Jeff Fortenberry

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, December 4, 2012, I was inadvertently detained and thus missed rollcall votes Nos. 614, 615, and 616. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on all rollcall Nos. 614 and 615 and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 616.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, last year, an intense debate was under way in Congress as to how to respond to the turmoil in Libya. The imminent slaughter of the people of Benghazi by former dictator Qadhafi led the United States to sustain a NATO-led coalition to stop the bloodshed. Now our Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, is dead--killed by the very people we went there to save. Americans can tolerate ingratitude; Americans can tolerate insult, but Americans cannot tolerate the senseless killings of the official representative of our country and three other diplomatic personnel. The governing structures of Libya must respond in the strongest way. They should publicly state their condemnation and commitment to restoring order. Democracy is not an election. It is the understanding of the protection of the inherent dignity and rights of each person supported by the structures that bring about the just rule of law. We honor Ambassador Stevens, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and two others whose names I do not yet have for their heroic service. May they rest in peace. Similarly, in Cairo, Egypt, the storming of our Embassy represents an attack on America. By the norms of international law, custom and tradition, the scaling of the walls of our Embassy severely threatens America's longstanding relationship with Egypt so fruitfully solidified after the peace accords in the Middle East in the 1970s. President Morsi must decide: Will his government tolerate chaos and violence? Will he abandon Egypt's leading role as a force for stability in the Middle East? Will he use democracy for the consolidation of power while rejecting its central tenets? The responsibility of President Morsi's is also to speak swiftly and state clearly that the Egyptian Government, duly elected, is committed to its international responsibilities and the deeper responsibilities of self-government.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the leader of the Ag Committee for his important leadership on this issue and many, many others. Mr. Speaker, just like in Nebraska where we're hoping for rain, I'm actually hoping for a long-term farm bill. Agriculture remains the only bright spot in the American economy, and it is critical that we build a multi-year farm bill that is built upon our strengthens and provides certainty for our Nation's agriculture producers. Last month, with bipartisan support, the House Agriculture Committee, under Chairman Lucas's leadership, approved such a bill. The House should act on it before the current farm bill expires this September. While the 5-year proposal is not perfect, it provides adequate protections for farmers and ranchers. It supports young and beginning farmers and embraces new market opportunities domestically and internationally while also reducing spending. The proposal charts a new way forward for America's farmers and ranchers while respecting the Federal Government's severe budgetary constraints. Mr. Speaker, agricultural policy is essential to America's food security. But agriculture is also critical to our energy policy, environmental policy, even our national security policy. A new farm bill is imperative for the future of the agriculture sector, but also for the well-being of our country. While I'm disappointed that we are not acting on a long-term bill, it is important that we consider this legislation, and I support its passage. Drought conditions are affecting many parts of the Nation. This bill reinstates past legislative provisions--there's nothing new here--and it gives relief to livestock producers. The measure is paid for and actually reduces spending, while attempting to remain appropriately sensitive to important conservation programs. I urge its passage.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentlelady from Minnesota for yielding, and thank you for your stalwart and courageous stand for life tonight. Women deserve better than abortion, and of course celebrating an extraordinary organization such as Priests for Life who have tried to heal the wounded and protect those who are most vulnerable is, of course, an extraordinary cause. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues and I gather on the floor, I am going to turn the subject to another matter because we are marking what could possibly be considered one of the most significant turning points in the history of our Nation. But it is not a cause for celebration. In America, where we have a legacy of principle that undergirds our Nation and makes it possible to create prosperity--not just material means, but a flourishing of the potential of each person--where does that principle come from? Well, we've all heard the line from the earliest of our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, which goes like this: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is the operative philosophical paradigm of our culture, so much so we don't even think about it--that our rights are not conferred by a king or a government. They are inherent, based upon the dignity of each person. And as we worked this out in the early stages of our development of our country, we wrote a Constitution which basically did one thing: It defined power, and it defined power as coming from the consent of the government, consistent with our operative philosophical paradigm of the inherent dignity and rights and responsibilities of each individual person. Beyond that, the consent of the governed turns that power over to representatives who then make prudential judgments about what is in the common good. We make the law and are held accountable by the people in elections. We then spread that power out. We developed three branches of government: the Congress makes the law; the President enforces the law; and the judiciary interprets the law in order that we have even more balance of power to ensure that it is not abused. But then we took it a step further. There were still concerns that we had defined where power is coming from--from the natural inherent dignity of the person--but we also wanted to define what government must not do, and so we wrote the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. And the First Amendment starts with these words: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Now, Mr. Speaker, the threats to religious liberty in our country are often more subtle than in other parts of the world. But as a legislator, what has grieved me deeply is that, for the first time in the history of health care in the United States, Americans are being forced to choose to either obey the government or violate their personal convictions. Buried in the President's 2010 health care law was a provision empowering the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, to issue rules on preventative services. Who could have predicted that she would use her authority, sanctioned by President Obama, to force everyone to purchase drugs and procedures--including abortion-inducing drugs--that violate the fundamental ethical sensibilities of many Americans. No American should be forced to choose between their conscience and their livelihood. No American should be forced to stand for their deeply held, reasoned beliefs, or stand convicted by government coercion. No American should be forced to choose between their faith and their job. This is wrong. It is a false choice. It is unjust. It is unnecessary. It is un-American, and it is an affront to the very purpose of our government derived from the consent of the governed. America owes its unique character and strength to empowering, protecting, and upholding the inalienable rights of her citizens. Health care should be about the common good, caring for the sick, and healing the wounded. Health care policy should not be a vehicle to drive divisive ideology, forcing Americans to violate deeply held beliefs. The Health and Human Services mandate violates the fundamental principle of religious liberty and the rights of conscience so dear to this country. America owes its unique character and strength to empowering, protecting, and upholding those rights of her citizens. Mr. Speaker, Karen McGiveny-Llechtl, one of my constituents, sent me this email: As a woman's health practitioner and 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 mandate has imposed. Indeed, it is sad that the Health and Human Services ruling seems most perniciously targeted at faith-based providers who are the backstop of compassionate care for our most vulnerable. Throughout our history, the U.S. health care service has in large measure owed its success to the doctors, nurses, and health care providers staffing faith-based institutions. These institutions, including hospitals and university clinics and nonprofit health institutions, serve the common good of all Americans. The government should celebrate the contribution of these faith-based entities, which fulfill the mission of helping the sick and serving the poor. Without them, we will see reduced access to high-quality care, especially for vulnerable persons who have traditionally relied on these benevolent organizations of civil society. Several health care practitioners have told me personally that they would choose to leave their professions rather than compromise their beliefs. But undoubtedly, some will not obey the government. And our government has effectively condemned them. Another man who was condemned for his beliefs had this to say: I submit that an individual that breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is, in reality, expressing the very highest respect for the law. So wrote Dr. Martin Luther King from the Birmingham jail. The purpose of our government is to create just structures for societal order, empowering liberty, beginning with the affirmation of the natural rights of the person, including the most basic right of conscience. In my office, there is a copy of a draft of the Bill of Rights. The rights of conscience were initially included in that draft. But by the final version, that right was formalized by the concept of religious freedom, perhaps given that the rights of conscience were such an ordinarily understood concept that its fullness did not need provision. James Madison, the architect of the Constitution, wrote that ``conscience is the most sacred of all property,'' linking conscience rights to the foundation of religious liberty. In 1809, Thomas Jefferson stated that: No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of civil authority. The Health and Human Services mandate violates the fundamental principle of religious liberty and rights of conscience so dear to our country. No American should be forced to choose between violating their conscience in order to serve the public. From the faith-based hospital to the business person providing health care coverage in their insurance plan to their employees, to the school established for children with special needs, no American should be forced to choose between their faith and their job. This is why so many people of goodwill, regardless of their religious traditions or their political affiliation, consider the Health and Human Services mandate to be a gross affront to the very essence of what it means to be an American. And all of us must choose our response. This is not simply a religious issue. It's not a Catholic issue. It's not an Evangelical issue. It's an American issue. We all have a responsibility to decide, informed by our faith, what our country means to us, and what it demands of us in this moment. Last Friday, there was a Federal judge who ruled in a court case in this regard, and I think Federal Judge John Kane in Hercules v. Sebelius got it right. He had this to say: The government's interests are countered, and indeed outweighed, by the public interest in the free exercise of religion. I thank the gentlelady from Minnesota for her leadership on this important issue, and so many others.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman from Florida for the time and for your leadership on this critically important bill. Mr. Chairman, in the push and pull and give and take of the congressional appropriations process we have had many important debates on the proper role of the Federal Government in society. But despite our differences and competing priorities, it is clear that Americans believe in a Federal Government that provides a strong common defense as a priority. American military leadership is important for our own security but also for global stability and global human rights. It is also important for my home State of Nebraska. Over the past 10 years, Mr. Chairman, 15,000 Nebraskans in uniform have served overseas. Today, 17,000 men and women stationed in Nebraska work tirelessly to strengthen our national security. American troops are steadfast, selfless, and undeterred in their service and deserve our unwavering support. This bill, I believe, reflects responsibly the challenges of our times. Further amendments may actually strengthen the bill creatively in balance with our fiscal responsibility obligations, but moving forward with our primary obligation to govern in defense of our Nation should be our guiding principle here. Let me add, Mr. Chairman, that I learned in this debate that this is Mr. Dicks' retiring session, and I also want to add my thanks for your many years of good service.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, this weekend back home in Lincoln, Nebraska, at a small business, a shop owner named Mary and another woman were engaged in conversation. She looked up when they were done and saw me, and she said, Oh, I can ask you this question, Who is going to pay for this health care bill? I basically responded, Yes, that's the right question. Right now, we are seeing some benefits from some reasonable reforms, such as being able to keep children on the health care policies of their parents until they're 26, such as allowing people who have significant pre-existing conditions some hope for affordable insurance. But there are other hard realities that must be faced here. This bill shifts costs to more unsustainable government spending. It cuts Medicare, and it erodes health care liberties. The total cost is now projected to be $1.7 trillion, and it has 21 new taxes in it. Many small businesses are going to actually drop coverage or cut jobs as this moves forward. Mr. Speaker, there is a better way to move forward. We need the right type of reform that will actually improve outcomes while reducing costs and protecting vulnerable persons.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently missed the vote on rollcall No. 442. My vote would have been ``yes.''

Mr. FORTENBERRY

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

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I wish to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Alabama, Chairman Aderholt. First, I want to commend his leadership on this appropriations bill concerning the security screenings of children by the Transportation Security Administration. The TSA should absolutely have particular sensitivity in the screening process of children and should minimize children's distress and discomfort. I am very thankful to the gentleman for raising this issue in the manager's amendment and for recognizing this need. But as this process moves forward, I would encourage the chairman to stress the importance of this same sensitivity to the elderly and the infirm. We have all seen too many images in high-profile news stories about the mistreatment of the elderly and the infirm as well as of passengers with religious or conscience objections. No good American should be forced to check his modesty at the airport door--maybe his luggage but not his modesty. I also appreciate the fact that the report encourages various alternative screening models that would better preserve the civil liberties and privacy of all passengers by moving toward a more risk- based approach, using intelligence more than relying on technology. I encourage the chairman to continue moving TSA along this path. Would the chairman be willing to work with me on these issues for the benefit of America's airline passengers?

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

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman from Alabama again for his leadership on the overall appropriations bill here and for his particular sensitivity to this issue. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Ms. Wasserman Schultz

Mr. FORTENBERRY

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

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank both the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss an important problem in our Nation's nuclear security infrastructure and for their support of this amendment. The amendment would reduce funding for the mixed oxide fuel program at the Department of Energy by approximately $17 million and redirect it to the National Nuclear Security Administration's Global Threat Reduction Initiative. Such a redirection of funds would provide for greater security and be a wiser investment of taxpayer dollars. If there is one thing we can all agree on, Mr. Chairman, it is that dollars are scarce in Washington. And with this in mind, I'm concerned about the amount of money that has been spent on the mixed oxide fuel program, known as MOX, at the DOE. Under an agreement signed by the United States and Russia in 2000, both countries agreed to dispose of excess weapons-grade plutonium by blending it with uranium to create mixed oxide fuel. The intent was to use it as a fuel in civilian nuclear reactors. Subsequently, the Department of Energy spent billions on the mixed oxide fuel project. The fuel is intended for a market segment that has yet to emerge, and according to a report from the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Energy has had to consider offering subsidies to attract potential customers for the fuel. The most optimistic estimates predict that the mixed oxide production facility will begin operating 6 years behind schedule. Another problem is that the mixed oxide fuel project poses a new nuclear nonproliferation risk as MOX fuel can be separated into weapons-grade nuclear material. In addition, the Russians have not lived up to their treaty obligations. They have fallen behind on their own MOX production schedule. As a result, the United States has had to step in and provide our own designs for the MOX plant to jump-start Russia's. As a cofounder of the House Nuclear Security Caucus, Mr. Chairman, I feel confident that the funding removed from the mixed oxide fuel program will be put to much better use protecting our Nation through the global threat reduction initiative. By the end of the current year, the global threat reduction initiative will have converted or shut down 81 research reactors, removed over 3,400 kilograms of vulnerable nuclear material, and secured nearly 1,400 buildings containing radiological materials. There are other important global threat reduction initiatives as well that could use additional funding. We should be proud of our work as a country in our nuclear security efforts, but it is abundantly clear that the mixed oxide fuel program is not the most productive use of our constituents' taxpayer dollars. The persistence of nuclear threats demands that we retain the highest sense of vigilance and agility when it comes to our own nuclear security, and for that reason, I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

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

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to offer this commonsense amendment to protect American jobs and reduce regulatory burdens. Quite simply, this amendment would block the Department of Energy from implementing unnecessary energy conservation standards for golf cart battery chargers. Madam Chairman, I recognize that reasonable regulations are necessary to protect human health and the environment; however, we must guard against costly rules that provide no meaningful benefit to the United States but instead encourage this shift of American jobs overseas to lower-wage countries where environmental standards are minimal. The proposed golf cart battery charger rule is clearly such a regulation. The proposed standards would achieve minimal energy savings, and the Department of Energy itself acknowledges that they would result in U.S. manufacturing jobs being sent overseas. While I support the overall goal of promoting energy efficiency, I am very concerned about this proposed regulation that directly affects more than 100 jobs right where I live. Madam Chair, last week's unemployment figures highlight the economic challenges we face in our country. Job growth is slowing and unemployment is ticking up. In this kind of economic climate, why would we want to intentionally force American jobs overseas through increased and unnecessary regulation? I would also like to emphasize that golf cart battery chargers should not even be included in this proposed rule, which is intended to cover consumer products. It is my understanding that about 90 percent of new golf carts are sold to businesses for fleets, while less than 10 percent of new golf carts are for personal use by individuals. This does not meet the significant standard necessary to be considered a consumer product. It is clear that the proposed rule would make American manufacturers of battery chargers less competitive and it would cost American jobs, so we must ask what would we achieve by implementing this rule. According to the Department of Energy's calculations, making this change would result in energy savings of only about $6 per charger per year. That's because these chargers are already very highly efficient. With that, Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which will help protect American jobs, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, as I was shopping for some family items recently, I noted how difficult it is to find items that are made in America. While American manufacturing is, encouragingly enough, on the rebound, products ranging from hairbrushes to iPods still carry that ``Made in China'' label. All the while, many questions about China and its economic policies, foreign policies, and human rights records are left largely unexamined. For the good of our economy, it is essential that we thoroughly understand China's record and their intentions as a country. Our nations have a complicated and lopsided economic relationship. Americans buy great quantities of Chinese-made products. China finances a great portion of America's debt. Currently, nearly one-third of our debt is foreign owned with China easily being the largest debt holder at nearly $1.2 trillion. Other estimates peg the figure at closer to $2 trillion. The effect of such indebtedness is the shift of our wealth assets into the hands of a foreign nation, losing the market for American-made products to a country with lax labor and environmental standards, which manipulates its currency and creates unbalanced and unfair trading conditions. China's involvement on the world stage is also of significant concern. While it aggressively pursues its own mercantilistic agenda, China lends little constructive hand to creating conditions for international stability. China is seen as an enabler of North Korea, who is actively pursuing nuclear weapons capabilities; and they continue on their march toward more aggressive missile testing, as well, despite the protest of the international community. Over recent months, as the U.S. and the European Union have accelerated important efforts to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions, China has been conspicuously absent from the leadership table in this discussion. China continues to be a top buyer of Iranian oil--one of the key leverage points of economic sanctions against Iran. At a discussion I attended, a Chinese official in so many words said the U.S. is to blame for Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons capability. And he went on to say, while China does not desire this outcome, we're going to do business as usual. Africa is becoming a lost continent, diplomatically and economically, in favor of international players who do not have the same regard for human rights as we do. China's influence in resource-rich Africa is growing rapidly--with disturbing consequences. Direct Chinese investment in Africa has grown exponentially over the last 2 years. One million Chinese nationals now do business in Africa, and Chinese energy and mineral resource companies are quickly acquiring oil fields and mines. In the process, China has forged strategic alliances with war criminals. According to China's Foreign Ministry spokesman, China shares a ``deep and profound friendship'' with Sudanese war criminal Omar al-Bashir. I should note there was a bright spot this week. When approached by South Sudanese President Salva Kiir for assistance as Sudan and South Sudan march toward war, China's President Hu Jintao echoed the United States in calling for peace and negotiation between the two countries, rather than continuing to back Omar al-Bashir. The international community will look upon China's new role as a diplomatic figure in this conflict with great interest. Beyond this, an honest discussion is necessary about Chinese industrial virtues. A Chinese official has said that in dealing with ``differences in corporate culture and the degree of openness to the outside world, Chinese companies always take the domestic business practices with them.'' Chinese companies always take ``domestic business practices'' with them. Those practices, according to witnesses who have given congressional testimony, include fertility monitors on factory floors, invasively examining female employees for pregnancy and reporting pregnant women to the Chinese family planning police. China has practiced the violence of forced abortions. China also has tragically high suicide rates for workers, who use suicide as their only means of collective bargaining against dire and oppressive labor conditions. As China continues to advance as a world economic power, it has a choice. It can join the responsible community of nations in respecting the dignity and rights of all persons while conducting affairs with other nations in an ethical fashion, or it can stand by current practices that exploit relationships in order to fuel its own brand of corporate collectivism, undermining international stability in the process. Madam Speaker, it is my belief that it is important to seek reasonable and good relationships with China, a country with a rich cultural history, a country which is rapidly ascending onto the world stage. We must do so ideally and practically for the sake of our own national security. But we must do so with open eyes, fully understanding the implications when all of us buy products with that ``made in China'' label. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. First of all, let me thank the gentleman from Colorado for his leadership in holding this discussion tonight. This is a very important discussion because it is about a fundamental American principle. As you mentioned, over a year ago, we actually began work on the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act in anticipation that the new health care law may actually be used to undermine religious freedom and the moral precepts, the deeply held beliefs, of many Americans in this country. You had mentioned that this particular bill--hopefully, we'll get it through this House soon, and there is a companion measure, by the way, in the Senate--would not only protect faith-based organizations, which seem to be most perniciously targeted by this new HHS mandate from the strong arm of government, which is forcing them to pay for drugs and procedures that may violate their ethics norms, but it would also protect all Americans because, right now, these institutions, as well as other people of good will, are being asked to choose: to follow your deeply held, reasoned beliefs or to obey President Obama and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius' new mandate, which is in violation of your conscience rights. That's a false choice. That's un-American. That violates a deeply held principle of this country, namely religious liberty, which we have held so dear throughout our history. The Respect for Rights of Conscience Act really does one simple thing: It restores us to where we were a year and a half ago before the new health care law came into being, and it would prevent things such as this new mandate, which is an intrusion of government into the faith life of many Americans, from ever happening. Again, I'm very pleased for your willingness to hold this hour of discussion with fellow Members. It is a bipartisan bill, by the way. There are Democrats and Republicans on this bill. It is a bicameral bill. There are over 200 House Members who have cosponsored this bill 200, Democrats and Republicans; and there are 37 Members on the companion piece in the United States Senate, dropped by my friend Senator Roy Blunt from Missouri. In fact, Senator Blunt has offered this as potential amendments to must-pass legislation in the other body. We haven't seen that go through yet. So there is tremendous momentum for this piece of legislation because it's not about politics. It's not about partisanship. It's about a principle, a fundamental American principle: the rights of conscience and religious liberty, as applied in health care. I'm pleased by the outpouring of support from Members of both sides of the aisle here. I think that is due to the intensity of concern across America about how this time, the government has gone too far. Again, I appreciate your willingness to hold a good conversation tonight on this fundamental principle of religious liberty and the rights of conscience for all Americans.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Well, I appreciate it. I hope that we continue to hold more conversations about this because America needs to know. America is already speaking. And that is evident in the number of Members who are deeply interested in this bill.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you very much.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman, my good friend from New Jersey, for the time and for his courageous leadership on this, a central American issue of justice. Mr. Speaker, let me say this first. What a day this has been. I spent the morning with a group of young Nebraskans who had traveled all this way to participate in the March for Life. And they came here to express one similar purpose, one truth: that all life is worthy of protection. All life should be loved and nurtured. These young people are saying that we should be big enough, caring enough, loving enough as a Nation to see to it that all mothers and their unborn children are provided for. And these young people are saying that we should make the great woundedness of the Roe vs. Wade decision a thing of the past. Now, Mr. Speaker, it's important to note that in the same year when Roe vs. Wade was errantly decided by the Supreme Court, stripping unborn children of their dignity and right to life, that Congress came together and enacted a very important law called the Endangered Species Act. This was a very significant piece of legislation to ensure that the majesty and wonder of nature's creations were rightly protected. I believe the responsible stewardship of our environment is an essential cause, but there is a certain irony here. The life of a child should be of no less value than any other creature on earth. And in 2010, with my support, we passed a bill prohibiting the interstate commerce of videos that were depicting the torture of vulnerable animals. Yet, in that same year, we could not move a bill forward that prohibited interstate abortions of vulnerable children and minors without parental protection. There is a grave inconsistency in these walls. But, Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you had a chance to look out on the National Mall today. But the hundreds of thousands of young people out there braving both the bite of cold and wind, who understand the principle for which they marched, were saying this. These young people know that abortion hurts women. These young people are saying women deserve better. And they know that abortion is so often the result of a tragic circumstance of abandonment, an unsupportive family or, worse yet, a coercive boyfriend or unscrupulous doctor, and they are saying that we can do better as a country. Mr. Speaker, I recently received a newsletter in my mailbox at home, and it described some people who were standing in front of an abortion clinic legally, peacefully providing witness to alternatives to abortion. A car pulled up in the driveway. The car hesitated. The man driving was very anxious and nervous. And these people who were witnessing there walked up and asked if they could be of assistance. The woman who was with him who was going in for an abortion had three children. She was unsure that she could care for a fourth child. In fact, she didn't know where her next meal was coming from. They talked a bit. The couple decided to seek these nice people's help, who had provided a little bit of assistance, comfort, and care for them. And now 9 months later because of that act of compassion, there is a baby named David. We should be big enough and loving enough as a country to help people get through no matter how tough the circumstances. It is that courageous woman who made the decision to keep her child that gives me strength to stand on this floor to defend our shared convictions and fight to see the day when the scales are lifted from our Nation's eyes and we declare the unborn worthy of protection under the 14th Amendment. Before I conclude and yield back to my good friend from New Jersey, I'd also like to say a word of thanks, Mr. Speaker, to all of the women who are saying they will be silent no more, providing the most powerful example of women who have been wounded by abortion but now who are speaking out against the abortion industry in saying we can do better as a Nation.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked the official end of America's 9-year war in Iraq. In a low-key ceremony in Baghdad, U.S. troops lowered the American flag of command that flew over the Iraqi capital. The 4,000 remaining U.S. servicemembers in Iraq will leave by this year's end. The Iraq war was a painful and difficult time, extraordinarily costly in terms of Americans, America's lives and resources. Nearly 4,500 Americans, including 45 Nebraskans, were killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. 227 Nebraskans were wounded in combat. Tens of thousands of Iraqis lost their lives. We lost good men and women, individuals full of life and blessed with talent, whose proud families awaited their return to the country they loved so dear and served so well. But in spite of our wounds, we are proud--proud of our fallen heroes, proud of the veterans who have come back to us, proud of their sacrifice, proud of their noble vision that has significantly changed the global environment where democratic ideals are now making steady gains everywhere. The work of our troops, steadily done in the midst of extensive public debate and strategy deliberations about the war was the strength of this mission. These troops achieved what was set before them. The victories were theirs. Their unwavering commitment, their skill, and their bravery got the job done. The troops' efforts unbound an Iraqi people held hostage for decades by an egomaniacal dictator. Insurgencies led by terrorists seeking to wreak havoc and disorder were put down by our troops. Space was created to allow Iraqis the time necessary to build the foundations of a representative government in a more open society. But there are still challenges and significant obstacles. It would have been preferable, Mr. Speaker, for a small stay-behind force to remain for ongoing response and stabilization efforts. The way forward will not be easy, but today Iraqis determine Iraq's future. No longer constricted by the dictates of a despot, they have held elections, they have written a constitution, and hopefully they will build a culture that respects the rights and dignity of all of their people. America and the world needs a stabilized Iraq. Our security is strengthened by it, and we will continue a strong, diplomatic relationship to help achieve it. An Iraq that protects the rights of all of its people, Sunni and Shiite, Christian and Yazidi, and employs a government that maintains order and preserves liberties will be an Iraq that can help transform the entire Middle East looking for a new way forward. The foundation for this has been laid, after much toil and bloodshed, by valiant American soldiers who return to us now as modern-day heroes. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.