Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It's appropriate that we honor Kenneth T. Whalum, Sr., in the naming of a post office in his hometown of Memphis, Tennessee. He spent many years working for the United States Postal Service in various human resources capacities and eventually became the director of personnel for the main Memphis post office. He later became the director of employee relations for the southern region.

Kenneth Whalum is also an influential member of his community. He's long believed in serving the people of Memphis and did so as both a preacher and a school board commissioner.

Born and raised in Memphis, he attended Morehouse College and earned his law degree from Temple University. His strong faith and belief in public service led him to roles as a Baptist minister and school board member.

He served as a city council member from 1988 to 1996 and was elected to the school board in 1996. While on that school board, it was his goal to work toward higher standards, more opportunities and brighter futures for the students of Memphis City.

Upon retirement from public office, Kenneth T. Whalum plays an active role with the Stroke of Hope Foundation, which educates and supports fundraising for people suffering from

strokes and transient ischemic attacks.

It is fitting to honor Kenneth T. Whalum with the naming of this post office. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 2587.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

This measure proposes honoring the life of Eleanor McGovern by naming the post office in Woonsocket, South Dakota, in her honor. A tireless advocate for children and families, she set a new precedent for women on the campaign trail and left a lasting mark as a passionate and eloquent speaker.

Born on November 25, 1921, in Woonsocket, South Dakota, Eleanor Stegeberg began her life-long devotion to caring for others at the tender age of 12, when she, along with her twin sister, Ila, assumed many household duties following the death of their mother. Even with all of her responsibilities at home, Mrs. McGovern was successful at school, becoming a renowned debater and a cheerleader before attending Dakota Wesleyan University.

It was in high school that she met a young George McGovern, whom she impressed by leading one of the few debate teams that was able to defeat him. Three years later, in 1943, just before he was shipped off to war, they were married.

Upon returning from service, Mr. McGovern began his 24-year career in Congress by winning a seat to represent South Dakota in the House of Representatives. However, he fell ill during his 1962 senatorial campaign, an opportunity that thrust Mrs. McGovern into the spotlight. She campaigned statewide for him, helping to secure his victory, and from then on she became a tremendous asset on the campaign circuit, either with Mr. McGovern or on her own.

Mrs. McGovern was a trailblazer in this role, opening doors for women and spouses in the election process, never more visibly than during Mr. McGovern's unsuccessful 1972 bid for the Presidency.

Mrs. McGovern was an advocate for children, family and women's issues during and following her husband's political career. After the tragic death of her daughter, Theresa, she became a public face of the campaign against alcoholism.

Mrs. McGovern's service endeavors included work for the Child Development Center and the Women's Democratic Club, as well as serving on the boards of the Psychiatric Institute Foundation and Dakota Wesleyan.

In recognition of this outstanding record of accomplishment and service, let us pay tribute to Eleanor McGovern by naming her hometown post office in her honor.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We do rise today to honor a truly great artist in the field of opera. Robert Merrill, the highly acclaimed baritone singer was well known for his remarkable career with the Metropolitan Opera.

He was born and raised in Brooklyn, New York, son of Polish immigrants, and he was first inspired to perform as a singer after watching a performance of Il Trovatore as a teenager. His mother guided him through his early musical training, which he paid for by working as a semiprofessional baseball pitcher.

An avid baseball fan, he became widely known for his annual singing of the national anthem at Yankee Stadium on opening day and for special events, a tradition he carried on for over 30 years.

His legendary performances at the Metropolitan Opera brought him national fame and recognition in the arts and the opportunity to perform with other notable singers and entertainers.

He performed for numerous presidents, including Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy. Throughout his career, he performed as a soloist with some of the world's greatest conductors, made numerous recordings, and appeared at several worldwide music festivals. Outside of the stage performances, he also ventured into radio and television.

Robert Merrill enjoyed a successful career in performing music for over 30 years. His velvety smooth voice was said to have improved with every performance. He retired from the opera in 1976, and made one final performance in 1983 for its centennial.

In 1968, he was appointed to the National Council on the Arts by President Johnson and was awarded the National Medal of the Arts in 1993.

He died at the age of 85 while watching his favorite pastime, baseball, at his home in New Rochelle, New York. It is appropriate that we honor him with the naming of a post office in his beloved hometown.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate Mr. Owen Lovejoy, who was an accomplished lawyer, Congregational Minister, abolitionist and Republican Congressman.

Mr. Lovejoy was born on January 6, 1811, in Maine, where he taught school in order to support himself while in college and law school after his father's death.

After becoming a convert to abolitionism in 1836, he studied for the ministry under his brother, Elijah Lovejoy, a well known antislavery, Presbyterian minister. Tragically, 1 year later, Elijah was murdered while trying to prevent the destruction of the printing press of an Illinois antislavery society from an angry, drunken anti-abolition mob. After his brother's murder, Mr. Lovejoy is reported to have vowed to devote himself to, quote, ``the cause that has been sprinkled with my brother's blood.''

After becoming a Congregational church minister, Lovejoy used the pulpit to attack slavery.

He was elected to Congress in 1856, with the support of Abraham Lincoln, and served four terms. Although he died before seeing the enactment of the 13th amendment to the Constitution, Congressman Lovejoy's legacy lives as a lifelong champion of equality.

Because of his courageous support of equality for all, regardless of race, it is fitting that we name the Princeton, Illinois Post Office in his honor.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Pancreatic cancer, the fourth most common cause of cancer death in the United States, is a devastating disease caused by excessive cellular growth in the pancreatic gland. Approximately 37,200 people will be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer this year alone. Sadly, the average life expectancy for those diagnosed is only 3 to 6 months.

Despite the lethal nature of pancreatic cancer, research remains in the earliest scientific stages, and there are currently no identifiable early warning signs. By the time the symptoms become evident, it is almost always too late for successful treatment. While research and scientific developments have led to lower mortality rates for other types of cancer, such as cancer of the breasts, lung, prostate, and colon, the mortality rate for pancreatic cancer continues unabated.

The Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, PanCAN, is the only national patient advocacy organization that serves the pancreatic cancer community. It focuses its efforts on public policy, research funding, patient services, public awareness, and education related to the development of an effective treatment and ultimately a cure.

PanCAN will once again be promoting pancreatic awareness during the month of November to educate citizens about pancreatic cancer, the need for funding, early detection methods, effective treatment, and prevention programs.

In honor of the many victims of this horrific disease and the efforts of the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, I ask that the Members of Congress join me in declaring support for the goals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) rejected Taiwan's bid for membership, according to a July 23 statement posted on the UN Chinese language website. The OLA said its decision was based on UN Resolution 2758, which recognized the UN's ``one China'' policy.

The UN Secretariat's rejection of Taiwan's application was reactive and hasty. It should allow Taiwan's application to be duly processed in accordance with the relevant rules of procedure of the United Nations. Also, I believe that the OLA's reference to UN Resolution 2758 as a basis for rejecting Taiwan's bid was anachronistic.

Resolution 2758 assumes that the People's Republic of China has legal jurisdiction over Taiwan. This is a dubious assertion. Taiwan has been independent of the PRC since 1949, and in recent years has had a robust political system characterized by competitive parties, active public participation and political liberty--values all Americans embrace.

It is unreasonable to claim that the PRC presumes to speak for a land and people over which it has no control. If the United Nations is founded on the principle of the equality of sovereign nations, it has no reason not to recognize Taiwan as an independent nation. On that basis it would seem that the UN must and should give Taiwan representation.

As noted, Taiwan in 2007 is free and democratic. In Taiwan, direct presidential elections have been held, political parties are proliferating and Taiwan has become one of the freest countries in Asia. As the UN claims to be the forum for resolving international differences, it should give fair and thorough consideration to Taiwan's application for membership in the United Nations and letting the 23 million people of Taiwan have due representation in that world body.

I presume that Taiwan will probably not succeed in joining the United Nations this year, but Taiwan's case is compelling. It is unfortunate that Taiwan has been treated so poorly by the United Nations. We ask the UN Secretariat to rescind its rejection of Taiwan's application and let the application go forward to the Security Council and the UN General Assembly for a vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to this energy bill.

Let me start out by saying bluntly that I feel that this energy bill is a step backward with virtually every topic that it covers.

With that being said, I do want to bring to light an issue that I feel this bill does not cover and that issue is hydropower. My amendment is simple. It expresses the sense of Congress recognizing and supporting renewable energy; specifically, it will add clean, consistent, pollution free, large and small scale conventional hydropower to this bill.

My amendment is a sense of Congress supporting hydropower. If we are going to discuss renewable energy, then we need to include hydropower. It is clean, renewable, consistent, and, most importantly, pollution free. Hydropower works all the time and should be a part of this bill because hydropower in America produces no greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, hydropower offsets more carbon emissions than all other renewable energy resources combined. Let me say that again: hydropower offsets more carbon emissions than all other renewable energy resources combined.

We have heard a lot about greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Chairman, if we are serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, than we need to recognize hydropower produces zero greenhouse gas emissions. Last year alone, we avoided some 160 million tons of carbon emissions by the use of hydropower here in the United States.

I am from the Pacific Northwest, from Idaho. We are truly blessed to have more than 60 percent of the power in the Pacific Northwest come from hydropower. In fact, there is so much power produced in the Northwest from hydropower that we often sell our excess supply to areas such as Southern California, where they historically have a shortage at certain times of the year.

I feel strongly that Congress needs to support conventional hydropower, and that is why I am offering this amendment today.

In closing, I want to remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that hydropower is emission free, completely renewable, clean, and domestic. That is right, it is domestic. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this Sali amendment.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for accepting the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 755. I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, our great country was founded on the recognition of the most basic rights of mankind, that all persons are created equal and endowed by their Creator, with the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Yet for decades this conviction wasn't perfectly realized because of the blight of slavery, which we fought a civil war to end.

Tragically, this is not just a long-past episode in human history. Human trafficking, frequently referred to as modern-day slavery, is an ugly reality not only in the developing world, but also in the United States. Our country is the destination of thousands of people trafficked for purposes of sexual and labor exploitation.

Between October 2000 and March 2007, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services had certified nearly 1,200 victims of human trafficking. As Americans, we must defend the dignity of human life.

With my amendment, I propose to designate $2 million of the monies appropriated in this bill for the formation of a task force to combat this barbaric trade coming across our borders in the States of Washington, Idaho and Montana. This task force would join 42 other such task forces nationwide in serving as a cooperative effort between State and local governments, NGOs and compassionate citizens all working together.

The northern border of our country is a point of entry for this horrific practice. In 2004, it was estimated there were between 1,500 and 22,000 people trafficked through Canada to the United States, numbers that some observers believe significantly understate the problem.

Currently, however, there are no human trafficking task forces along most of the northern borders of Washington, Idaho and Montana, yet these same States cover more than half of the northern land border of the United States, hundreds of miles of which are extremely rural and rugged, being patrolled only by officers on horseback or even on foot, if patrolled at all. Given the rural nature of these northern borders, opportunities for human trafficking continue, with few resources available to the many rural communities along the same border.

By my amendment, I seek to make $2 million in the DOJ budget available in grant funds to establish the Tristate Task force to provide training and resources to rural communities in Washington, Idaho and Montana to combat human trafficking. This important task force will work to coordinate local efforts to combat modern-day slavery.

This measure goes to the heart of equality, dignity and worth of every person. I ask my colleagues to join me today in the defense of these essential American values and support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would agree to work with the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, as I have walked around the halls of the office buildings for the House. I have noticed the signs that talk about the truth needing to be told regarding the majority's budget that was passed, the claim that while there is no tax increase in that budget, and technically that is true, Mr. Chairman. There is no language in that budget bill that says taxes are raised on anyone in any manner. There is no claim there are additional taxes. That language is not in that budget.

But the effect of that budget, Mr. Chairman, will be increased taxes. Why do I say that? Well, because the majority has been very vocal throughout the last year, through the last campaign season, that by golly, one of the things we need to do is get our spending under control, get this deficit problem under control.

Well, Mr. Chairman, the problem is not taxes at this point. The problem today, though, is the spending, because if the spending continues at the rate we are going, that the majority is proceeding, one of two things has got to happen: Either we have to increase deficit spending or we have to increase taxes to pay for it.

I would just point out that about $1 in $5 for the budget last year was deficit spending, so how does the majority intend to avoid deficit spending at the same rate that they criticized last year? And, in fact, how will they avoid increasing that deficit spending by spending more this year unless they intend to increase taxes. At some point that choice has got to be made.

Mr. Chairman, it starts with the spending. If we support this amendment, that will be a start in the right direction.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary example of the American spirit, the ability for us as individuals and as businesses to give back to the community, support our neighbors, and do for ourselves--without relying on government to do for us.

Last week, the crew of the TV show Extreme Makeover Home Edition arrived in Middleton, Idaho. The show travels the country and selects a deserving family for a top-to-bottom remodel. In Idaho, the show's producers picked Ryan and Karia Stockdale.

The Stockdales are a loving couple with four children ages 2 to 6. All four children have an extremely rare disease that attacks their blood, their lungs and kidneys, and their digestive systems. Because of this disorder, all four children are unable to eat food, and have to be fed through a special tube.

Karia became a stay-at-home mom to tend to the children.

To find a cure for his children, Ryan went back to school full-time studying immunology--in addition to working full-time to support his family.

What's more, the Stockdale home had major problems. The house was not insulated. It had a coal-burning furnace and no air conditioning. The ceiling had a hole. The basement leaked. The water and ventilation systems were bad.

The people of Idaho rallied--sending the Extreme Makeover program more than a thousand emails in support of the Stockdales.

But they didn't stop there. In Idaho, our communities and our citizens place high value on the ability of individuals to make a difference, the power of the private sector. We don't sit back and wait for government to do things for us.

So when Extreme Makeover decided to come to Idaho, the citizens and businesses of my state sent nothing short of an army of volunteers to help give the Stockdales a new home. Corey Barton of CBH Homes led the effort, bringing in competing construction crews to work together to build this 4,000 square foot home.

I wish I could name all the companies that contributed to this cause, but I can't. More than 200 companies pitched in--everything from construction equipment and supplies to bags of ice and beverages.

I wish I could name all of the people who volunteered to do a multitude of tasks--from the framing to running electrical and hanging sheetrock. But I can't. More than three thousand volunteers came out. That's three thousand people working together to build one house for one family.

And the volunteers kept coming as the work got dirtier and more grueling and the temperature reached triple-digits. I'm told that despite the heat and the stress of building a large home in four or five days, the volunteer response was the largest a community has ever given to an Extreme Makeover project. These volunteers finished in a week what it would take government months to accomplish.

I was at the job site on Saturday with my wife, Terry, and here's what we saw: we saw the most enthusiastic, engaged, and excited volunteers we have ever seen. They weren't doing it for the fame or glory; they were not doing it to get a few seconds of time on TV. They were not doing it because some government agency told them to. They were doing it because they wanted to. Many had never met the Stockdales. They didn't have to. They just knew there was a family in need and work to be done. It was up to Idahoans to do it.

This is the home that Idahoans built. Their work goes beyond generous. It is a testament to the American spirit: volunteers giving their time, experience, and a lot of sweat to help make a beautiful home for a beautiful family. This was a true labor of love. Idahoans should be very proud of what they've done.

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the House voted on a measure that would require public sector employees at the State and local level to set up a system of monopoly bargaining. H.R. 980, the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, is well-intended, as are most bills that come before this body. Yet its effects would be profoundly negative, both on fire and police departments nationwide and on the way Congress operates with respect to our most fundamental allegiance, the Federal Constitution.

As we all know, the tenth amendment to the Constitution states, ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.'' Yet with H.R. 980, Congress is plainly overriding carefully crafted State labor laws with a single stroke. This bill dictates to States how they must deal with unionization issues, which is a serious abridgement of the role of Congress envisioned by our Founders.

We took an oath here, Madam Speaker--an oath to uphold a Constitution that does not give us the power to ride roughshod over States whenever it strikes our fancy.

Moreover, the practical effect of this legislation would be disastrous. As the International Chiefs of Police have noted, ``By mandating a `one-size fits all' approach to labor-management relations, H.R. 980 ignores the fact that every jurisdiction has unique needs and therefore requires the freedom to manage its public safety workforce in the manner that they have determined to be the most effective.''

Worse yet, H.R. 980 would give the Federal Labor Relations Board the responsibility of overseeing labor-management laws in virtually every jurisdiction in the Nation, from municipalities to counties to States.

Not only is Congress extending its meddling arms into matters reserved by the Constitution for the States, but now, some of my friends across the aisle want to cut funding for the only Federal agency that reviews union

abuses. As John Fund put it in the Wall Street Journal, ``The new Democratic Congress has finally found a government agency whose budget it wants to cut: an obscure Labor Department office that monitors the compliance of unions with federal law.''

Allow me to quote Mr. Fund at some length:

In the past six years, the Office of Labor Management

Standards, or OLMS, has helped secure the convictions of 775

corrupt union officials and court-ordered restitution to

union members of over $70 million in dues. The House is set

to vote Thursday on a proposal to chop 20% from the OLMS

budget. Every other Labor Department enforcement agency is

due for a budget increase, and overall the Congress has added

$935 million to the Bush administration's budget request for

Labor. The only office the Democrats want to cut back is the

one engaged in union oversight . . . GOP Rep. John Kline of

Minnesota will offer an amendment Thursday to restore $3

million of the $11 million planned cutback in OLMS's budget,

so its budget would merely be restored to its 2007 level.

Whatever sums are spent on union disclosure reports appear to

be a good investment. Unions held $22 billion in assets in

2005, and you'd think that a modest enforcement budget,

representing less than 0.003% of that amount shouldn't be the

only target for cuts by budget appropriators.

Madam Speaker, allowing workers to determine whether or not they wish to join unions is consistent with the American principle of personal freedom and self-determination. A Federal law concerning public sector union membership that would render State laws irrelevant is unconstitutional, reckless, and unnecessary. And reducing funding for the one Federal agency that pursues notorious union corruption is incomprehensible in its own right--but especially coming from a new majority that heralds its own allegiance to the highest ethical standards.

These things must not be allowed. These are matters of ``liberty and justice for all'' we must not take lightly.

Well, Mr. Speaker, and ladies and gentlemen that are here, there has been a great discussion about who is actually responsible for all this debt, which team it is. And I think at the end of the game, the conclusion has to be that, by golly, maybe you just can't trust anybody around here. And so I would encourage the good majority leader to make sure that a balanced budget amendment gets passed through this House this year so that the next time that the Republicans take control of this body, by golly, they won't engage in any deficit spending.

There is the challenge to the majority right now, to make sure that you keep the Republicans under control.

Mr. Speaker, every Member of this body recognizes the honor our constituents have reposed in us in allowing us to serve them here. For me to represent the people of my hometown, my home county, the entire western part of my State in the House of Representatives is an extraordinary honor.

Like all my colleagues, I try to remember why my constituents sent me here. Perhaps Thomas Jefferson captured best what our service here as Members of Congress should really be about, and I quote. ``A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits in industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and the bread it has earned.'' This philosophy is not reflected in the priorities of the new majority which, interestingly, celebrates Thomas Jefferson as its founder.

It has appeared to me over the past 6 months the priorities of the new majority are increasing government spending, growing the Federal bureaucracy and deepening America's dependence on foreign fuels.

In the past 3 months of the second quarter of this year, the new majority has approved more than $80 billion in new spending, new spending for programs, including a proposal to spend Idahoans' hard- earned tax dollars to pay off the student loans of practicing attorneys. At a time when the national debt is out of control, authorizing $80 billion in new spending just cannot be seen as fiscally responsible.

This new majority has also proposed an increase in Federal bureaucracy. Just recently I was in a hearing discussing legislation that would add yet another layer of red tape to Federal agencies in order to improve customer service. Adding another layer of government bureaucracy is far from frugal, but more ironically, since when has more government ever improved government? Since when has adding more government ever improved government?

Another priority of the new majority is the energy bill, which I've been calling the ``no energy'' bill. America should be moving towards energy independence. America's economy growth, Idaho's manufacturing and agriculture future and our families' ability to make ends meet are all intertwined. The new Democrat majority, however, is not moving towards energy independence. Rather, the ``no energy'' bill will only serve to increase America's dependence on foreign fuels.

In their bill, our friends across the aisle propose to curtail nearly all forms of domestic exploration and development, including resources of ANWR, natural gas reserves, offshore drilling reserves, oil shale deposits, nuclear power and hydropower. Such a policy can only increase America's reliance on foreign fuel. Instead, America should be fully engaged in exploration and development of domestic energy.

This exploration and development should be coupled with the development of alternative energy. The majority, however, proposes to bury the development of alternative biomass energy in a myriad of legal challenges and bureaucracy surrounding the so-called Clinton administration Roadless Rule.

The new majority's assault on energy development does not end there, instead extending the assault to one of the most green energies, wind energy. The new Democrat majority recently held a hearing to give ear to complaints that wind energy causes fatalities among the bird and bat populations of this country. Now, holding a hearing on bird and bat fatalities from wind energy does not just sound absurd; it is, particularly when you consider that many more times birds are killed by office windows, cars and trucks, and, of course, cats than by windmills. What's next, outlawing sky scrapers? Outlawing cars and trucks?

America's energy crisis must be solved. Continued reliance on foreign energy while simultaneously curtailing domestic development and exploration will only result in higher and higher fuel prices at the pump. That is an unacceptable result, and Congress must be committed to pursuing policies to reduce our dependence on foreign fuel.

Unfortunately, the priorities of the new majority, as evidenced over the second quarter, are not Idaho's priorities, and consequently, they are not

my priorities. In my view, Congress must make it a priority to cut spending, making the tough choices to live within its means. Congress must make it a priority to shape bureaucracy in Federal Government. And Congress must work to solve the energy crisis by providing for domestic exploration and development.

Mr. Chairman, I am dismayed by last week's votes on issues related to abortion and foreign aid.

I joined with all but 12 of my colleagues on my side of the aisle and 25 Members of the Majority in voting against legislation that would overturn what commonly is known as the ``Mexico City'' policy.

First enacted by President Reagan and sustained by the first President Bush, this policy has been, for the past 6 years, the policy of our country under our current President. Put simply, the policy says this: Federal resources provided to international family planning organizations cannot be used by them to pay for abortion or efforts to overturn pro-life laws in the countries where such groups operate.

This is entirely consistent with the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of American taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions in our own country.

Yet now, only 6 months into the new Congress, the majority has decided that tying federal funding of abortions in other countries to family planning assistance is somehow acceptable.

Moreover, my friends across the aisle have enacted within the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill a provision that would make optional the requirement that 33 percent of all prevention funding be used for abstinence and marital fidelity programs.

Mr. Chairman, abstinence and faithfulness to your spouse are the only sure ways of preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS and a large number of sexually transmitted diseases. Yet now we are giving programs and groups that work against such diseases the opportunity to rely more on condoms than common sense and commitment to sexual probity.

Additionally troubling is that the State/Foreign Operations bill contained $2.4 billion for the State of Israel. This funding is especially imperative given the fact that Hamas has just gained control of the Gaza Strip.

I voted against the Foreign Operations bill because of its strange insistence that American taxpayers fund overseas abortions. That's morally wrong. It affronts the convictions of tens of millions of our fellow citizens. It is an expression of ideology, not sound foreign policy.

Mr. Chairman, Israel has no stronger supporter in Congress than me. I have cosponsored legislation to counter Iran's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons and another measure recognizing the 40th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem and calling upon the President to begin the process of relocating the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. I have worked closely with my friends in Idahoans United for Israel and am proud of my association with supporters of Israel across the political spectrum.

Mr. Chairman, I urge you to bring a clean bill to the House floor so that my colleagues and I can vote for Israel and for funding for our State Department and its vital mission and for so many other important foreign relations-related programs.

The American people are weary of the legislative process being used to score political points. Both sides are guilty of this kind of maneuver and it needs to change. Support for Israel is too important for it to be held up by the vagaries of domestic politics. Let's have a clean bill and a clean vote.