Tim Huelskamp

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. I thank you, Congressman. The gentleman from California raises some incredibly important points; number one, the personal aspect of marriage; also, the social aspect of marriage, particularly for our children. I appreciate the efforts of voters in California. I apologize that a few Justices decided to attempt to overrule folks in California on this issue. Next, I would like to turn towards a gentleman from Texas who has rapidly become a leader on this issue as well, and that is Congressman Randy Weber. Randy, could you share with us some of your thoughts about marriage and its impact as we celebrate National Marriage Week?

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Thank you, Congressman Weber. I have one follow-up question to try to determine in your mind exactly where do you think our Attorney General and the administration believes they have the authority to determine exactly what a marriage is? Can you explain that to me, Congressman?

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Thank you for your leadership. I appreciate your efforts on the State Marriage Defense Act. I am a cosponsor of that, and I encourage my colleagues to take a close look at that. It is not just the issue of marriage; it is the issue of who makes the decisions. As the author of the Kansas Marriage Amendment in 2005, I believe Kansans should decide that and Texans should decide that, not five unelected Justices here in our Nation's capital. So, thank you, Randy, for your efforts. Next, I would like to yield to a Congressman from New Jersey. Congressman Scott Garrett has been a critical leader on many issues of the home, the heart, marriage, family, and fiscal responsibility. It has been my honor to serve with Congressman Garrett. I yield the gentleman from New Jersey as much time as he might consume, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HUELSKAMP. I thank the gentleman. You do indicate one study, but clearly what we do have are decades and decades of research, and obviously personal experience as well, on how important marriage is to reducing poverty, reducing crime. The number one single factor is the situation of marriage, and the gentleman from New Jersey has brought some additional issues as far as community. We sit in this body and hear from the President and others: What can we do for the children? I wonder, it was about a year ago, and we have the President of France in our Nation as we speak, and there were more than 1 million French marching recently to say marriage is important. Were they saying marriage was important for them? Partly, but they were saying it is most important for the children. If you want to help the children, I beseech you, the research is clear. The Congressman has identified a study, and study after study exists, if you want to help reduce poverty, if you want to help self-esteem, let's help encourage marriage. I appreciate your leadership on this. Next, I yield to a freshman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho). Again, this is National Marriage Week. It is close to Valentine's Day, and I hope you have gotten your Valentine gift for your sweetheart.

Mr. HUELSKAMP. I thank the Congressman. I appreciate your compelling personal story. It is a story shared by millions of other Americans. It is something of the heart. We mentioned as well, it is not just of the heart and the home; it is for our community and the entire country. The President and I can disagree on a number of things, but in 2008 there were some words that I think are clearly on the mark in terms of some items we have been discussing today. In his 2008 Father's Day address, the President said: We know the statistics: that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of school, and 20 times more likely to have behavioral problems or run away from home or become teenage parents themselves. Without the institution of marriage, without particularly the institution of fatherhood, and we are facing a crisis epidemic of fatherlessness in this country, the President and I agree. It has an impact. It has an impact on every child. The lack of marriage and the lack of stability and the declining awareness of marriage hurts our children and hurts our society. It reminds me of a story that I believe was in Dr. James Dobson's book on raising up boys, and I do have two boys myself. He noted some years ago executives of a greeting card company decided to do something special for Mother's Day. So in a Federal prison, they set up a table inviting any inmate who desired to send a free card to his mom. The lines were long, and they had to make another trip to the factory to get more cards. Due to the success of the event, they said let's do the same thing on Father's Day, but this time, this time, no one came. Not one prisoner felt the need to send a card to his dad. Many had no idea who their fathers even were or how important it was. So those who are listening, whether you are fathers or mothers or looking at that, recognize that even though this society, even though Hollywood will tell us it is all about you, it is not. It is all about someone else. It is all about that child. They need a father, they need a mother. No one can be perfect. I have four kids myself, and I am reminded of that every day, oftentimes by my daughters themselves, but we are not asking for perfection, we are just asking for that time, that time to promote marriage and to spend the time with your spouse. If you are not married and you have children, look at getting married. That will stabilize and bring many things to your children. This is National Marriage Week. This is an opportunity here in our Nation not only to talk about marriage, but talk about its impacts, talk about how its loss has hurt our society. I firmly believe that we could spend endless amounts of money up here, and occasionally we do that, but you cannot replace the family, you cannot replace daddy, you cannot replace mommy. We can do our best. We can help our neighbors. But as we debate the definition of marriage where we have a Court that on the one hand in June says we are going to let the States decide kind of unless you are in California, and then on the other hand there is a Federal definition or a State definition, at the end of the day it is all about how important marriage is. Marriage predates government. We might like to redefine it. In 1856, the Republican Party had a number of things in their platform. One is very important. They demanded a free Kansas. Being a Kansan, we appreciated that and entered as a free State a few years later. They also wanted to face numerous other things, including the twin evils of slavery and barbarism. They were talking about the issues of irregular marriage and the issues of traditional marriage and how important it was and still is to society. I appreciate many of my colleagues that joined us here tonight. But most importantly, I want to just speak again to moms and dads and spouses. Marriage can be tough, it really is, but God is calling you to do everything you can. It is just not you and your spouse. There is a third person in your marriage. God would like to bless and protect that marriage and give you many fruitful days ahead. With that, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time on the special hour during National Marriage Week. I appreciate folks that are listening-- my colleagues. Feel free to tweet out the message to encourage that. We can do many great things up here we think in Washington, D.C., but oftentimes it is that one little thing we can do for our neighbors and for our spouses as we celebrate Valentine's Day this week. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Tonight, President Obama will give another speech on the state of the American Union, and here are a few facts you likely won't hear him report to the American people. After 1,834 days as President, here are the results: 6.5 million more Americans in poverty; $6.6 trillion in massive new debt on our children and grandchildren; 13 million more Americans on food stamps; 5 million Americans and counting have lost their health insurance because of ObamaCare; and 24.2 million Americans are still looking for a full-time job in the Obama economy. Mr. President, I can only hope that you will recognize and that you honestly will admit and that tonight you will apologize for the damage your policies have inflicted on our Nation, on the American people, and on the American Dream.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. It is a good bill, an important bill, that takes critical steps to protect the lives of the innocent unborn and the conscience rights of millions of Americans. Before discussing the bill, I think it is important to recall some important history that was discussed previously. On Saturday, March 20, 2010, the President of the United States announced a so-called ``agreement'' on his Affordable Care Act. In part, because of this agreement supposedly protecting Americans' conscience rights, ObamaCare narrowly passed and was signed into law. Madam Speaker, the so-called ``Stupak agreement'' was a charade--it did not protect our conscience rights; it did not stop the Federal funding of abortion. In fact, it did the very opposite. It was hidden behind a veil of secrecy and accounting gimmicks, and because of this charade, we are here today. H.R. 7 is very simple. It does exactly what the administration hoped we would believe they were doing in the Stupak agreement, and it answers the fundamental question: How do we protect the moral beliefs of a majority of Americans on the wrenching issue of taking the lives of the innocent unborn? The answer is clear: We should not force people to pay for what they do not believe in. We should stop Federal bureaucrats from using Americans' hard-earned tax dollars to pay for abortions, and we should allow Americans to exercise their God-given rights of conscience. The American people are opposed to using taxpayer dollars to pay for the taking of innocent human life. We know this from the thousands of constituents who contact each of our offices. We know this from the hundreds and thousands of Americans who descended upon this Capitol and State capitals across the Nation in March for Lives just last week, and we know this from the 90-plus lawsuits that have been filed by organizations on religious liberty grounds, like the Little Sisters of the Poor, Wheaton College, Hobby Lobby, and Conestoga Wood. The list goes on and on. We know this in our hearts. It is simply wrong to force people to pay for abortions--something that violates their consciences, their fundamental beliefs and religious liberties.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate your leadership. Long before I came here to this body, I have always considered you my personal hero. So I thank you for that continued leadership. Next week, we will see the 41st March for Life. I have been attending marches nearly for all of the last 20 years either here or in Kansas because protecting life is something I strongly believe in. I have believed in it enough to take part in the Summer of Mercy in Wichita, Kansas, despite the heat, the ridicule and threat of arrest. And I believed in it enough that my wife and I met doing pro-life work helping and encouraging women in crisis pregnancies. We believe in protecting life enough to have four adopted children. I still remember meeting our two daughters for the first time, at airports of all places. In Miami in 1999, I waited with my wife, nervously looking forward to that first glimpse, the first time we were going to hold our oldest daughter. In Kansas City 2 years later, this time my oldest daughter in one hand and a dozen roses in the other waiting for my wife to step off the plane with our second daughter. I still remember that ride home. My wife had a bright idea--a 3- and a 5-year-old--she said, maybe if we put their car seats together, they can learn to get along. That lasted about 15 minutes. But 400 miles later, we finally arrived home just in time for Christmas Eve Mass. And what a Christmas gift from a mother who chose life. Each day, more and more eyes are being opened to the horrors of abortion and the blessings of adoption. Each day, more and more young people are making the choice to stand up and defend life. And each day brings us closer to the time when it will no longer be legal for a mother and father to kill their baby just because a throwaway society tells them that little girl or that little boy doesn't fit in their plans. We are getting closer to that goal to protect all innocent life from conception to natural death, but it will not happen without action. Action in Congress yes, but more importantly, action at home, action in our hearts, action in our families. We need to be talking and praying with our friends, our neighbors, our coworkers about the importance of protecting life and helping families in crisis pregnancies. If we want to see an end to abortion, it will happen because the hearts and minds of individual Americans were changed by our actions.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Congresswoman Hartzler, I appreciate your leadership on this topic. It is so essential, not just to our brave men and women serving in the military, but also to our foundation as a Nation. I would like to identify two stories that occurred in the last month and a half in the military. They are very troubling. During the government slowdown in October, the administration, it was reported in some parts of the media, required all chapels that were serviced by contract chaplains to be closed. In particular, I visited with Father Ray Leonard, who served a naval base in South Carolina. He was not informed ahead of time. He showed up for Saturday evening mass to a locked door at the chapel. Door locked. It said, Come back. Shut down. Go away. People from his congregation were pouring into the parking lot and were forbidden, a locked door, not allowed to enter. He said, I want to volunteer. I want to do it for free. I want to say mass. The government said no. Father Ray Leonard had a long history. He just had come back from serving as a missionary in China. His words were: I expected that in China. I expected a locked church door in China, but not in America, not on a military base. The Department of Defense decided they were going to punish men and women of faith by locking those doors. Another case of a chaplain in Texas, the first day of the government slowdown, he was ordered to come to the office. By 10 a.m., his BlackBerry was taken from him. All of his contact information was taken from him, as was his computer. He was forbidden to answer any private calls. He was forbidden to answer emails. He was forbidden to communicate with any of the folks he was in the middle of counseling. Those are folks suffering from PTSD. During the entire shutdown, the government forbade him to serve as a chaplain. It is those kinds of things that you are wondering what they are thinking at the Department of Defense in this administration because, as James Madison wrote, ``conscience is the most sacred of all properties''--but if you refuse access to chaplains, the folks who are putting their lives on the line. I was in the White House in April when the Congressional Medal of Honor was granted to Father Emil Kapaun from Kansas, and the President talked about his great history and how he inspired Catholics and Protestants and Jews and Muslims at that death camp, and he received an award and a tremendous honor. He was a tremendous man and a tremendous leader, but he is the very type of person that I believe today would not be allowed to serve in our U.S. military. That is a shame. But most devastating, it is not just a shame; it is a loss to the men and women who are looking for that type of support, that type of encouragement, that type of inspiration. This was a Nation founded with his blessings, and then we turn around and lock the church door. We turn around and kick chaplains out who actually have views that differ with the administration. This is an attack on religious liberty in the military. Who will be there to defend the religious liberty of our members of the armed services? We are there.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of my colleague from Indiana bringing this before the House for discussion. The reality is, the staggering fact is that since the President's reelection through to the next debt limit vote, Washington will have added about $1 trillion to our national debt--in exchange for what? For no spending reductions, in exchange for maintaining the status quo. This is not, as Democrats would argue, about paying our bills; it is about mortgaging our Nation's future. Not only must we vote ``yes'' on this resolution to disapprove of this culture of debt, but it is also time to bring long overdue transparency to the process. As we approached the so-called ``default deadline,'' the White House press secretary told reporters that Secretary Lew did not say we risked default at midnight on October 17; only that we were likely to exhaust our borrowing authority that day. The press corps, as you might recall, responded in disbelief that their doomsday default clocks may actually be wrong. Let's be clear: we were not going to default. Why do I say that? Ask the Vice President, who disappeared for a couple of weeks. It was the Vice President who went to China in August of 2011 and told the Chinese we would never default. Moody's said we were not going to default. The markets showed little volatility. They knew we would not default. Default was just a scare tactic to scare the American people, and we as elected Representatives had no access to the actual data to determine how much borrowing authority the Secretary and the administration had left. We were simply left to take Jack Lew's word for it. In the future, I believe we must require a fuller accounting of how extraordinary measures are used, reported, and are remaining by any administration. In the words of Ronald Reagan, we should ``trust, but verify.'' Madam Speaker, earlier this year, the President sent us a budget that never balances. In fact, he has done that now for 5 years straight. That means under his plan, time and time and time and time and time again, we would only add to our national debt and never pay it off. A vote today to disapprove this debt limit increase may have little impact on the previous $17 trillion in debt or the next $600 billion in debt that we approved as a body a few weeks ago, but it does say three things: It is time to end our culture of debt; It is time to end the Washington status quo; It is time to end the crisis of out-of-control spending and massive debt. I appreciate my colleague's leadership on this matter.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, is it really the policy of this administration to make church services illegal? to threaten Catholic priests with jail if they celebrate mass this weekend? Unfortunately, this policy seems to be another tragic reflection of the complete disregard this administration has for Americans of faith. What is worse is that it's an unprecedented denial of a fundamental constitutional right of our men and women in uniform, like denying access to the World War II or Lincoln Memorials for the first time. This is the first time in 17 previous funding lapses, covering 16 Sundays, that our brave chaplains have been threatened with arrest if they perform their Godly duties. Secretary Hagel must issue an immediate directive that chaplains should continue to perform their duties and that DOD facilities normally used for religious services should continue to be used. Mr. Speaker, the First Amendment is not some empty words on a dusty, archaic document to be viewed somewhere in a museum. I know for men like my uncle, Father Leonard Stegman, who was an Active Duty chaplain for nearly 30 years, the First Amendment is what you do every day as a chaplain, leading men and women of all faiths. It's something real. For the late Father Emil Kapaun, who was recently awarded the Medal of Honor by President Obama on April 11 of this year, the First Amendment was, again, not some empty words. It's what he did every day, and it's the reason he gave his life for his country. It's the reason he was honored and recognized and how he drew men and women of all faiths. In honor of Father Kapaun and of all current and former military chaplains and of all members of the Armed Forces, let's strike a blow for religious liberty today. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution. Let's send a clear message to this administration that the rights of those serving in the Armed Forces cannot be suspended simply to create political and personal pain.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. I thank my colleague from the East and also my colleague from the South for their comments. I'd like to follow up first on Congressman Bridenstine's laying out the record of what has occurred. Here you see a list of the votes the House has taken since the government shutdown began. First, as was mentioned, the Senate refused to negotiate, sit down and actually talk. That happened at 1 a.m. on October 1. Senator Harry Reid said, We're not going to talk; we're not going to negotiate. Since then, we've gone to work. The U.S. House, House Republicans said we're going to try to take care of the veterans. Let's try to take care of funding our national parks. Let's take care of funding the NIH, cancer research for our children. Let's take care of making certain that folks that serve at FEMA are taken care of--a list of vote after vote after vote for the last 4 days. And Congresswoman Hartzler, I appreciate you being here to take the opportunity so that we can show we are at work. We would like to open up the government. The Senate does not. But I'd like to point out how busy the Senate has been for the last 4 days. This, Madam Speaker, is a list of all the votes the U.S. Senate has taken since the shutdown occurred: October 1, the first day of the Harry Reid shutdown, no votes. Day two in the U.S. Senate, no votes. Day three in the United States Senate, not a single recorded vote. Day four--they must be getting tired over there--not a single recorded vote in the U.S. Senate. The entire week. Now, don't forget, the weekend before, the U.S. Senate took the weekend off. Harry Reid came back into session on Monday to make certain the U.S. Government would be shut down to the applause of the White House. That was Monday. Tuesday, no vote; Wednesday, no vote; Thursday, no vote; Friday, no vote. They're home on vacation again. We're going to go back to work tomorrow, and we're going to send another bill to the U.S. Senate. It's clear to me, Madam Speaker, it's clear to me the Senate does not want to open up the U.S. Government, but we cannot give up. One other item I would like to mention--and the Congressman from Oklahoma has made it very clear--that under ObamaCare, every Member of Congress, every Member of the U.S. Senate, everyone in this body, under ObamaCare, is required to sign up for ObamaCare. Monday afternoon, as the government was about ready to close, almost the last thing the President did before they locked the doors on the Federal Government is they issued a special rule to allow Members of Congress to ignore ObamaCare, to create our own health care system just for U.S. Senators and Members of Congress and our staff. The last bill we sent over said, Harry, you know what? We're not going to take part in ignoring ObamaCare. That's the very last thing the President did before they shut down the doors. One thing I've done personally is say, You know what? I don't accept that. I will not accept the President of the United States saying that Members of Congress and Members of the U.S. Senate--indeed, Kathleen Sebelius and the entire Cabinet--should be exempt from ObamaCare. If it's good enough for all of America, it should be good enough for them. I went online, as many of us have done, and started to do my responsibility--I don't know if any Member has done that--and said I'm going to sign up for ObamaCare. At 12:01 a.m., when the government shut down, the Senate's going home, I'm going to sign up for ObamaCare. Madam Speaker, I've been trying to sign up for ObamaCare on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. Here we are Friday, 91 hours later, and I still am on virtual hold. You've seen the pictures. Go on and look it all up yourself. You can't get online. It's an absolute failure. But I will say I am absolutely required under the law, Mr. President, despite your regulations that were inspired and requested by the former Speaker of this body and the current leader of the Senate, we are not exempted. Members of Congress, Members of the U.S. Senate, Members of the Cabinet, the President himself, sign up for ObamaCare. Lead by example and do the right thing. We can open the doors of this government, put Congress back out of the role of a privileged class. And again, one thing I'd like to remind this body, the first individual in the entire United States of America that signed up for ObamaCare, the very first individual who was willing to lead by example was a man by the name of Harry Truman. Mr. President, if you are listening, if you have any convictions of leadership, if you have any integrity you would like to show us, sign up for the D.C. exchange; be the next person to sign up online. Hopefully it won't take you 91 hours to get through, but lead by example. No gilded class. No special rights and privileges. The Constitution says ``no nobility clause.'' I agree with that. I want to thank the Congresswoman from the East, my fellow sophomore, Vicky Hartzler, for her leadership on this issue. So let's talk. Let's have some action. And, oh, by the way, I'm confused. Was the Senate on furlough all last week, all this week? Get back to work, Harry. I appreciate you joining the battle to open this Federal Government.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, at 12:01 a.m. this past Tuesday morning, I attempted to sign up for ObamaCare. It's now been 60 hours, and I have still not been able to successfully navigate the online marketplace. Error message after error message, failed security standards, and 60 hours on Web site hold for just this one Kansan, and it is clear ObamaCare is failing--and embarrassingly so--particularly for the former Kansas Governor who is now in charge of ObamaCare but, of course, refuses to live under it herself. My office recently spoke with one of the insurers in Kansas who told us that not one of the 365,000 uninsured Kansans successfully signed up for insurance under the ObamaCare exchanges the first day. Although Senator Harry Reid and all the Senate Democrats, Kathleen Sebelius, and the President himself refuse to live under ObamaCare, the rest of America doesn't have that privilege. This is yet another example of why we need to get rid of ObamaCare. It's unpopular, unaffordable, and unworkable.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 1302. Participation in SNAP has grown 83 percent since 2008 and will cost us nearly $80 billion this year alone. It is imperative that Congress takes steps to rein in this out-of-control entitlement, and I believe this bill does that. The work requirements in this bill go to the heart of the reforms I have been advocating since I began working on similar bills nearly 3 years ago. It follows a simple line of thought: if you are a healthy adult and don't have someone relying on you to care for them, you ought to earn the benefits you receive. Look for work, start job training to improve your skills, or do community service, but you can no longer sit on your couch or ride a surfboard, like Jason in California, and expect the Federal taxpayer to feed you. I also would like to applaud my home State of Kansas for moving to reinstate work requirements for Kansas adults. The folks in Kansas recognize that if you want to help people get back to work, you shouldn't pay them not to work. Washington should follow our example. Support fiscal responsibility. Support a paycheck over a welfare check. Support the bill.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, freedom of speech and religion and the recognition of the God-given dignity of every human life are core principles upon which America was founded, but these inherent freedoms are being attacked. The Southern Poverty Law Center is one of the worst offenders-- targeting and persecuting Americans who stand up for their moral convictions. This group routinely attacks mainstream, pro-family organizations, slandering them with false accusations of hatred and bigotry. Motivated by their inflammatory rhetoric, a gunman burst into the Family Research Council's lobby last year and shot a security guard, later admitting that the assault was inspired by the Southern Poverty Law Center's hate list. We cannot let the beacon of freedom, known as America, become home to hate groups and other extremists, including those who slander their political opponents.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) as a cosponsor to H.J. Res. 51.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor and pay tribute to the life of Lt. General Richard J. Seitz of Junction City, Kansas. On June 8th, 2013, General ``Dick'' Seitz completed a storied life at the age of 95. Born in Leavenworth, Kansas on February 18th, 1918, he grew up in that city and then attended Kansas State University where in 1939 he began dating his first wife, Bettie Jean Merrill. That same year Dick, foreseeing World War II looming on the horizon, accepted a commission as a 2nd Lieutenant in the Army. He went through the sixth jump school class the Army ever had--thus becoming one of its first paratroopers. With the advent of the war, Dick rose rapidly. At the age of only 25 in March 1942, as a Major, he was given command of the 2nd Battalion of the 517th Parachute Infantry Regimental Combat Team. Thereafter, he was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel and, as the Army's youngest battalion commander, led his battalion throughout its historic combat operations in Europe with the personal radio call sign of ``Dangerous Dick.'' The 517th was flung into combat at Anzio at the time of the breakout from that beachhead followed by fighting up the Italian peninsula. They then made the combat jump into the southern invasion of France at 4 a.m., on August 15th, 1944 as the airborne element of Operation Dragoon with its subsequent heavy combat in the French Maritime Alps. Finally, put in reserve in Northeastern France in December 1944, Dick was drawing up Paris leave rosters for his men when Adolf Hitler launched the Battle of the Bulge. At that point, Dick's 2nd Battalion was married with a Regiment of the 7th Armored Division to form what became known as ``Task Force Seitz.'' It was pushed in to plug the gaps on the north slope of the ``Bulge'' every time the Germans tried to make a breakout. In doing so, his battalion went from 691 men to 380 through combat losses in some of the worst fighting of the second World War. The battalion went on from the ``Bulge'' to see even further bloody combat in the subsequent battles of the Huertigen Forest. Before shipping out to Europe, Dick and Bettie continued to see each other whenever they had a chance to do so. In 1942, after graduating from Kansas State, Bettie joined the Red Cross and was subsequently sent to England in late 1943 to support the bomber groups of the Army Air Corp's 8th Air Force. In the fall of 1944, she was moved to Holland to run an Army rest and rehabilitation center. There, in January 1945, she read in Stars and Stripes that Task Force Seitz was heavily engaged in the fighting around St. Vith. By herself, she drove from Holland to the front in Belgium and managed to find the Regimental HQ of the 517th. But they would not allow her to go onto the very front lines where Dick was. However, this put them back in personal touch which led to their marriage in June 1945 in Joigny, France with one Red Cross bridesmaid and 1,800 paratroopers in attendance in one of the greatest love stories of the war. Dick ended the war with the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and the Purple Heart plus, besides his Parachute Wings, what he most treasured--the Combat Infantryman's Badge. Thereafter, during his lifelong Army career including nearly 37 years of active duty he also received numerous other decorations and awards including the Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit and the French Croix de Guerre and Legion of Honor. Along with these awards, his commands included the 2nd Airborne Battle Group, 503rd Infantry Regiment and the 82nd Airborne Division, which he led into Detroit and Washington, DC in 1967 to quell those cities' riots. He also commanded the XVIII Airborne Corps and was Chief of Staff U.S. Army Vietnam in 1965 through 1967 under General Westmoreland. As a Portuguese speaker he served two tours in Brazil, the last as Chief of the Joint U.S./Brazilian Military Commission and one year in Iran as a military advisor. He likewise served in Japan with the occupation forces immediately after World War II. Dick and Bettie retired to Junction City in 1975. Unfortunately, Bettie died of a heart attack June 1, 1978. Thereafter, Dick was blessed to marry Virginia Crane, a widow, in 1980. She also predeceased him in 2006. In retirement, Dick remained extremely active with the Army through Ft. Riley as well as in the Junction City Community and in Kansas generally. During the Iraqi and Afghanistan Wars he would go out to Ft. Riley to see off and greet the deploying and redeploying units from those fights, no matter the hour day or night. He was past Chairman of the Ft. Riley National Bank, very active with the Coronado Council of the Boy Scouts, a Trustee of St. John's Military Academy, on the Board of the Eisenhower Presidential Library, President of the Fort Riley-Central Kansas Chapter of the Association of the U.S. Army, and Chaired Junction City's Economic Redevelopment Study Commission among many other activities. He was also honored as an Outstanding Citizen of Kansas, received the prestigious AUSA Creighton Abrams Award, and most recently had the General Richard J. Seitz Elementary School named in his honor on the post at Ft. Riley. He felt a particular affection for the faculty and students of that school whom he visited as often as he could. The best way to describe Dick is that he lived his life ``Airborne all the way!'' to the very end. Last year my family and I had the privilege to meet General Dick Seitz when he served as the Grand Marshal at the Independence Day parade in Junction City. I quickly came to understand why General Seitz was admired by so many. Not only was he revered for his extraordinary military service, but also for the care, generosity and affection he offered others throughout his life. General Seitz epitomized what it means when people refer to his generation as ``The Greatest Generation.''

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to pay tribute to the life of Lieutenant General Richard J. Seitz of Junction City, Kansas, who died on June 8 at the age of 95. A native Kansan and Kansas State University graduate, Dick went through the sixth jump school class the Army ever had, becoming one of its first paratroopers. He was quickly promoted to be the Army's youngest battalion commander and led his battalion throughout its historic combat operations in Europe during World War II. Dick ended the war with a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and the Purple Heart. During his lifelong Army career, including nearly 37 years of active duty, he also received the Distinguished Service Medal and Legion of Merit, among many other awards, promotions, and commands. Dick retired to Junction City in 1975 but remained active in his community and at Fort Riley. Among other activities, he was on the board of the Eisenhower Presidential Library, president of the Fort Riley-Central Kansas Chapter of the Association of the U.S. Army, and chaired Junction City's Economic Redevelopment Study Commission. Most recently, the General Richard J. Seitz Elementary School was named in his honor on the post at Fort Riley. In short, General Seitz epitomized what it means when we refer to him and his peers as America's Greatest Generation.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to visit on this. I do believe in an individual's right to earn a living, to start a business, to earn a profit, to grow that business, and to expand to meet new market opportunities without government interference. And I also believe that should be specifically available to dairy farmers as well. But in the dairy program before us today, that flies in the face of this right. Government should not have the power to tell dairy farmers that they won't be paid for the milk they produce. I think it's completely hypocritical for Members of this body to come to the floor and rail against market manipulation by Big Business, then turn around and say Washington should do the same thing. We should support the Goodlatte-Scott amendment. We should oppose government control and interference in the marketplace, and we should support dairy freedom, growth, and opportunity. There are numerous dairy families across this country, but one in particular in my district, the McCarty family, please let them have the opportunity to grow their business. Give them that chance. If we adopt the language as is, it will restrict their ability to grow their business.

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

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today along with several of my colleagues to offer what we believe should be the first step in serious reform of a SNAP program, also known as food stamps. It has been said we should judge the success of government programs not by the number of people receiving the benefits but by the number of people who no longer need them. As a result of the bipartisan work reforms in the TANF program in 1996, after that period we saw a 57 percent reduction in the number of people on TANF. This amendment would take the most successful welfare reform in the history of this country, signed into law by President Bill Clinton and passed by a Republican Congress, and apply it to now the largest means-tested assistance program we have. That's what that amendment would do. In addition to applying that successful work requirement, we would have additional reforms in terms of LIHEAP and a few other items that would provide additional savings in the food stamp program. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate waiting on a few other folks to speak. One thing I would like to point out, I appreciate the arguments of my colleague from Texas that indicates these are commonsense reforms. I think most Americans agree, let's help folks that are in need, but we probably shouldn't help those who don't actually qualify for food stamps. With the adoption of this amendment, it will require folks that would like to receive food stamps--SNAP benefits--to actually have to qualify for them instead of being qualified through another program. It was also noted about the impact of these reforms and their potential impact on cuts. Let's look at a little history of this particular program. In 2002, in the 2002 farm bill, $270 billion was the spending level--$270 billion. In the 2008 farm bill, it was approximately $400 billion. If this amendment is adopted, the spending level would be $733 billion. Only in Washington could you say going from $270 billion to $733 billion is a cut. These are commonsense reforms. These a few decades ago were considered bipartisan reforms to encourage people to look for work, to encourage people to get a job. I agree with my colleagues: there isn't a person in America I don't think that wouldn't rather have a paycheck rather than a SNAP check or a SNAP card, or a Vision card if you're in the State of Kansas. These are very commonsense reforms. They will work. They are good for Americans. They are good for our taxpayers. They are good for the people receiving benefits. We have 47 million Americans receiving food stamps today. Please, let's ask them--require them--to actually go out and look for jobs. They might actually find them. I yield back the balance of my time.