Keith Rothfus

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, since its establishment, the National Guard has answered the call to defend our Nation and respond in times of crises. They have fought bravely with the Active Component, while continuing to achieve their mission here at home. At the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly 50 percent of the Army's total force was a mix of Reservists and members of the National Guard. The Pennsylvania National Guard alone contributed more than 42,000 individual deployments. Unfortunately, the Army's Aviation Restructuring Initiative, or ARI, will have devastating impacts on all that the National Guard has achieved. ARI will result in the transfer of all National Guard Apache helicopters to the Active Component, leaving the National Guard less combat-ready. It will also deprive our Nation of an operational reserve for these aircraft, which is essential to the retention of talented aircrews. ARI represents a fundamental shift in the nature and role of the National Guard. Last year, Congress wisely created the National Commission on the Future of the Army to offer a deliberate approach to addressing force structure issues such as ARI. Yet, as it stands now, many of these transfers will be long done before the Commission has examined the proposal and reported its recommendations. Mr. Chairman, once these transfers begin, it will be all but impossible to reverse them. We need to allow the Commission time to do its work before the Army takes any harmful and irreversible actions. In the fiscal year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, the House adopted an amendment to delay some Apache transfers until June 30, 2016. This amendment extends that responsible limitation to all National Guard Apaches, while also taking important steps to ensure continued readiness of the Apache fleet. Together, these provisions strike a proper balance between safeguarding our national security and preventing any premature Apache transfers. Only this can truly ensure that the irreparable harm is not done to the National Guard. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), my good friend, who is also an Apache pilot.

Mr. ROTHFUS. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I commend Chairman Frelinghuysen for the work that he has done on this. I understand that I had an amendment earlier today. There had been ongoing discussions about that amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a recorded vote on my amendment to the end that the amendment stands disposed of by the voice vote thereon.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize May as National Foster Care Month. Today I would like to applaud the thousands of families who open their homes to foster children. It takes a special kind of caregiver to foster a child, someone who can drop everything on a moment's notice and, without hesitation, bring a child into their home. In Pennsylvania alone, there are 15,000 children in foster care. That means we have thousands of amazing families with hearts big enough to provide love and care for children who need a place to call home. Mr. Speaker, foster children become an irreplaceable part of the family. Indeed, the most telling statistic is that in Pennsylvania 65 percent of families end up adopting their foster children. We need families willing to open their hearts and homes unconditionally to children who have been abused and removed from their homes. This is what so many dedicated foster families are able to provide. Mr. Speaker, during National Foster Care Month, I would like to celebrate the resiliency of foster children who overcome great obstacles at such a young age and recognize the dedicated foster families who support them.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Chairman, since its establishment, the National Guard has persistently answered the call to defend our Nation and respond in times of national crises. After September 11, 2001, the National Guard was, once again, called on to stand to post, deploying for months on end, leaving loved ones behind. Unfortunately, the Army's Aviation Restructuring Initiative, or ARI, is set to have a devastating impact not only on the National Guard in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, but on the entire National Guard, leaving the force less combat capable and less able to provide operational depth. Last year, Congress wisely created the National Commission on the Future of the Army to offer a deliberate approach to addressing force structure issues and ARI. We need to allow the Commission to do its work and ensure that Congress has sufficient time to consider the Commission's report and recommendations before the Army takes any further harmful and irreversible actions. The amendment I have offered Representatives Palazzo and Walz will ensure that Congress has that opportunity, and I would urge your support.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Madam Speaker, our Declaration of Independence states that everyone is endowed by our creator with an unalienable right to life. Recognition of God-given rights is part of who we are. Indeed, who could forget President Kennedy's words more than 50 years ago when he said: Our rights do not come from the generosity of the State but from the hand of God. This legislation expands protections for the right to life. It recognizes that a class of children, unborn babies older than 20 weeks who feel the pain of abortion, should be protected. We must stand in solidarity with these vulnerable children and affirm: we will protect you. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 36.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, printed as No. 5 in the Congressional Record.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that will keep America's energy economy growing and keep good-paying jobs coming to gas-producing regions across the country, including western Pennsylvania. The natural gas boom is transforming local economies across the country, and it is creating a new wave of opportunity for hard-working Americans who want to earn a living and provide for their families. American ingenuity has empowered us to safely harness our tremendous energy resources, turning the United States into a breakout success story as the world's top natural gas producer. Countries in Europe and Asia, many of which are our allies, are eager to tap this abundant supply of affordable American energy. They consider America to be a much more attractive business partner and a safer alternative to their reliance on belligerent, energy-rich countries, like Russia. Given the abundance of domestic natural gas resources, especially in the Marcellus shale region, American energy companies are eager to accept more business and stand ready to fulfill the global demand. We must do everything we can to help energy producers succeed so they can continue to grow, hire more workers, and bring prosperity back to our American cities. Congress must work to lift barriers to energy exports and help domestic energy producers cut through the bureaucratic red tape that threatens to put a stranglehold on continued economic growth. My amendment seeks to eliminate unnecessary challenges to these increased energy exports on environmental grounds. Specifically, my provision would prevent the Department of Energy from using its report entitled ``Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Perspective on Exporting Liquefied Natural Gas'' in any public interest determination under the Natural Gas Act. There are legitimate concerns that this DOE report and many of its arbitrary determinations may now be used to slow-walk or completely block much-needed liquefied natural gas export approvals. Identical language was proposed and included in last year's Energy and Water and Related Agencies appropriations bill by then-Representative Bill Cassidy from Louisiana. I thank Chairman Simpson for his hard work and support, and I urge all my colleagues who support an all-of-the-above approach to American energy independence to vote ``yea'' on this amendment so we can keep our energy sector booming. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, it has been the practice of this administration to stall, stall, stall, delay, delay, delay. We have had tremendous growth in our economy in western Pennsylvania and in Ohio, for that matter, given the natural gas boom that is going on. The price of gas is suppressed right now. We see drillers even slowing down, which is affecting jobs in the gas areas. Fewer wells are being drilled. And to take a report that the DOE has, with its arbitrary determinations, to, again, slow-walk approvals, which is what we have been seeing with the administration--meanwhile, allies in Eastern Europe are literally being held hostage to Russia--this natural gas will be used. Natural gas will be used by these countries in Eastern Europe. They are going to use Russia's natural gas or they want to use American natural gas. So, again, I would encourage adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the last century, a godless totalitarian ideology moved from theory to practice when Communists took over Russia and a global war against freedom began. In the following decades, this ideology slaughtered millions across what was the Soviet Union. In the 1940s, Communists rolled through mainland China, bringing another reign of terror that killed millions more and that still today limits freedom for the Chinese people. Also in the 1940s, Communists moved into Vietnam. Those living in northern Vietnam were its first victims. Like other lands under communism's iron grip, Hanoi's rulers killed hundreds of thousands of their citizens. Those who desired and had the means fled to the south. Throughout the 20th century, America fought against totalitarian ideologies that stripped people of human rights and dignity. After defeating fascists in World War II, we recognized communism as the single greatest threat to freedom. Indeed, well into the cold war, President Kennedy proclaimed to the world that we would ``pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.'' The cold war at times flared hot, and in Southeast Asia, more than 58,000 Americans gave the last full measure of their devotion fighting for the freedoms for which their nation stands. Today we mark the 40th anniversary of the tragic fall of Saigon. In doing so, we remember the sacrifices made by our Vietnam veterans and their families, sacrifices that continue to today, such as when a Gold Star mother or wife looks at the photograph of a son or husband who never came home, or when a veteran makes a trip to the local VA for chemotherapy for a cancer caused by Agent Orange, or when a congressional colleague notices he does not have full use of a limb because of the torture he endured as a POW, or when the 65-year-old veteran has the same repeated nightmares, or when a 40-something son or daughter envisions the father he or she never got to know. The sacrifices are noble but painful. The cause they fought for lives on and will continue so long as humanity dreams of freedom, dreams like those of the thousands of boat people who risked their lives to escape Vietnam, including the 65 boat people President Reagan spoke of in 1982 who had the good fortune of being spotted by the aircraft carrier USS Midway. When they were picked up, they cried ``Hello, American sailor. Hello, freedom man.'' Since the last helicopter left the U.S. Embassy roof in Saigon 40 years ago, Vietnam has been under Communist control. And with Communist control has come a shameful human rights record. What was a hot spot in the cold war is now a cold spot for people aspiring to walk, to borrow a phrase from Hubert Humphrey, in ``the warm sunshine of human rights.'' Vietnam's postwar history began with a purge that resulted in the deaths of thousands. Hundreds of thousands of refugees escaped. Many died in the process, but many survived. Some made it to America, where they pursued the American Dream. They have undertaken diverse endeavors, from running small shops in Orange County, California, to fishing operations in Louisiana, to practicing medicine in places like Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. For those who are still living under the Communist regime, they must be ever-fearful of a government all too willing to crush freedom. Political freedom. Religious freedom. Freedom of the press. Freedom in family life. In Vietnam, Catholics, Buddhists, Falun Gong, and other religious minorities have been harassed, imprisoned, and persecuted for their faith. In Vietnam, hundreds of political prisoners are held in jail or under house arrest. The Vietnamese Government continues to restrain the press, and they have engaged in coercive population control practices. Never forget: our servicemembers fought, and many died, to prevent the tragedies Communist rule would impose upon the Vietnamese, Laotian, and Cambodian people, the latter of whom suffered an outright genocide that killed millions. We are grateful that our servicemembers were able to save thousands of Vietnamese. To the Vietnam veterans who undertook Operation Frequent Wind 40 years ago this weekend in the chaotic days before Saigon fell, be proud you rescued 7,000 Americans and South Vietnamese. God alone knows the ripples in history that their having escaped will cause. As we look to the future, let us have a final accounting for all our MIAs. Let us insist that if Vietnam desires to integrate further with the community of nations, then it must allow much greater freedom for its people. And let us hope that the people of Vietnam will not have to endure another four decades of repression and that one day, perhaps this decade, the freedom for which our servicemembers died will finally take root by the South China Sea.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to Childhood Apraxia of Speech, a speech and communication disorder that causes extreme difficulty in learning to speak, which can affect literacy and school performance. Often times, children with Childhood Apraxia of Speech require frequent and aggressive speech therapy to improve their ability to communicate. Sadly, the cause of this disorder is unknown. More progress must be made to understand this complex condition. Fortunately, the Childhood Apraxia of Speech Association located in Pittsburgh, PA continues to work tirelessly to raise awareness about this condition and to provide support to families of affected children. Thanks to their hard work, great strides have been made toward educating the public, as well as local, state, and federal officials. Children with apraxia and their families confront tremendous obstacles with determination and persistence. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing these individuals on Apraxia Awareness Day this May and in thanking the Childhood Apraxia of Speech Association for their important contribution to our community.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Madam Speaker, our history has a long history of tolerance toward religious institutions. Indeed, one of the words inscribed on the rostrum here in the center of it is ``tolerance.'' We need to approve this resolution to be tolerant of our religious institutions. I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 43.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Madam Speaker, let me repeat the opinion of former D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray and his attorney general. They believe that this law we are considering tonight is legally problematic and raises serious concerns under the Constitution. Madam Speaker, many organizations in the District have asked Congress for help, including Cardinal Wuerl of the Catholic Diocese. I include for the Record the April 17, 2015, letter to the editor of The Washington Post from Cardinal Wuerl and President Garvey from Catholic University. [From the Washington Post, April 17, 2015] Disagreement Is Not Discrimination (By Donald Wuerl and John Garvey) Cardinal Donald Wuerl is the archbishop of Washington. John Garvey is the president of Catholic University of America. Last month, Pope Francis announced that the Catholic Church would celebrate a Holy Year of Divine Mercy. God's mercy has been a theme of his pontificate. We all need God's forgiveness. The pope has said, ``I am a sinner.'' The Catholic Church's response to our human frailty is not condemnation but mercy. There may be no institution that understands this better. Recent laws enacted by the D.C. Council would have us believe otherwise. The Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act and the Human Rights Amendment Act purport to address ``discrimination'' by institutions such as ours, the Archdiocese of Washington and the Catholic University of America. The putative victims of this discrimination are people who part ways with church teaching about unborn life and sexual autonomy. Consider the reproductive health law, which the council says is designed to prevent discrimination against employees who have abortions, have sex outside marriage or seek sterilization or other means to prevent pregnancy. Given the effort expended and ink spilled on this purported civil rights measure, you would think the church was hunting out sexual offenders and fining or firing them. But the church understands that we are all sinners, all equally deserving of punishment (if it comes to that) and all equally in need of God's mercy. We are not in the business of privileging some sinners over others. The church's message, though, is one of mercy, not moral indifferentism. That is why we object to these two laws. They ask for much more than mercy and understanding. Consider again the reproductive health law. It forbids an employer to ``discriminate against an individual'' on the basis of her ``reproductive health decision making.'' Suppose your job is pro-life education in the archdiocese's Department of Life Issues. We can imagine a woman who had an abortion working effectively in that office. (Dorothy Day, founder of the Catholic Worker movement and a great witness to life, had an abortion when she was 21.) But suppose you continue to believe that abortion was the right choice for you to make and honesty compels you to share that opinion with other women in your circumstances. A law forbidding discrimination on the basis of ``reproductive health decision making'' would seem to prevent the church from challenging or dismissing such an employee, even though she is working at odds with the mission of the office that hired her. We have similar concerns about the Human Rights Amendment law. It says that religious institutions are guilty of discrimination against gay and lesbian student groups if, in the words of the committee report, they deny them the same ``rights and facilities as other officially recognized student groups.'' The Catholic Church's views about sexual autonomy, like its views about reproductive health, are more traditional than those held by the D.C. Council. But it seems peculiar to say that the church discriminates, in some morally objectionable way, by declining to give official support to groups that hold views opposed to its own. Mercy is not the same as moral relativism. Disagreement is not the same as discrimination. The law goes too far when it demands that the church abandon its beliefs in the pursuit of an entirely novel state of equality. The D.C. Council has failed to appreciate this point. Reluctantly, we turned to Congress for a resolution of disapproval. This procedure is in keeping with the American tradition of political appeal against political decisions. If that course of action fails, we have no doubt we will eventually prevail in court. The respect for religious freedom that we ask for is enshrined in the Constitution. But we hope that our elected officials can also see that it's a matter of common sense.

Mr. ROTHFUS

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

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to stand with our Nation's veterans and their families. We owe these brave individuals and their loved ones a debt that can never be repaid. When our Nation called, they answered. Our veterans served bravely in theaters around the world, kept us safe, and helped to spread American values and the freedoms that we hold dear. Our veterans made unimaginable sacrifices to their health, to their well-being, and to their families. They fulfilled their commitment to our great Nation, and we must now uphold the commitments we made to them. It is for that reason that I rise in strong support of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act under consideration today. It is also why this amendment is so important. For the last 2 years, I have offered this amendment with the same simple message: VA senior executives need to take responsibility, fix the problems, and do their jobs. As public servants, these senior executives have a solemn obligation to ensure that veterans receive the respect, support, and care that they have earned. But one only needs to take a quick survey of the tremendous investigative work that Chairman Miller, Congressman Mike Coffman, and the rest of my colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs Committee have been doing to see that, despite our efforts to reform and improve the agency culture at the VA, little to nothing has changed. The VA is still failing veterans in Pennsylvania and across the country. Veterans still have difficulty accessing care, claims and appeals are still backlogged, whistleblowers are still being retaliated against, and reckless, wasteful spending has reached new levels. For example, in my home State of Pennsylvania, the inspector general recently conducted an investigation at the Philadelphia regional office after receiving numerous complaints that there was data manipulation and that management was mistreating and retaliating against staff. The IG confirmed a number of these allegations and found tens of thousands of unanswered veteran inquiries. Many of us are also familiar with the VA Hospital project in Aurora, Colorado. Over a decade ago, veterans in Denver were promised a new medical facility; yet, due to gross mismanagement, the project is well behind schedule and is now going to cost taxpayers more than $1 billion over budget. To his credit, Secretary McDonald has publicly recognized many of his Department's failings, has spoken of increased transparency and accountability, and acknowledges that a wholesale culture change will be necessary. But this transformation has not yet occurred, and accountability is certainly still lacking. To date, only a few of the senior executives who have been found responsible for the misconduct at the VA have actually been terminated. Some have been placed on extended paid leave, some reassigned, while others have been promoted. In fiscal year 2013, the VA shelled out some $2.8 million in bonuses solely to its executives, an increase from the previous year, when the agency paid out $2.3 million. I have always maintained that taxpayer-funded bonuses to senior executives of an organization with this sort of abysmal performance record are ridiculous. These dollars would be better spent providing our veterans with the first-rate service and care they rightly deserve. That is why I am offering this amendment again this year, to direct that none of the funds appropriated may be used to pay for senior executive bonuses. The amendment was adopted the last 2 years and was included in bills that passed out of this Chamber with wide bipartisan support. Congress certainly has an important role to play in reforming the VA. We need to continue our oversight activities and pass the sorts of reforms that are included in bills brought to the floor by Chairman Miller and the Veterans' Affairs Committee. However, while we do that, we also need to ensure that not a single dime is spent on paying bonuses to senior executives until the problems at the VA are fixed. I would like to thank Chairman Miller and Congressmen Fitzpatrick, Kelly, Tipton, Crawford, and Huelskamp for their support. I urge all of my other colleagues to stand with our Nation's veterans and support increased transparency.

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

Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank the chairman. I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, since 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been responsible for the deaths of many, many Americans. This Saturday, April 25, 2015, we will observe the 35th anniversary on the day on which eight of those Americans gave their last full measure of devotion during a failure to rescue 52 fellow Americans being held hostage by radical extremists in Tehran. There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for their friends. Since America never forgets, I come to the floor today to read their names and to remind us to keep their families in our prayers: Marine Sergeant John Harvey; Marine Corporal George Holmes, Jr.; Marine Staff Sergeant Dewey Johnson; Air Force Major Richard Bakke; Air Force Tech Sergeant Joel Mayo; Air Force Captain Lynn McIntosh; and Air Force Captain Charles McMillan.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 165 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, Americans strongly dislike tax day, and Uncle Sam is set to take in record levels of Americans' tax dollars again this year. These are dollars that the hard-working taxpayers take out of their wallets, and they are too often used to grow Washington's bureaucracy at the expense of growth elsewhere in the country. Western Pennsylvanians are rightfully frustrated with the Federal Government's overreach into their daily lives. Back in Pennsylvania's 12th District, I regularly talk with folks who are appalled by the IRS' hypocrisy, corruption, and abuse of power. From IRS' attempts to shut down people who disagree with the administration's political agenda to Federal employees owing thousands in back taxes, the IRS needs to be held accountable to the people. Washington bureaucrats are not above the law. Americans spend countless hours and precious financial resources in filing their tax returns by April 15. They are following the law. It is only fair for the American people to expect that the IRS does the same. I was proud to support several bills today that are designed to protect taxpayers, to restore the public's faith in our system of laws, and to prevent the IRS from abusing its power.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank Chairman Price and his staff for their hard work on this budget. With all the difficulties and complexities in drafting a budget, including inheriting an $18 trillion debt, Chairman Price and the committee have managed to find savings of $5.5 trillion and to balance the budget in 10 years, all without any new taxes. This has not been an easy task, but this budget resolution stands in stark contrast to what the President sent us. The President's irresponsible proposal makes no attempt to balance the budget, leaving future generations with even more debt. Indeed, his plan proposes returning to trillion-dollar deficits, leaving a legacy of staggering debt and further eroding our standing in the world. For decades, Americans have been told that spending for things you can't pay for is good fiscal policy and that debts and deficits don't matter. President Obama believes that maxing out the Federal credit card to pay for government programs and using more of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to pay interest on the debt is actually good for our economy. Well, the ruse is over. Families aren't buying it. The ``charge now and pay later'' mentality is no longer affordable. Parents know debt and interest payments add up. They understand that out-of-control debt cripples their ability to respond to an emergency, for example, when the basement floods or the furnace goes out. Mr. Chairman, what is true for American families is true for the Federal Government. Just like working families must do, so must the government. Purchases we can't afford need to be put on hold until we can afford it; tough choices must be made. Every day, families make responsible financial decisions. Do we sign up the kids for Little League, or do we buy the bigger van? The same principle must apply in our government. This budget, Mr. Chairman, acknowledges that addressing our debt is a national priority. It puts forth parameters that will force the government to make reforms and live within its means so we can start to address a debt that now exceeds $18 trillion. This budget eliminates all of the ObamaCare taxes and mandates that are costing small businesses tens of thousands of dollars, cutting into Americans' take-home pay, and driving up healthcare costs for the American consumer. Importantly, Mr. Chairman, this resolution sets the stage for us to pass real healthcare reform that will actually address cost and coverage and help American families in their healthcare choices with more freedom, more choice, and less bureaucracy. This budget respects the rights of conscience for our Nation's doctors and religious institutions and people of faith. Finally, this budget will result in a leaner, more efficient government that is transparent and accountable to the American people. Mr. Chairman, the Budget Committee's resolution makes the hard choices needed to move the country forward, to make possible increases in our defense budget needed to address the threats in our world, and to set us on a path to a balanced budget. Again, I thank Chairman Price for the work of him and his committee.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, last week, the Notre Dame family lost two larger-than-life figures. One, a Holy Cross priest, Father Ted Hesburgh, served as Notre Dame's president for 35 years and oversaw remarkable growth of the university named for Our Lady. Father Hesburgh was known and recognized around the world. The other was a layman, Charles Rice, who taught at Notre Dame Law School for 40 years and was a retired Marine, a devoted husband to his wife, Mary, without whom he could never have accomplished his work, a devoted father, and an academic who dove deep into the philosophical underpinnings of the law. It is estimated that he taught half of the living alumni of the Notre Dame Law School. While much has been written and said these last few days about Father Hesburgh, given the international stage on which he walked, comparatively less has been said of Professor Rice, except for the recognition that countless law students, colleagues, and pro-life and religious liberty advocates have given in the days since he passed away. To my left is one of those iconic figures from the 1960s. In it, we see Dr. Martin Luther King and Father Hesburgh, standing together for racial equality in Chicago. What allowed these two remarkable men to come together, in spite of different backgrounds and traditions, was a common understanding of justice that was grounded in our Western and Judeo-Christian philosophy of law. It was this same philosophy that was at the heart of what Professor Charles Rice taught at Notre Dame. In Martin Luther King's ``Letter from Birmingham Jail,'' written 2 years prior to the famous Selma March that will be commemorated this weekend, Dr. King addressed his fellow clergymen, many of whom were criticizing his tactics in confronting unjust Jim Crow laws. One may well ask, Dr. King wrote: ``How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?'' The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws, just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to obey unjust laws. I, Dr. King said, would agree with St. Augustine that ``an unjust law is no law at all.'' Dr. King then asked, Now what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? King answered that a just law is a manmade code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, Dr. King continued, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. These words would be very familiar to any of Charlie Rice's jurisprudence students. Indeed, a significant amount of Professor Rice's work dealt with the concept of natural law. Natural law principles were recognized in our Declaration of Independence, with Jefferson referencing the ``Laws of Nature and Nature's God'' and the recognition that individuals are endowed by a Creator with certain inalienable rights, including a right to life. Charlie Rice was a fierce defender of the right to life. He believed that every human being, whether an elderly grandmother who could no longer care for herself, a young adult who was incapacitated through an accident or a degenerative disease, an unborn child capable of feeling pain, or a 3-week-old unborn child whose heart had just begun to beat, had an inalienable right to life. And for Charlie, those lives, and all human lives, are sacred because they are a gift of God. In the years since Roe v. Wade, Professor Rice never wavered from his core conviction on the right to life. He became increasingly concerned for the religious freedom and conscience rights of individuals when he saw government coercing them into practices that violated those rights. Professor Rice told his students: ``Never be afraid to speak the truth.'' He certainly never was. For him, the truth was clear. The right to life and freedom of religion, both of which are specifically mentioned in our Nation's founding documents, are under attack. But Professor Rice never gave up. He believed that one day those rights would be protected again, and he continued to defend those rights to the day he died. His work in defending life and religious freedom will continue. It will live on in his wife, Mary, his children, and grandchildren, as well as the countless lives he touched. May Professor Rice and Father Hesburgh rest in peace.