Floor Statements

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding and for this important amendment. Madam Chair, not only should there be no American troops sent to Syria, there should be no American weapons sent to Syria.

Several weeks ago, a Catholic priest named Father Francois Murad was murdered in northern Syria. Who killed him? The very people that we're considering arming. What was he guilty of? Serving the poor. We have no business shipping weapons to those who would raid convents and kill innocent civilians.

Madam Chair, there are now 100,000 people dead from this conflict. What began as a hopeful exercise of civic engagement by the Syrian people against the brutal Assad regime has now become a wanton slaughter. We don't know who is who among this Syrian rebel movement. No one there is safe, and no happy projections of democratic ideals will make this better. We do not have control over the Syrian battle space. Americans must not be complicit in this killing field.

I thank the gentleman from Texas, if you would allow me a few minutes of commentary.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to add to Mr. Gohmert's conversation today. I wanted to add a few words on the Syrian conflict, which has been unfolding with just horrific consequences.

In my office this week, I read the accounts about Father Francois Murad, a Franciscan priest who was shot dead in northern Syria by rebels engaged in the Syrian conflict. He was killed in a Christian village where he sought to serve. He did not deserve the death that he was dealt.

Mr. Speaker, I just simply firmly believe that the United States Congress cannot allow American taxpayers to become complicit in this killing and the other brutality that is occurring there in Syria.

What began as a very hopeful exercise of the Syrian people petitioning their government for redress of grievances and their basic rights has spun into a dreadful civil war with terroristic elements and other rebel groups fighting this brutal Assad regime. But the bloodbath in Syria has spared no

one. The regime and many of its rebel opponents have killed wantonly, without discretion, murdering civilians and combatants alike. Men, women, and even innocent children have not been spared. No one there is safe.

We have no place imposing our notions of democracy in a place where we cannot distinguish who stands for what. We cannot become complicit in barbaric attacks on civilians. We have no business shipping weapons that could end up in the hands of those who would raid convents and murder innocent people. Neither America nor Syria can possibly be served by this.

Mr. Speaker, true to our principles, the United States remains the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to the people of Syria, with a total of more than $800 million given since this conflict began in the spring of 2011. That's where our efforts belong.

Mr. Speaker, I think for Father Murad, whom I referenced earlier, this would probably be the outcome that he would want to see: humanitarian help, giving people some hope, possibly even stopping the shipment of arms into that country. That would be a legacy worthy of his sacrifice.

A hundred thousand persons have died, Mr. Speaker. No U.S. military engagement in Syria.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.

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

Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to begin by recognizing the hard work that Chairman Lucas has put into this bill, as well as Ranking Member Peterson. A complex bill such as this requires time, dedication, and a willingness to work with Members from a very diverse range of agricultural communities across this Nation, and I appreciate the effort.

I also recognize that many were here very late last night and there is a certain urgency to our deliberations. But I believe it is critically important that we also have a meaningful discussion and debate on the issue of payment limits.

The other legislative body has seen fit to include the language in this amendment in its version of the farm bill, and this amendment gives us the opportunity to send a message that some reform in this area is necessary.

While there is much to commend in this farm bill, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that it falls short of successfully reforming the payment limit system. Without a doubt, agricultural payments are lopsided. Based on the USDA's annual Agricultural Resource Management Survey, the largest 12 percent of farms in terms of gross receipts received more than 62 percent of all government payments in 2009. Such a skewed system, Mr. Chairman, is simply not sustainable in the long run. It leads to the escalation of land prices and accelerates the concentration of land and resources into fewer hands. This is not healthy for rural America.

Continuation of the current system will only lead to greater concentration in agriculture and fewer opportunities for young and beginning farmers. We need a thoughtful and balanced approach here, one that encourages young people to take a chance and gives them some support when they need it, one that doesn't lend itself to the trend of fewer and fewer farms.

Mr. Chairman, we pride ourselves that agriculture is the main bright spot in America's economy. And how did we get here? By ensuring that we have a vibrant marketplace which depends upon large numbers of producers actively engaged in stewardship of the land.

The amendment I am offering will help farm supports reach their intended recipients as well and close loopholes that benefit investors not actively engaged in farming. It levels the playing field for farm families facing competition from larger operations that do collect the lion's share of government payments.

The amendment reduces farm payment limits, capping commodity payments at $250,000 for any one farm. That's a lot of subsidy. The legislation will also close loopholes in current law to ensure payments reach their intended recipient, that is, working farmers.

The savings from reforms established in this legislation help ensure that the farm payment system is also set on a more fiscally sustainable trajectory. It's fair to farmers, fair to the taxpayer, and fair to America because it incorporates good governing principles.

This amendment has wide support from a diverse range of agricultural groups, such as the National Farmers Union, the Center for Rural Affairs, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Heritage Action, and Citizens Against Government Waste. They recognize the opportunity we have for meaningful reform here.

Now, it is important, Mr. Chairman, to emphasize that this does not address crop insurance subsidies. That is a completely separate matter, and I recognize the need to differentiate between a program in which producers must contribute their own dollars toward the actuarial success of the program and one that is directly coming from the government.

Mr. Chairman, I have been through two farm bills now, and I've talked to hundreds of farmers in rural America. What they're looking for is simply a chance to compete, and compete well, not a guarantee of unlimited money from the government. We owe it to our hardworking farmers to sustain that fair and robust marketplace.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

May I can inquire, Mr. Chairman, as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not out to punish anyone's success. In fact, I celebrate it.

A $250,000 subsidy is a lot of money to come directly from the government. I think many Americans would agree. We put caps and limits on virtually every other program, so why not this one? What I'm saying is that amount of money should be sufficient.

I would like to offer another example regarding direct engagement in farming that helps clarify the issue that my colleague just raised.

A farm in the Deep South recently received $440,000--again, none of it to someone actually working the farm, but to six general partners and five spouses, all of whom claim to be providing the management needed to running the farm.

What this bill does, in addition to capping payments, it provides a more enforceable working definition for those actively engaged in farm management, and that's an important reform as well.

Again, this has been worked out in the other legislative body from Members who represent diverse agricultural districts all over this country. I think this is a reasonable reform that, again, is fair to the taxpayers, fair to the farm family, and consistent with good governing principles. It's a balanced, reasonable approach.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk as the designee of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Chairman, I've been pleased to work with Congressman Thompson in providing this commonsense amendment to enhance the conservation goals in our country.

Our farmers and ranchers are the first stewards of the land. This amendment would simply continue the practice of conservation planning on our most fragile lands to ensure that we meet important land and stewardship goals. The concept is widely upheld as an important conservation initiative by many in the agricultural and environmental communities.

The amendment does call upon farmers and ranchers to develop unique conservation plans when seeking to receive Federal crop insurance subsidies on highly erodible lands. I believe this to be a reasonable measure that is consistent with our current conservation policies.

It is also important to emphasize that this is not a new idea. In fact, this approach has a long track record of proven results. Conservation compliance was linked with crop insurance in the 1985 farm bill and has been tied to direct payments since 1996.

According to a report by the USDA's Economic Research Service:

An estimated 295 million tons of erosion reduction per year

could be directly attributed to implementation of

conservation compliance policy.

In addition, conservation compliance has resulted in a significant reduction in the annual loss of wetlands. I believe this is a strategy that has worked.

Given some late-hour complications that have arisen, I'm going to ask that the amendment be withdrawn; but I hope that we can look forward to continuing dialogue with the chairman, particularly since this is in the underlying Senate bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, there is something especially disturbing about the cruel violence that accompanies the termination of unborn children who, as evidence shows, could survive if they were just given the chance.

This debate is not some waste of time. This is not some exercise in extremism. The fact that we are having this debate at all demonstrates that our society is actually failing women, and our culture is very deeply conflicted. There is something very dark about the topic of late abortion.

It is uncomfortable to enter into this conversation, but we must.

During the past several decades, the marvels of science, Madam Speaker, have opened up a window to show us life in the womb, which the prophets of old, by the way, tell us is sacred. The images of children developing week by week, month by month, speak to us more eloquently than any words can.

Madam Speaker, there are some lines that we should all agree should be drawn. I think we are capable--I hope we are capable--of agreeing that a child in the womb deserves that protection.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, none of us of course could know what President Reagan would have done. I would suggest, however, that if we had a Reagan approach to defense, we would not still be arguing about missile defense, and we certainly wouldn't be debating $60 billion cuts to defense.

The other point I would make is ratification of the New START treaty was conditioned in the Senate upon certain investments to our nuclear deterrent infrastructure. Unfortunately, those investments have not been forthcoming.

Let me talk about the offset for just a second. The most cutting-edge done for our military is done at DARPA. DARPA funding is flat, and there are a number of us who are concerned about that. But what they do at DARPA is they evaluate the projects they have; and if one seems less promising than others, they move that money around. So what this amendment does is punish them for doing that, because as they are moving money from one project to another that seems more promising, it takes that money away. When you're looking at funding research, it seems to me we want to encourage that sort of flexibility towards the most promising avenues of the research, and yet this amendment takes exactly the opposite approach.

For a variety of reasons, Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is not a good idea, and I would recommend Members vote against it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, tonight's discussion is not about politics. It's not about partisanship. It's about principle. It's about an American ideal, an ideal so common, so ordinary that we don't think about it very much; yet this ideal is essential to a well-functioning, orderly, and just society. In fact, it should define the nature of the relationship between the government and her people.

Mr. Speaker, when a person uses right reason and sound judgment when they believe something is right or wrong, that is a sacred space. That is called conscience.

Conscience is inextricably intertwined with the inherent rights and dignity of all persons. It is, therefore, only just that governing authority have the highest level of sensitivity to upholding and protecting the person's free exercise of deeply held, reasoned beliefs.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read two emails that I received from constituents back home. Katie, from Nebraska, says this to me:

Please do everything in your power to ensure that our

hospitals, service agencies, and universities are allowed to

carry out their work unhindered by laws that go against their

conscience. I do not want to see good agencies and businesses

shut down because they were forced to choose between the law

and their conscience.

Karen McGivney-Lecht wrote to me and said this:

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

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

unable to work if I was required to provide the services this

HHS mandate has imposed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what are they talking about? What are they referring to? Let's take a few moments and unpack the issue here. Let's review the multiple layers.

The Department of Health and Human Services proposed a rule, commonly known as the HHS mandate, which will take full effect this coming August. This mandate, authorized by the 2010 health care law known as ObamaCare, would require all health care plans to cover in full--and consequently, every American--to subsidize procedures and drugs that many Americans consider to be ethically divisive. Americans who cannot in good conscience comply with this mandate will now be subject to ruinous fines if they do not obey simply for exercising their First Amendment rights, exercising their religious freedom, exercising the deeper philosophical principle of the rights of conscience as rightly exercised by reasonable persons doing what they believe to be right, what they believe to be good, what they believe to be just.

Mr. Speaker, I simply find it difficult to understand how we can let this happen, how we got to this place in our country, how we can willfully cross a threshold that Republicans and Democrats of an earlier, wiser era sought scrupulously to avoid. For the first time in our history, Mr. Speaker, the new health care law provides the Secretary of Health and Human Services the discretionary authority to mandate the coverage of drugs and procedures such as abortion-producing drugs. Many Americans reasonably find these drugs and procedures controversial. In past times, they were considered to be electives. If a person or an organization didn't want to choose them, they didn't have to.

In 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a Federal law signed into law by President Clinton. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act ensures that Federal officials cannot reach into the private sphere to substantially burden the practice of religion. In view of the many philosophical and diverse religious perspectives in this country that all contribute to our vibrant civic culture, members of both parties, Mr. Speaker, worked to pass that important piece of legislation.

Now, however, we have the HHS mandate, which is clearly an affront to established law and precedent. Conscience protections in health care have always been championed by members of both parties since Senator Frank Church authored the widely popular Church Amendment in 1973 to protect objections of conscience to abortions and sterilization.

So, Mr. Speaker, what has changed? What has so dramatically changed in this body? We have lost our collective sense of respect for divergent views. We have lost our sense that the government must protect that sacred right of conscience and not coerce her citizens into doing something that they fundamentally believe is unjust or wrong.

While the HHS mandate is arguably a small component of the 2010 health care law, it does bring us face-to-face with a stark new reality here in Washington that we fervently hope will not become the new normal in America. We have recently heard of the discrimination against Americans by certain employees at the IRS, IRS employees targeting Americans because of their religious or philosophical or political leanings. The IRS is the very agency set to implement the new health care law.

Mr. Speaker, a good government must ensure that those in position of authority are committed to two principles: fairness and impartiality. These revelations about religious and political targeting have done much to undermine the public trust.

But, Mr. Speaker, the HHS mandate is also a form of discrimination. It primarily targets people in faith communities, the very people who have been the backstop of compassionate care for the poor, the vulnerable, and the marginalized in our society today.

When the new health care law was under consideration, it was said that if you like your health care, you can keep it. Now, however, we are finding out that you may not be able to keep your health care plan. You may not be able to keep your doctor. You may not even be able to keep your own faith traditions, given this governmental threat.

Mr. Speaker, no American should be forced to choose between their conscience and their livelihood. No American should be forced to choose between their faith and their job. No American should be forced to choose between their deeply held, reasoned beliefs and the law. That's a false choice. It's un-American, and it's wrong.

I want to thank my colleagues who have joined me tonight to share other stories of Americans who are deeply concerned about the impact of this mandate upon them, but who also, I think, are going to discuss the very purpose of our government, which, at its core, should be to protect the dignity and the rights of every person, beginning with the fundamental right of the reasonable exercise of conscience. Mr. Speaker, this is not some theoretical debate. This is about the preservation of our way of life, the ability to work as we choose, the ability to serve as we see fit with what should be support from our government.

With that said, I'd like to now call upon and yield time to my good friend, Joe Pitts, who heads the Values Action Team, who has been a stalwart leader for years upon years now for basic protections for the most vulnerable and the calling forth of leadership in the whole arena of human rights. Joe Pitts is from Pennsylvania. He is a Vietnam War veteran. He flew 116 combat missions in service to our country.

Joe.

Thank you, Congressman Pitts, for your forceful words and your leadership. We're very, very grateful.

I would now like to call upon my good friend, Dr. John Fleming from Louisiana. As a dedicated physician who cares deeply about the health care system in our country, I know you can provide us with extraordinary insights into the problems with the implementation of the new health care law. But I think it's important to point out that you are one of the lead cosponsors and a coauthor of the Health Care Conscience Rights Act, and we are very grateful for your leadership as well.

Dr. Fleming.

Dr. Fleming, thank you as well for your leadership. To know that you gave up a medical practice to enter into public service and stand here today defending this deep, essential American principle, the rights of conscience, and as it affects those who are most vulnerable in our society, is frankly deeply moving to me and I'm grateful for your leadership. Thank you so much.

I would now like to call upon my good friend, Congressman Chris Smith from New Jersey. And if you don't mind me calling you the ``Dean'' of the tireless efforts on behalf of so many of us to fight for human rights and the poor and the marginalized around the world. Your tireless efforts have been an extraordinary example to me, and I'm very, very grateful not only for your mentorship, but for your friendship.

Congressman Smith.

Thank you, Congressman Smith, for your very powerful words. I think, before you leave, I should say this. We also value your leadership. For decades now you've stood in this House well, even when it wasn't the most popular thing to do--as it isn't now--to talk about that which is right and just, that which is higher and good, to, in a sense, provoke the conscience of this body to a more meaningful engagement. So I want to thank you again for your strong leadership.

Let's turn now to my good friend Dr. Bill Cassidy, another physician in the House of Representatives, from Louisiana. Again, like I told Dr. John Fleming, I think it's important that everybody knows that you left a medical practice to enter into public service, and we're very, very grateful for the example you've provided, and your leadership as well. I know you have some broader concerns about the issue of conscience and religious freedom, so we look forward to hearing your comments.

Thank you, Dr. Cassidy, for your powerful words as well.

As you were speaking, I was reminded of the fact that this is America. We disagree with what the President and the Secretary of Health and Human Services have done with health care, particularly imposing this harsh mandate. We need the right type of health care reform, but one that is going to protect our liberties and not simply shift more unsustainable cost and spending to the government.

Those are the normal debates that we have, but we have that debate, and we can have it right here without fear of that type of retribution that so many people in other places have who are exercising their deeply held beliefs, their rights of conscience, their faith perspectives; but they do so under grave threat. This is still America.

That is an outstanding point to make. It's something, as I tried to state earlier, that we so take for granted-- our rights of conscience as we exercise them through faith, through prudential judgment in our everyday lives. It has been embedded in our culture and, therefore, in our government until very recently, until this measure has come along and is coercing people unjustly into violating that sacred space, that right of conscience.

By the way, this is not just people of faith who are speaking out. Other persons of goodwill can see the fundamental principle here in that, if we erode that, we are eroding something that is essential to human dignity and the very flourishing of democratic ideals, themselves. So thank you for pointing that out.

The gentleman from Michigan, if you are ready to speak, I'd love to hear from you.

Congressman Walberg is a good friend, who has been here a long time, again, championing these issues, standing up for what he believes to be right and just, and being a good partner in trying, as well, to exercise his rights of good conscience before this body about what is essential and good.

So thank you, Congressman Walberg, for coming tonight.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his thoughtful and powerful remarks. I particularly noted what you said, that the rights of conscience go way beyond the issues of health care. That was very well put. Thank you very much for your leadership on this issue, as well.

I want to turn now to Congressman Dan Lipinski and yield time to him.

As I said earlier in the beginning of this hour, this is not about politics and it's not about partisanship. It's about principle. Congressman Lipinski and I do not share the same party affiliation, but we share this principle. He has been one of the key lead cosponsors on this initiative, the Health Care Conscience Rights Act, and has stood, as well, side by side in helping to promote this effort to revive an understanding of this fundamentally American principle that transcends the philosophical differences we tend to find with the pushing and shoving that go around here.

So I'm very grateful, Congressman Lipinski, for your willingness to come tonight and speak with us.

Before you leave, Congressman Lipinski, let me first of all say thanks. I'm very deeply grateful to you for two things. One is your personal friendship. The second is the gift of your leadership on these essential American issues. I think most American people want to see what we just did: Republicans and Democrats standing right here and focusing on that which can be constructively achieved for the greater good. So for you providing that example of strong bipartisanship in this effort, I'm very grateful. Thank you so much.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, now I'd like to turn to my new friend, Congressman Mark Meadows, from near Ashland, North Carolina. He was newly elected for this Congress. And I'm just going to say this--and I hope this doesn't embarrass you--I consider you a rising star. Your thoughtfulness, your immediate engagement on that which is most important around here, your willingness to look for good outcomes, to me, has been a great example.

So we are grateful for your willingness to come tonight, and I turn it over to you.

What a powerful and beautiful story you shared with us. I had no idea about your family being one of the founding families of this country. And now 13 generations later, you stand here with the mantle of authority now on your shoulders directing the affairs of state. That has to be very gratifying and a proud moment for your entire family, but it is also proud for me to know because I consider us to be good friends. Thank you so much for your comments.

I now recognize my friend, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp) for a few thoughts on the subject. Thank you as well for your tireless and strong leadership on the fundamental principles of protecting that which is necessary for all of us to understand at the core, where our liberty comes from.

Thank you, Congressman Huelskamp. I know you have to run. We are very grateful you were willing to share those powerful sentiments tonight.

I turn now to Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio, a former national championship wrestler in college, who now wrestles with some of the toughest issues right here on the House floor.

Thank you so much, Congressman Jordan, for your thoughtful words and your powerful presentation. Thank you for your tireless leadership on this and so many other issues. Thank you for coming tonight.

I think it is most appropriate that the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) gets to close the hour. Diane Black is the primary author of the Health Care Conscience Rights Act. We have been proud to stand in partnership with you as you've taken the lead on this term, this Congress.

Thank you, Congresswoman Black. We are so grateful for your leadership.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has become increasingly clear in the last few weeks that certain IRS employees engaged in unfair practices targeting Americans because of their religious or political beliefs. The scrutiny was improperly frequent and systemic. The questions asked of certain groups were intrusive and inappropriate.

A well-functioning government must ensure that those in positions of influence are committed to serving with impartiality and fairness. Revelations that the IRS targeted groups based on their religious or political affiliation undermine the public trust. I think we can all agree that regardless of one's political views, equal treatment under the law is a fundamental right that cannot and should not be broken.

We were sent to Congress to ensure that these fundamental rights are upheld. We must continue to work aggressively to root out the causes of this serious breach of trust by the IRS.

Mr. Speaker, in a few days, China's new President, Xi Jinping, will conclude a tour of the Western Hemisphere by meeting with President Obama in an informal summit in California. The leaders of the Pacific Rim's two most powerful countries will discuss many issues of mutual concern. This important relationship continues to evolve dynamically in spite of the difficulties that we both have. These difficulties spring from some radically different philosophical outlooks on both life as well as governance. These differences deserve both our attention and candor.

Mr. Speaker, 24 years ago, this week, June 3, 1989, a massacre took place in China in a place called Tiananmen Square. Student protesters who were seeking some form of liberty for their interests gathered there. And I remember very vividly two very stark images from that time. One was the homemade replica of the Statue of Liberty that was erected in their midst. The other was a courageous Chinese man who decided to take it upon himself to stand as a silent witness, arms at his side like a soldier at attention, for the cause of human rights. He stood in the street and blocked four tanks as they proceeded on toward the student protesters. The tanks tried to make their way around him. As they did, he would move and stand in front of them. Clearly, there was a dilemma going on in the minds of the young Chinese soldiers who were driving those tanks. Perhaps they didn't want to kill one of their countrymen. So they tried to avoid it. But the young man persisted. For a time, he blocked those tanks, courageously and alone, from carrying out part of what would become the Tiananmen Square massacre. Eventually, some of his friends or other Chinese citizens whisked him away from certain death. Those were two very stark images in my mind that have stayed with me ever since.

In the House Foreign Affairs Committee this week, another one of those student leaders actually spoke. Her name is Chai Ling. She's a courageous new American, one who knows well the tragedy of forced repression--both political repression and the painful, silent repression in China that is not spoken of enough, which is that country's forced abortion policies, its One Child policy, which has, by the way, disproportionately targeted unborn girls.

In her testimony, she spoke clearly about her passion and love for China and her hope that the United States and China can begin a new embrace in a spirit of cooperation rooted in the fundamental respect for human dignity, which transcends both language and culture. She argues that the fear that led to the devastating persecutions of the Cultural Revolution, Tiananmen Square, and more recently, this genocidal One Child policy, which has seriously distorted China's demographic balance, must be transformed by truth. She echoes the spirit of Chen Guangcheng, the blind Chinese activist who stood up so courageously against repression last year in China. When he visited here in Washington, he said this to a small group of us: The intrinsic kindness of persons cannot be defeated by violence and force.

Mr. Speaker, dysfunction in this important bilateral relationship between the United States and China serves neither of our countries, nor the broader world, as the influence of this relationship extends far beyond our respective national borders. China wants our markets, we want their stuff and, perversely, there are incentives for our businesses to seek out their low-cost manufacturing. We want their investment, they want our resources. We sell our enterprises, we also run up our debt, and they buy the debt. In turn, we run down our economy in an endless

chase for near-term gain. This feeds a dysfunctional interdependence that is further aggravated by fundamental disagreements stemming from different world views and perspectives on the individual and the state.

We need to look closely at our notions of self-interest in this relationship, which vividly illustrates some of the challenges associated with global interdependence. But there are also opportunities that we need to grasp, Mr. Speaker. The President recently changed the way in which we talk about the concept of national interest in his State of the Union address, and I agree with him. We should talk about our national conscience in concert with our national interest. The two are inseparable. In conscience, we cannot say that all is well with the U.S.-China relationship.

We can hope for a better day. Hopefully, this meeting between the President and the new President of China will bear lasting fruit which transcends discussions about defense and economics, and looks to that which is fundamentally just and good for all peoples of the world.

Mr. Speaker, on April 6, 2013, something remarkable occurred at Memorial Stadium. During the University of Nebraska football team's spring game, seven-year-old Jack Hoffman sprinted 69 yards down the field to score a touchdown with over 60,000 fans watching him. But his amazing touchdown is nothing compared to the courage he displays in his two-year battle with brain cancer. I am proud to call young Jack a Husker and would like to submit this tribute poem written on his behalf by Albert Carey Caswell.

The Jack of Hearts

(By Albert Carey Caswell)

The . . .

The Jack of Hearts . . .

Oh how you've so done your part!

To so inspire us with but your little heart!

For you are but a work of art!

Jack be nimble!

Jack be quick!

Oh Jack how all of our hearts you've so hit!

For you are a champion,

that our Lord has so picked!

Running down that football field,

as your heart would not yield!

As to our Nation,

what your most courageous little big heart so revealed!

Giving us all such a lift!

For you are one fine Husker,

as we are all so very sure of this!

All at what your little heart can muster,

is but to all of us such a great gift!

As you have brought us all to,

such tears of bliss!

Yea, Jack be nimble!

Yea, Jack be quick!

Jack be Strong!

As Jack you so battle on and on!

As like your Husker's on those fields of green,

Jack you so fight with all your being!

For already Jack,

your short life is like a song!

A song of courage!

A song of faith!

Who against all odds,

will not so wave!

Teaching us all,

so how to behave!

And children,

as Heroes should not have to be!

But, sadly sometimes . . .

through them our Lord so shows us all what we need!

For you are a brave as a Navy Seal,

or a Special Forces member of The United States Army,

or a member of The United States Air Force we've seen,

or a member of The United States Marines!

And Jack,

as you ran down that football field . . .

Our Nation's hearts,

we all so hope that you could feel!

All in what your great heart has revealed!

And as you scored that touchdown,

and they held you way up high!

I wonder if you could but hear all of our tears,

as we so all began to cry!

Saying Jack,

we are with you every step of the way!

And in Oklahoma on this day,

even the Sooner's became Husker fans as did they!

As Congressman Fortenbury would say,

we're Nebraska, and This Is How We Roll each day!

For in The Game of Life Jack,

you've gone deep!

As why in our thoughts and prayers,

you we will so ever keep!

So win that battle!

So win that fight!

For your heart is the brightest of the bright!

And one day,

we will see you in college playing at Nebraska under the

lights!

And if your betting against Little Jack,

well you better not!

Because,

a Jack of Heart's . . . beats any hand that you've so got!

So Jack, as you so lay your little head down to sleep!

We pray to our Lord to watch over you so to keep!

And remember Jack our Nation,

now carries you all in our hearts so very deep!

The Jack of Hearts, who to our hearts and souls does so

speak!

We Are The Huskers,

and This Is How We Roll!

First, let me thank Chairman Culberson for his stalwart leadership on this important bipartisan measure. Let me also thank Ranking Member Bishop as well for his leadership and support.

Madam Chair, many people in America want Congress to find constructive solutions, seek good answers, overcome problems, and say ``yes'' to our essential needs. While Congress is stuck on certain areas, this bill takes a bipartisan step forward in defense of our country and in service to our veterans. This bill says ``yes'' in a bipartisan manner to meet our Department of Defense infrastructure needs and to properly care for those who have served us so well, our veterans.

The bill spends a little bit less than the President asked for and a little bit more than last year. Projects that are not justifiable are removed, but others receive increases. The bill also pushes forward, as we've heard, a seamless transition of care when our warfighters leave active service by integrating their medical records and expeditiously dealing with a very serious claims backlog. I am pleased as well that my colleagues have continued funding for the headquarters construction of the United States Strategic Command. STRATCOM is an important force in protecting our Nation from nuclear threats.

Madam Chair, we need to continue to work hard and smart to reduce budgets while also delivering essential policy services that are necessary and fundamental at the Federal level. I think that this bill accomplishes that goal. I think we also accomplish the goal of doing what is just and what is right.

Mr. Speaker, I recently visited the Eastern Nebraska Veterans Home in Bellevue. It's a lovely place that is well-designed to care for those who have served in the protection of our country. I had a nice visit, talking with many of the veterans there, each with their own unique stories of service to our Nation.

A conversation, though, with one man in particular, Mr. Speaker, has stuck with me ever since. Now in his nineties, Don McBride sat quietly as I was speaking to the entire group. But as I was leaving, I went over to him to thank him for his commendable service to our Nation; but as soon as I got those words out, Don stopped me.

You see, Don has a very interesting story. As I understand it, he did not directly enlist in the United States military. It was a unique situation. Don was a pilot with Pan Am Airlines, and during World War II, he helped the war effort by flying planes into China. During World War II, China was our ally.

In all, Don flew 524 missions. He had to put a few planes down a couple of times because they were shot so badly, but he didn't stop. He and his fellow pilots did whatever was needed for the war effort, whether it was engaging Japanese aircraft or delivering aid to remote places in that rough terrain.

For his service, Don was awarded the Presidential Citation, four Bronze Stars, the Air Medal, the Distinguished Flying Cross, and the China Service Medal. He didn't want to tell me all this. He was quite reserved about it, but his nurse encouraged him to share his story.

But, again, as I went to thank him, Don stopped me and he said this, Mr. Speaker. He said: We don't need any thanks. Every man here did it because he wanted to, because it was necessary. I don't know of anybody who has ever been sorry for serving.

Mr. Speaker, it is this spirit of selflessness that lives on in so many of our veterans and the military men and women who are serving our Nation today. They gave, and continue to give, for one simple reason: it is necessary and it is their duty.

On Memorial Day, this coming Monday, we will gather for an occasion that is both solemn and joyful. We honor those who gave everything in service to their countrymen. The formal remembrance of fallen heroes mixes feelings of both sorrow and pride. That a person would lay down his life for his friends, for another, is the noblest of human ideals. That we would unite in gratitude to reflect on the sacrifices of those who have gone before us is one of the greatest human expressions.

And for those who are veterans, Mr. Speaker, who have stood next to persons who have given their all, perhaps holding them as they died, watching helplessly as war consumed another innocent life, their living presence, Mr. Speaker, the living presence of our veterans today is an honor to those who did not come home.

Communal remembrance is a longstanding human tradition. When we focus our remembrance on the war veterans who have sacrificed for us, the act is particularly meaningful and appropriate.

Ever since there has been fighting and dying in war, there's been a calling in the human heart to memorialize the fallen heroes of battle, especially in this Nation, born in war, where the legacies of those who died defending our country are written on our hearts and are seen clearly in the blessings of liberty that we still hold today.

In spite of our political divisions, in spite of the rancor and divisiveness that sometimes exists in this body and in our Nation, we are still called to yield to proper reflection about that which is noble and that which is good.

Mr. Speaker, yet, for nearly 100 years, our fledgling country did not have a day set aside to remember and celebrate the sacrifices of fallen soldiers. In America, the practice of Memorial Day began in the years immediately following the Civil War.

In 1868, the head of an organization of Union veterans established what was called Decoration Day at the time for the Nation to decorate the graves of the Civil War dead with flowers. The day picked was May 30, a day in late spring to ensure that the flowers would be in full bloom across our Nation.

Throughout the countryside, people began to visit cemeteries to decorate the graves of fallen soldiers, both Union and Confederate. On one noted occasion, women living near Columbus, Mississippi, deep within the defeated Confederacy, were so disturbed by the neglected graves of Union soldiers that they took care to see that these graves were properly decorated as well.

Decoration Day grew in popularity and in practice, and by the early 1900s, ceremonies were held on May 30 throughout the Nation. After World War I, the day was expanded to honor those who have died in all American wars. Decoration Day soon became known as Memorial Day. But it was only in 1971 that Memorial Day was declared a national holiday by an act of Congress, to be celebrated annually on the last Monday in May.

Mr. Speaker, this coming Monday, we will continue this solemn tradition and reflect upon its profound meaning. We honor those fallen heroes of yesterday for their sacrifices on our behalf. Their bravery has afforded us the liberty and security we enjoy today.

But the price of the blessings of peace has not come without great cost. Since the Revolutionary War, more than 42 million Americans have risked their lives for our country. Of those, more than 656,000 servicemembers have died in battle. Their loss runs deep in the lives of those whom they left behind. Wives lost husbands, husbands lost wives, parents lost children, and children lost parents. The soldier's ultimate sacrifice is not merely his own, Mr. Speaker.

In 1944, along the northern coastline of France in a place called Normandy, the future of civilization hung in the balance. At 6:30 a.m. on June 6, the first wave of American troops landed at a place called Omaha Beach. As their Higgins boat troop carriers opened, 18- and 19- year-old young men from cities and farms, from New York to Nebraska, were asked to do the impossible--dash across hundreds of yards of open beach with no cover, in the face of a hail of German machine gun fire and mortars, and take the high ground.

Somehow, someway, they did this. They withstood the violence and made their way to the steep hillside.

Mr. Speaker, last winter I stood where those soldiers landed, at water's edge, and looked across that beach. It is hard to get the mind around the chaos of that day, to feel what they felt as the horror unfolded before them.

I made my way to that steep hillside, now so peaceful and lovely, and stood in a German machine gun bunker. A young German soldier named Severloh manned the machine gun that day. And in a book that he wrote shortly before he died a few years ago, Severloh said that he wept as he fired his gun at the slaughter that unfolded before him.

I walked around the nearby American cemetery, with its orderly rows of white crosses testifying to the dear price our soldiers paid. I stopped at the grave of a young man named Billy D. Harris, from Oklahoma. Billy D. Harris had married young and died young. His wife didn't know that her husband had been killed and buried there until about 10 years ago. Such is the chaos of war. She never remarried. She had all her hopes that her husband would one day return to her.

I proceeded on to the little town of Sainte-Mere-Eglise, where our airborne troops landed the night before the D-day invasion.

Some fell into the town square occupied by Germans. One soldier's parachute got caught on the church roof and he hung there as the battle raged below. A replica of the parachute and soldier still hangs from the church today.

In August of 1944, a young medical doctor left his wife and two children and entered the Army. He was first headquartered at a hospital in England, where the last official records show that he was located. As Patton's Army moved against the Germans, Captain Luther Sexton Fortenberry went into action in France, probably to begin field operations there. In November of 1944, he was killed by ordnance explosion. He was my grandfather. He was initially buried at the cemetery at Sainte-Mere-Eglise. Now he is reinterred here in Washington at Arlington National Cemetery.

As part of our civic life, Mr. Speaker, we honor the memory of all those who have served us. We all know of the great battles and heroic sacrifices at places like Bunker Hill, Omaha Beach, Khe Sanh, and Fallujah. What we do not know are the untold stories, witnessed by no one, of Americans who fought it out to the death to preserve our country. We also do not know the untold stories of the many who left their families and quietly performed their duty with no questions or demands made; the veterans who maintained tanks and aircraft, cooked, computed, cleaned, and drove.

Today, we honor our loved ones and ancestors lost long ago as well as those who have left us more recently. The sting of loss is not so distant for some whose loved ones have given their lives of late in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of the American soldiers who have been killed there, 72 were Nebraskans.

Like so many of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I have attended many funerals and memorial services for those who have been killed from my district. I have seen many of the families bravely bear the weight of this devastation. I have seen communities come together to honor their local heroes and to help bring healing to these hurting families. I could not be more proud of these patriots and their family members for their remarkable bravery, their remarkable honor, their character, their selflessness--young men and women of the highest caliber who, like so many before them, gave themselves for their country, fighting courageously for America and our ideals of liberty, equality, and justice for which they died.

Mr. Speaker, I was recently contacted by the family of John Douangdara. John and his family are new Americans. His parents came here from Laos. He was killed several years ago when his helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan. You may remember the incident. We lost 30 servicemembers that day. On Memorial Day, John's family is gathering in South Sioux City, Nebraska, to erect a statue in his honor. I'm grateful--no, perhaps privileged--to be asked to join them on that day.

Like his fellow soldiers, John Douangdara was an American. He was loyal. He was brave. And now he is free. His sacrifice, and the sacrifice of all American veterans, brings to mind the seriousness of our time.

Memorial Day is an especially important time of reflection for lawmakers. We carry a tremendous responsibility to recognize the real- life consequences behind our policy deliberations, analyses, and votes.

On that first Decoration Day in 1868, Major General John Logan offered his posts these words as he ordered them to decorate the graves of the war dead. He said this, Mr. Speaker:

We should guard their graves with sacred vigilance. Let

pleasant paths invite the coming and going of reverent

visitors and fond mourners. Let no neglect, no ravages of

time, testify to the present or to the coming generations

that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and

undivided Republic.

Mr. Speaker, during a visit to a nearby hospital to see our wounded here in Washington, there was a soldier there whose wounds were pretty devastating. As I was leaving, I noticed there was a sign hanging on the outside of his door.

It said: America--home of the free because of the brave.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the past few weeks, it seems as if you can't turn on the news without hearing of another drama, of another crisis in Washington undermining confidence in our government, whether it's Benghazi, the IRS, the Department of Justice, or the Department of Health and Human Services. It's hard to know what may be next.

Mr. Speaker, there is an age-old expression that goes like this: be careful to whom you give a gun and a badge.

Authority is a very delicate matter. A well-functioning government must ensure that those who are in positions of influence are committed to serving the public with impartiality and fairness. Recent revelations have done much to undermine the public trust.

Mr. Speaker, 8 months ago, our Ambassador to Libya was killed along with three other Americans. Not only is this an affront to America because we lost our Ambassador; it is also an attack on our Nation, and it undermines the international rule of law. The process by which we have tried to unpack the details of this attack has been careening all over the place. Even after several committee hearings on Benghazi, including a Foreign Affairs Committee hearing in which I participated last December, a core question remains unanswered:

Who said ``stand down'' when reinforcements were called for?

Now, there may be legitimate military and diplomatic reasoning here, but we simply need to know the answer to that question; or this could have been a very serious mistake with the gravest of consequences.

In the past week, we've learned of discrimination against specific groups by the Internal Revenue Service. These reports are causing a firestorm across our country. Our sensitivities are rightly heightened when it comes to the collection of taxes. No one wants to pay taxes, but we must have a revenue-collecting agency in order to have a functioning Federal Government. It is unconscionable, though, that this agency targeted citizens because of their political or religious beliefs.

The IRS, of all agencies, must be held to the highest of high standards of fairness and impartiality. The reported actions seriously undermine the foundation of trust necessary between citizens and their government. That's why, this week, the Taxpayer Nondiscrimination and Protection Act was introduced with my support. The legislation puts meaningful penalties in place when this foundation of trust is violated, penalties that could include prison time.

Perhaps it's also time for the IRS to implement a new policy. Everyone they are auditing, or perhaps have audited in the past 3 years, must be provided with a fuller explanation as to why they're going through this process so as to ensure that there is no improper targeting of American citizens based upon their religious or political beliefs. Just this morning, a friend of mine texted me, and another one called me just yesterday, worried that the audits that were undertaken against them were due to their own political leanings and engagements.

Mr. Speaker, the real issue is this: Just how deep and wide is the mind-set that pervaded the IRS that did target Americans based upon their religious or political leanings?

On another issue, we are learning that the Department of Justice seized phone records of Associated Press reporters, including records of their personal phone lines. Now, the ability to wiretap and probe needs to be in place in narrow circumstances, but the wide-ranging nature of what happened raises a number of questions, questions that beg us to ask: How do we protect the freedom of the press?

Another problem that hasn't been widely discussed is that the Department of Health and Human Services, in effect, is also targeting people based upon their beliefs. The Department is forcing Americans to pay for drugs and procedures that many find to be inconsistent with their deeply held, reasonable beliefs or their religious traditions. When the President introduced his health care plan, he told Americans that if they liked their health insurance, they could keep it. Now we are finding in some cases that you cannot keep your doctor, that you cannot keep your own health care plan, and now you may not even be able to keep your own faith tradition. This is a form of coercion that sets up a false choice and is un-American.

All of these events are converging to erode confidence in Washington. Now, thankfully, many of these concerns actually cross the political aisle. There is bipartisan concern. These are American issues, and these events underscore why we actually do have a balance of power in Washington. There is an executive branch that enforces the law, and there is a legislative branch that writes the law. The legislative branch also has the duty to provide oversight over the executive branch, which is a duty that Congress now is rightly embracing.

It is important that in each instance here the truth is uncovered and that swift and appropriate actions are taken to help restore confidence in the impartiality, fairness, and competence of the Federal Government.

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

Mr. Speaker, America wants Congress to get things done, and lately that's been pretty tough. A deep philosophical divide often separates us, but there are certain things that have to get done. The military has to protect our country, and America has to care for her veterans.

While Congress is stuck in many areas, both parties this morning took a unified step forward in defense of our country and in service to our veterans. Mr. Speaker, in a small hearing room right below here, the Military Construction and Veterans Appropriations Committee said ``yes'' in a bipartisan manner to meet our Defense Department infrastructure needs and to properly care for our veterans.

The bill spends a little less than the President asked for and a little more than last year. Projects not justified are removed, others are properly funded. The bill also compels both the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs to use a single integrated electronic health record, ensuring a seamless transition of care for our warfighters leaving service.

Mr. Speaker, this morning we got to a ``yes'' on that which is essential and right.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes it's just so bad that we don't even want to look at it. Sometimes it's just so awful we want to turn our face away. But we can't.

Shayquana Abrams was a 17-year-old when she went to see a doctor named Gosnell. He performed an abortion on her. Afterwards, she was diagnosed with a grapefruit-sized abscess and a clot near her heart. It took her 2 years to recover. She was just a child, Mr. Speaker.

This Dr. Gosnell waged his own private war on women. And for what? For profit.

Now, thankfully, he's on trial; and, thankfully, more and more people are learning about this.

Maybe, Mr. Speaker, we just don't want to look because it is so awful. Maybe it's challenging our very premises, our very understanding of what this choice for abortion really leads to. But we have to look, and we have to recognize how deeply we are inflicting wounds upon our very selves.

Mr. Speaker, women deserve better. Our Nation can do better. Why not help young women like Shayquana and let the healing begin?