Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th occasion of the Thanksgiving Day Race in Cincinnati. According to Runner's World magazine, the Thanksgiving Day Race is the sixth-oldest in the Nation. This annual holiday tradition started in 1908 on a course that ran from Fort Thomas Kentucky's gym to the YMCA in downtown Cincinnati. Today the course continues to incorporate much of downtown Cincinnati and northern Kentucky, beginning and ending at Paul Brown Stadium.

The growth of this race has been impressive. The inaugural race in 1908 consisted of 19 participants. Last year there were more than 11,000. To date, over 16,000 have registered for this year's Thanksgiving Day race, and registration doesn't even close until the race morning. According to Running USA, Cincinnati's Thanksgiving Day 10K race is one of our nation's 10 largest. Each year highly skilled athletes run alongside casual runners and seniors run alongside children. For many families the race is an important part of their holiday festivities. While the race is certainly popular, it would not be successful without the sponsorship and support of the local community. Hundreds of folks volunteer along the course aiding the runners. Local businesses and community organizations provide monetary support whose proceeds benefit many local charities, including the Ronald McDonald House and Girls on the Run.

Madam Speaker, I ask you to join me in celebrating the 100th Occasion of the Thanksgiving Day race in Cincinnati and wish this proud Cincinnati tradition continued success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this job-killing bill before us.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are speaking, and we must listen. An overwhelming majority are against this bill. Americans know that health care costs won't be reduced because our Congressional Budget Office told all of us so. They fear their insurance premiums will rise, and they don't want their hard-earned tax dollars to go to pay for abortions. Our seniors do not want the $500 billion cuts to Medicare or the cuts to Medicare Advantage, a program that 17,000 seniors in my district currently enjoy. Our youth do not want to spend the rest of their lives paying for the trillion-dollar costs embedded in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are speaking, and we must listen. We must say ``no'' to this trillion-dollar takeover of our health care. We can do better.

Thank you so much, my good friend from New Jersey. I'm having a display brought up.

I would like to talk a minute about something that happened to me over the weekend, and I would like to go back 35 years ago because, well, in the exact same environment, a similar situation occurred.

I'm Catholic and I go to mass. Every weekend, I go to mass. In fact, I go everyday, but 35 years ago when I went to mass, it was right before election, and I remember my Catholic priest, Francis Buttlemyer, said something that really shocked me.

He said, when we went to the polls that Tuesday, we had a choice to make for a Member of Congress--and yeah, we had a Catholic running and we had a non-Catholic running, but the Catholic was pro-choice and the non-Catholic was pro-life. He said that you have to vote for the person who will protect the unborn. I remember coming home and saying to my mother how surprised I was that this priest had been so bold.

Well, last Saturday night, I didn't go to my Catholic church. I went to a different one in my community. During our litany of prayers, they mentioned the fact that Congress would be voting on a bill, the health care bill, and that, in the bill, there were some issues that the Catholic church had with it--abortion, our elderly and the conscience clause for our health care professionals--and that we must pray that they resolve these before we vote on this legislation. I was blown away by that, but what came next stunned me more.

The priest stood up and said, Look, I've got to talk about this for a minute. He did. Then he said, There will be an insert in the bulletin. This was the insert: ``Health care reform is about saving lives, not destroying them.'' The second part of it is a letter from the Catholic conference of bishops: ``Tell Congress: Remove abortion funding and mandates from needed health care reform.''

So they're in favor of health care reform but not of this health care reform. In fact, I want to put these two things into the public record. I was stunned because I hadn't in 35 years heard from the pulpit this strong of a message.

So, when I got in the car, I started to make some phone calls to some of my relatives around the city. What had they heard? The same thing. The priest had said something, and yes, it was in the bulletin. In my own home parish, yep, our priest said something, and yep, it was in the bulletin. It made me think that, if this moved the Catholic church after 35 years in my district to speak again publicly about abortion, this is something that is truly serious because, Madam Speaker, it is a game changer.

So, today, when I read the Roll Call, Madam Speaker, I read: Activists gear up for fight.

I thought, Ooh, what's this about? I'd like to read it.

It reads: Lately, Donna Crane hasn't been making it home early. The policy director of NARAL Pro-Choice America has been lobbying nonstop to ensure that the House does not slip antiabortion language into its health care legislation, which the Chamber is expected to vote on this weekend.

We're working a lot of late nights, Crane said.

Then it goes on to talk about how various lobbyists are trying to have input into this, but it ends by saying that NARAL and the other pro-choice groups are comfortable with the Capps language and are comfortable with the Ellsworth language. The reason they are is that it really doesn't prohibit the funding of abortion. It's a ruse--it's a game--because what it says is that at least one plan has to have it, but we're going to have this little magical thing over here that's going to allow it to be funded in a different way before it comes through the public fund system.

Madam Speaker, the language in this bill, either the Capps amendment or the Ellsworth amendment, will not only allow the public funding of abortion for the first time with Federal dollars since the Hyde amendment in 1976, but it will also expand it, and that's the dirty, little secret in this bill.

This Saturday, we are to vote on this bill at right about the same time that I was in church last Saturday night, at right about this same time that the

priest stood up and said, Tell your Member of Congress.

Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, that it made me a little nervous because they kind of were looking at me, and I wanted to put up a sign and say, I get it, but I couldn't.

At right about this same time, we're going to be making a decision, not just on the health care for Americans and on the game changer that that is, but on a point that for the last 35 years has been protected, and that is not allowing the public funding of abortion.

Madam Speaker, we cannot allow the public funding of abortion to occur in any way in this bill. It is truly a game changer, and until it is corrected, no one should even contemplate anything but a ``no'' on this bill.

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Nationwide Bulletin

Tell Congress: Remove abortion funding and mandates from

needed health care reform.

Congress is preparing to debate health care reform

legislation on the House and Senate floors. Genuine health

care reform should protect the life and dignity of all people

from the moment of conception until natural death. The U.S.

bishops' conference has concluded that all committee-approved

bills are seriously deficient on the issues of abortion and

conscience, and do not provide adequate access to health care

for immigrants and the poor. The bills will have to change or

the bishops have pledged to oppose them.

Our nation is at a crossroads. Policies adopted in health

care reform will have an impact for good or ill for years to

come. None of the bills retains longstanding current policies

against abortion funding or abortion coverage mandates, and

none fully protects conscience rights in health care.

As the U.S. bishops' letter of October 8 states: ``No one

should be required to pay for or participate in abortion. It

is essential that the legislation clearly apply to this new

program longstanding and widely supported federal

restrictions on abortion funding and mandates, and

protections for rights of conscience. No current bill meets

this test. . . . If acceptable language in these areas cannot

be found, we will have to oppose the health care bill

vigorously.''

For the full text of this letter and more information on

proposed legislation and the bishops' advocacy for authentic

health care reform, visit: www.usccb.org/healthcare.

Congressional leaders are attempting to put together final

bills for floor consideration. Please contact your

Representative and Senators today and urge them to fix these

bills with the pro-life amendments noted below. Otherwise

much needed health care reform will have to be opposed.

Health care reform should be about saving lives, not

destroying them.

Action: Contact Members through e-mail, phone calls or FAX

letters. To send a pre-written, instant e-mail to Congress go

to www.usccb.org/action. Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard

at: 202-224-3121, or call your Members' local offices. Full

contact info can be found on Members' web sites at

www.house.gov and www.senate.gov. Message to Senate: ``During floor debate on the health care

reform bill, please support an amendment to incorporate

longstanding policies against abortion funding and in favor

of conscience rights. If these serious concerns are not

addressed, the final bill should be opposed.''

Message to House: ``Please support the Stupak Amendment

that addresses essential pro-life concerns on abortion

funding and conscience rights in the health care reform bill.

Help ensure that the Rule for the bill allows a vote on this

amendment. If these serious concerns are not addressed, the

final bill should be opposed.''

When: Both House and Senate are preparing for floor votes

now. Act today! Thank you!

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk today about some of the concerns I have with the current health care bill, specifically abortion, our seniors, and the conscience clause for medical professionals.

As this bill is drafted, it opens the door to the public funding of abortion. A majority of Americans are opposed to funding abortions. For decades the Federal funding of abortion has been prohibited by the Hyde amendment. Some will argue the Capps amendment does the same thing, but it does not. It allows for plans, specifically the public option, to have abortion coverage paid for with our tax dollars.

This bill also cuts more than $500 billion from Medicare, putting our Nation's seniors' health at risk. Almost $170 billion will be cut from the Medicare Advantage program alone. This will adversely affect 17,000 seniors in my district.

And, finally, it appears to erode the conscience clause protections for our medical professionals. No health care provider should ever have to choose between his or her morals, faith, and his or her job.

Health care reform should be about protecting lives, not jeopardizing them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about an issue of great importance--health care. The potential bill before us should concern all Americans. While I have numerous issues with this bill, I will highlight two.

The first is abortion. There is no language to exclude abortion coverage in this bill. An overwhelming majority of Americans are against Federal tax dollars paying for abortion; yet this bill opens the door to do just that.

Second, cuts to our seniors. This bill is paid for out of the pockets of our seniors, with $162 billion coming from Medicare Advantage, a plan millions of our American seniors, including 17,000 in my district, enjoy.

Mr. Speaker, we can do better than this. Let us not pass a bill that could harm our most vulnerable, our infants, and our elderly.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Casey Hilmer of Cincinnati, Ohio, of the suburb of Indian Hill for finishing fourth in the women's division of the 30th Columbus Marathon.

Casey, running her first marathon, and having no formal marathon training, finished with a time of 2 hours and 54 minutes. This was only 7 minutes behind the overall women's winner. Casey also finished first in her age bracket.

While her fourth place finish is extraordinarily impressive, it is what she overcame that brings me to this floor to celebrate her accomplishment. Ms. Hilmer's finish is made more impressive by what she's had to overcome.

More than 6 years ago, at the age of 13, she was attacked. As she was jogging near her parents' home, Casey was abducted and stabbed four times. Thankfully, this did not stop her from doing what she loves-- running.

Mr. Speaker, I believe Casey is a shining example of perseverance and dedication. Casey will not be deterred. I am confident this strong young woman will accomplish every goal on which she sets her mind.

Congratulations, Casey, on your remarkable accomplishment. Perhaps your next goal--the Olympics.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 150th Anniversary of Mount Notre Dame High School in Cincinnati, Ohio. On this date, 150 years ago, the Mount Notre Dame Academy, sponsored by the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur, opened with 30 boarders. Mount Notre Dame is the oldest catholic girls' high school in the same location in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati.

Over the years, Mount Notre Dame has endured immense enrollment growth and has transitioned to an all girls high school with more than 750 students. The young women of this proud school come from four Ohio counties and 50 church parishes. Today, Mount Notre Dame offers 19 honors and 17 advanced placement courses. Ninety-Eight percent of graduates go on to college. Additionally, Mount Notre Dame was named a Blue Ribbon School of Excellence by the United States Department of Education in 1987.

Mount Notre Dame is also known for their success outside of the classroom. The Cougars have a combined twelve state championships in the team sports of basketball, golf, and volleyball. Just this past March, Mount Notre Dame won the 2009 Division I State Basketball Championship.

Madam Speaker, I ask you to join me in celebrating Mount Notre Dame 150th Anniversary and in wishing them continued success.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the One Hundred Year Anniversary of Ohio National Financial Services. On this day one century ago, Ohio National began operating in its original home on Fourth Street in downtown Cincinnati. Their first policy was issued in October a year later.

Today, Ohio National continues a proud tradition as a community leader. In celebration of this century of service to our community, Ohio National is partnering with Habitat for Humanity to build 10 houses over the next five years--one house for each decade of their commitment to Cincinnati.

Madam Speaker, please join me in recognizing Ohio National Financial Services 100th Anniversary and in wishing them continued success in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to recognize the 150th anniversary of my childhood parish, St. Columban Roman Catholic Church of Loveland, Ohio.

In 1859, Father John Baptist O'Donoghue, of St. Andrew's Parish in Milford, and 10 families worked together to raise enough money to purchase an old, one-room schoolhouse from the Village of Loveland on Broadway Avenue.

Like many budding parishes, the original rectory did not meet the needs of the local Catholic community for very long. In 1893, St. Columban built their second house of worship on that site. A few years later, the first school was built. This church will always hold a special place in my heart because my home was built from its bricks.

As the parish was celebrating its 100th anniversary, St. Columban was, once again, forced to expand to a new church at a different site. I was in attendance that day 50 years ago when Archbishop Karl J. Alter dedicated the new school building which housed the church in the cafeteria. Rapid growth twice required separate additions to be built to house the church. In 2002, the church finally moved out of the school and into its own building.

Each year, I have the privilege to host the St. Columban eighth-grade students to the Capitol. I am honored to be their Congresswoman and tour guide.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in celebrating St. Columban's 150th anniversary and in wishing them continued success.

God bless them. God bless the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to continue to ask the question, where are the jobs?

Well, I can tell you where they're not. They're not in my district in southern Ohio because I just got an announcement on Monday night that really shocked me and made my blood boil. I found out that the Department of Energy was going to strip away thousands of jobs in my district.

Now, I just want to give you a little background. Ohio is one of those States that has high unemployment. We're the seventh highest in the Nation. But when you look at my district, what you see is I've got really high unemployment in my district. In fact, two of my counties, Pike and Adams, have over 15 percent unemployment. Scioto County has almost 13 percent unemployment. Much higher than the national average, even higher than our State average of 11.2 percent. So we really need jobs. We need them badly.

And what has occurred to me is that I think there must be a disconnect with the administration and the President. Let me go back and explain what's going on.

I have a facility in my district in Pike County, the county that has 15\1/2\ percent unemployment, called the American Centrifuge Plant, and this represents a very early use of commercial--use of new technology that would significantly reduce emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gasses.

The United States Enrichment Corporation, called USEC, is deploying American Centrifuge technology to provide the dependable, long-term, U.S.-owned and developed nuclear fuel production capability needed to support the country's nuclear power plants, nuclear submarines, and a robust nuclear deterrent.

Mr. Speaker, we have dozens of nuclear power plants in this country that all require nuclear fuel. And we have a Navy who, as I speak, is sailing in every ocean across the globe. And we have weapons of mass destruction that will become a useless deterrent without fresh tritium.

Without the American Centrifuge Plant, in 5 years' time, we will have no ability in the United States to enrich uranium to keep our lights on, our ships at sea, or a deterrent potential.

In 5 years, we will be forced to purchase uranium from foreign suppliers as we do with most of our oil. I don't want to depend on foreigners for this kind of product.

The American Centrifuge Plant holds great promise. Unfortunately, in order to meet this promise, USEC needed a loan guarantee from the Federal Government. Now, I want to repeat that. It needed a loan guarantee from the Federal Government. You see, USEC has already invested $1.5 billion and has offered another billion dollars of corporate support. It did this with the expectation that the Department of Energy would make available a $2 billion loan guarantee needed to finance the full-scale deployment of the American Centrifuge Plants.

Now, I want to refer to this chart here. Why were they so confident in that? Well, you see on September 2, 2008, when President Obama was running for election, he wrote a letter to our Governor, Ted Strickland. This is the full letter so you can see it. I'm not taking it out of context.

He said, Under my administration, energy programs that promote safe and environmentally sound technologies and are domestically produced, such as the enrichment facility in Ohio, will have my full support. I will work with the Department of Energy to help make loan guarantees available for this and other advanced energy programs that reduce carbon emissions and break the tie to high-cost and foreign-energy sources.

This is what this letter said.

So you understand that USEC was very, very confident that they were going to get that loan guarantee. But instead, on Monday night, the Department of Energy really pulled the rug out from all of us. I got a phone call asking me to call the White House, and I learned Monday night that the Department of Energy was going to withdraw its promise and they were actually asking USEC to withdraw its application and to try it again in 18 months.

I was actually told on the phone that if they did that, then the Department of Energy would give them $45 million, $30 million, and another $15 million if they would rescind this. And that kind of shocked me.

The next day it also shocked the folks at USEC because, you see, they had this letter that the President had given to our Governor, Ted Strickland, that said those loan guarantees would be given.

Mr. Speaker, the American Centrifuge Plant currently supports more than 5,700 jobs and will help create 2,300 more within a year of commencement of the loan-guarantee funding. That's 2,300 additional jobs to my district.

Now, because the Department of Energy has contradicted a promise that our President made in September of last year to our Governor and to those men and women in this area of the State, those jobs are in jeopardy. And I was on the phone with one of my constituents earlier today. Pink slips are being given out at the USEC plant.

The Department of Energy has told the media the reasons for their denial were threefold: the cost subsidy estimate, a new requirement for another $300 million of capital, and the questions of technology.

Well, the first question offered by the DOE is a little laughable. It turns out that the government isn't really backing these loans. Instead, the Department of Energy is charging a risk-of-failure fee to each of the folks that agrees to back the loans. These fees are pulled together to eliminate any risk to the taxpayers that actually have been given a loan guarantee.

They determined that the fee for this loan would be $800 million on a $2 billion loan. So USEC is supposed to come up with $800 million on a $2 billion loan. I don't know about you, but in my neck of the woods, we call that like loan sharking.

The second reason for denying the guarantee is a new need to set aside an additional 300 million for contingencies. Well, I can think where you and I see that that is headed. After the risk premium is paid, apparently USEC still has to come up with more money to make the Department of Energy feel more comfortable about giving these loans.

But the last question, I think, is the most surprising, because the last reason is one where they say they have got technical questions, and this is the one that is the most absurd of all, because, quite frankly, this technology is out there. France is using it, England is using it. Would it surprise you to know, Mr. Speaker, that Iran is using it?

But what I found most disturbing is that the Department of Energy hired a technology expert, as required by law, and they went through the technology and wrote a long report, and in fact the guy ran back to give it to the Department of Energy on Tuesday. That was the day after the Department of Energy made their decision. They made that decision on Monday night. They made it without any regard for the report they were relying on for this very important project.

It is not just a project, Mr. Speaker, that continues to help the folks in my district. And it is important to me, because, Mr. Speaker, this is my district, and these are my folks and these are my friends. I have become friends with these people.

This is the part of my community that doesn't have a lot of job opportunities, and they welcomed this job opportunity. They embraced it. And I believe that the President believes in this project, as he stated on September 2, 2008. But I think there must be some sort of disconnect with the Department of Energy.

There is a chart here, and I would like to go through the chart a little bit again so we can clearly understand what is going on.

The issue: credit subsidy cost estimated by the DOE to be $800 million. Well, let me be a little clearer. The estimate was never provided in writing. The methods of calculation were never disclosed or explained. An $800 million subsidy cost is not reasonable. I think it is outrageous, given USEC's fully

collateralized $1 billion parent guarantee, standard credit, and, yes, yield exposures of $24 million to $74 million based on credit ratings of C to BB-minus and assets recoveries of only 20 to 30 percent of the cost.

The DOE calculation clearly ignores the value of $1.5 billion invested by USEC to date and another billion of non-project collateral offered by USEC, consisting primarily of natural and enriched uranium inventories.

The second issue, an additional need for $300 million of additional capital. USEC offered a legally binding capital commitment, which DOE agreed met statutory and regulatory requirements.

USEC's fully collateralized $1 billion parent guarantee designed to permit loan to commerce while USEC raised additional equity while fully protecting the taxpayers. USEC's financial adviser stated that with the loan guarantee, $100 million to $150 million of capital could be raised in the public market. USEC has commenced discussions with strategic suppliers to obtain vendor financing for the balance.

And the final, the technical readiness of American Centrifuge Technology. The DOE LGPO concluded that ACT was not ready to move to commercial scale operations prior to receiving the independent engineer's written assessment. The independent engineer had only been working for 12 days when DOE acted. DOE was scheduled to review the classified independent engineer report on July 28, and the DOE representative traveled to Tennessee to do so, unaware of the LGPO's decision the night before.

American Centrifuge is based on technology which DOE initially developed in the 1970s and the 1980s and subsequently operated it for 10 years. USEC-approved centrifuges have been operating in the Lead Cascade for over 225,000 hours. The DOE has acknowledged that USEC met the milestone under the 2002 agreement between DOE and USEC, which requires obtaining satisfactory reliability and performance data from Lead Cascade operations, the last requirement to be met besides obtaining financing prior to commencing commercial plant construction and operations.

Mr. Speaker, I don't understand what is going on here, I don't think that this body understands what is going on here, and I am not even sure that the President even understands what is going on here with the Department of Energy.

But I am very confused. More than that, I am very outraged because I believe that we have to have energy independence, but we also have to have security for this Nation. Energy independence depends upon a variety of sources of energy, including nuclear power, but you have to have the stuff to make that nuclear power. In 5 years, we will no longer be the people that are producing the stuff that it takes to make that nuclear power. That is why this project is so important, not just for the 2,000 jobs that will be lost.

Mr. Space, can you join me here today? One of the other folks that is affected is my very good friend from a district right across from me, Zack Space.

Zack, I just laid out what has gone on with the Department of Energy. I have laid out the fact that our President promised that the Department of Energy would give out these loans to Governor Strickland on September 2. I have laid out what I think is a disconnect between the Department of Energy and our President, because I just truly believe the President wants to make good on this promise. I have laid out the impact it has to your community and my community in southern Ohio and also to our security across the Nation.

So, whatever you would like to add, I welcome you to the discussion.

Take as much time as you want, Zack. It is fine with me.

May I ask you to engage in a little conversation on this. I think it is very important, Mr. Speaker, to note that Mr. Space and I, while our districts do connect, we are from different sides of the aisle, and yet I find oftentimes there is as much agreement on both sides of the aisle, far from the rancorous debate that occurs on some of the issues that folks might hear.

This is an issue that is very important to not just me, but to Zack Space as well, because we understand Appalachia. We understand the needs of this community and how when you lose a job in this community, it is so hard to get it back. It is not like other communities, where when you lose one, in time it can be replaced. When you lose one in this part of the world, it doesn't get replaced.

Do you agree, Zack?

Mr. Space, I have been reminded that we are on the House floor, and my apologies that I didn't refer to you as Congressman Space or Mr. Space and talked to you as we do off the floor in a friendly tone. So now I will refer to you as Mr. Space.

But you and I agree on this. I think, Mr. Space, you will also agree about the importance of this not just to our community, but to the Nation. We need to have uranium enrichment in order to develop nuclear energy in order to keep our lights on in this country. And I don't think you and I want to rely on getting this product from a foreign nation.

We rely too much on getting our oil from foreign governments. We don't want to rely on foreign governments for this, which is so important to keeping our lights on, to our Navy, to our ability to keep the bad guys out of the United States.

I totally agree with my good colleague and friend from Ohio. The time is now. I remember the seventies. I remember standing in line--because I was the even day, and my friends were the odd day--to get gasoline. We can't do that again. You and I have seen the price of gasoline last summer be twice the price that it is this summer. Thank heavens it's lower, but we can't afford the opportunity for them to put the squeeze on us and on our economy. While this isn't going to remove our dependence on foreign oil, this project is going to remove our dependence on using oil for things that we don't need to use it for.

That's why we need a total comprehensive energy policy. It has to include nuclear, and we have to have not just the technology but the stuff that it takes to make that technology happen. All I can say is, this project, the American Centrifuge Plant, is producing the uranium enrichment that we need; and if we don't allow this project to go forward, in 5 years you and I are going to be standing here screaming at the well because we're going to be beholden to France or England or another country for this uranium enrichment that we so sorely need right now.

I am so thankful that you are joining me in this fight. I don't know what we can do besides calling the Department of Energy, maybe asking our friends to call the Department of Energy, maybe asking our friends to call the President. I don't know what else you and I can do. But I'm going to fight until we can fight no more, and then I am going to continue on.

I thank the gentleman. I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe we can work across the aisle. I have seen us work across the aisle on other issues. This one is a very, very important issue. I am not going to belabor this point too much longer, but only to say that if we don't act now and ask the Department of Energy to reverse its course, this isn't just something that's going to put a further blight on my district, my good colleague Mr. Space's district and the rest of Appalachia and Ohio, but this is going to really put a cloud across our economic security, our national security and our Nation. The Department of Energy can go back. They can look at the technical data, which they didn't do when they issued their decision. They can go back and look at what they're asking USEC to cough up and recognize what USEC has already put on the table. They can go back and understand that the President made this promise to our Governor on September 2. They can go back, and they can do the right thing because it's not just the right thing for my community, Mr. Space's community or Ohio. It's not just the right thing because our President made a pledge to our Governor. It's the right thing for our Nation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 49 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, July 30, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the start of the 100th annual Pike County Fair. In the mid-nineteenth century, 89 farmers, including former Congressman John Van Meter, formed the Pike County Agricultural Society. Unfortunately, the demands of the Civil War caused the dissolution of the society. But, on March 21, 1907, forty-three subscribers--local farmers and businessmen, purchased the initial stock of the Pike County Fair Board.

The first fair opened August 14th in conjunction with an opening on the Ohio Valley Racing Association circuit. The main attraction of the inaugural fair was harness racing. 10,000 people attended the three day fair. A harness racing track remains on the premises of the Pike County Fairgrounds, but races are now held a few days before the fair's opening. For three years, between 1954 and 1956, the fair did not occur due to a land lease disagreement. In 1957 the fair resumed after the signing of a new agreement and the construction of a new grandstand and horse barn.

The Pike County Fair continues to be a great event for all of the citizens of Pike County. Children for over 100 years have gained valuable tools for a successful life in agriculture as a result of their participation in the Pike County Fair.

Madam Speaker, I ask you to join me in congratulating the Pike County Fair Board for this momentous occasion and wish them continued success in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask a simple question: Where are the jobs? My constituents along with folks from all over Ohio and the Nation want to know where are the jobs. In my home State of Ohio, unemployment has risen to more than 11 percent. We have the seventh highest in the Nation. Every single county in my district has unemployment equal to or higher than the national average, and Pike and Adams Counties have above 15 percent.

Last night I was given even more devastating news: the Department of Energy has determined that it will not provide loan guarantees to construct the American Centrifuge Project in Piketon, Ohio. While campaigning last fall, then-candidate Obama pledged to support those loan guarantees. He wrote, ``Under my administration, energy programs that promote safe and environmentally sound technologies and are domestically produced, such as the enrichment facility in Ohio, will have my full support. I will work with the Department of Energy to help make loan guarantees available for this.'' I guess that promise is equivalent to the promise to save or create 3 million jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking you, Where are the jobs?

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to discuss Major League Baseball's possible reinstatement of Pete Rose. I was pleased to hear reports over the weekend that Commissioner Bud Selig is seriously considering ending the ban that has kept baseball's all-time hits leader from consideration for enshrinement in the Hall of Fame.

Beginning in 1963 until his playing days ended in 1986, Pete Rose accumulated some of the most heralded baseball statistics known to the game. Most notably are his 4,256 career hits, a Major League record, one that may never be broken. Pete did not get this record without earning the nickname ``Charlie Hustle.''

It will always be hard to forget that September evening in 1985 when Rose belted his record-breaking hit into left-center off pitcher Eric Show of the San Diego Padres. Additionally, Rose won two World Series championships with the Cincinnati Reds in 1975 and 1976, a squad commonly known as the Big Red Machine, and also one with the Philadelphia Phillies in 1980.

Even Pete Rose has admitted to making some serious mistakes in his life. Mr. Speaker, we are a country of second chances and of forgiveness. After 20 years of Major League Baseball banishment, Pete Rose deserves to have his second chance.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of the Pence amendment. Recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans are opposed to paying for abortions through their tax dollars. This amendment offered by Mr. Pence simply brings the Federal family planning funds in line with the sentiment of the majority of Americans. From 2007 to 2008, Planned Parenthood, our Nation's largest abortion provider, received almost $350 million of our American taxpayer dollars. The fiction that we try to create when we say that these funds are not directly going for abortion is disingenuous at best.

I urge my colleagues to support the Pence amendment today and deny Title X funds for Planned Parenthood.