Jeff Fortenberry

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you, Congresswoman Black. We are so grateful for your leadership. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. 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. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. 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. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. 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!

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. 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. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. 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.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. 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. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. 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. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. 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?

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, we are all still reeling from the senseless violence that was perpetrated on the community of Boston. I live a long way from Boston; but, like many Americans, I'm trying to make sense of the senseless. How can someone so cowardly kill with such randomness--targeting innocent people who just wanted to enjoy a great American tradition in a great American city? Last night, I read a Boston Globe article about the attack. Two runners, a father and a daughter, were in the 26th mile when they heard the explosions. Natalie Stavas' immediate reaction was to run to the scene, as depleted as she was, leaping over a barricade. The police then yelled at her to stop, but she yelled back, ``I'm a pediatric doctor; you have to let me through.'' She began to tend to the wounded. Her father, Dr. Joe Stavas, noticed that the other runners were quickly growing cold. He tended to an elderly man who had no pulse and who was experiencing hypothermia. Both Natalie and Joe are Nebraskans--good Americans who reacted with great selflessness in the midst of great tragedy.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, we engage in so much Washington speak in our debates--words like ``sequestration,'' ``continuing resolutions,'' and ``debt ceiling''--that the structure of our debates, I feel, can be off-putting to many Americans. So let's try to be a little more straightforward. The reality is that we have a huge mismatch between revenues and expenditures. We all know that this is a struggle, but we have to get our fiscal house in order, just like American families do, businesses do and even local governments do; but instead of hashing through the same old debates, perhaps there is an easier way forward. Right here, Mr. Speaker, is a Government Accountability Office report that came out this week. It's a new report that builds upon former reports. There are more than 300 areas in which we can tackle redundant spending across the Federal Government. So here is the right place to start, Mr. Speaker--in delivering a smarter and more effective government while also saving money.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak today about the sequestration and fiscal affairs facing our country. Earlier this month, I was back home in Lincoln, and I went to one of the local diners and saw my friend Norm, and Norm asked me a question. He said: Jeff, what are they doing about that word they keep using in Washington? Well, Norm was referring to ``sequestration,'' which took effect March 1. ``Sequestration'' is that inside-the-Beltway term for automatic spending reductions to the Federal budget. These reductions will be $85 billion in the first year, with roughly half applied to military programs and half applied basically to everything else the government does, with the exception of retirement, health care, and other income support programs. Mr. Speaker, I think it might help everyone if we had a little bit of history to clarify how we got to this moment. A year-and-a-half ago, there were negotiations in Washington over what we call the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling must be lifted by us in Congress if the Federal Government cannot pay its bills and we must borrow more. We give that authority to the administration. The negotiation ended with three outcomes: First, Congress would cut spending by an amount greater than the rise in the debt ceiling; Second, a supercommittee would be formed to negotiate the right type of tax reform and the right type of spending reductions; Third, automatic spending cuts, now known as the sequester, would take place--this was proposed by the President and agreed upon by us in Congress--if this supercommittee failed. These automatic cuts to the budget, the sequestration, were supposed to be so distasteful to everyone that it was going to motivate us all to find creative and reasonable solutions to fix the budget crisis. But the supercommittee failed; now the sequester has kicked in. Mr. Speaker, 70 percent of Americans want this deficit reduced. I imagine those numbers are probably higher in Nebraska, where I live, where fiscal responsibility is a core characteristic of family life, business ethics, as well as good governance. People know economically, mathematically, or intuitively that you can't spend more than you have. Citizens also want to see their government act in a reasonable fashion. Mr. Speaker, the Federal budget deficit has been running more than $1 trillion in the last few years, and our cumulative debt will top $17 trillion this year, the size of our overall economic output in the country. The overspending and debt are serious impediments to economic recovery, and they also create national security problems. Some in Washington want to halt any spending reductions at all. I don't believe this is an option. Washington must begin living in the real world. Something must be done. Two principles should be at work here: there must be reasonable budgetary reductions, while at the same time there must be deliberate delivery of smart and effective government services. While the sequester serves as a trigger for the first principle, it does not balance it with the second. Automatic cuts do not allow for discretion in determining which programs should stay or expand and which should be revised or eliminated due to ineffectiveness. The sequestration also hits our military in a disproportionate manner and disrupts procurement and planning decisions that cannot operate on a short-term budgetary horizon. Mr. Speaker, we should keep the spirit of the sequestration--and preserve the fullness of these reductions-- but continue to revise its implementation with the flexibility to make more precise cutbacks. The House recently passed a funding bill for the remainder of the fiscal year which gives the military this needed flexibility. Mr. Speaker, as well, the Appropriations Committee recently held a hearing with the head of the Government Accountability Office, known as the GAO. I raised the issue of GAO findings that cited 132 areas within the Federal Government with duplicative missions, with about 300 potential areas of action items that could be undertaken to tackle this redundancy problem. Consolidation of programs could officially save tens of billions of dollars, and unofficial estimates put that number in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Further questioning revealed that there is approximately $385 billion of uncollected Federal revenue. The GAO report could serve as a guidepost on how we might achieve the right balance between reductions and more effective service delivery. All in all, the fiscal disorder in Washington, Mr. Speaker, and the inability to budget in a responsible manner is undermining the ability of our economy to turn around. The careening from one governmental drama to another is undermining confidence in the institutions of government. While it is painful, the sequestration is serving as a call to all of us to promptly budget with propriety and boldness to get America's fiscal house in order. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

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

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, this Friday, hundreds of thousands of people will gather in Washington for a peaceful march, exercising the most American of values--the right to assemble and the right to freedom of speech. Among the people who will come are multitudes of young persons from all over America--young people who are the inheritors of the great civil rights traditions of this land. These young people are pro-life. Mr. Speaker, they're really saying something pretty simple. They are saying that the time for honesty has come, that the time for a new national conversation has come, that the time for the violence to end has come, and that the time since the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand some 40 years ago has inflicted a deep wound on ourselves and the very soul of this country. Over the past few decades, we have witnessed an evolving desensitization to abortion. It has become too easy to think of abortion as a procedure, as something clinical, somehow normal, removed. Disguised in the mantle and vocabulary of health, minds and hearts can easily become numb to what abortion really is, to what it really does and to who really dies. But the youth among us, they know better. They know that women deserve better. Abortion is so often the result of abandonment. A woman, in not knowing where to turn, falls into the grasps of the abortion industry, which says, We can quietly make this go away. There are no consequences here; just pay over there. But the consequences are so very real. Abortion is an act of violence. The woman so often carries the wound from this act of violence imposed upon her. Her unborn child dies. The abortion industry profits from this pain, and the other responsible party--the man--escapes his responsibilities. This is why the early feminist movement saw abortion as another form of male domination over women. Mr. Speaker, young people, they know this. They sense this. They know instinctively that the Supreme Court's decision was a dinosaur decision, not based on science. They know that the consequences of abortion are very real, and they're simply saying there's a better way. There has to be a better way. We should be loving enough and caring enough. We certainly are big enough. We certainly have resources enough to rally as a community and help a person no matter how difficult her circumstances. They are saying no woman should be left alone or in isolation. We are a community committed to the beautiful gift of life. Mr. Speaker, that's the message from these young people who will gather by the tens of thousands this Friday in Washington, and I'm proud to stand with them. With that, I yield to my good friend, Congressman Smith.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. If the gentleman would perhaps be interested in entering into a bit of a dialogue, and I'm sorry I missed your earlier statement, but let me say to you, thank you for your stalwart leadership, your deep commitment to the beautiful gift of life, for saying to America consistently, constantly, fervently, with heart and emotion for 30-plus years, I think you've been here.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. There is a better way. We can do better than this. Women deserve better. But in your last comment, you touched upon the issue of sex-selected abortion, and I wonder if in your earlier comments you talked about policies, such as the one-child policy in China, which are taking hold, sadly, in other parts of South Asia, how they are affecting population imbalance and how it ends up being the little girls, the unborn little girls who are primarily the targets of these state-imposed coercions on families. So you have this very significant imbalance in the population because of the targeting of unborn little girls in the womb for sex-selected abortion. Perhaps you touched on that earlier.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. It's a very important part of this overall discussion, to talk about the consequences of where all of this leads. And in a country like China, which has imposed this brutality upon its own people, the women who have come here undercover, we've had them in our hearings. They've had to be behind screens because they fear reprisal from the Chinese Government toward their families, who've talked about being victimized by coercive abortion, that issue plus the issue of how this is created, and it is targeted primarily at unborn girls, the grave injustice of that. I know you're so learned and have such details on that subject, perhaps you can re-raise that if you didn't earlier talk about it.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. If the gentleman would yield for a moment, I think it's important, an important tangent. It's not tangential. It's an element of this discussion because it shows once we give up on this basic fundamental human right, once we let go of our civil rights tradition and we don't include every person, including those who are most vulnerable in the womb, we can see the consequences. Maybe not here just yet, to a large degree, but we can certainly see the consequences of what I talked about earlier in terms of the desensitization of what abortion really is. So in other places it's lent itself to coercive population control, and even to the shocking horror of taking the life of little girls simply because they're a girl. Now, that still bothers our conscience here in this country, but you can see how it's related to the deeper problem of once we start down this pathway, we desensitize ourselves to the hard, to the important reality that the life within is deserving of protection; that women who perhaps are in very difficult circumstances deserve better than this, deserve a fullness of commitment from you and me and the United States Congress and communities of concern everywhere that there is a better way. We do not have to do this to one another. We do not have to impose this wound upon women. We do not have to think in this paradigm when there are hard circumstances. We can do it differently. And I think it's important to have a discussion about the broader consequences of what is happening all around us because we desensitize ourselves in what I call a dinosaur decision, because it wasn't based on science. We didn't have the fullness of technology back then, which fortunately helped so many of us understand just how that small, tiny little life is viable, is real, and is growing and can reach its fullness of potentiality if we just nurture it. And sometimes people who are in circumstances that are tough and difficult and need a little help with that nurturing, they deserve that support and help. That's our message. That's our message. So if we can turn this back and build upon a new ideal that life is beautiful, life is a gift, it is worthy of support, not only just from individuals but from the culture at large, I think we'll go a long way towards stopping this aggressive, horrific assault that is happening, primarily in other places but is a threat to potentially happen here, where you're even going so far as to select out the little girl for termination because she's a girl. This is particularly hard for me, to be honest with you, because I have five daughters. Just kind of happened that way. And I remember, in our last ultrasound for the baby, she's 7, I still call her a little baby, but when we saw that child in the womb, my youngest one at that time looked at me and said, Dad, I hope it's a boy so you have someone to play with. But technology has helped us understand that life, the nature of that life. And so that's why the Supreme Court decision was not scientific, terribly misguided, has inflicted a deep wound upon us, has given us a false notion of choice and freedom, which tickles the ear, sounds good at one level, but the consequences are oh so deep and real for the individual, for those who are responsible and have been able to escape their responsibility, for geopolitical movements now that have ended up in coercive population control measures, which is grievously unjust, particular to women in far away places. Going back to what I said as well, if you'd like, describe some of the testimony that we heard from the women who came from China in secret, who had to be, again, behind screens because we were fearful, and they were as well, for reprisals against their families back in China simply because they dared stand up and say, the government should not impose coercive abortion upon me. There was one woman, as I recall, who was in tears. She had four abortions imposed upon her by the government. You recall that hearing last year because you were responsible for it, and I think it's a great credit to your leadership. But again, as hard as this is to look at, as painful as it is, I don't think there's been a more powerful hearing in which I've participated in the United States Congress, hearing from the victim of a government-imposed, coerced abortion and what the consequences were on her. I'm sorry. Perhaps you had raised that earlier. I didn't have the privilege of hearing your earlier talk, but I think that perspective is important as well.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. As we're winding down here--we only have a few moments left--I think perhaps we can talk about some good news as well as some common ground. Because everybody listening to this and this important dialogue, this highly sensitive dialogue, may not agree with us. But the vast majority of Americans do agree that the government should not be entangled in this. In other words, taxpayer money should not be going for the provision of abortion. That's one bit of good news. The second bit of good news, I think, is, again, those of us who have been here a little while, who have been in these trenches trying to beg and plead for an increase of awareness as to what the consequences of abortion are, young people are recognizing that, again, there's got to be a better way. They've lived with this through their generation. They've seen the scars, seen the wounds, seen the effects on society. And they're coming forward and saying, Women deserve better. Can't we be loving enough, can't we be big enough to do something different here? And I think that's a great sign of encouragement for two reasons. One is, projecting forward, maybe we can reshape society. But also, heal the wounds that have already occurred. Because they are substantive and deep. And I think it's important. And young people, I believe, recognize this. They're there saying, Don't make this choice. It's a false choice, particularly if you feel coerced or abandoned. There are people here ready to help, love, get you through. But if there is that deep wound, we're also here to heal and help. And I think it's just such a beautiful message. It inspires me that so many young people would come to the Capitol and say, Legislators, older generation of America, let's change this paradigm. Let's change this idea. Because it's not serving our country. It's not serving our people. It's leaving us deeply, deeply hurt. And we can do better.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. And men.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Again, I thank the gentleman for your poignant words, your passion, your deep belief in this. So I think now is the time to let the healing begin. Let's put the past behind us. Let's look forward, marching arm-in-arm with the new civil rights movement that these young people are the great inheritors of, to say that we as a Nation can all stand for the beautiful gift of life. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Amendment XXIV: Section 1: ``The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.'' Section 2: ``The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'' Amendment XXV: Section 1: ``In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.'' Section 2: ``Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.'' Section 3: ``Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.''

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize one of Lincoln, Nebraska's most courageous sons, and one of my constituents, Dawson Cox. I had the honor to take him and his sisters Stevie and Nessa on the floor of the House during our vote, and spend time with him and his family. Dawson's Make A Wish, was to come to Washington D.C. and visit the new Dr. King Jr. Memorial, and to stand on the very spot where the I Have A Dream speech was given. Dr. King is his hero. And Dr. King would be proud of Dawson too for his courage! Dawson toured the Capitol, and met many members of Congress and one of the House's true Icon's John Lewis. Congressman Lewis, is the only surviving member left who spoke on that day. His new friend Bert, was so impressed with his courage and faith, and his spirit, that he penned this poem in his honor. Our prayers and our thoughts go out to Dawson and his family, during his most courageous battle. Dawson, You Are So Awesome, You Are So Dawsome, As Can Be! Dawson! You are so Awesome! You are so Dawsome! As Can Be! You're Major ``D''! For you are one of Nebraska's, most courageous of all sons so to be! Yea, you are a Husker! Who can so muster! The will and the courage, and the faith to so overcome! To Fight The Good Fight! As Thy Will Be Done! With all of your might! For inside of you, but shines such a light! For You are Major! You're Major ``D'', and yet your so young! And mini me, you so complete me! You see, because heroes come in all shapes and sizes, but it's all about what's within their hearts, that which so comprises . . . Of what they so can be! He's The Man! Even Washington has his initials DC, Dawson Cox understand! Because, In The Game of Life . . . Dawson, you are a winner so very bright! And if ever I had a son, I so wish that he could be like you this one! With that smile, that tells me all the while, that the heart of a champion so beats in this one! And when you walked on that House floor, they say the ratings on Cspan shot up so much more! That's because you are Major ``D''! And you are so Awesome Mr. Dawson can't you see! For you are as brave as can be, as any Navy, Air Force, Army, or United States Marine! Because, you and your families just like them and theirs, fight a war and the good fight continually! For you are all so much alike in so many ways! And yet Dawson, you are just a little boy! Who out of such heartache can still find so much joy! And yet, already so much you so understand! And what we could so learn from you, if we but so walked hand in hand! If Dr. King, is a King Among Men! Then, you Dawson . . . are but a Prince Among Children! For he's for MLK Jr., all the way Heroes, our children should not so have to be, but sometimes this is what our Lord has chosen for us to teach! To be inspired! To take and lift our hearts higher! To show us all that against all odds they never tire! All in their profiles of courage don't you see? And to remind us to hold our families close! To so remember what so but means the most! And to against all odds to always so believe! And, that is why . . . with tear in eye Dawson you so complete me! Dawson! You Are So Awesome! You Are So Dawsome! So Dawsome As Can Be! Because, it's with your heart you so run! On earth as it will be in Heaven, as Thy Will Be Done! And that smile, and that wit, and that mind, so very creative and so quick I'll carry with me every day! Because, you are my new best friend. . . Dawson, your Major ``D'' . . . And you are as Awesome as Awesome so can be!

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Before my colleague Dan Burton leaves the Chamber, I just want to say thank you. Thank you for your thoughtful reflections here. I should tell the Speaker, as well as everyone who might be watching, that we were teasing you a moment ago because you said you were only going to speak for 10 minutes, and I said, Dan Burton, you've never spoken for 10 minutes in your life. You're going to go a lot longer than that. You held it to about 10, and your words were not only precise but deeply thoughtful and meaningful, and I think they're an outstanding tribute to you in leaving this body. I want to thank you for your personal friendship to me and for your words of admonition to the rest of us to try to be a little bit kinder, a little bit gentler. I think it's important for people to know--and you alluded to it-- that, over a decade ago, your own wife died. The caregiver for your wife, as she had cancer, was Samia, who became your friend and who became a friend of your family's, and your own children encouraged you to, perhaps, pursue a relationship with her, and now she is your lovely wife. It has been a pleasure to see you so happy in these last years of public service, but we really appreciate your dedication and passion to serving this Nation. So thank you so much. Madam Speaker, I would like to turn to another topic now. I sat in my office last night, looking at the pictures of the precious little children who were killed in Connecticut last Friday. What can you say? My heart breaks for them and their parents and for the people of Newtown. I looked at the picture of little Caroline Previdi, one of the 6-year-old children who died. I'm sure she was a happy child, full of life's potential just like my own little Caroline, who just turned 7 a few days ago. What can you say? It's unthinkable that a person would kill innocent little children with such cravenness and violence. These children's Christmas presents are still under the tree. Their moms and dads are still looking at them. In this town where we pride ourselves on rhetorical flourish, precision of thought, and volume of words, what can you say? What can you do other than stand in solidarity, in spirit, with the grieving families, and perhaps--just perhaps--hug those you love a little bit tighter? Now the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy is sparking a national debate about how and why this happened and about how it might have been prevented. That debate is understandable and needs to happen. In the coming weeks, Congress will be called on to react. Questions have already arisen about guns and school safety and emergency preparedness. But these concerns and debates may bypass altogether some of the deeper, more difficult issues involved, like what we grappled with after the tragic shootings of the young people at Columbine High School and on the Virginia Tech campus. What we must do is be honest. Yes, there were guns involved. Yes, there are issues of school safety. Yes, there was a collapse of mental health intervention. But I have not heard a significant discussion of the broader cultural context in which this and other tragedies have happened. All of these tragedies happened against a backdrop of a culture that increasingly devalues and degrades human life. Graphic acts of violence and inhumanity pervade popular culture, entertainment, and other venues that vie for our attention. In flipping through the channels recently, I saw on a ``Law and Order'' show, ironically, a man shot in an elevator and the blood splashing on his attorney. Seconds later, we move on to the next scene or to the next commercial without consequence. We are supposedly entertained by this, and of course the producer gets the profit, but who really pays? Society grows increasingly numb to the increasing levels of wanton brutality, cruelty, and indignity, all celebrated for profit. Perhaps most of us can shake it off or just turn it off, but what happens when a person of limited stability sees these images over and over again? We preach tolerance for one another, but we fill our culture with grotesque and inhuman depictions and expect that there will not be consequences. Madam Speaker, I am sure there are any number of Ph.D.s out there who will somehow refute that there is a correlation between this aggressive assault of images constantly before us and the recurring violence that is all around us. Instead, we want simple answers and quick fixes, and then we'll just move on. I suggest that we look inward to regain a deeper understanding of what it means to be in community, in a common bond with neighbors, where persons are not in isolation, where check mechanisms are so ordinary that persons are not simply roaming around, disconnected from communities of concern, family life, mental health treatment, or swift enforcement action, whatever is needed. A single and simple policy response from Washington cannot fix this. We all want to have a more caring and supportive society, but the fragmentation of family, civic, and our Nation's community life lends itself to isolation, anger and, for some, even despair. Let's be clear: this tragedy is the result of a deeply disturbed person who committed unspeakable crimes. That is where the blame rests. But perhaps an outcome deserving of these children who died is that we all take some responsibility for the degradation of culture--what we think about, the way we conduct ourselves--and perhaps strive for that which is noble, for that which is good, and for that which is just. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.