Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to visit on this. I do believe in an individual's right to earn a living, to start a business, to earn a profit, to grow that business, and to expand to meet new market opportunities without government interference.

And I also believe that should be specifically available to dairy farmers as well.

But in the dairy program before us today, that flies in the face of this right. Government should not have the power to tell dairy farmers that they won't be paid for the milk they produce.

I think it's completely hypocritical for Members of this body to come to the floor and rail against market manipulation by Big Business, then turn around and say Washington should do the same thing.

We should support the Goodlatte-Scott amendment. We should oppose government control and interference in the marketplace, and we should support dairy freedom, growth, and opportunity.

There are numerous dairy families across this country, but one in particular in my district, the McCarty family, please let them have the opportunity to grow their business. Give them that chance. If we adopt the language as is, it will restrict their ability to grow their business.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today along with several of my colleagues to offer what we believe should be the first step in serious reform of a SNAP program, also known as food stamps.

It has been said we should judge the success of government programs not by the number of people receiving the benefits but by the number of people who no longer need them.

As a result of the bipartisan work reforms in the TANF program in 1996, after that period we saw a 57 percent reduction in the number of people on TANF. This amendment would take the most successful welfare reform in the history of this country, signed into law by President Bill Clinton and passed by a Republican Congress, and apply it to now the largest means-tested assistance program we have. That's what that amendment would do.

In addition to applying that successful work requirement, we would have additional reforms in terms of LIHEAP and a few other items that would provide additional savings in the food stamp program.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to a member of the Ag Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the balance of the time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate waiting on a few other folks to speak.

One thing I would like to point out, I appreciate the arguments of my colleague from Texas that indicates these are commonsense reforms. I think most Americans agree, let's help folks that are in need, but we probably shouldn't help those who don't actually

qualify for food stamps. With the adoption of this amendment, it will require folks that would like to receive food stamps--SNAP benefits--to actually have to qualify for them instead of being qualified through another program.

It was also noted about the impact of these reforms and their potential impact on cuts. Let's look at a little history of this particular program. In 2002, in the 2002 farm bill, $270 billion was the spending level--$270 billion. In the 2008 farm bill, it was approximately $400 billion. If this amendment is adopted, the spending level would be $733 billion. Only in Washington could you say going from $270 billion to $733 billion is a cut.

These are commonsense reforms. These a few decades ago were considered bipartisan reforms to encourage people to look for work, to encourage people to get a job.

I agree with my colleagues: there isn't a person in America I don't think that wouldn't rather have a paycheck rather than a SNAP check or a SNAP card, or a Vision card if you're in the State of Kansas.

These are very commonsense reforms. They will work. They are good for Americans. They are good for our taxpayers. They are good for the people receiving benefits. We have 47 million Americans receiving food stamps today. Please, let's ask them--require them--to actually go out and look for jobs. They might actually find them.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Thank you, Congresswoman Hartzler. I appreciate you leading our efforts and discussion tonight on a very important topic. Obviously, as you do mention, it is oftentimes a forgotten topic. I'm certain we all have our stories about our dads, and I was really blessed and still blessed with a very active and involved father. I will just say as a farm kid, probably the most poignant story I do recall with my dad was after a hailstorm. You know, being a farm gal yourself, the damage a hailstorm does to the family, does to the economy, and does to your crops. We were sitting out in the yard, and there were 3 or 4 inches of hail all around. And we listened to it bounce off the roof of the pickup for 30 minutes, and then it stopped. I said, Oh, gosh what's going to happen next? What's dad going to say?

He put the pickup in gear, and then we drove around in silence for another hour, and then we got out and we went back to work. That's the kind of message that I learned from my dad--you don't give up. You roll with the punches, and you keep doing that.

But tonight, I don't want to talk just about my father or my children, although I would love to do that. My wife and I have not been blessed with any of our own biological children. We have been blessed with four adopted children. So there are four sets of moms and dads out there that have dedicated children that are in our care.

One thing I do want to speak directly to fathers who are listening today, and fathers, I want to challenge you to be a hero for your children. I want to challenge you to be responsible, committed husbands to the mothers of your children. I challenge you to live out fatherhood courageously, but to live this courageous, responsible, heroic role as father, it requires marriage: marriage truly understood as the exclusive and permanent union between one man and one woman coming together to become husband and wife, mother and father to the children.

I would also like to speak to all of America, as I know my colleague has done. It is vital that we encourage fatherhood in the context of marriage and uphold policies that reflect the truth, the truth that fathers are not optional, but they play a vital role to their families, and restoring America must begin on the home front. It begins with encouraging and supporting committed, responsible fatherhood in the context of marriage.

We know who the victims of the vicious fatherless cycle are: they are our children. It is our children, the children of America, who are left to suffer the scars of the abandonment of their absentee fathers. As my colleague noted and quoted the President, he was accurate when he said we know the statistics, and yet I'll repeat them because they're so powerful:

Children who grow up without a father are four times more

likely to live in poverty and to commit crime; nine times

more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely

to have behavioral problems or run away from home. The

foundations of our community are weaker because of

fatherlessness.

Furthermore, absent fathers don't just hurt our children, they wound society. It is a fact that the welfare state has to expand when marriage and families decline. It has been estimated over $229 billion in welfare costs from 1970 to 1996 can be attributed to the breakdown of marriage. And specifically, a study in 2008, 1 year alone, estimating that divorce and unwed childbearing cost American taxpayers over $120 billion a year.

This was a study of more than 5 or 6 years ago. Where there are absentee fathers, it's you, I, your families, our families, our communities, our churches, our neighbors, our cities, and the government, we're all forced to step in and try to pick up the broken pieces of these shattered marriages.

This is not fair to mothers and children. Wives deserve committed husbands. Children deserve protective, responsible fathers.

The facts speak for themselves. But one story I will note, and then I'll close quickly, is it was not far from here a few weeks ago I was crossing a crowded street here in Washington, D.C., and there was a line of kids. I think they were with a babysitter. And there was about a 2-year-old young boy, and he looked at his babysitter as he's crossing the street. She's dragging him across. And he asked again, I could hear him. He says, ``Who is my daddy? Who is my daddy?'' And that babysitter didn't have an answer. ``Shhh. Don't worry about that.'' He kept asking the question, ``Who is my daddy?''

We should have an answer. We should have an answer for that little boy. We

should have an answer because we should know. We should expect, we should demand, we should promote, we should push fathers, encourage them, demand of them to hold up their responsibilities, because there is a disease in America, and it's the disease of fatherlessness.

We must overcome the myths in society that see no difference in whether a mom or a dad is involved in a child's life, because it is, there is no doubt. You can look at tons and tons of social science data over and over. It's very clear.

But for that 2-year-old boy, that 3-year-old boy, we have to have an answer who is his daddy. And the daddy is not the government. He has a daddy. He should be involved. Our policies should reflect that goal, because every child deserves both a mom and a dad.

And I look forward, hopefully, as we continue to press forward and solve these problems, we promote marriage and promote fatherhood.

I appreciate your leadership tonight, Vicky, for your efforts here.

I thank the chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to visit here today.

First, I'd like to visit about two heroes in the history of our country. One would be Father Emil Kapaun. I had the honor of being at the White House a couple of months ago where he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his bravery in action of ministering to the needs of not only men and women of faith, but those who claim to have no faith.

In addition, I have the honor of being the nephew of a 95-year-old Army chaplain who also has been honored for serving, ministering to the needs of men and women in uniform.

One thing I will want to note is, instead of being dismissive of those types of sacrifices, I will read a little bit from the duties of the Chaplain Corps: ``Each chaplain shall hold appropriate religious services at least once on each Sunday.'' Or the Navy and Marines say: ``An officer in the Chaplain Corps may conduct public worship according to the manner and forms of the church of which he is a member'' and ``shall cause divine service to be performed on Sunday.'' It goes on and on. Obviously, that's our understanding of the chaplaincy.

Madam Chair, how is it that one can hold a religious service for an organization, as the amendment puts it, that does not consider itself to be a religion? It's completely contrary to the directions, instructions, and the very definition of the Chaplain Corps, represented by Father Emil Kapaun and numerous others, to extend appointments to groups in manners suggested by this amendment.

When you take away the worship, the prayer, everything that makes a religious service religious, you are left with counselors, as has been indicated. There are humanist, atheist, and ethical culturalist counselors available to folks that serve our country. In addition, I'm certain every chaplain that serves our brave men and women are available for those who do not share their faith, and that's the case.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and be very supportive of our current brave men and women who serve alongside our members of the Armed Forces.

I want to thank the chairman for yielding to me. I appreciate, especially, his efforts on the NDAA last year in which we were able to add language that would require the Department of Defense to adopt new regulations to protect the religious liberties of our military personnel, especially of our brave chaplains.

However, since March and since the adoption of that law, we have sent three letters to the Department of Defense, asking for progress updates. The Department has only responded with an acknowledgment that it has received our letters, but, to date, we are unaware of any progress. Instead, it seems that secretive meetings continue with individuals actually opposed to religious liberties.

In light of this delay, my amendment is very simple. It would require the Department to provide Congress with a report of meetings between employees and civilians with respect to the development of military policy related to religious liberty. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Thank you, Congressman Fortenberry. It is a pleasure to be here. I will warn you, as I will warn those who are listening, I'm going to try to be frank. And obviously, short, candid and truthful. But I think it may be uncomfortable to hear what is happening.

Simply put, the HHS mandate is a religion tax. You heard me right. If you morally or ethically disagree with the abortion, drugs, contraception, sterilization, it doesn't matter, under the President's health care plan, you will pay for it for your employees, for your family, and for yourself even if you don't want it. If you dare to follow your conscience and actually practice your faith and refuse to participate, you will be fined. You will be taxed. You will be forced to give your hard-earned money to Washington, even if you morally disagree.

That, my fellow Americans, is a religion tax; a faith tax; a tax on conscience; a tax on our freedom of religion. It's a shocking attack on that first right in the First Amendment, the right to believe in and follow the God we choose. As of now, there have been 31 lawsuits by nonprofits filed over the HHS mandate, another 30 lawsuits filed by for profit. These include hospitals, businesses, charities, religious colleges, Catholic dioceses, and many others. Let me illustrate the impact, particularly with Catholic services.

One in six patients in America are treated in Catholic hospitals. Catholic Charities provides an estimated 334 orphanages, feeds millions of Americans each year, serves thousands of our homeless each year, and the mandate punishes these individuals for feeding the homeless, takes away help for the sick, starves the hungry, and punishes the entrepreneur. Since the initial announcement, the administration has issued multiple updates claiming to modify the mandate. These are simply deceitful smoke screens. And even if some accommodation did exist in the language, the First Amendment is to be protected, not accommodated.

It's kind of like accommodating our freedom of speech by saying you use your freedom of speech on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, but Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, that's probably not permitted. We should ask ourselves: How can the beacon of freedom known as America become home to religious intolerance on such a massive scale?

Frankly, there is a war on religious liberty in this country, and there is no one to ride in defense. It is up to us. We must be ever- vigilant in defense of our God-given rights. We must be ever vigilant in safeguarding the protections in law for those rights. We must be ever-vigilant in standing for that first right of that First Amendment, religious liberty.

Thank you for your leadership, Congressman.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the topic of NBAF. As has been mentioned by my colleague from Kansas, currently in the United States there is not a single research facility that is able to conduct research at Biosafety Level 4.

The NBAF facility being discussed here today and that would be funded in this particular bill will provide critical research in areas, again, that are not able to be researched currently in this country--things such as African swine fever, Rift Valley fever, the Nipah virus, and the Hendra virus.

I repeat. We currently, as a country, without this facility, are required to outsource this particular research to other countries.

As a Kansas farmer and rancher, I recognize the critical damage that would be done to our livestock industries if we do not proceed forth with construction of NBAF.

Indeed, shovels are being turned in Manhattan, Kansas, today. The central utility plant that is related to this, construction is proceeding underway. The State of Kansas has agreed to pay a substantial sum to assist for the cost of construction of this facility.

And, as was indicated earlier, the current facility that served for over 50 years is aging at Plum Island and needs to be replaced. The Manhattan, Kansas, site was selected by a panel of more than 25 scientists. DHS and USDA experts agree this is the best place to build NBAF and provide the critical research that is necessary not just to protect the outbreak of foreign animal diseases that might be accidental, but to protect America and our livestock industries from mass destruction from terrorism and numerous other attacks that could use these particular foreign animal diseases and other things.

One other connection I will note: these are diseases that in many cases not only impact the livestock industries, but are zoonotic and can impact humans. This research needs to be done. We need to continue with construction in order to protect our livestock and our human health in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, today marks the tragic anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre in China. On this day, 24 years ago, the Chinese government harshly cracked down on pro-democracy, freedom- seeking student protesters and murdered hundreds, possibly thousands of peaceful demonstrators. Simply put, these men and women demanded and deserved liberty and died striving for this basic human urge. This is why it is crucial that we rededicate ourselves to defending and protecting the Constitution upon which our great nation was formed. As long as we fight to uphold this inspired document, we protect human liberty; we defend freedom; we give life to people's dreams; we empower hardworking families and individuals. This is a sacred duty we must not take lightly--especially as we remember the brave victims of Tiananmen Square.

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

Mr. Chairman, I won't take quite that long, but I appreciate the opportunity to visit about this amendment. I have always thought bonuses and performance awards to employees should only be given out to those who go above and beyond the expectations laid out in their job description. An end-of-the-year bonus should never be an assumed addition to an employee's paycheck, but the Department of Veterans Affairs apparently takes a very different approach to performance awards for many of their employees, particularly top-level administrators and supervisors.

As a member of the VA Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, we've held multiple hearings on the mismanagement and negligence of Federal employees at the VA. What's worse, many of these individuals have been rewarded for their behavior.

We're all aware of the situation at the VA Pittsburgh health care system and the outbreak of Legionnaires' disease, but how many of us know that the individual in charge received a bonus for the very year that we potentially had five deaths from that outbreak that could have been prevented?

At another hearing conducted by our Oversight Investigations Committee, I recently asked a VA bureaucrat who had missed deadlines and overspent on VA construction projects of over a billion dollars to explain why he deserved $55,000 in bonuses. In our exchange, he had no idea--claimed to have no idea why he received this bonus; and, actually, neither did I, Mr. Chairman.

Earlier this afternoon, much more troubling, we had another VA Oversight hearing where it was revealed that potentially up to 20 million veterans' records have been hacked and perhaps accessed by foreign state actors, and the individual in charge of the security during these last 4 years when this apparently occurred has received over $87,000 in bonuses. This has become a trend within the VA departments, and I believe taxpayer dollars would be better directed towards protecting the sensitive records of our veterans and their dependents and improving veterans' health care options.

I support this amendment. I am glad my colleague from Pennsylvania has offered it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained by weather related flight delays on Monday, May 20, 2013 and missed rollcall votes 161, 162 and 163.

Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: ``yea'' on rollcall No. 161; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 162; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 163.

Mr. Speaker, President Obama and his legislative supporters promised us many things in ObamaCare. Some folks might call this misinformation, but today I call them whoppers.

Whopper No. 1: we were promised ObamaCare will reduce the deficit. Instead, according to the report from the nonpartisan GAO, ObamaCare will increase the Federal deficit by $6.2 trillion.

Secretary Sebelius, whopper No. 2: health insurance for all. She has now admitted up to 24 million Americans will lose their current health insurance.

No. 3: we were promised it will not fund abortions. Yet for the first time in decades, Americans will be forced to fund abortions through Federal insurance subsidies.

Whopper No. 4: it will create jobs. A recent nonpartisan study concluded that ObamaCare's employer mandate can put up to 3.2 million American jobs at risk.

No. 5: we were promised it will strengthen Medicare but, instead, ObamaCare contains $700 billion in cuts to Medicare and allows a bureaucratic, unelected, unaccountable panel to make these massive cuts to Medicare.

Whopper No. 6: we were promised that ObamaCare respects religious liberty. Nineteen courts disagree because the HHS mandate requires all employers to pay for insurance, including abortion drugs, irrespective of any moral objections.

Whopper No. 7: health insurance will go down, they promised. But instead, every estimate, every estimate provided by insurance providers indicates premiums will increase anywhere from 20 to 400 percent.

Whopper No. 8: it is not a tax. If it's not a tax, why does the IRS need 2,000 more agents just to implement ObamaCare? Because of the 21 tax hikes included in the bill.

And last of all and, most importantly, the biggest whopper of all: if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. My constituents, your constituents have shared real life story after story about how they will lose the coverage they like once the individual mandate goes into effect. And the CBO estimates up to 7 million Americans may lose their employer-sponsored health insurance plan.

Mr. Speaker, it's time to stop telling whoppers and start speaking the truth. It's time to repeal ObamaCare now.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, President Obama claimed that the IRS was an ``independent agency.'' Mr. President, that is not true. As your chart shows, the President can remove both the Treasury Secretary and the IRS Commissioner at will. They both serve at the pleasure of President Barack Obama.

In recent weeks, months, and perhaps years, President Obama has increasingly claimed little or no responsibility for the actions of his administration. Whether it is the Benghazi coverups, the ObamaCare failures, or this targeting of conservative groups by the IRS, President Obama has flipped the moniker of President Truman on its head. Instead of ``the buck stops here,'' Obama's theme has become ``the buck never stops here.''

The evidence is clear. The IRS targeted Tea Party and other conservative groups, and the IRS Commissioner knew about it. This gross misuse of political power is an absolute outrage.

Mr. President, the IRS Commissioner and the Treasury Secretary serve at your will, and thus, the responsibility for their outrageous actions falls squarely on your shoulders.

Mr. Speaker, there's been a lot of talk in recent months about a ``war on women,'' but those using the term to attack pro-life supporters should look a little closer to home for the real war on women.

Abortion proponents would like us to believe that the atrocities being discussed at the murder trial of Philadelphia abortion provider Gosnell are neither standard nor acceptable practice in the abortion industry. But evidence indicates otherwise.

The so-called Aid For Women abortion clinic in Kansas City has also been the subject of several investigations into the care provided to women and the cleanliness of the facility with reports very similar to those coming out of the Gosnell trial.

And with abortion providers all up and down the east coast referring patients to Gosnell's clinic, I find it hard to believe that no one knew of the conditions, the wretched conditions at this clinic. That is where the real war on women and war on children is occurring.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained by the Medal of Honor ceremony for Father Emil Kapaun on Thursday, April 11th and missed rollcall votes 97, 98 and 99.

Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: ``yea'' on rollcall No. 97, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 98, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 99.

Mr. Speaker, this week the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments on two cases that are fundamental to the way our democratic society functions. Tuesday they will consider a challenge to California's ``Proposition 8'' prohibiting homosexual marriage in the state. And on Wednesday they will look at the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

In the midst of all the discussion and protest surrounding these arguments, I would encourage the Court to not be distracted from the fundamental issue before them--will the U.S. Supreme Court choose to radically redefine marriage, thus overturning the will of the American people as reflected in numerous votes by states, and by a vote of this body and signed into law by President Bill Clinton?

I urge the Supreme Court to uphold the will of the American people, support traditional marriage, and protect the democratic process by allowing the American people to express their will on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, next week an important issue will be coming before our United States Supreme Court, and that is a challenge to our Defense of Marriage Act and a challenge to a proposition in the State of California.

I would encourage the Court to not be distracted by many issues circulating. The fundamental issue before the Court is this: the U.S. Supreme Court attempt to provide a radical 50-State mandate to change the definition of marriage.

I encourage the Court to uphold marriage and to uphold the will of the people represented in a vote in California and many other States, as well as a vote of the Defense of Marriage Act by this body and signed by President Bill Clinton. Uphold the will of the people. Uphold the definition of marriage. I appreciate the Supreme Court sticking to those points.