John Fleming

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, November 20 of this year marks 30 years since President Ronald Reagan signed a proclamation declaring the rose as the National Floral Emblem of the United States of America. The rose takes its rightful place as one of our Nation's symbols, along with the American flag, our national motto--In God We Trust--and our national anthem. Based in Shreveport, Louisiana, the American Rose Society promotes the appreciation of the rose and proudly bears the heritage of being the oldest single-plant horticultural society in our country. The American Rose Center's gardens also display over 65 separate gardens and 20,000 different rosebushes for visitors, enthusiasts, and gardeners to all enjoy. I join the American Rose Society in celebrating this occasion, remembering the words of President Ronald Reagan from 30 years ago: ``The American people have long held a special place in their hearts for roses. Let us continue to cherish them, to honor the love and devotion they represent, and to bestow them on all we love just as God has bestowed them on us.''

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2754, which would name the U.S. Federal Court House in Shreveport, Louisiana after Tom Stagg. Judge Stagg's legacy is one which speaks volumes of his exemplar character and distinguished career as a federal judge for the Western District of Louisiana. Upon graduation from high school, Judge Stagg valiantly served in WWII where he would rise to the rank of captain and earn the Combat Infantryman Badge, a Bronze Star for Valor, a second Bronze Star for meritorious service, and the Purple Heart with oak leaf cluster. The patriotism and dedication which he exhibited as a soldier was further built upon when he began his career as a jurist. He was nominated to serve as a federal judge for the Western District of Louisiana in 1974. He held the position as chief judge from 1984 to 1991, at which point he assumed senior status and maintained a full caseload until his passing in 2015. A detailed man who commanded respect whenever he entered a room, Judge Stagg was well known for his institutional knowledge, efficiency, and thoroughness during each and every case. He was heavily admired by his colleagues, many of whom believed that his character reflected the most honorable qualities of a judge. A pillar within his occupation and the salt within his community, Judge Stagg's life was an example to us all. It is more than fitting to honor Judge Stagg's service by naming this court house, a court house which he helped design, after him. I introduced companion legislation, H.R. 5011, in the House, and I am thankful that we are able to consider S. 2754 today. I ask my colleagues for their support.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for having this Special Order tonight. My good friend, Congressman Jordan has laid out the facts of this case. There are many other detailed facts that we don't have time to get into. But just to give you an example of what my constituents are saying to me, they are over-the-top angry at what Congressman Jordan was talking about, and that is that there seems to be two standards in America. There is one standard for the elite, there is one standard for the high-up officials in Washington, and then there is a standard for everyone else. We see this play out all the time. But there are some very notable groups and people who support our effort to begin the impeachment of John Koskinen, head of the IRS. I will just give you some examples. The National Review's editorial board: A weaponized IRS put to partisan political ends constitutes an unbearable assault on American democracy and undermines the very institutions of government itself. The Wall Street Journal, their editorial board: The U.S. attorney has refused to honor Congress' contempt charge against Ms. Lerner for refusing to testify. The Justice Department has closed its investigations into the IRS targeting without prosecutions, and the press corps winks at abuses of power when conservatives are the targets. That is precisely the point. It appears that the media--the liberal media, which most media is nationally, seems to be agreeing with this. In fact, I have had a number of media outlets out there who ask me: Why would you want to impeach the head of the IRS? What is wrong with him? Yet, you heard how we learned how Mr. Koskinen deceived Congress, refused to respond to subpoenas, evidence was destroyed in his tenure. So either he did it or someone did it while under his authority, and then again deceived Congress about that as well. So it is very clear there has been wrongdoing. While Mr. Koskinen has come to the Hill here to talk to Members--but he wants to do it offline and without being sworn in--he has not shown any interest in doing it under oath. The New York Post editorial board: If you responded to an IRS audit the way Koskinen's IRS has behaved, you'd be looking at huge penalties and maybe prison time. George Will, a noted conservative: Congress should impeach the IRS Commissioner or risk becoming obsolete. Red State: Why the impeachment of the IRS Commissioner is a sign that Congress might actually work? The American people have given up on Congress. Congress is the legislative branch, which is a co-equal branch of government, and it should be a check on the executive branch, and the judicial branch, for that matter. Yet, Congress has shriveled up and atrophied so much. The American people have given up on Congress ever doing anything about corruption at high levels of our government. And then Americans for Tax Reform: Why Congress should impeach IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. Since then, Koskinen has failed to reform the IRS with the agency becoming increasingly politicized. Under Koskinen, the agency destroyed several sources of Lois Lerner's emails while he gave numerous false statements to Congress under oath. So it is very clear that very notable people, patriots, and people of stature, people who are well-respected in America agree with the House Freedom Caucus that we should move forward. Finally, there has been polling on this matter. Freedom Works, for instance, has commissioned a poll. Very clearly the American people say by as much as a 66 percent net positive over negative that John Koskinen should lose his job. So I think it is very clear. I would just say that we are not sure what votes that we are going to have tomorrow on this subject, but any vote short of impeachment of the IRS Commissioner would be a vote against impeachment and would be a vote against showing Mr. Koskinen the door and getting someone who will do right by our leadership in the Internal Revenue Service, a very important agency, and one that has been so much abused--or, actually, victims. Americans have been abused--through its institution.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Missouri. However, if such executive orders were actually enforced, we wouldn't have this problem. That would be great if President Obama's executive orders actually did prevent duplication and overlapping and the conflict and the problems that occurred. That would be great. But, evidently, people in his own administration, the Obama administration, don't heed the requirements that are set forth by the leader of that, which is President Obama. That is why we need this in law, Mr. Chairman, because Congress itself needs to hold the agencies, and certainly the Obama administration, accountable for not enforcing the very executive orders that they put out. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 5226, also known as the Regulatory Integrity Act. My amendment requires agencies to disclose where a proposed rule would duplicate or overlap with other existing rules when they are making the online disclosure required by the underlying bill. Our economy, and small businesses in particular, are suffering under a wet blanket of legislation, and it is particularly onerous when businesses have to comply with multiple sets of these regulations. One area that hits particularly close to home in Louisiana is the EPA's methane rule and its overlap with the BLM's methane and waste reduction rule. Louisiana's Fourth District is home to the Haynesville Shale, one of our Nation's largest sources for natural gas. BLM doesn't have any authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions, so, instead, they decided to regulate methane emissions under the guise of eliminating waste. This is a poorly disguised attempt to double- regulate those who produce natural gas on Federal lands and comes after BLM has superseded State fracking regulations with their own additional layer of costly Federal regulation. EPA's regulation alone will make many oil and gas production wells cost prohibitive in today's economy, which of course is their desire as they pursue a ``keep it in the ground'' agenda. That is why I introduced H.R. 4037, the Keeping Oil and Natural Gas Flowing for Consumers Act, to block EPA's harmful rule and protect consumers. One example that might appeal to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is with respect to renewable energy. Now, I do not believe the Federal Government should be subsidizing any form of energy. We should have a marketplace where the most affordable and reliable energy sources freely compete with one another. But if my colleagues do want to subsidize wind farms, I would ask them, why do they have 10 different regulatory agencies with 96 forms that impose 3 million hours of paperwork costing an estimated $177 million to complete? That seems counterproductive to their cause. The House has recognized the need to eliminate costly and duplicative regulations. In January of this year, we passed H.R. 1155, the SCRUB Act, by Jason Smith. My amendment would complement that effort by requiring agencies to identify, within their own regulations, where there is duplication or overlap with other regulations and disclose that to the public. As we seek to root out corruption and prevent agencies from organizing Astroturf advocacy campaigns to promote costly regulations on the public, we must also be on the lookout for commonsense changes we can make to help our struggling economy recover. Identifying and ending duplicative rules is an easy way to start. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 (a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: House Resolution 828--impeaching John Andrew Koskinen, Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, for high crimes and misdemeanors. Resolved, that John Andrew Koskinen, Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate: Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against John Andrew Koskinen, Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors. Article l. John Andrew Koskinen, in his conduct while Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, engaged in a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with his duties as an Officer of the United States, as follows: Commissioner Koskinen failed in his duty to respond to lawfully issued congressional subpoenas. On August 2, 2013, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives issued a subpoena to Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew, the custodian of Internal Revenue Service documents. That subpoena demanded, among other things, ``all communications sent or received by Lois Lerner, from January 1, 2009, to August 2, 2013.'' On February 14, 2014, following the Senate's confirmation of John Andrew Koskinen as Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives reissued the subpoena to him. On March 4, 2014, Internal Revenue Service employees in Martinsburg, West Virginia, magnetically erased 422 backup tapes, destroying as many as 24,000 of Lois Lerner's emails responsive to the subpoena. This action impeded congressional investigations into the Internal Revenue Service targeting of Americans based on their political affiliation. The American people may never know the true culpability or extent of the Internal Revenue Service targeting because of the destruction of evidence that took place. Wherefore, John Andrew Koskinen, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office. Article 2. John Andrew Koskinen engaged in a pattern of deception that demonstrates his unfitness to serve as Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. Commissioner Koskinen made a series of false and misleading statements to Congress in contravention of his oath to tell the truth. Those false statements included the following: (1) On June 20, 2014, Commissioner Koskinen testified that ``since the start of this investigation, every email has been preserved. Nothing has been lost. Nothing has been destroyed.'' (2) On June 23, 2014, Commissioner Koskinen testified that the Internal Revenue Service had ``confirmed that backup tapes from 2011 no longer existed because they have been recycled, pursuant to the Internal Revenue Service normal policy.'' He went on to explain that ``confirmed means that somebody went back and looked and made sure that in fact any backup tapes that had existed had been recycled.'' (3) On March 26, 2014, Commissioner Koskinen was asked during a hearing before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, ``Sir, are you or are you not going to provide this committee all of Lois Lerner's emails?'' He answered, ``Yes, we will do that.'' Each of those statements was materially false. On March 4, 2014, Internal Revenue Service employees magnetically erased 422 backup tapes containing as many as 24,000 of Lois Lerner's emails. On February 2, 2014, senior Internal Revenue Service officials discovered that Lois Lerner's computer hard drive had crashed, rendering hundreds or thousands of her emails unrecoverable. Commissioner Koskinen's false statements impeded and confused congressional investigations into the Internal Revenue Service targeting of Americans based on their political affiliation. Wherefore, John Andrew Koskinen, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office. Article 3. John Andrew Koskinen, throughout his tenure as Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, has acted in a manner inconsistent with the trust and confidence placed in him as an Officer of the United States, as follows: During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Finance, John Andrew Koskinen promised, ``We will be transparent about any problems we run into; and the public and certainly this committee will know about those problems as soon as we do.'' Commissioner Koskinen repeatedly violated that promise. As early as February 2014 and no later than April 2014, he was aware that a substantial portion of Lois Lerner's emails could not be produced to Congress. However, in a March 19, 2014, letter to Senator Wyden of the Senate Committee on Finance, Commissioner Koskinen said, ``We are transmitting today additional information that we believe completes our production to your committee and the House Ways and Means Committee. . . . In light of these productions, I hope that the investigations can be concluded in the very near future.'' At the time he sent that letter, he knew that the document production was not complete. Commissioner Koskinen did not notify Congress of any problem until June 13, 2014, when he included the information on the fifth page of the third enclosure of a letter to the Senate Committee on Finance. Wherefore, John Andrew Koskinen, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office. Article 4. John Andrew Koskinen has failed to act with competence and forthrightness in overseeing the investigation into Internal Revenue Service targeting of Americans because of their political affiliations as follows: Commissioner Koskinen stated in a hearing on June 20, 2014, that the Internal Revenue Service had ``gone to great lengths'' to retrieve all of Lois Lerner's emails. Commissioner Koskinen's actions contradicted the assurances he gave to Congress. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found over 1,000 of Lois Lerner's emails that the Internal Revenue Service had failed to produce. Those discoveries took only 15 days of investigation to uncover. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration searched a number of available sources, including disaster backup tapes, Lois Lerner's BlackBerry, the email server, backup tapes for the email server, and Lois Lerner's temporary replacement laptop. The Internal Revenue Service failed to examine any of those sources in its own investigation. Wherefore, John Andrew Koskinen, by such conduct, warrants impeachment, trial, and removal from office.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct the record regarding statements made by Congresswoman McCollum (D-MN-4) during debate on the Smith (MO) Amendment Number 85 to H.R. 5538, the Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017. Congresswoman McCollum claimed during amendment debate that the Smith Amendment would block $500 million from the Deepwater Horizon settlement from being paid to Gulf States by the Office of Natural Resource Disaster Assessment at the Department of Interior. Despite Congresswoman McCollum's claims, the Smith Amendment does not have any legal effect on the Deepwater Horizon settlement. The Smith Amendment prevents the Department of Interior from using funds to carry out this sentence of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA): ``Sums recovered by the United States Government as trustee under this subsection shall be retained by the trustee, without further appropriation, for use only to restore, replace, or acquire the equivalent of such natural resources.'' However, the Deepwater Horizon spill fell entirely under the Oil Pollution Act, and was not prosecuted under CERCLA. No fines were assessed under CERCLA. In addition, CERCLA contains an explicit exemption for petroleum products in Section 101(14). In fact, an environmental group that filed a lawsuit against BP under CERCLA and EPCRA lost their suit because of the petroleum exemptions in those laws. Therefore, a legal analysis by the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service confirmed that the Smith (MO) Amendment Number 85 would have had no legal effect on the NRDA process, the RESTORE Act funds, or any other payment from the Deepwater Horizon Settlement. The RESTORE Act already appropriates money from the settlement to the states. To quote from the CRS memorandum: ``This memorandum finds that the Amendment, if approved and then made part of enacted legislation, would not have created a legal barrier to DOI's distribution of funds from the Deepwater Horizon settlement with the federal government and the Gulf States to address natural resources damages related to the incident.'' Instead, the Smith Amendment would have prevented executive branch agencies who collect fines under CERCLA from buying more federal land that is unrelated to the CERCLA violation without any Congressional oversight. The Amendment is designed to stop executive branch abuses and overreach, which has been a common theme for the Obama Administration. Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC, July 19, 2016. Memorandum From: Adam Vann, Legislative Attorney, 7-6978 Subject: Applicability of Failed Amend. 85 of H.R. 5538 to the Authority of the Department of the Interior to Distribute Deepwater Horizon Settlement Funds to Gulf States You have asked us to analyze the impact that a proposed Amendment to H.R. 5538, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017, would have on the legal authority of the Department of the Interior (DOI) to allocate funds to mitigate natural resources damages caused by the 2010 Deepwater Horizon incident. The proposed Amendment, listed as Amendment 85 in a Rules Committee Report on H.R. 5538, was not adopted. The Amendment would have provided that funds made available by H.R. 5538 could not be used to carry out a specific provision in Section 107(f)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). This memorandum finds that the Amendment, if approved and then made part of enacted legislation, would not have created a legal barrier to DOI's distribution of funds from the Deepwater Horizon settlement with the federal government and the Gulf States to address natural resources damages related to the incident. However, CRS is not opining on whether the Amendment would have created practical administrative difficulties that might have impeded allocation of those funds. Background

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: House Resolution 828. Impeaching John Andrew Koskinen, Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, for high crimes and misdemeanors. Resolved, that John Andrew Koskinen, Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate: Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against John Andrew Koskinen, Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors. Article 1: John Andrew Koskinen, in his conduct while Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, engaged in a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with his duties as an officer of the United States, as follows: Commissioner Koskinen failed in his duty to respond to lawfully issued congressional subpoenas. On August 2, 2013, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives issued a subpoena to the Secretary of the Treasury, Jacob Lew, the custodian of the Internal Revenue Service documents. That subpoena demanded, among other things, ``all communications sent or received by Lois Lerner from January 1, 2009, to August 2, 2013.'' On February 14, 2014, following the Senate's confirmation of John Andrew Koskinen as Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives reissued the subpoena to him. On March 4, 2014, Internal Revenue Service employees in Martinsburg, West Virginia, magnetically erased 422 backup tapes, destroying as many as 24,000 of Lois Lerner's emails responsive to the subpoena. This action impeded congressional investigations into the Internal Revenue Service targeting of Americans based on their political affiliation. The American people may never know the true culpability or extent of the Internal Revenue Service targeting because of the destruction of evidence that took place. Wherefore, John Andrew Koskinen, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office. Article 2: John Andrew Koskinen engaged in a pattern of deception that demonstrates his unfitness to serve as Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. Commissioner Koskinen made a series of false and misleading statements to Congress in contravention of his oath to tell the truth. Those false statements included the following: Number 1, on June 20, 2014, Commissioner Koskinen testified that ``since the start of this investigation, every email has been preserved. Nothing has been lost. Nothing has been destroyed.'' Number 2, on June 23, 2014, Commissioner Koskinen testified that the Internal Revenue Service had ``confirmed that backup tapes from 2011 no longer existed because they have been recycled, pursuant to the Internal Revenue Service's normal policy.'' He went on to explain that ``confirmed means that somebody went back and looked and made sure that, in fact, any backup tapes that had existed had been recycled.'' Number 3, on March 26, 2014, Commissioner Koskinen was asked during a hearing before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, ``Sir, are you or are you not going to provide this committee all of Lois Lerner's emails?'' He answered, ``Yes, we will do that.'' Each of those statements was materially false. On March 4, 2014, Internal Revenue Service employees magnetically erased 422 backup tapes containing as many as 24,000 of Lois Lerner's emails. On February 2, 2014, senior Internal Revenue Service officials discovered that Lois Lerner's computer hard drive had crashed, rendering hundreds or thousands of her emails unrecoverable. Commissioner Koskinen's false statements impeded and confused congressional investigations into the Internal Revenue Service targeting of Americans based on their political affiliation. Wherefore, John Andrew Koskinen, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office. Article 3: John Andrew Koskinen, throughout his tenure as Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, has acted in a manner inconsistent with the trust and confidence placed in him as an officer of the United States, as follows: During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Finance, John Andrew Koskinen promised, ``We will be transparent about any problems we run into; and the public and certainly this committee will know about those problems as soon as we do.'' Commissioner Koskinen repeatedly violated that promise. As early as February 2014 and no later than April 2014, he was aware that a substantial portion of Lois Lerner's emails could not be produced to Congress. However, in a March 19, 2014, letter to Senator Wyden of the Senate Committee on Finance, Commissioner Koskinen said, ``We are transmitting today additional information that we believe completes our production to your committee and the House Ways and Means Committee. In light of those productions, I hope that the investigations can be concluded in the very near future.'' At the time he sent that letter, he knew that the document production was not complete. Commissioner Koskinen did not notify Congress of any problem until June 13, 2014, when he included the information on the fifth page of the third enclosure of a letter to the Senate Committee on Finance. Wherefore, John Andrew Koskinen, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office. Article 4: John Andrew Koskinen has failed to act with competence and forthrightness in overseeing the investigation into Internal Revenue Service targeting of Americans because of their political affiliations as follows: Commissioner Koskinen stated in a hearing on June 20, 2014, that the Internal Revenue Service had ``gone to great lengths'' to retrieve all of Lois Lerner's emails. Commissioner Koskinen's actions contradicted the assurances he gave to Congress. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found over 1,000 of Lois Lerner's emails that the Internal Revenue Service had failed to produce. Those discoveries took only 15 days of investigation to uncover. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration searched a number of available sources, including disaster backup tapes, Lois Lerner's BlackBerry, the email server, backup tapes for the email server, and Lois Lerner's temporary replacement laptop. The Internal Revenue Service failed to examine any of those sources in its own investigation. Wherefore, John Andrew Koskinen, by such conduct, warrants impeachment, trial, and removal from office.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Madam Speaker, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, those words are inscribed in the Declaration of Independence among our inalienable rights, but the most important is life itself. As a physician who has delivered hundreds of babies, a father of four and a grandfather of three, I think I know something about preborn life and about the beginning of life itself. This is much more important than just our day-to-day work that we do here. So a decision in order for a healthcare worker or nonhealthcare worker to participate with an abortion, whether paying for it or actually performing it, is an immensely important debate that we should have here. It is not just religious grounds, as what is suggested on the other side, but also moral grounds. You see, even an atheist can find it against his or her conscience to participate in any way with an abortion. Now, the Conscience Protection Act, what is it, and why do we need it? Well, I would say, first of all, that it gives a private right of action to any American who disagrees with being required to pay insurance that would cover elective abortions. Certainly, a healthcare provider that may have to participate in any way--a physician, a nurse, anyone--should not be required to do that against his or her will. And it protects for that. It gives a private right of action. Now, why do we need a private right of action? Because in the recent example, in California, Secretary Burwell has failed, has deliberately avoided enforcing the very law itself, the Weldon amendment, that has been in law for 12 years. She has failed to enforce that law. And, therefore, the people of California, millions of people, do not have an access to court. They can't complain. They can't do anything and get relief. What this bill does is allow them to open that courtroom door and to get that relief and not be required any longer to participate with abortions, spending or otherwise. Now, the other side might say: What is the need for this? Is anyone being harmed? Of course, they are. You have heard of the DeCarlo case, where the nurse had to participate with putting dismembered body parts back together of a 22-week-old fetus. We have the nurses of Nassau University Medical Center. In 2010, nine of them were suspended for refusing to assist in abortions. And we have many, many other cases. I would just say to you, in conclusion today, this is the land of the free. This is, again, life and the pursuit of happiness. Certainly, it is important that what we do here today, in passing this bill, that we protect the conscience rights--not just the religious rights but the moral rights--of our fellow citizens of America. We do the right thing, and we go on, and we work from there.

Mr. FLEMING. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the testimony from Honorable Dr. Dave Weldon, author of the Weldon amendment, on this very bill and a few letters I received from obstetricians and gynecologists from across the country. Statement by the Hon. Dave Weldon, MD, Retired FL-15 Congressional Forum on Conscience Rights, July 8, 2016 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important issue. The stories shared today by the people around this table underscore the very reason I authored the Weldon amendment. You can imagine my outrage to learn that this administration has gutted my amendment and is allowing ongoing discrimination in California. Over a decade ago, I became aware of the Maryland NARAL Hospital Provider Project. This disturbing initiative was designed to force abortion into every hospital in Maryland. In response to this and similar threats, I drafted my appropriations amendment. It is intended to bring a stop to the abortion industry crusade to force this gruesome procedure into every aspect of society. Recognizing that the abortion lobby's relentless campaign knows no limits, we drafted the amendment to cover a wide universe of entities. Nurses, doctors, hospitals, even health plans themselves are covered entities under my amendment. Covering individual health plans ensures that insurance companies that are ambivalent about abortion can still offer plans that exclude abortion to meet the needs of purchasers. We never limited the protection to those with religious, moral or conscience objections. In fact, in my experience as a physician the majority of health professionals who claim to support Roe v Wade always say to me that they would never want to be affiliated with doing an abortion. They too would be protected if the administration would do their duty to enforce the law. I authored this amendment to protect FREEDOM for people to provide health care free from abortion and FREEDOM for people to access health care and coverage free from the scourge of abortion. FREEDOM for people like the pastors here today to purchase insurance plans that exclude abortion--a freedom the existed just two years ago before California took the draconian step of mandating abortion in ALL plans under the authority of the California Department of Managed Health Care. The origins of the directive are as insidious as the directive itself. When the abortion lobby found out that Catholic Universities in California did not cover abortion in their insurance plans, they sprang to action, initiating a meeting with the Department of Managed Health Care. Less than a year later, the Department did the bidding of Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. They unilaterally inserted abortion into each and every insurance plan under their authority--even plans purchased by CHURCHES and Catholic Universities. My amendment anticipated this very scenario by defining a health insurance plan as a protected health care entity. This allows an insurance company to offer multiple insurance plans--some with abortion coverage and some without to meet the conscience needs of their clients. After the Department of Managed Health Care issued their directive, the plans excluding abortion were changed to include abortion. This is clear discrimination against the plan that excluded abortion, since such plan was no longer permitted to exist As I explained in my floor statement in 2004, ``This is a continuation of the Hyde policy of conscience protection . . . The right of conscience is fundamental to our American freedoms. We should guarantee this freedom by protecting all health care providers from being forced to perform, refer or pay for elective abortions.'' Unfortunately, the current administration has even twisted this statement to suit their political agenda. They take this reference to conscience protection and argue that it must mean that I meant to include a religious or moral test in my amendment. This is far from the truth. There is no reasonable way to read my statement as an excuse to airdrop a religious or moral test into my amendment. The Hyde amendment stops ALL federal funding for elective abortion. Similarly, my amendment stops ALL discrimination against entities that do not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortion. Both amendments protect conscience broadly by protecting the freedom of Americans to offer and access health care that does not include abortion. Neither limits its protections to cases where someone raises a religious or moral objection. In the June 21, 2016 letter announcing their gutting of the Weldon amendment, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) also feebly attempted to twist several more of my comments in their effort to ignore the plain reading of the text. One begins to wonder, what's next. How far will the abortion lobby and their allies in the administration go to force abortion into our health care system? I am deeply concerned that this administration added words to my amendment where they do not exist and ignored other words clearly articulated in the text. We simply can no longer rely on the administration to enforce the law and must offer a private right of action that allows the Weldon protections to be enforced by the Courts.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chair, again, I just ask my colleagues to support this. This is common sense. We need to protect our soldiers, sailors, airmen, as well as marines. We need to make sure that they are safe out there, that every dollar is put into readiness to protect them, and it should not be diverted in this way. Again, I urge support of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chair, I thank my friends and colleagues for their comments and statements, but I simply have to disagree. Again, this is about military readiness, which we are at a low, low point. We are getting all sorts of reports. We are having hearings from generals, commanders in the field, and generals at the Pentagon, telling us that they are scratching for every little penny they can find for readiness. In fact, just the other night on FOX News, they talked about a Marine Corps F-18. They had to go to a museum just to find a part to put on that in order for it to go into service. Look, if it is important to provide facilities for unaccompanied alien children, then the Appropriations Committee should appropriate those dollars. But they should not take them from the vital military facilities. They shouldn't take scarce dollars away from our readiness. As a result of that, again, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have?

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit funds from being used to modify a military installation for the purpose of housing unaccompanied alien children. Our military installations are for training and equipping soldiers to fight our Nation's wars. The use of DOD facilities to house unaccompanied alien children undermines the readiness of our Armed Forces, which we know to be in extremis at this point. This amendment follows on from a provision included in the National Defense Authorization Act, passed out of the House Armed Services Committee, that prohibits unaccompanied alien children from being hosted on military installations. A similar standalone bill has also been introduced by Judge John Carter of Texas and has 61 cosponsors. Under recent agreements made by the Department of Health and Human Services, the DOD has provided housing to unaccompanied alien children with certain requirements and preferences being requested by HHS that facilities be able to provide space for security fencing, service trailers, and potential soft-sided outdoor housing. It is inappropriate for scarce defense dollars, meant to go for the readiness of our soldiers, to be used for nondefense purposes, especially at this time in our Nation's history when our readiness is so low. Take, for example, the Army Air Defense and Artillery training site at Fort Sill, where unaccompanied minors were housed in 2014. These barracks were used by HHS, and resources had to be expended to ensure HHS contractors and the minors being hosted did not gain access to sensitive areas and live-fire training ranges. Fort Hood was also on the short list for hosting unaccompanied minors in 2015. Because of this, the Texas National Guard was unable to stand up a training facility because the base was being considered to host these unaccompanied minors. Our military infrastructure is in serious need of upgrading and construction dollars are scarce. Mr. Chairman, the slightest use of resources to modify an installation to meet nondefense missions jeopardizes the readiness of our Armed Forces. Following on the prohibition placed in this year's House NDAA, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the ranking member, all my amendment does is holds the status quo before these two executive orders; and that is, the commanders in the field and the generals at the Pentagon can do whatever is best for the military, whether or not it has to do with saving money or spending more money on alternative forms of energy. My amendment frees them up. It does not restrict them in any way. I urge adoption of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, again, my amendment is not a debate about climate change, regardless of where you fall on that issue. All this does is free up DOD to make the vital important decisions on that, instead of handcuffing it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I would respond, first of all, by saying I think we all see the reports. If you are on Armed Services, you hear our generals talk about how our readiness is in dire straits, that we can't respond to the challenges around the world. At a time like this, why would we want to pay 5 or 10 times the nominal amount for fuel? It makes no sense. To my colleague who wants to argue climate change: fine, we can argue that. But this is not the place to debate that. You see, my amendment allows for the Department of Defense to do whatever is best for our Armed Forces. Whether you agree with climate change or not, it doesn't matter. All we say is let's free up the DOD, our Armed Forces, and our generals to do the right thing. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prevents scarce dollars from being wasted to fund two of President Obama's executive orders regarding climate change and green energy. These are dollars that should go to the readiness of our Armed Forces. A similar amendment has already been adopted by voice vote for the past 2 years during House floor consideration of the Defense appropriations bills. My amendment is supported by 28 outside organizations, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Americans for Prosperity, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, and many others. These executive orders require the Department of Defense to squander--squander--precious defense dollars by incorporating climate change bureaucracies into its acquisition and military operations and to waste money on green energy projects. EPA bureaucrats and other political appointees are directing our military commanders on how to run their installations and procure green weapons, which undermines ongoing acquisition reforms in the NDAA. These activities are simply not the mission of the U.S. military. Regarding DOD's energy policy, decisions by installation commanders and DOD personnel need to be driven by requirements for actual cost- effectiveness, readiness, not arbitrary and inflexible green energy quotas and CO2 benchmarks. My amendment does not prevent the DOD from considering renewable energy projects where it makes sense. But these decisions should not be driven by these mandates. Take, for example, the Naval Station Norfolk, where the solar array cost the Navy $21 million but only provided 2 percent of the base's electricity. According to the Inspector General's Office, it will take 447 years for the savings to pay the cost of the project. However, solar panels usually only last about 25 years. These mandates are diverting limited military resources to Solyndra- style boondoggles while sacrificing our military's readiness, modernization, and end strength. In a time of declining defense budgets, we need to ensure that every dollar spent goes directly to support the lethality of our Armed Forces. Again, my amendment is similar to repeated efforts by the House to prevent national security dollars from being wasted to advance the President's onerous green energy and climate change requirements. So I ask that the House continue that opposition to this nondefense agenda by supporting my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I would just simply like to close and say let's think about the American people, and let's give the American people access to the valuable and beautiful land that we have here in this Nation. I yield back the balance of my time.