Floor Statements

First, let me thank the gentlelady from Missouri for her leadership, not only tonight, but on this absolutely most critical issue.

Mr. Speaker, there is an important court case tomorrow, one that has come upon our country fairly quietly. I am not sure most Americans actually know what is at issue here. What is at issue is whether or not the relationship between the government and her people will fundamentally shift, whether the government will be able to coerce people who disagree as to the content of what their health care should be based upon their religious faiths or their deeply held ethical sensibilities. If they don't obey, they will be fined, as was mentioned here earlier.

In a very ironic way, the case before the Supreme Court tomorrow is about whether or not Hobby Lobby, a store at which millions of Americans, I assume, enjoy shopping--at which I enjoy shopping--that very outwardly celebrates, projects, its Christian perspective in the way it conducts its business. I assume, because of that perspective-- the desire to do the right thing by their employees--they have established a good health care plan. If they drop their health care plan, they will be fined $2,000 by the government. That is all they will have to pay. Yet, if they refuse to go along with that which violates their religious perspective and fundamental ethical sensibilities, the government will fine them $36,000.

Again, the irony here is striking in that a business that is doing the right thing, which is based upon the values of their owners, which promotes good products that millions of Americans enjoy, which closes on Sunday because that is their stated Christian belief and because that is the way they choose to exercise it--I don't see any lawsuits over that--nonetheless is saying, in their health care plan, they simply cannot provide certain drugs that would violate the dictate of their faith, certain drugs that this administration has deemed ``preventative.''

Another irony here is, when most of us were looking at the health care bill when it was first passed, there was a portion that was put in there called ``prevention services.'' Now, I did not vote for the health care bill. I believe we need the right type of health care in our country, one that actually reduces costs and improves health care outcomes and protects vulnerable people; but what we have instead is a huge shift of cost to unsustainable government spending and a serious erosion of health care liberties. We can do better than this. We must do better than this.

Buried in that health care bill was prevention authority. To me, that means that we are going to try to prevent the onset of diabetes or the onset of heart disease--chronic disease--which is part of what is driving up our health care costs and which is that we could maybe get underneath if we were all thinking about and adhering to the principles and dynamics of wellness. That is what I thought it was about. Instead, it is an ideology of the administration's that is imposing upon people of faith or other Americans who simply do not have a faith perspective on this but who know that religious freedom is a first freedom and the government should not coerce people from their deeply held, reasonably held belief systems or those who have ethical sensibilities to certain types of drugs and procedures. That is what is at issue here, and if it goes the wrong way, the relationship between the government and her people will ultimately change.

You see, the government will then be conferring this right of religious liberty, not protecting it. It will be deciding who gets to exercise what type of religious liberty rather than protecting the individual conscience of the person--that sacred space that is inherent to the dignity of all persons--which is where our rights actually come from. In the First Amendment of the Constitution, this is clearly stated, and it is reflected in the ideals of religious liberty and in the separation of church and State. I have a copy of the original Bill of Rights--not the ``original'' original but a copy of the original--in my office, and actually penciled in there, as they were working through the draft, is ``the rights of conscience.'' That concept actually precedes the principle of religious freedom because it says, again, rights are not conferred by the government. They come from the inherent dignity of each person by virtue of who he is and the way in which he has been created; and that person's ability to exercise who he is in the most poignant way, particularly in his religious faith, is a sacred space

that the government must protect. That is why they listed it as the number one spot in the Bill of Rights, but that is what tomorrow is about.

In the aftermath of the French Revolution, there was a young child born named Jeanne Jugan. She was one of eight children, and they lived in the west coast of France, and her father was a fisherman. One day, he was lost at sea, and the family was reduced to poverty. As a teenager, Jeanne Jugan went out and worked as a maid servant, doing servile labor, to help the family and to help sustain herself. She received a proposal of marriage, but in her own discernment decided that was not appropriate for her, and she, apparently, lived a quiet and humble life.

One day, outside in the cold, she saw a woman who was blind and paralyzed and freezing, and she picked her up and brought her to her own bed. This was a key turning point in Jeanne Jugan's life. Perhaps she always knew her life would turn out this way. There was a religious order called the Little Sisters of the Poor, which traced its origins back to that simple act of kindness, to Jeanne Jugan. She was canonized a saint by Pope John Paul after a medical doctor from the Omaha area of Nebraska received a miraculous cure after having asked for her intercession. She was recently canonized a saint. The Little Sisters of the Poor are not nuns on a bus, and they are not political activists. They just take care of the vulnerable elderly through health care facilities. Yet they find themselves having to sue the Federal Government to be able to exercise their religious freedom as they see fit.

That is what this health care bill has brought about through this prevention mandate. It is a direct frontal assault on America's first freedom, so much so that a group of humble nuns--and as I spoke to one, she told me: In the elderly, we just see Christ--that has dedicated its life to the poor and vulnerable in health care is now having to fight in the court system for its right to exercise its religious faith as it sees fit.

So tomorrow's decision, while it is about two very strong businesses--Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood--has very vast ramifications. Even the people who are in religious orders who have set up charitable institutions are being forced by the government to, again, buy products through their health care plans for their employees, products that are inconsistent with their faith traditions. As one of the nuns told me: It violates our conscience. We didn't want to sue the government, but yet here we are.

I am glad to have had a little bit of opportunity with you tonight, my good friend Vicky Hartzler, to discuss this most essential of issues because, if we don't speak, who is going to speak? I am not quite sure that all of America has really realized what is at stake at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning--whether the government will be allowed to coerce Americans into violating that fundamental first freedom of religious faith and the rights of conscience. If so, it will be tremendously unfair. It is un-American. It will change the nature of the relationship between government and her people. Let's hope that the Supreme Court gets this right. There have been a few precedents before this in which they have gotten it right. In fact, the Little Sisters of the Poor has gotten an injunction so that this is not being forced upon it at the moment.

The deeper principle here that is at stake is whether or not the First Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees the right to religious freedom--an appropriate separation between church and State-- is going to hold and remain that most cherished freedom in our country to come.

Mr. Speaker, we so often use the word ``unemployment'' that we lose an understanding of its deep social impact. When a person who is really trying very hard, cannot find good work, it causes much duress, not only to that person and to their family, but to society as a whole. Work is dignity. Good work unleashes the creative potential of the person. Unemployment or underemployment so often creates a spiraling effect on a person's well-being.

Part of our job as policymakers is to create and support the conditions for dynamic economic opportunity. Yet Washington continues to deal with the unemployment problem through political sound bites and simplistic solutions. These are not getting to the heart of the problem.

Across the country, many small businesses are not creating jobs. Part of the reason is the government itself. The burden of the health care law, for instance, and other regulations have dampened entrepreneurial spirit and created a great deal of uncertainty in the economy. This serious problem cannot simply be fixed by an extension of unemployment benefits.

If we want to be further forthright and honest about it, this problem is deeper than governmental solutions and business structure alone. It is a fracturing of our society. Many people have been left abandoned and have not had the gift of a formative community around them. They are alone. Mr. Speaker, all persons are made for community; and if someone is cast out into

the world and loses the little bit of security they have, well, the best we can do is say good-bye, good luck; here is a little check to tide you over; hope it gets better. No, Mr. Speaker, the deeper problem is a social problem, the fragmentation of our culture.

Mr. Speaker, I also realize that in many places in America there are not the same economic conditions as where I live in Nebraska. We have abundant natural resources, a long tradition of stewardship of the land, and a strong agricultural and manufacturing economy. My State has also been very fiscally prudent, and that is the same way businesses are run and the same way families run their households.

This has contributed to vibrant economic conditions. In Lincoln, for instance, one company has more than 150 job openings. In Columbus, the manufacturing capital of Nebraska, the community has gone so far as to go to Michigan to try to find families with technical skills so they can move to our State.

Mr. Speaker, part of our policy deliberations here should be to try to understand this disconnect between persons who are trying, and have a real need for work, and the opportunities that are out there--yes, to demand accountability and responsibility, but also to forthrightly attack this problem of isolation in our culture. If we don't, we can just plod along and perhaps slowly get better as a country in the aggregate sense of the word, but much damage will be done to unrealized dreams and the potential of persons to find meaning with the creative gifts that they have been given.

Mr. Speaker, I will just end with this. In all fairness, I think we must do better. We must do better here. We must do better as a country than just emotional, political rhetoric, and find constructive solutions that are fair for all.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me thank my good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his tireless leadership on this essential civil rights issue, to protect women and to protect children.

Let me also thank my good friend Mr. Lipinski from Chicago. Each day, Members of Congress come down here and push and shove rhetorically, poke one another in the eye, and I think America is looking for a way to transcend this political bickering, this acrimony that exists down here. So it is very moving to me that the gentleman from Illinois, Dan Lipinski, would come here, join with many of us, and simply say a truth: that women deserve better than abortion. We can do better in this body. So I am very grateful for his leadership as well.

Mr. Speaker, soon a Joint Session of Congress will gather for the State of the Union Address, celebrating our American Republic. We have much to celebrate as a country, but there are also very deep philosophical divides, and sometimes the tone of disagreement makes me wonder what happened to respect for the cherished notion of political opposition and the intellectual diversity that makes America truly great.

Mr. Speaker, abortion is probably the toughest issue you will not hear about in the State of the Union Address. The violence of abortion has wounded our society deeply. For instance, the Gosnell case, which profiled late-term abortion atrocities in urban Philadelphia, shows what can happen when people become desensitized to death. Many wounds of abortion are invisible, but they are no less real.

Mr. Speaker, so many persons are hurt by the act of abortion. They suffer silently when the culture that enticed them into an irreversible choice turns its back and refuses to acknowledge their pain.

Mr. Speaker, with that said, there is also some good news. Those who have been hurt by abortion are speaking out. They are silent no more. Advancements in ultrasound technology are also providing a window on the delicate beauty of human life in the womb. Mr. Speaker, droves of young people are responding to the truth of science. They are increasingly pro-life, and many are coming here next week to celebrate that beautiful gift of life at the March for Life. These young people are recognizing that the womb is a sacred place

where children should be safe. They believe that we should do everything possible to save both the mother and her child. They refuse to choose between mothers and their children. They are also not naive about the difficulties that some vulnerable women face when they find themselves pregnant, alone, or worse--threatened, coerced by an uncaring boyfriend, or worse yet, a medical doctor, into having an abortion.

To those of you who do not stand with us, I would like to say this: I offer a hand of friendship. I am pro-life. I believe that women deserve better than abortion. Maybe there are some areas where we can work together, where possible, to let, first of all, the healing begin.

As my good friend Dan Lipinski mentioned, maybe it is important in this area to end the taxpayer moneys that go to abortion providers because so many Americans oppose that use of their money as well. There is one other area that we should work on. Let's don't wrongfully discriminate against people, people of faith or who are of good conscience or who, through reason, lend themselves to a deeply held ethical belief. That does not allow them to be complicit in any way in health care, in their health care policy, in paying for the act of abortion.

These are a few areas where I think we can transcend the political divide and do what is right and fair and just for women, children, and our society as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, it has been said that there is nothing that is wrong in America that can't be fixed by what is right in America.

Clearly, there are very significant difficulties in this body. There is turmoil in our health care system. The paralysis in Washington, a sluggish economy, and a fractured culture all lend themselves to a search for deeper ideals and for something to cling to.

Mr. Speaker, we are quite fortunate where I live in Nebraska to maintain a strong tradition and connection to the past, which gives guidance for the time in which we live. But we don't often reflect upon our strength. In the final analysis, it really is our land, it is our people, and it is our values.

Recently, in the heart of America's farm country, I had the pleasure of speaking with very attentive and engaged high school students eager to discuss the issues before our Nation. We discussed the proud history of our country, the Declaration of Independence, the ties that continue to define us as a Nation, and the debates that will define us as to where we go as a country.

Mr. Speaker, an essential part of regaining our balance as a Nation is to understand, celebrate, and enhance America's rural heritage. As Americans are more and more removed from farm life, we don't think about the contribution rural life makes to the country as a whole.

Production agriculture remains a key strength of America's economy. Exciting new opportunities are emerging. Expanding domestic food markets such as those for natural and organic foods grown within local food systems provides new opportunities for young and beginning farmers. There is also a new bio-based economy that converts, for instance, corncobs to pop bottles and livestock waste to electricity, while bringing about a new kind of American manufacturing based upon the resources of rural communities.

Another notable point is this, Mr. Speaker: young men and women from rural areas of America serve in the military in much more significant numbers.

Farm policy has an important role in growing new opportunities in rural America. Mr. Speaker, we need to pass a farm bill. The arduous process of reconciling House and Senate versions of the farm legislation is now taking place.

It is important for all Americans to understand that the farm bill is not just about farms or food; but it is also a jobs bill, a trade bill, an energy bill, a conservation bill, and even a national security bill. One out of every 12 jobs in the United States is related to agriculture.

In the House version of the bill, I strongly support initiatives that help beginning farmers and ranchers start their agriculture operations. I support initiatives to promote the development of local food markets, tighten payment limitations, and enact reasonable reforms to the SNAP program while also protecting those with food security needs. I am hopeful that the final bill written will retain the important reforms that actually help save taxpayer money and ensure farmers receive important risk management tools.

Mr. Speaker, a recent University of Nebraska survey showed that a majority of students desire to move home to their rural hometowns, given the right opportunity to provide for themselves and raise a family. In recent years, our State, through hard work, personal responsibility, and responsible governance, has distinguished itself as an ideal place to live, work, and to raise a family. More than any one piece of legislation, these are the deeper values that we need to nurture and protect.

Those of us in farm country have a great story to tell. We have the resources and sensible stewardship to use them responsibly. We have a great tradition of values that keeps us tethered to an honorable past, which also serves as a guide for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this will help America find her way.

Well, first of all, let me thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I know it is a bit unusual when Democrats and Republicans come down and share portions of the time. I think it is actually what the American people want a little more of. We should do this more often.

I am giving a talk in a few moments on health care. You and I will probably disagree to some fundamental philosophical approaches to that, and that is fine. You are in one party; I am in another. You have your own inclinations; I have my own inclinations and approaches. But to try to work constructively toward problem solving, I think it would behoove us all if we could figure out a better pathway to do that.

And that is why I am grateful to you for just leaving me a few moments because as I was listening to your speech, you talked about something I didn't know, that George Washington refused to wear a suit made in England and went back and said, Give me a manufacturing policy for this country. It was a very curious but good story to demonstrate a particular dynamic that, as you rightly pointed out, is part of our modern-day debate about how we do trade agreements in this fast-track authority. I think we have to be very, very cautious about this.

Trade can have the potential benefit to raise all boats. It has to be fair. It has an element of free, but it also has to be enforceable. And there are other dynamics to trade other than just the economic benefit that should be measured, such as the human cost of production in various societies. And we have glossed over those things in the past.

So I just wanted to commend you and thank you for raising this issue of giving, basically, over our authority by saying, we will vote to deny our authority to review the fullness of a trade agreement should one come through to us. I think that is a serious concern. So I want to commend the gentleman for raising the issue.

If I could add something, I think we ought to call it ``smart'' trade.

Yes, sounds good.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the time.

I don't have to tell you all that there is a debate raging in our country about the future of health care. I want to share, first of all, a story that I received by email from Yvonne who lives in the town of Firth, Nebraska, right near me. She says this:

We are a farming family of five in southeast Nebraska and

recently received notification from Blue Cross/Blue Shield of

Nebraska--an insurance company--that our insurance premiums

are increasing from $578 per month to $1,092 per month. That

is $514 more, resulting from the misnamed ``Affordable Care

Act.''

Yvonne goes on and says:

Even if I play with the numbers and drop our family income

to be eligible for subsidies, my family has never needed

government assistance in the past to pay for health

insurance. Why should we need it now, other than Washington's

interference? Would you please tell me how I am supposed to

find an extra $500 in my monthly budget to afford this new

improved policy.

Mark, who lives in Lincoln, says he is 49. He said he had his insurance canceled, and he had a very good policy. And this is what he had to say:

I had a $5,000 deductible policy; and after that,

everything was covered. My policy was not a junk insurance

policy. And it was canceled.

Mr. Speaker, many Americans are awakening to sticker shock and are feeling, frankly, very betrayed by the earlier comments that if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. Clearly, there is a significant problem here. And what has happened?

Well, Mr. Speaker, we need the right type of health care reform-- health care that is actually going to reduce costs and improve outcomes while also protecting vulnerable persons. But what we have gotten instead through the new law is a shift of cost to more unsustainable spending by government, a shift of cost from one American to

another; and we also have a serious erosion of health care liberties.

This is another email that I received from Joan. She talked about her son. She has maintained her son's policy--a young man--in case of a catastrophic event so it would not be a burden to the hospital.

She said:

He does not make enough money to file taxes, but his

premium goes from $85 to $220. So my son will no longer have

insurance of any kind. My son's new policy is required by law

to include things he can never, ever use--maternity for a

male and pediatric services for an adult. Please at least

allow the insurance carriers to call this what it is--an

insurance subsidy from my son to others.

This young man is 30 years old. I don't know the circumstances of the family as to why they are providing a policy for their 30-year-old son, but clearly the family is trying to do the right thing and help one another; but they are being forced by escalating costs to reconsider the very idea of carrying health insurance themselves and doing the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, when I was a much younger man in my twenties, I had an individual insurance policy that I bought. I thought it was the right thing to do. I didn't want to impose the risk of my own health care needs--in case something went wrong--on the rest of society. And I bought this policy. It was a pretty big burden to carry for someone in their twenties. It was fairly expensive. So I decided to raise the deductible to $1,000 to basically help better manage the costs.

Well, one day I had a very severe headache, and it just didn't seem to go away; and as this went on, I decided it was necessary for me to seek medical attention.

So thinking about it, I decided to simply bypass the family doctor, assuming that they would probably refer me to the ear, nose, and throat specialist. And so I made an appointment with the ENT doctor, probably saving myself about $50 by simply going to the specialist.

When I got there, she examined me and they took an x-ray. Afterward, the doctor said, I really can't tell from the x-ray what the problem is. I'm going to need to do a CAT scan. I interrupted her at that moment and injected in the conversation and said, Doctor, I understand if you might be worried about liability and there might be this test that is normal protocol for you to run. She interrupted me and said, Why are you saying this to me? I said, Because I need to know if you really need this test. I'm actually paying for it.

Again, I had the $1,000 deductible.

She said, Oh, let's think about this. I'm only looking at your sinuses. So that means that we could probably ask one of the two entities in town with a CT scan machine if they will widen the cross- section and let's see if they'll give you a discount for doing that.

So she asked her assistant to help. They called both places in town, found out the price, found out if they would lower the price based upon a wider cross-section for this test, and one of them did. And I don't remember the exact amount, but I think it was $75.

Mr. Speaker, I saved $75 by simply asking a simple question. The doctor got the test that she needed and the community resource was more properly allocated, all because I had the incentive to watch the cost.

This is one of the problems here that we have in the whole health care debate. Because, again, the Affordable Care Act, sometimes called ObamaCare--and there are a lot of people who want to move away from that expression ``ObamaCare,'' and I respect that, because it has always seemed to me to be a bit disrespectful toward the President, so let's call it the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act shifts costs to more government spending and actually is moving costs from one individual to another.

Now, how did we get here?

Well, you remember in the Bush administration the number that was being talked about was that there were 50 million Americans who were uninsured. It has been a while now since I looked at that statistic. From memory, as I recall, that was actually an aggregate statistic that reflected the number of people within a year who had some trouble accessing affordable, quality health insurance. It was not necessarily a snapshot in time.

So the number might have been bigger than what was suggested, but it laid the ground work for where we are now. Of course, President Obama and the administration used that number as well; but when you parse the number down and look at Americans who were having problems accessing affordable, quality health insurance, whether because of preexisting condition or some other issue, that number may have come down to perhaps 10 million to 15 million persons.

Now that is a real problem. That is a lot of people who need help. And the right response is to engage in policy debate that will actually help them access affordable, quality health insurance; but we have done so by turning the entire health care system inside out. And it is creating havoc, sticker shock; and many Americans are feeling betrayed, particularly those who are buying their insurance in the open market, the individual market.

Soon, many more will be receiving the price shock who have employer- based insurance because of a couple of factors. And what are those factors?

First of all, in the new law what has happened is there is a shrinkage of the age ratio. It used to be six categories, as I recall-- now it is three--by which you can price the product. That means younger people are actually subsidizing older people. You can have a debate about the merits of that, but that is one of the cost drivers.

Secondly, there are all types of new mandated benefits. You heard it in the emails that I received. First of all, a very young man is having his insurance rates skyrocket simply because he is a young male. In Nebraska, we have one of the highest rate increases for single males. It is second only to Arkansas. It is 220-plus percent, as I recall.

Why is that? We were somewhat a less regulated State, if you will. But what that created were market conditions whereby a young person who was relatively healthy could get an affordable, quality health insurance policy that protected them from catastrophic incidents. If they were in an accident or an unfortunate disease happened to strike them, they were covered; but now it is pushing those policies to a level where people are questioning as to whether or not they can afford it. A policy designed to help people is hindering those who have been doing the right thing from purchasing insurance.

The mandated benefits issue: as the older gentleman writing me pointed out, I don't need maternity services. Again, those were incorporated into the law. An inability to customize an insurance policy based upon one's particular needs after us deciding what is a reasonable set of basic coverages that are necessary, which used to occur State by State.

The third is no denials. Now, this one is a little bit more sensitive because, again, we do have Americans who are being held by this law and who had previously been either denied because of preexisting conditions or, for one reason or another, were having problems accessing affordable, quality health insurance.

So as we move forward into a debate as to how we are going to reform the system and perhaps get this right, it is necessary that we carry forward either this way or another way. It used to be the government's subsidy of high-risk pools in which we allowed people to have access to more affordable insurance. Either that way or the way whereby we all absorb the cost across insurance policies and that we take care of people who rightfully need access.

And so there are a few embedded policies in this Affordable Care Act that do make some sense. The first one was allowing young people to stay on their parents' policies a little bit longer--until the age of 26. I supported that before the Affordable Care Act made sense. It replenishes your insurance pool, helps enculturate the concept of buying insurance at a young age, and hopefully that carries forward into creating a more robust, dynamic marketplace.

Second is, again, dealing appropriately with people who have preexisting conditions. There are a lot of ways to do that--either, again, by subsidizing the market directly, since it was somewhat broken, or absorbing the cost across all insurance products.

The third issue was removing insurance caps for those who actually

bumped up to their total maximum benefit.

I know of cases where families were struggling with a severe disease condition that would meet their insurance cap. The response was they simply had to leave their job and go find another job and get employer- based insurance to basically start the clock over. That doesn't save the system any money. It just burdens the family.

So those are three aspects of the current health care bill that makes some sense, but we did not have to do so by turning the entire system inside out and harming disproportionately large numbers of Americans who have been doing the right thing: protecting themselves and not relying on society for the imputed costs of their own health care risk; who were trying in a marketplace to find the right product for themselves, but now who have lost access to basic products like good catastrophic coverage, which will lower costs for younger people. That is a very strong disincentive for young people to actually enter the insurance market, and that needs to be corrected.

I think it is also part of our responsibility, for those of us who have said ``no'' to the Affordable Care Act and who have said there are better ways to reform the health care system to start laying out some specifics.

Well, one of the specifics should be that we all ought to try to agree that the health savings account idea is a way in which we form a hybrid model that actually benefits the marketplace, benefits individuals, and retains the robustness of what private market competition can give you.

Let's take, for instance, the case of the surgical procedure called LASIK. Now, I am not aware of insurance policies that regularly carry that procedure whereby the eye is operated on to correct vision. Large numbers of Americans have been helped by this extraordinary technological invention. And it appears to me from a cursory look at that market that prices have fallen, outcomes have improved, and the doctors who do this surgery seem to do pretty well with basically no insurance involved.

So let's look at the health savings account model as a hybrid model whereby we retain the government subsidy in a certain sense by allowing people to set aside an account on a tax-free basis and they accumulate monies that go toward their first dollar of health care costs, taking better control over those first dollars that are expended.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I recently had a medical issue. I had a sore spot on my ear. I didn't think much about it, but after about 3 weeks of it being there, I thought at my age maybe it is good to get that checked.

So I went to the dermatologist, and he looked at it and he said, Jeff, I think this is 50-50 it may be a cancerous-type condition. I said, All right. He said, I'm going to put you on a medicine that we can go ahead and get started now while we wait for the biopsy to come back.

So I went to the pharmacist to get the medicine. My co-pay was $5. I am very grateful for that. It was very easy for me, and I am thankful I had the insurance to be able to do this. It was $5.

I asked the pharmacist, How much does this medicine cost? He said, I don't know. Let me check. He came back and said, It's $500. I said, Well, this is Friday. I'm not sure on Monday if I'm going to need this medicine or not. It's 50-50. Maybe we just ought to wait, And I chose to wait.

So on Monday the doctor called back and said it was benign--not cancerous--nothing to worry about, and I didn't have to take the medicine.

Well, I had no incentive not to take the medicine. The doctor didn't necessarily think through the question with me. He didn't have to because my co-pay was $5. Again, I am grateful for that. But the point being that $495 of waste would have occurred in the system had I not simply asked a question, and I didn't have an incentive to ask a question. I was simply trying to make sure that we weren't imprudently using that much medicine when it may go to waste; and I am glad I turned it down.

Again, that is the point. If you have your own health savings account, which is coupled with a catastrophic policy, two things are occurring at once: first of all, you are controlling your first dollar costs. You have a normal conversation with your doctor about ordinary health care. Is this the pathway we need to go? What are our alternatives? Who can provide those in town--maybe at a cheaper rate, with the same quality?

For that, we need price transparency in medicine. It is an important part of market reform that needs to occur. But if something really goes wrong and you are on the hospital gurney getting rolled into an operating room, you shouldn't have to pull off your mask and say, Can somebody give me the price of the anesthesia around here? That is not the point. That is different. That is a catastrophic condition. With catastrophic insurance, you should be protected from having to worry about those market dynamics.

So I think this is a good hybrid model whereby, again, the government incents you to put a little bit of money aside in a tax-free account which, by the way, can accumulate over time. Most people don't get sick in their life, and a lot of this money could grow to a substantial amount over time and actually be a supplement in retirement or a supplement to Medicare. We have got long-term cost problems in the Medicare program.

So, again, it is thinking dynamically, creatively as to how we restructure health care and give improved opportunities for a robust marketplace for health insurance that doesn't just consolidate the marketplace into fewer and fewer companies. It has been suggested that what is happening now is this is becoming like a utility system whereby there are going to be a few insurance carriers that work with hospitals, and that is it. The government will have a role in setting certain rates, and that is it. So you lose the dynamic of the competitive model for the insurance market. We should protect people's access. We should allow people to have access to affordable, quality insurance and not simply be denied for preexisting conditions. There are a lot of ways to do that. If we do that, we can keep the market dynamic basis for controlling health care costs.

We do this in all other areas of our lives, and it is normal to us. There is no reason that we have to put on blinders when we are dealing with ordinary health care costs and simply submit to the system whatever they tell us to do. There is no reason for that. What we could see--again, if we inject this sort of competitive marketplace for ordinary costs--is competition in the marketplace for ordinary processes and procedures in medicine, for drugs. Then you could see, like in the LASIK surgery example, prices falling, innovation occurring, and a health care system making reasonable returns for its efforts. Right now, we have a health care system that is very, very frightened. Doctors are very frightened of the next steps in terms of the evolving dynamic of the Affordable Care Act. You have many doctors who are saying they are not going to be able to afford to take on any more Medicare patients. You already have this problem in Medicaid. So you want a robust, dynamic market in which people are innovating, in which costs are falling, and in which health care outcomes are improving.

Health Savings Accounts give people the opportunity to control that first-dollar cost, but if they are really sick or have an accident, they are protected and don't have to worry about those costs. That makes a lot of sense to me, Mr. Speaker. In the Affordable Care Act, unfortunately, though, what we have is a dampening of the marketplace for the Health Savings Account idea. It ought to be exactly the opposite. Now, there is a reasonable argument that some have made that this is not appropriate for people who are older, who have increasing health care costs, and who don't have the time to set enough money aside to meet their normal, ordinary expenses--fair enough--but it is an important model that we should be eagerly embracing for the young generation so that they can have affordable, quality catastrophic insurance, so that they have incentive to move into the market, and so that the market responds to their questions as to:

Why does this cost this much? Who is providing the best service? Does this really make sense?

With our simply trying with the diminished marketplace and with a lack

of incentive to actually watch those first-dollar costs that the Health Savings Account gives us, then there are not really those incentives to, again, force transparency and to ask simple questions as to how you best manage the resources that you have in partnership with the medical community, like I did when I was trying to reduce my own costs for that CAT scan. The doctor very willingly accommodated my request, and that community resource was better allocated.

To me, that is a commonsense solution that we all ought to be embracing. Instead, what we have now is a huge shift of cost to more unsustainable government spending and to many Americans being disproportionately hurt because of skyrocketing premiums or because they are losing the health care that they were promised they could keep. Now, that is simply not fair. There is a better way to fix this system.

In the last few weeks, because of the problematic rollout of the marketplace Web site--the ``exchange'' as it is called--it has brought more and more attention to this issue. It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that we just don't get into finger-pointing and ``we told you so,'' for those of us who are against this, but that we actually sit down and try to construct something that is much more reasonable and fruitful for the entire system.

Mr. Speaker, the formal definition of a ``law'' is: an ordinance of reason given by those in authority for the common good. You have a real question here as to the reasonableness of this law, because it is so unfairly and disproportionately hurting a lot of people, and whether that meets the definition of its being for the common good.

As I suggested, there are aspects of the current law that we can retain--keeping young people on insurance longer, removing the caps on insurance, and protecting people who have preexisting conditions. Those should be retained, I feel; but as we move forward with a robust debate, we ought to keep in mind: let's do everything--let's do all we can--to give America a better path forward, the path that they deserve, so that any health care reform meets the true definition of a truly just law in that it promotes the common good, which means society's well-being.

What does that common good look like?

It is a vibrant marketplace for affordable, quality insurance. Persons who have had a condition shouldn't be denied. There should be a dynamic by which the person controls his first-dollar cost because he owns those dollars, and he is protected, if something really goes wrong, through catastrophic policies.

That shift to the health care paradigm could lend itself to the right type of reform for the next generation for Medicare, for instance. If you have had a huge savings account accumulate over time because you are not one of the unfortunate--you are one of the majority of people who, fortunately, does not get stricken by something serious over your lifetime--then you will be able to potentially use that money for your own well-being and retirement or as a further supplement to the Medicare program.

This is what is called ``thinking outside the box.'' Let's think dynamically as to how these programs can mutually reinforce one another--the current health care reform and our important health safety nets in retirement. That is what we ought to be thinking about.

So, Mr. Speaker, I just submit these comments this evening because I think it is important to try to unpack what has gone wrong and why and to frame the debate in a manner that is actually constructive so that America gets the type of health care reform that we deserve--a robust health care system that leads the world, that improves health care outcomes while reducing costs, and that also protects vulnerable persons.

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 7 o'clock and 8 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, November 20, 2013, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate General Robert ``Bob'' Kehler of United States Strategic Command on his retirement from the Air Force after 38 years of outstanding service to our country. I would also like to thank his wife Marjorie for her selfless sacrifice throughout his career, as well as the sacrifices of their two sons, Matt and Jared.

General Kehler's nearly three years as the head of STRATCOM caps an accomplished career that began in 1975 as a distinguished graduate of the Pennsylvania State University Air Force Reserve Officers' Training Corps program. Early in his service, he developed expertise in the nuclear enterprise as commander of Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile squadrons at Whiteman Air Force Base, the 30th Space Wing at Vandenberg Air Force Base, the 21st Space Wing at Peterson Air Force Base, and at Air Force Space Command.

The General held numerous additional leadership positions in the Air Force throughout his many years of service. He represented the Secretary of the Air Force on Capitol Hill as the Legislative Liaison and was point man for the President's intercontinental ballistic missile modernization initiative. After his time on Capitol Hill, General Kehler assumed the position of Director of the National Security Space Office and was tasked with integrating a number of our military's space organizations.

General Kehler has been a forward-thinking leader as evidenced by his achievement transferring the ICBM mission to the Air Force Global Strike Command and helping to create the 24th Air Force to execute the evolving and critical cyberspace mission. With his important work in these areas, there is no doubt that the United States is more prepared today to face the challenges and threats confronting us in the nuclear and cyber domains.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the good fortune to work with General Kehler on a number of occasions as the U.S. Representative for Strategic Command's headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base in Bellevue, Nebraska. He is a brilliant thinker and I know that he has contributed immeasurably to SRATCOM's global missions.

It is my distinct honor to lead my fellow Members of Congress in thanking General Robert ``Bob'' Kehler for his exceptional years of service and to wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, in the midst of all of our difficult debates that are occurring in this body and throughout Washington, whether it is about the right type of health care reform or how to stop the ever-expanding Federal debt which threatens both our economic as well as national security, and as important as these debates are, it should not be lost on us, though, that there is a grave struggle for the protection of a fundamental proposition of human dignity and a basis for civilization itself. This is the protection of the rights of conscience and religious freedom.

Even in the midst of all of our other debates, many Americans are concerned about the heart-wrenching stories of individuals who have been detained, condemned, incarcerated, often tortured, sometimes for years, throughout the world, even under the sentence of death for some, simply for the peaceful exercise of their religious rights.

Mr. Speaker, given the scale of human suffering endured and extensively documented in this past century alone, it is often difficult to grasp that humanity, in the 21st century, with all of its technological advances at our disposal, has not yet learned some very basic lessons.

These lessons of the 20th century, after two horrific world wars and other unspeakable human tragedies, including the Holocaust and the slaughter of tens of millions of persons under the repressive and cruel Communist regimes, should not be lost. They are indispensable in pressing forward toward a more hopeful future, one based upon the unchanging principles that underlie a free and noble society.

One of these basic lessons is that religious freedom is a foundation for social stability, security, civility, as well as economic prosperity, because it is built upon a foundation of respect for human dignity. Mr. Speaker, this is why we should, this body and the administration, we should all redouble our efforts to ensure that that first principle of religious liberty is integrated as a critical element of American foreign policy generally, and is prioritized in the day-to-day work of the diplomacy of this country.

With our position of Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom now being vacant, we should act quickly to quell any potential sense of ambiguity about where the United States stands on this important issue.

Let me first make an important distinction, Mr. Speaker: Religious freedom is not the same as freedom to worship, which is a much more restrictive concept and should not be confused. We are not merely concerned about allowing people to worship, think freely in their own minds or in their own home or in their own church, but about championing the free exercise of religion, grounded in human dignity, in its fullness, robustly, in the public square, as is guaranteed by our own Constitution in the First Amendment.

Religious freedom, the cornerstone of our civil society, is something that we can actually still take for granted, though, in the United States; although, this freedom has been eroding here in recent years. It is a painful irony that our own Department of Health and Human Services is mired in litigation over challenges to fundamental laws and basic standards of religious freedom in health care policy. Even here, this right is fragile.

So think of the many people throughout the world, in countries where the precepts of religious liberty are routinely and often egregiously violated

by the state, persons who must witness or endure cruel abuses for exercising this right of conscience.

Mr. Speaker, the prominent case of Pastor Saeed Abedini in Iran is a good example. He is an American citizen who is currently under house arrest in Iran for his Christian faith, and it is one of the more urgent cases worldwide. He and his family need our thoughts and prayers now. And we have been given the recent news that he has been moved to a notorious prison, reportedly confined in a small cell with hardened and ruthless criminals, with no access to sanitation or desperately needed medication.

In the United States, thankfully, we are starting to see a groundswell of concern over such barbaric treatment of Pastor Saeed. And, ironically, this again is so close to the anniversary of the storming of the United States Embassy in Tehran in 1979.

We are not alone in our appeal to something higher. Together with many good people of faith throughout world, or people who have no faith throughout the world, many are calling for his immediate release and safe return to his family. But, unfortunately, this is not an isolated case.

Beyond our intuitive understanding of right and wrong, we must also say that religious freedom is not simply a matter of exercise of a principle of justice. We know that it is inextricably linked to security and stability.

According to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, those nations that work to respect human dignity tend to perform more strongly on a broad scale of metrics than command and control societies, where freedoms are restricted and economic prosperity can seem unattainable, especially for those individuals who are marginalized and subjected to wrongful religious discrimination. The metrics in countries where religious freedom abounds are so much stronger in multiple areas of well-being versus in controlled societies where religious freedom is oppressed. Religious liberty is a principle tied to both security and stability in civil society itself.

Areas of the Middle East, for example, where religious minorities have traditionally served as a leavening influence for all peoples, they are now under severe distress. Can civil society really have a chance under such conditions as minority faith groups flee from persecution in their ancient homelands?

Now, Mr. Speaker, the United States has been one of the world's greatest champions of religious freedom, and we cannot afford to backslide or be seen as ambivalent in this regard, especially at this fragile time of our history, when social upheavals and economic dislocations demand principled leadership from this Congress and the President.

Pursuant to the International Religious Freedom Act passed by Congress in 1998 and signed into law by President Clinton, the State Department is required to provide a detailed annual report on the status of religious freedom throughout the world. The current report, which covers last year, provides a robust overview of recent trends and concerns. It also leaves us with the enormous challenge of confronting serious and escalating levels of abuse, particularly in environments where impunity reigns and powerful forces align to intimidate and brutalize vulnerable faith communities. Not only have affronts to religious freedom over the past year been widespread, but sadly, Mr. Speaker, they are escalating.

Before I review some of the key concerns highlighted during this past year, let me take a moment to recall a courageous official in the country of Pakistan who made a profound impression upon me a number of years ago when I went to Islamabad, along with the House Democracy Partnership, which is an effort of this United States Congress to partner with emerging democracies to help in any way, share technical expertise as to how to properly run a legislature or a parliament.

While in Pakistan, I had some time with the Interior Minister, whose name was Mr. Shahbaz Bhatti. Mr. Bhatti was a man of great humility, great decency, great courage. I worried for a time, Mr. Speaker, because where we met was out in the open in a public setting, and him being seen as proximate to a United States official, I just wondered if this might be problematic for him, given the stress between our two countries.

Our conversation turned to some basic requests. He wanted to create student exchange opportunities for individuals representing Pakistan's minority faith communities. He proposed establishing a three-judge panel for blasphemy trials, which, as is commonly reported, are sometimes used for persecuting minorities or the settling of personal grievances. These were neither grandiose nor unreasonable propositions.

Mr. Speaker, as we continued our conversation, again, although brief, this man of deep faith--he was a Catholic--impressed me significantly. He not only showed great humility, he showed a great desire, in his public commitment and witness, to protecting the rights of all religious minorities, even beyond his own faith tradition.

About a year later, I was getting ready to give a speech to a group of Nebraskans who had gathered for the Nebraska Breakfast, which we hold many times throughout the year here. Any Nebraskan who is in town is welcome to meet with the entire delegation. It is an important 70- year tradition that we have enjoyed in our State.

So, as I was gathering my thoughts, a message came to me that Mr. Shahbaz Bhatti had been murdered, had been executed, had been martyred in Pakistan simply for exercising the legitimate authority of standing up for the minority faith communities in that country.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, my face must have been ashen as I was preparing to speak to the community where I come from. I told them about Shahbaz Bhatti. I changed what I was going to say and added a few lines as best I could about, again, his courage, his decency, and how in our few moments together, he had deeply impacted me.

Mr. Speaker, over the past year, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has identified several countries that ``have engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom.'' This is their report, Mr. Speaker. If you look closely, you can see a photo, a picture, a placard held by people who were probably in attendance at Shahbaz Bhatti's funeral. It has his picture on it.

These violations, documented by the Commission, include ``systematic, ongoing, and egregious'' examples of torture, prolonged arbitrary detention, or ``other flagrant denials of the right to life, liberty, or the security of persons.'' These tier one countries, as they are called, which the Commission has urged the Secretary of State to designate as countries of particular concern, include Burma, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Uzbekistan, and China. Try going a week without buying something that wasn't made in China. Moreover, the Commission also identified other countries who are ``on the threshold'' of such status. These included Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Vietnam.

Mr. Speaker, there is a large minority community where I live in Lincoln, Nebraska, made up of persons who come from the country of Iraq, who fled that country due to persecution. They have made their home where I have made my home, and they contribute greatly to the well-being of our society.

There is one minority faith group there in Lincoln, an ancient religious tradition called the Yazidis. One of the elders of that community came to see me one day because the Yazidis have traditionally lived very quietly in Iraq. They have not created the conditions on which they should in any way be targeted by anyone else, but the community had come under great distress and was also under persecution and attack. One of the elders of the Yazidi community said this to me: ``Congressman, we protected the Christians. Now we ask the Christians to protect us.''

To emphasize the deep and abiding concerns over religious violence, the Commission has also launched the Religious Violence Project, which has recently focused its efforts on both Nigeria as well as Pakistan, where targeted religious violence has torn at social foundations and created an atmosphere of widespread fear and intimidation. Over the past year in Nigeria, for example, where the Islamic militant

movement called Boko Haram is considered the ``primary perpetrator of religiously related violence and gross religious freedom violations,'' there have been 50 churches attacked, killing some 366 people. Thirty- one attacks have been documented on Christians, killing 166 people. Among the other violence, 23 attacks on Islamic clerics or senior figures critical of that group have killed some 60 people.

Over 18 months going back from July of 2013, the Religious Violence Project tracked some 203 incidents of sectarian violence that resulted in more than 700 deaths and attacks by militants and terrorist organizations in Pakistan, primarily against their Shia community. Attacks on other minority populations in Pakistan included the Christians, Ahmadis, Hindus, Sikhs, and other groups that were subjected to targeted bombings, shootings, and rapes.

Mr. Speaker, the trend toward the type of violence that has been documented by the Commission in recent years is profoundly disturbing and should be addressed in a thoroughgoing manner by member countries at the United Nations and at all appropriate venues of international engagement, in a credible and reliable manner. Interestingly, Mr. Speaker, the Los Angeles Times just reported that yesterday, several of the 14 new States elected by secret ballot to the United Nations Human Rights Council are widely considered by human rights advocates as violators of personal freedoms. The new countries elected to the Human Rights Council are Russia, China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and Vietnam. Again, they are considered by human rights advocates to be violators of personal freedoms.

In view of this development, it concerns me that our own administration has downgraded the status of the State Department's Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom. This is an important position, Mr. Speaker. It is a reflection of who we are as a Nation. Also, the position of the special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism remains unfulfilled in our government as well. I would like to see us elevate the principle of religious freedom as a core measure of civil society and diplomatic intent, institutionalizing this as a priority with the Department of State and building upon the very commendable work of our last Ambassador, who is now gone, Ambassador Suzan Johnson Cook.

The time to do this is now. Otherwise, we risk sending a very dangerous signal that, again, really doesn't fit who we are as a Nation. We must care about this fundamental principle of the rights of conscience and religious liberty. We cannot afford to convey a message that religious freedom really doesn't matter all that much to us while so many lives throughout the world hang in the balance, while so many people still look to us for the ideals which bring about civil society in its fullness, where we respect one another's differences, work them out through comity, work them out through legislative debate and not at the point of a sword or at the end of a gun.

Mr. Speaker, the world is screaming for meaning. Religious liberty is a cornerstone of human dignity and a foundation for civil society itself. We don't think about it very often, but it is true here. We don't think about the fact that we could enter our church or synagogue or mosque each Sunday, Friday, Wednesday freely, for the most part, without threat of fear of intimidation, without the government listening to us, without persons seeking to do us harm.

People can preach and teach as they see fit within the civil society to try to reflect their deeply held faith traditions out of respect to not only those who follow them but those whom they wish to convince or tell their story to. This is a great tradition in America. We have our differences, but we respect those. We actually honor that right, the right of conscience to speak freely and the right of religious liberty in the public square.

For instance, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be interesting to point out that it is the image of Moses who looks down upon me right now as I am speaking, who looks upon this body as we deliberate, one of the great lawgivers of all time who actually also happened to be a great religious leader of all time.

Our country is replete with the strong condition for the exercise of religious liberty both at home, within our churches, and in the public square. This is one of the reasons that people are so attracted to America, because it is a principle consistent with human dignity. It appeals to the hearts of all persons to be able to exercise freely who they are and what they would like to believe with respect to others.

This is a great tradition that we have institutionalized in law and have tried to project through our diplomacy. That is why it is so important that we actually fill this open Ambassador's position and we do so now, and we elevate the ideals of religious liberty and the rights of conscience as a core part of our diplomatic outreach in order to give people hope, a hope that they are yearning for, a hope that they need, and a hope to give balance and equality in the 21st century to a world that is very unsure as to where it is going next.

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

Mr. Speaker, we can continue to march ourselves down here and throw barbs and insults at one another while watching our meager approval rating fall from 10 percent to perhaps 5 percent. We can continue to do that. Or maybe we can re-frame this whole discussion and agree to something--that we should keep working steadily to get this government back running while also working on the right type of policy reform, tax reform, and spending reform that could restore America's greatness.

Now, in the midst of this difficulty, and seemingly with no way out, this could actually be an historic moment. But it will take the House of Representatives and the President of the United States and the United States Senate talking to one another. That conversation must begin now.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 33 minutes a.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, September 30, 2013, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, many Americans are bewildered as to what is happening in Washington, and understandably so. But really the goal is pretty simple: we do need to keep this government running, while also protecting Americans from the harmful effects of the new health care law known as ObamaCare.

Until now, the debate over health care has been largely in the abstract, but now many Americans are recognizing just how hurtful this is. Mr. Speaker, we need the right type of health care reform, but we don't need skyrocketing premiums or plans that erode health care liberties.

Mr. Speaker, Yvonne just wrote to me from Nebraska. She said that, for her family of five, their monthly insurance premiums are going to nearly double. She asked: ``How can we call this the Affordable Care Act?''

Rodney just wrote to me. He's a self-employed truck driver. He told me he may have to sell his truck just to afford the insurance.

Mr. Speaker, since parts of this law have already been delayed, isn't it only fair that we delay the entire implementation for at least a year, giving us time to create the right type of health care reform, one that reduces costs and improves health care outcomes while also protecting the vulnerable in our society? That's what Americans deserve.

Mr. Speaker, this morning, I met with a group of Nebraskans, as we do every week. It's called the Nebraska Breakfast. It's about a 70-year tradition that we have here in the Congress where the House Members and the Senators get together. We've been doing that decade after decade. It's a wonderful way to welcome people to Washington and one of the highlights of our week. What we do as a delegation is talk about the issues of the day and hear from our constituents as well.

This morning, Mr. Speaker, I thought it might be important to just review a few basics. Some of the terminology and some of the language that we throw around here with great ease is often, I think, disconnected from people out there in the country--words and phrases like continuing resolutions; the Affordable Care Act, known as ObamaCare; sequestration, and debt limits. The reason that I point all this out is there is a convergence of all of these factors right now that is creating the great debate and this moment of drama in the United States Congress.

So let's take those one at a time.

First of all, the continuing resolution. What does that mean? Well, each year, if it worked in an ideal fashion and a proper fashion, the President submits a budget to Congress. Congress can take that budget up or not. The House passes a budget. The Senate passes its own budget. The two are reconciled. We set a budgetary goal, and then the appropriations committees go to work on various aspects of funding the government, whether that's the Defense Department, military services, labor and health and human services, transportation, financial, agriculture support, and the rest of the so-called appropriations bills. Basically, the budget sets up a fence and then the appropriations bills divide up how that money is to be spent each year. That, again, is in an ideal world, which has become very broken of late.

When Congress cannot seem to get a budget agreement between the House and Senate, we come to the end of the fiscal year, which ends this September, and we have to figure out a way to fund the government going forward or else it shuts down. When the government shuts down, there is the potential for planes not to fly, trains not to run, and veterans not to get their services. It's not a proper way to govern. It's not good for the country to have this uncertainty looming out there. We want to do everything we can to try to avoid a government shutdown while moving forward on fiscally responsible policies that return us to what we call ``regular order'' here and try to get back in place a system of governance that gives some proper planning horizons for the communities at large out there across America and brings it back into an orderly process here.

So if we are not able to pass a budget, the continuing resolution is a vote by both the Senate and the House as to how to move forward either in a temporary fashion or a long-term fashion based upon what current government policies are.

The frustration here is that each year of late we've been going through all of these difficult decisionmaking

processes, particularly through the appropriations process, about which programs are important, which are necessary public policies to help bring essential services to the American people, and which programs are older, antiquated, no longer effective and should either be reduced or eliminated.

We've gone through a number of those processes this year; but because of the disagreements between the two bodies, because of the deep philosophical divide in this Chamber, we have not been able to find a resolution that gets us to what we call regular order--passing appropriations bills under a budgetary framework. So now we are faced with a continuing resolution--the decision as to how to fund the government, moving forward, either for a short term--a month or 2, maybe a few weeks, or even a few days--or long term.

The continuing resolution means we just pick up government where it is and move it forward, basically spending the same amount of money that we did last year and not getting any of the reforms. So it might come to that, but that's an unfortunate way to govern. And I know it's adding cynicism, Mr. Speaker, in the American people's perspective as they watch this deep philosophical divide play itself out on the House floor and seemingly not being able to get anything constructively decided.

Mr. Speaker, I'm from Nebraska. We have a saying, Let's get 'er done. I think that's what most Americans want. Let's find a constructive way, a proper and balanced way, to appropriately reduce spending in areas that are necessary to do so, perhaps even the right type of tax reform to get this fiscal house in order.

Now why is this important? Well, we have a $600-plus billion deficit this year. Year after year, because we've had these deficits, we've piled up debt. There's now $17 trillion of debt. By some measures, it's approximating the size of the output of the entire economy. It's a real red flag.

That's why it is so imperative that this body strive to work together, again, in a constructive manner, to figure out the right type of spending and tax policies that deliver essential services, reduce the overspending, increase accountability in effective and smart government and delivery of policy, while also having a fairer and simpler Tax Code. That should be the objective, and I think it is for most Members here. But, unfortunately, the system is working very dysfunctionally at the moment and we're going to be faced with eleventh-hour decisions as to how to fund the government in the short term so that it doesn't shut down. That's called the continuing resolution.

Complicating that this year is the whole debate about the future of health care in America. A couple of years ago, the Affordable Care Act was passed. I did not support it. It's now known as ObamaCare. We do need the right type of health care reform in our country--a health care reform that is going to improve health care outcomes while reducing costs. I think most Americans are beginning to see and realize this now because it's hitting them and it's hurting them. Instead, what we have in the new health care bill is a shift to more unsustainable costs and an erosion of health care liberties, and a significant amount of Americans are experiencing not affordable care but an escalating cost of their premiums.

Now, there's some components of the health care law that I think are reasonable; and as we move forward, we should retain them, such as keeping kids on health insurance up to the age of 26. I supported that policy before the health care bill. Removing caps on health insurance in case a family would cap out, that doesn't save the system any money. The family simply has to go find another job and an insurance provider, creating great duress. That doesn't make sense. Appropriately dealing with the problem of preexisting conditions. There have been a number of Americans who were priced out of the insurance market, who could not find affordable, quality insurance. And that's a real crack in our market system, so that it's necessary that public policy deal with that.

But what we've gotten instead is a massive turning over of our entire health care system. It's creating havoc. Prices are going up. People aren't sure as to whether or not they can keep their doctor or their health care plan. Some people are experiencing unemployment as companies either don't expand or have to reduce numbers because they want to get under the threshold by which they have to provide health insurance for their employees. And some employees are having reduced hours. This is a very big problem.

Another component of this is that the President and the administration have exempted certain entities. Recently, the implementation of the business demand that they provide health care has been delayed. It's really not fair because individuals are saying, if you can delay the business mandate, the corporate mandate, why not the individual mandate?

The fullness of ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, is coming into full force very shortly. So this is colliding as well with our budgetary discussion, and it's creating dramatic dynamics as we end the month here at the end of the fiscal year.

The other aspect of this is called sequestration. A couple of years ago, we were in a very similar situation in which we were faced with raising the debt ceiling--and I'll return to that Washington phrase in a moment--or not. A special committee was set up to review the Tax Code and to review spending, and they were going to come up with a process by which there was a fair and balanced approach to spending and taxes going forward.

But that supercommittee failed. The incentive for them to act in a constructive manner was something called ``sequestration,'' which is the implementation of automatic budget cuts, primarily affecting the defense of our country, and what we call nondefense discretionary spending.

Nondefense discretionary spending is basically everything else the government does, other than the defense and veterans and retirement and health security programs--basically, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. So a third of the entire budget is what is being affected by sequestration, and many Members of Congress have seen the furloughs in their districts and cutbacks on vital programs.

I think there's widespread support, particularly where I come from, on, again, ensuring that we have the right type of spending reductions while there is also a proper delivery of important essentials. We have to do this in a smart manner. The sequestration does it across the board. It's a very clumsy, awkward way to do this. It's not judicious. It's not using discretion. It's not taking the best judgment through our normal processes of considering a budget and appropriations bills and saying, that program may have been good at one time, but it no longer fits modern needs. Let's get rid of it and save that money and bring down spending or apply it to something new that's innovative that can really help people.

That's what sequestration is doing. That's what it did this year. Because that supercommittee failed to meet its goal, there were automatic budgetary reductions put in place. They will continue unless, again, we can come to an agreement as to how we replace sequestration with a more prudent form of spending reduction that would hopefully be coupled, again, with the right type of tax reform.

Let me talk about that fourth Washington phrase, those two words, the ``debt ceiling.'' We used to never hear much about this. The debt ceiling was something that kind of came and went. Congress has to give the authority to the President to go out and borrow money. Usually, that was automatic; but because our debt has gotten so large, so severe, at $17 trillion, most Members of Congress are saying this is so severe that it demands creative thinking and bold resolve, or else we will undermine not only our economic well-being but also national security.

Now, how so? What does $17 trillion of debt mean?

Mr. Speaker, we are a people that self-governs. This debt is not sitting out there as somebody else's problem. It's America's problem. So if you divided it all up between every man, woman, and child in this country, every one of us would have to write a check for $53,000 in order to pay off the current debt.

Now, that doesn't even consider the projection of debt in the future based

upon the way in which current spending programs are constructed. If we take the present value of the future obligations of programs as they are now written, the debt would so accelerate that each person in America right now, if nothing changes, would owe $300,000.

Mr. Speaker, I have five children. There are seven of us in the family. Obviously, I can't afford a check to the government for $2.1 million to take care of my share of this obligation; nor can most Americans. Something has to change. It will take bold resolve and constructive commitment to fair and balanced outcomes both on the spending side as well as the Tax Code ledger side.

If we don't do this, Mr. Speaker, what are the consequences if we don't deal with this debt successfully? By the way, it can't be done overnight. It's too big. That would be too disruptive to do it overnight. But we have to set a pathway in which we are committed to seriously reducing this debt and getting the fiscal house in order, turning this battleship around.

The consequences are really threefold if we don't. First of all, it's a form of future taxation. We're forcing the children of the future to pay for the way in which we're living now. It's fundamentally unjust, unfair.

Secondly, a lot of this high level of debt is held by foreign countries such as China. What does that mean? That is a shift of the assets of this country--what we own--into the hands of other people. We get all worried that China is undertaking a military expansion. We've sent a heck of a lot of manufacturing over there, sent a lot of our economy over there. They make the stuff; we buy the stuff. They have the cash. We run up debt; they buy our debt.

It's a very dysfunctional marriage. But the consequences are, over time, that is a shift of what we own in this country into the hands of a place like China.

And where does that money go? Well, there is a ruling elite that's doing pretty well there. There's a hybrid communist-capitalistic system that doesn't seem to be very interested in the notion of private property rights and human rights, doesn't seem to be advancing very fast in this regard.

So this economic liberalization, you would hope, over time would help bring about the focus on fundamental human rights and human dignity. But it has certainly empowered a wealthy elite, and it's being plowed back into military infrastructure buildup.

So our debt is a national security problem. Because we hear that the Chinese, for instance, are expanding their navy, expanding their nuclear arsenal. So what is our response? We'll send more ships into the Pacific.

Well, Mr. Speaker, there is also a response that needs to be had and that we need to work diligently and quickly and boldly with clear resolve, ideally in a bipartisan manner because this is an American problem. This really isn't about politics, Mr. Speaker. This is about principle. This is about participation in the future welfare of our country, regaining our balance, regaining our strength. This should transcend the partisan political divide. We'll have a big debate about, again, what are the appropriate areas to reduce and what's the right type of tax balance. Fine. But we should all be committed to getting to this goal to quickly reverse this trend, which has severe economic and national security consequences.

The third problem with all this debt is it's potentially inflationary. Now, we have a very expansive liquidity policy going on right now, basically buying up our debt. The consequences over time could be a further unleashing of inflationary impacts, which is a form of taxation, a regressive form of taxation. It hits the poor the hardest, those who are on fixed incomes, seniors the hardest. It is grossly unfair. People who are not in a position in life to adjust prices, if you will, and so that creates a further form of taxation on those who are least able to handle it.

So this is why, Mr. Speaker, this debt problem is so severe. We're bumping up in the near term against this debt ceiling limit. Now, again, what does that mean?

Congress has to give the administration authority to borrow more money. Now, the last time we did this, we actually reduced spending by more than an amount that we borrowed. That was the plan, again, trying to get to this in a manner that is not disruptive but actually begins to reduce the spending in a necessary fashion by more than the amount that we continue to borrow. It's a slow walk toward a better situation.

We may end up there now, I don't know, but this is one of these dynamics that's sitting out there, along with the continuing resolution, the future of health care in this country, called ObamaCare, the sequestration, dealing with these automatic cuts if we don't figure out a constructive way to budget and to appropriate. And then the debt ceiling, in which we have to have a plan to basically continue to pull down this very, very large burdensome debt and all of its economic as well as national security consequences. Mr. Speaker, we must do this, and we must do it now.

So I would urge all of my colleagues, let's transcend the partisan divide here. We're going to have differences. We all come from districts with particular perspectives. We have different philosophical ideas as to how to approach government. Some people want more investment at the Federal level. Those of us who believe in the sole principle called subsidiarity, where those closest to a problem or opportunity should be empowered to solve the problem or seize the opportunity--Federalism, as it used to be known. That has been the robust way in which America gained such economic prowess in the world and was a leader and continues to be a leader for so many people who desire the nature of a system like ours that is rooted in this cultural ideal that each person has inherent dignity and rights and also has responsibility--even responsibility--for government.

So, Mr. Speaker, we're going to have quite a bit of drama, I'm afraid, in the coming days and weeks. Let's hope it doesn't add cynicism to the deepening cynicism toward our institution. People in America have entrusted us to represent them, to make judgments on their behalf. I think most people in America want something constructive done, something that's fair, that's not done in an emergency, 11th-hour scenario, that doesn't disrupt economic well-being because it's either too dramatic or too harsh or done at the last minute, that takes a little bit longer view, gets past the politics of the moment and takes a longer view as to what's right and good for America.

Mr. Speaker, the people who came behind us, who sacrificed so much to build what we have, don't they deserve our best? Don't they deserve a commitment to these higher ideals? Because our economic well-being is tied to our ability to work constructively and creatively together to get this fiscal house together, to get it on the right track, to appropriately reduce spending while also delivering smart public policies that are effective in helping people across this country, that revitalizes our economic strength, that takes the duress off of communities where people can't find jobs and can't find work, that creates a fairer Tax Code that's less convoluted, that's a little bit simpler, where you don't have to have an army of lawyers and accountants to figure out ways around it. That's what we ought to be focused on. That's what we need to get done. That's what I think our people are demanding from us.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts with you and my colleagues.

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 36 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, September 19, 2013, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, this is an extraordinarily busy week in Washington as we have all returned from a district work period. There are many issues to discuss, including how we're going to fund the Federal budget, get the fiscal house in order, potentially have the right type of tax reform, and deal with a whole host of other issues, but I felt like it would be very inadequate if the evening went by but did not delve into a little bit deeper of a discussion as to the nature of the Syrian conflict and the potential for United States military involvement.

Mr. Speaker, I wrote my constituents last week as they expressed tremendous concern about the potential for U.S. entanglement in the situation in Syria. In fact, it's overwhelming the number of people who have shared deep, heartfelt concerns. It is overwhelming. I'm hearing that from my colleagues, as well.

This is not some sort of populous reaction to the elites of this institution in government. It is an intuition of the American people who are suggesting to us in leadership that we have poured ourselves out as a country, sacrificed tremendously, extraordinarily, to give other people a chance for stability, for human rights, for the right forms of development, for political outcomes that uphold just governing structures.

Where have we gotten for our investment? Basically since World War II, the United States has been cast into the role of the superpower being the proprietor of international stability and we've accepted that arrangement, but there are tremendous pressures upon us as we continue to move forward in the 21st century as we've empowered other people and other economies through appropriate development to take responsibilities for themselves.

The United States has not always done this perfectly, but we've fought multiple wars and we've engaged in many areas of the world in order to try to give other people a chance and to stop aggressive ideologies that are inconsistent with basic and fundamental human rights. I've responded to the people of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to share that with you this evening:

Life in Syria today is, as the philosopher Thomas Hobbes once wrote, ``nasty, brutish, and short.'' An ongoing civil war ravishes the country. The oppressive regime of President Bashar al-Assad wages battle against a nebulous, undefined mix of rebels, who have regularly employed the same brutal violence that the government has. The result is that there are more than 100,000 persons dead, including many innocent civilians--mothers, fathers, and children.

In response to the suspected use of chemical weapons by Assad, President Obama is now advocating U.S. military intervention, although, of course, the situation is now fluid. In the past, he has stated that the use of chemical weapons is a ``red line'' that Assad could not cross without a serious rethinking of American involvement in the conflict, which to this point has included a significant amount of humanitarian aid--and properly so--targeted to those caught in the middle of this violence. The President, to his credit, has rightly asked for a vote of Congress prior to taking military action, and some in Congress are signaling their support.

In recent days, however, I have clearly stated my opposition to this idea. I oppose this action of unilateral military strikes. The United States should not bomb Syria in the name of stopping violence in Syria. While quick, unilateral military strikes might satisfy the President's ``red line'' rhetoric, the collateral damage and further risk of destabilization is very high.

Now, as Congress has returned to Washington this week, there are hard questions that are in the process of being asked: What will be the consequences of this bombing? Who's on the other side of this? And how much do we really know of this rebel movement that we will be implicitly aiding if we attack Assad's government? What happens following the military strike? Why not expend the energy of this debate over military involvement on solidifying international outrage and holding particularly Russia, a longtime ally of Syria who's entangled in this situation, holding them accountable?

The international community must work together creatively to stop the savagery of Assad, but it cannot hide behind the United States military might. No longer can it be assumed that the United States is responsible for fixing all aspects of global conflicts, and no longer should the United States accept that framework. For the sake of global stability, a new construct must instead take its place, one in which the responsible Nations of the world are serious about their own defense and stabilization of conflicts within their regions.

In light of the increasing brutality in Syria, the United States should continue to advance its support for the innocent victims of this civil war. Meanwhile, we should also aggressively use this opportunity to facilitate new international partnerships that seek lasting solutions to complicated situations of mass violence.

Until such a united front is achieved, unilateral military action may only introduce further chaos to an already disastrous problem and, as I have said, implicitly put us on the side of a rebel movement who has also shown willingness to murder innocent civilians. And it is not clear whether or not the more

moderate elements of that very movement have any capacity to implement governing structures that are just and lasting. So then what happens? Syria, this area degrades into a vast, ungovernable space, ripe for jihadists with no protections for innocent persons or the ancient peoples who call that place home.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other aspects of this that I have written about that I would like to share momentarily, but I would like to turn to my good friend, Congressman Charlie Dent from Pennsylvania, as he wishes to share a few concepts and perspectives on this conflict.

Let me thank you, as well, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, my good friend. I've heard you speak behind the scenes in this body, particularly today, with great passion, particularly for the people who are directly impacted by this, people who you represent and are directly connected to the conflict, the ancient Christian community, as you said.

I appreciate your clarity and your resolve on this issue because I know you, as I do, have great respect for the institution of the Presidency. He is our Commander in Chief.

But we also have a responsibility to render to him our judgment in this case; and so my judgment is no, that a unilateral military strike is not going to accomplish an objective of potentially stabilizing, punishing, preventing Assad from doing further harm and stabilizing that situation, versus pulling the United States, as a coalition of one, into a conflict where we are very unclear as to what the collateral damage and destabilization outcome could actually be.

In addition to that, the American people are intuiting that there is a serious, serious problem here with us being drawn into another conflict where the options are all bad, where our hearts are with the innocent victims, and we will continue to provide humanitarian aid.

But we must not allow the international community to simply hide behind our military might; and I think that that is what the people are sensing, that we are being drawn into something that has much broader implications for the entire international community to respond in a constructive, creative way.

And if we would have expended this energy, as I said earlier, on trying to get underneath the problem and perhaps point the finger and lay it at the footsteps of the Russians, who are completely entangled in this situation, maybe we would have had better movement on this question prior to now.

Now, we'll see what the President says tonight. We'll listen with an open mind. I don't know whether he is going to pull back from his intention to potentially strike Syria or not. But I think it is prudent to allow some diplomatic actions to potentially take their course, even though that might be a bit farfetched at the moment.

But, hopefully, that new diplomatic momentum has some good creative elements and stops the situation, pressures Assad, brings about a collective

international response that stabilizes the situation and protects innocent people. I think that's the best outcome that we could potentially hope for here.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Reclaiming my time, it's a good question you raised, and one that I pointed to earlier, new international constructs that might be using templates of old international constructs, but that are revitalized so that we can have collective operations, if necessary, to engage in this type of stopping mass violence.

The NATO allocations for many countries, they don't meet them year after year. In other words, the money they're supposed to contribute, they just don't do it.

So who has to pick up the pieces?

We do. There's a ``free rider problem'' as we call it here. And you deal in a lot of international diplomatic circles and you constantly hear it. Oh, the United States is the only one who has the ability. You're the only superpower. You must act, and it is your--you must be compelled morally, based upon who you are, to do something here.

All of those are fine points. But in the 21st century, you have a shift of the global framework for international stability occurring. We have expended ourselves, as a country, for nearly 70 years, providing that framework for global stability, economically and politically protecting human rights, as I said earlier, not always perfectly.

But the United States cannot single-handedly lift this burden for the entire world, particularly for countries that benefited from our past sacrifice, who have the economic wherewithal, and should have the moral compass to be thinking constructively about regional organizations that stop this type of conflict before it starts and demanding just outcomes of sovereign territories.

That is the long-term strategy. I recognize we're in a difficult moment because we're being pressured to decide unilateral military action or not, but this is the type of long-term thinking that I think will help bring about new models of international, multilateral cooperation to prevent this from happening, or when it does happen, to have the right response in place.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Well, our time has expired, and I do thank you for the good constructive conversation. I appreciate your insights and clarity on the situation. It's complex, it's difficult; but, again, unilateral military action allows the international community to hide behind our might, and it's simply not the right response at this time.

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