy to turn around and create jobs. Now it is not only creating economic volatility and economic problems; it creates national security problems as we transfer more and more of this debt overseas and sell the assets of the country to others.

So it is simply unsustainable, Mr. Speaker, and we have to act with bold resolve. We are staring at white water rapids. The choice is we can either build a boat, put on life jackets and try to navigate those rapids as best we can, or we will be swept away by them. We are going to have to go through them; it is just how we do it.

That is what all the debates are this week, and will be in the coming weeks as to how do we set up the right framework of responsible budgets, responsible appropriations, so that we can reset our economic course, get our fiscal house in order, begin to give the economy some stability, create jobs and, in turn, revenues come into the Treasury. So that is the course before us.

Mr. Speaker, I did want to talk about another topic tonight as well, and it is very important that even in the midst of these budget negotiations that are going on, we not overlook the fact that the State Department recently released its annual report on human rights around the world. This report spanning 194 countries calls out those governments that routinely and brazenly violate their stated commitments to universal human rights.

I think it is important that we draw back the veil on cruelty that is often perpetuated by the world's most powerful against the world's most vulnerable and appropriately elevate the issue in our national dialogue, as well as our international diplomatic efforts. The report spans 194 countries; and to the extent it is available, the report details the prevailing human rights conditions over the past year.

First, let me start with some good news. Of the countries surveyed, Colombia, Guinea, and Indonesia stand out for notable human rights improvements, the first democratically elected President since independence in 1958, and consistent improvements across a range of indicators, respectively, in those countries.

Countries where human rights conditions very sadly prompt serious concerns over the past year include Cote d'Ivoire, the Ivory Coast, where vicious fighting in recent weeks pursuant to a contested election has claimed numerous lives; in addition, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where rape is used as a political weapon; Iran, which still supports the stoning of women; Russia, which routinely and often violently suppresses the freedom of the press; and China, which has a history of forced abortion and sterilization to its demographic detriment.

Other countries highlighted in particular this year: Nigeria, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma, Cambodia, North Korea, Vietnam, Belarus, Ukraine, Bahrain, Iran, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela, where rapid deterioration of civil rights and evidence of tightening dictatorial rule are particularly tragic.

The fundamental message that this report conveys to the world is that responsible governance rests upon two pillars. The first is a respect for human rights, and the second is a respect and responsibility for the rule of law. No society can flourish and prosper without these important transcendent principles as they are exercised in the form of religious liberty, freedom of speech, the right of assembly and peaceful protest, as well as fair and free commerce.

The human rights reports describe abuses that shock the conscience and tear at the elaborate fabric of the community of nations in which we live. These include the ill treatment of dissidents, appalling prison conditions, extrajudicial killings, and, as I mentioned, forced abortion and sterilization policies that treat human beings like animals, violating their most intimate and fundamental human dignity. The reports present detailed accounts of systemic corruption, security forces run amok, acting with state-sanctioned impunity, kangaroo courts that condemn innocents without recourse, making a mockery of the rule of law. These dark trends are very often deeply entrenched, creating enabling environments that fuel violence--and even genocide in some countries--toward vulnerable persons and ethnic groups.

The reports address the barbaric scourge of human trafficking for sexual and other forms of ruthless exploitation, such as forced labor. The reports speak truth to perpetrators of

heinous crimes of violence against women and children, and they highlight the feckless enforcement of laws to protect civilians against torture and other forms of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment. Taken together with related reports on human trafficking and freedom of religion, these particular reports on human rights provide keen insights into the state of our world in which we live today.

Mr. Speaker, even as we consider these sobering matters, let us also recognize with due humility that the struggle here in the United States for the right to life, the most basic of human rights, particularly for unborn persons as well as the terminally ill and elderly and those suffering from cognitive disabilities that render their deplorable marginalization as ``vegetables'' even in our most esteemed medical, political, and social circles, is a very deep problem that we must wrestle with here in our own country. Yet we have one basic advantage. This Nation has learned through bitter experience that self- determination and reasoned discourse are far more powerful engines of growth and prosperity than subjugation by the nature of a police state. Sadly, too many countries in the international community lag significantly in the development of this fundamental ideal, that of the notion of a people having a basic say, having a voice, in shaping the governments under which they live and the ability to shape their own futures according to transcendent and universal norms of justice.

Over the past year, as natural disasters summon us to compassion for people in Japan, New Zealand, Chile, China, Colombia, Haiti, Iceland, Indonesia, and Pakistan, as well as other nations ravaged by violent storms, including our own, we are witnessing another upheaval, a remarkable upheaval, in an important world region which calls for our focused attention. The Arab Spring movement has been driven by individuals joining their voices, motivated by a common thirst to realize their human potential and the desire to secure a decent operating space within civil society. This movement is emblematic of lessons learned throughout the centuries. History has shown us that rule by suppression in its various forms and degrees is very difficult to sustain over the long term, particularly now with the opportunity we have for the sharing of ideals and principles. State-sanctioned force and coercion against the innocent, in various manifestations, has tended to backfire against their enforcers and enablers sooner or later.

The human rights reports challenge today's leaders to shake off the archaic and destructive patterns of abuse that foster so much needless human misery, sapping the productivity and vitality of countless millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, Mr. Speaker, in our world today. However, as useful as these reports are, they do not tell the full story. As the difficult work of societal transformation begins for newly enfranchised citizens in the key countries of Egypt and Tunisia, for instance, many people throughout the world, in places like China and North Korea and Iran, continue to suffer silently with no one to tell their story, with no one to document their plight, far from the gaze of cameras that convey real-time images for all the world to see.

But these reports hold an important message for us as well. In this interdependent world of shared technology, shared communication, travel, and commerce, we have failed to recognize a shared vision of justice. The United States is constantly called upon by the nations of the world to stand up against the forces of brutality. We are constantly called upon to engage in all matters of complexity that are causing human misery, which are really due to three factors: the generosity of the American taxpayer; the philosophical ideals that govern us and which do not allow us to sit by idly when we see human misery and suffering; and the fact that we are an exceptional and unique superpower. Though other nations are growing in economic strength, given our philosophical ideals and our historic role as that exceptional superpower, it is a bit ironic that the world still turns to us, even though many other economies are growing very, very rapidly, when people cry out for justice.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is time to elevate at the table of dialogue and negotiation basic norms of human dignity and the governmental structures which nurture and protect that dignity. Let those norms sit alongside the negotiations over trade, commerce, and security, for this is ultimately more valuable than any economic gain, which is transient and passing. I believe it is time to focus on the permanent things, those which last, which will be the legacy we will leave to the future of our country and to the future of the world.

With that, 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 9 o'clock and 27 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, April 13, 2011, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

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

Mr. Chairman, in 2008, this body passed the Child Soldiers Prevention Act. It was part of the William Wilberforce Human Trafficking Victims Protection Act. The bill declared that the United States would not provide military assistance to countries found guilty of child conscription.

With broad bipartisan support, we declared that this is an affront to human dignity and an affront to civilization itself. We made it known that all children, no matter where they are, should be on playgrounds and not battlegrounds.

Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult for us to envision that a child would be put in military fatigues, a gun in their hand, and then forced to fight. But it does happen, and it does happen in the world today.

The government of Chad, to which we provide military assistance, was found guilty of using child soldiers in the 2010 State Department Trafficking-in-Persons Report. As the law we passed provided, Chad was granted a national security interest waiver in the hopes that Chad would take serious and aggressive strides toward ending this serious human rights violation and be a valuable military partner with the United States. But we have to ask, where is the progress?

With the withdrawal of the U.N. mission in Chad at the end of last year, children as young as 13 years old are now being preyed upon as child soldiers. In this past week, the United Nations and a respected international human rights organization both issued reports warning of Chad's continued flouting of our law. The Washington Post, along with other international media outlets, has given attention to this issue as well in recent days.

Mr. Chairman, to use child soldiers is wrong. This is why we passed the law in the first place. Yes, we want a good military relationship with Chad. Chad is a valuable military partner. But to strengthen that partnership, the horrific abuse of children must end.

So I offer this amendment as a challenge to our Government. We are operating inconsistently. We passed a law saying one thing, but we continue military assistance with no apparent attentiveness to stopping the pernicious use of child soldiers.

Mr. Chairman, several years ago I was in the country of Liberia. I had the opportunity to visit the interior part of that country as well. Liberia had gone through a devastating civil war, and this particular area we were in had been caught in a very bad crossfire between rebel groups, and I was invited to visit a missionary school there run by a British Catholic priest.

As we entered the compound, the beautiful children came out and sang us a song and greeted us. And this priest told us that during the worst part of the war, he himself had been abducted, his children had been left unattended, and many had died of starvation. He showed me the mass grave.

But he also asked me to spend a few more minutes with him. We went to a classroom and he discretely pulled two young boys out of that classroom. He told me they had been child soldiers. One had been shot in the hip. The other had had his father killed while he was standing next to him. Both of the boys were withdrawn. They wouldn't look me in the eye. Clearly they were deeply wounded. But this priest wanted to thank me and to thank the American people for providing a little bit of assistance to him to help integrate these children back to some degree of normalcy.

So which way are we going to have it? We need to be consistent. On one side of the hallway we have a very good program to help heal those who have been victimized by child soldiers, but on the other side we are aiding a government that is not stopping this pernicious practice.

William Wilberforce, the British statesman and unyielding abolitionist, for whom our antihuman trafficking law is named, said this: ``You may

choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you did not know.''

Mr. Chairman, we must make it clear to the government of Chad that we now know, and we cannot look the other way.

I appreciate that. Thank you for the kind words.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, recently a woman came to my children's school to talk about the healing power of forgiveness. She was a survivor of the 1994 Rwandan genocide when nearly 1 million people were mercilessly hunted, hacked and killed.

Now let's fast forward to the year 2007. In an ironic twist, Rwanda's President Kagame expressed his interest in reducing the number of births of children in that country by 50 percent. In recent weeks, confusing reports have surfaced as to whether the Rwandan Government had launched a campaign setting a target for hundreds of thousands of male sterilizations. While the reports which implied possible complicity of U.S.-funded organizations were subsequently dismissed, the concerns they raised are very real. Let's note China's one-child policy, or Fujimori's Peru.

Mr. Chairman, the United States should be a champion for human dignity, and yet, sadly, we have our own sorted past with sterilization campaigns. In 1924, the State of Virginia passed what was called the Racial Integrity Act, which remained intact well into my own lifetime, until it was overturned by the Supreme Court.

I think the title ``The Racial Integrity Act'' speaks for itself; legislation so outrageous that then-Governor Warner, now Senator Warner, issued a statement of apology in 2002 saying, ``We must remember the Commonwealth's past mistakes in order to prevent them from recurring.''

Mr. Chairman, this is a proscriptive amendment, which I believe is consistent with current law, that seeks to prevent human rights abuse, that just says, No, we will not return to this shameful past, nor will we impose it on other people in other places with America's tax dollars.

This amendment, I believe, is a reasonable application and extension of the current law. It is important because sterilization campaigns involving a subtle element of real or perceived moral suasion directed at vulnerable individuals can easily blur the distinction between what is voluntary and involuntary. The question here is whether to take hard-earned taxpayer dollars and apply them in these campaigns-- aggressive outreach efforts--to sterilize persons.

Mr. Chairman, while I recognize that this amendment has been ruled out of order, I do believe it is a reasonable application and extension of current law. However, I will accept the judgment of the Chair and withdraw this amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Fortenberry

Amendment No. 424: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

Offered By: Mr. Fortenberry

Amendment No. 431: Page 199, line 6, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $44,000,000)''.

Page 359, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $44,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Fortenberry

Amendment No. 483: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Fortenberry

Amendment No. 517: Page 323, line 23, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $200,000,000) (increased by

$200,000,000)''.

I thank the gentleman for the time.

Madam Speaker, health care reform, the right type of reform, is important to me and important to every American. The right type of reform will actually reduce costs and improve health care outcomes while we protect vulnerable persons. However, the current health care law, as we all know, is a complicated mess that is going to shift costs to more unsustainable government spending and actually reduce health care liberties.

America deserves better.

Following yesterday's vote in support of the repeal of this law, I believe it is important to craft a new commonsense policy that provides new insurance models for families, farmers, and small business owners. Yet, as to any model that we craft, the replacement must continue to build upon a culture of health and wellness, allow newly insured persons to keep their current coverage and also retain protections for preexisting conditions. This will be important.

So now the hard work begins; but this time we have the opportunity to get it right.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset let me stress the importance of managing our complex relationship with China in a manner that honors the transcendent principles that define America's national purpose and our identity.

Tonight, President Obama, perhaps as we speak, and President Hu Jintao will toast one another just blocks from here at the White House at an official State dinner. While appropriate for heads of State, we must remember that untold thousands in China continue to suffer horrific tortures for exercising their right to self-expression. Beijing's ruthless treatment of democracy activists and their families, Internet freedom advocates, religious minorities, and women and families victimized by a callous policy of coerced abortion and forced sterilization must continue to make us uncomfortable even as dinner is served.

Nobel Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, whose photo is right here, languishes in prison right now as his wife and family members remain under house arrest. And how many more people suffer in silence, people who have disappeared into the vast network of gulags that no human being, much less any animal, should ever have to see or experience?

Mr. Speaker, we must continue to press these points to remain deserving of our own identity as a Nation founded on freedom of religion, a Nation that embraces freedom of speech and justice, and free and fair commerce as worthy foundations for prosperity in future generations. Our China policy should reflect these transcendent and universal principles.

On the economic front, nearly $2 trillion of debt and a bilateral trade deficit approaching $300 billion also impose weighty concerns. We must challenge China to abandon its embrace of unbridled mercantilism, which manifests itself in massive subsidies and other trade-distorting practices that contribute to this staggering imbalance. China must know that global responsibility and accountability are inseparable.

We must, Mr. Speaker, also look ourselves in the eye and order our own fiscal affairs, revise stagnant manufacturing industries, refurbish our industrial base, and take responsibility for our economic future. We need to look closely at our willingness to place profit over principle, and to point the finger of blame at China while perpetuating our own economic dysfunction.

With regard to the future of civilization itself, China is modernizing its nuclear arsenal. China is giving cover to North Korea's nuclear program. China trades with Iran. And China has controversial plans to break with international precedent and build nuclear reactors in Pakistan. Just last week, in a show of its ever expanding projection of power, China tested a new Stealth fighter aircraft. What kind of world are our children and our allies in the Pacific standing to inherit? Neither the United States nor China can afford to allow six decades of peace and security to slip through our fingers.

Mr. Speaker, do I want a good relationship with China? Yes, absolutely. But we have a responsibility to work together to shape our complex relationship with that country, to seek meaningful progress on the tough issues, to acknowledge the positive elements of China's extraordinary culture and past civilization. However, we must do so without shrinking from challenging outright affronts to our principles and whitewashing threats to international security.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon a suspended student at Millard South High School in suburban Omaha opened fire. Assistant Principal Vicki Kaspar was killed, and Principal Curtis Case remains in serious condition. After fleeing the school, the student killed himself.

This morning Nebraska has been blanketed by a profound wave of shock and sorrow. My heart goes out to the victims and their families and the innocent schoolchildren whose first day back at school was shattered by this nightmarish act. Today school is closed as counselors begin to help the community to try to cope and make sense out of what can be considered a senseless act of violence.

I ask for this body's thoughts and prayers, Mr. Speaker, to be with those students and teachers, their families, and all members of the Millard South community in the aftermath of this horrific tragedy.