Jeff Fortenberry

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. 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.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. 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.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. 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. FORTENBERRY

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

Mr. FORTENBERRY. 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.

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

Mr. FORTENBERRY. 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. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

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

Mr. FORTENBERRY. 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.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. 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. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. 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. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. 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.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. 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.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. 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.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. 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.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. 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.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. 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.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. 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.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. 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. FORTENBERRY. 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.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. 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.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. 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.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. 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.