Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, 5 weeks ago, Democrats adjourned this Congress for a 5-week paid vacation without ever giving the bipartisan majority in this House that supports comprehensive energy legislation and includes more drilling a vote. But House Republicans never left. Republicans stayed here on the House floor because we know the American people are hurting. Senior citizens, school systems, working families, small businesses and family farmers are struggling under the weight of high gasoline prices. In fact, the American people know the high cost of energy is costing American jobs.

And so now today along comes the latest iteration of a Democrat energy bill. And as Congress awaits the unveiling of their latest effort, a plea to Speaker Pelosi and the House Democrats: No gimmicks, no fig leaves, no half measures. The American people won't stand for it. The Democratic leadership must allow the bipartisan majority in this Congress that supports more drilling, more conservation, more alternatives, a fair up-or-down vote and debate.

Speaker Pelosi, respectfully, you can turn off the lights on the House floor, you can shut off the microphones, but you cannot silence the majority of the American people that want a comprehensive bill and want to drill here, drill more, drill now.

Madam Speaker, I rise to thank the Noon Rotary Club of Muncie, Indiana for their invaluable service to the residents of my hometown of Columbus, Indiana following catastrophic flooding that city experienced in early June.

An article published in the Columbus Republic on July 25, 2008 outlined the tremendous support this group provided:

Three Saturdays ago, carloads of Muncie Rotarians descended

on Eastside Community Center, determined to help prepare and

deliver meals to survivors and volunteers.

They've been coming back ever since.

``This Muncie group is awesome,'' said Celeste Racette, a

member of the Columbus Sunrise Rotary Club who worked with

the Delaware County group in coordinating the volunteer

effort. ``They not only helped prepare and deliver meals but

they have kept coming back and they even set the folks at

Eastside up with Gleaner's Food Bank out of Indianapolis to

deliver a week's supply of food.''

They'll need it. Lenore Hollowell, who is coordinating the

meal delivery program

Eastside initiated in the early hours of the flood recovery,

said Thursday that the group is averaging 550 meal deliveries

each day.

The article continues:

The Muncie group offered more than just helping hands.

The Rotarians who arrived on the first Saturday and

immediately were sent to devastated areas with prepared meals

were welcomed warmly but also given guidance for future

visits.

``If people didn't want the lunches, they definitely wanted

the water,'' Celeste said. ``That need was discovered on

their first trip. On the next trip the Muncie group brought

down 40 cases of water, four coolers and endless bags of ice

so that we could hand out cold bottled water along with the

meals.''

While the Muncie group was in Columbus, one of its members

struck up a conversation with Lenore Hollowell about

additional sources of food.

Gleaner's Food Bank in Indianapolis was mentioned and

within the space of hours, e-mails were being traded back and

forth setting up the delivery of a week's supplies.

``The delivery ran the gamut from eight cases of yams to

two cases of mop handles . . . from three cases of chocolate

chip cookies to four pallets of bottled water . . . there

were even 1,200 prepared meals from Federal Emergency

Management Agency.''

The Noon Rotary Club of Muncie will likely make their final visit to Columbus on August 2. I want to extend my deepest gratitude to this dedicated group of volunteers who went out of their way to help Hoosiers in need.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Yesterday, by one vote, the House voted to adjourn as soon as today for the August recess. This means Congress is about to take a 5-week vacation without even taking a vote on bipartisan measures that would lessen our dependence on foreign oil by allowing more domestic drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf.

Mr. Speaker, the American people won't get a vacation from high gasoline prices, so Congress shouldn't take a vacation until we vote to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

If the Speaker won't keep the House in session to allow this vote, I urge President Bush to call an immediate

energy special session of Congress. Under article II, section 3 of the Constitution, the President has the power, quote, on extraordinary occasions to convene the Congress. If $4 a gallon of gas isn't an extraordinary occasion that demands action by the Congress, I don't know what is.

The Congress should stay in session and do its job and give the bipartisan pro-drilling majority a vote. And, Mr. President, if this Congress tries to leave town without voting on more drilling, use your constitutional authority, bring them back and make them work.

Madam Speaker, the American people deserve more access to American oil. And now that the President has lifted the ban on offshore drilling, Congress must not adjourn until the American people get a vote on more domestic drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf.

In a day when some in this body say it is their duty to ``save the planet,'' I prefer the words of Daniel Webster that are chiseled on the wall behind me. He said a century ago, ``Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers.'' And so I add to my colleagues, let us develop the resources of our land. Let us give the American people more access to American oil.

Americans won't get a vacation from high gas prices, so Congress should not take a vacation until we vote to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

Madam Speaker, do not adjourn this Congress until we give the bipartisan, pro-drilling majority a vote on more access to our oil reserves.

I thank the gentleman for yielding; thank him for his strong moral leadership on this issue. And I want to commend the ranking member and the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee for having the moral courage to bring this resolution to the House before Congress adjourns.

It is important that we speak truth to power. And with the 2008 Olympics in Beijing about to begin, it is important that the people of the United States be heard on our ideals, as athletes from around the globe and global media descend on China.

It is important that we say, as the late Tom Lantos, chairman of this committee, said in a hearing last year, a few months before his death, ``China is a police state.''

I personally believe that the selection of China as the site of the 2008 Olympic Games was a historic error. The Olympics is a symbol of the human spirit, and in that regard, a symbol of human freedom. And this police state, therefore, is precisely the wrong venue for a celebration of human dignity and the human spirit.

And so I commend to my colleagues support for H. Res. 1370. I am particularly grateful for the call on the government of the People's Republic of China to end abuses of human rights, to release those imprisoned for political and religious expression, and also challenging China to honor its commitment to freedom of the press of foreign reporters.

But I must say, while there is much talk in the media today about the crowd of smog hanging over Beijing as these games approach, let me say from my heart, the real cloud over the Beijing Olympics is the horror of forced abortion. And therefore, I am especially grateful to Congressman Chris Smith, from whom we just heard, for adding an important amendment to this resolution noting that, whereas the Chinese government limits most women to having one child and strictly controls the reproductive lives of Chinese citizens by systematic means that include mandatory monitoring of women's reproductive cycles, mandatory sterilization and contraception, mandatory birth permits, coercive fines for failure to comply and the like, that this legislation will call on Congress to--excuse me--call on the People's Republic of China to immediately end the practice of forced abortion.

And make no mistake about it, China's policy requires that unpermitted babies be aborted. Article 25 of the Henan Province Population and Family Planning Regulations reads: ``Under any of the following conditions, necessary remedial measures shall be taken and pregnancy terminated under the guidance of family planning technical service workers: Pregnancy out of wedlock, pregnancy without a certificate, or where the party already has one child.''

In the committee, Madam Speaker, we heard the most horrific stories of these so-called family planning technical service workers literally breaking into homes, dragging women in their ninth month of pregnancies off to clinics, forcing abortions on them and, in one case after another, going to horrific means to ensure that the newly born child's life had been completely snuffed out. There is not time in this debate to recount those instances, but they are legion in China, and they are the result of heartbreak among tens of millions of that country of good and decent people.

And so I commend the chairman of this committee, Mr. Berman, for his leadership. I commend Mr. Chabot for his leadership, and especially the gentleman from New Jersey, a leading voice for the sanctity of life in the United States of America, for ensuring that this legislation, this resolution comes before the Olympics, that we speak truth to power to the People's Republic of China; that here in the United States of America, the people of this country will say, with one voice, we believe in freedom and we believe in life, and we reject the policy of forced abortion in China, and urge them to do likewise at this time.

Mr. Speaker, freedom is not the business of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party alone. It is not the business of liberals or conservatives alone. Freedom is the work of every American and every Member of Congress.

It was in that spirit that 3 years ago, I authored the Free Flow of Information Act with my colleague Congressman Rick Boucher from Virginia. The bill provides a qualified privilege to shield confidential sources from disclosure except in cases where national security or classified information is at issue.

Last year, the House proved that freedom is not an issue alone in the province of the left or the right by passing the measure with an overwhelming bipartisan vote.

Last week, the Washington Post and Washington Times proved the same. Newspapers with great liberal and conservative traditions alike have endorsed this vital legislation.

We learned this morning that the Senate may consider the Free Flow of Information Act as soon as tomorrow, and so I respectfully rise to encourage our colleagues in the other body to remember, freedom is not the business of Republicans or Democrats, liberals or

conservatives. Freedom is the work of every American and every Member Congress.

I urge my Senate colleagues to do like the House did, come together in a bipartisan manner and put this stitch in a tear in the first amendment, freedom of the press.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5501, the Tom Lantos and Henry Hyde Global AIDS bill. As Congresswoman Barbara Lee just eloquently stated, it is poignant to those of us who knew these two great legislators to see the important expansion of this legislation occur after both of them have gone home to be with the Lord. But I can think of no better tribute to these men of character and vision and compassion than this legislation.

I commend Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for their strong leadership. I also want to commend my colleague, Chris Smith, for his yeoman's work in preserving a delicate balance of this bill. Also Mr. Speaker, let me publicly acknowledge the work of our President, George W. Bush. Mr. President, because of your moral leadership and compassion, Africa will never be the same, and history will record your work.

The Bible tells us, ``To whom much is given much is expected.'' I believe the United States has a moral obligation to lead the world in confronting the pandemic of HIV/AIDS.

The dimensions of this crisis are truly staggering. The HIV/AIDS pandemic has infected more than 60 million people worldwide, killed more than 25 million, a number that grows grievously every day by nearly 9,000. HIV/AIDS has orphaned some 14 million children. And today, 70 percent of the people in the world with HIV/AIDS reside in Africa. More startling, if current infection rates continue, new epicenters for the disease are likely to arise out of India, China and eastern Europe.

The threat this pandemic poses to our security is real. If not addressed, this plague will continue to undermine the stability of nations throughout the third world, leaving behind collapsing economies, tragedy, and desperation, which we all know is a breeding ground for extremist violence and terrorism. This is truly a global crisis. And because the United States of America can render timely assistance, I believe we must.

You know, every so often in this place we have the opportunity to do something, not just for the American people, but for humanity, and this is such a time. And this global AIDS bill seeks to address this crisis not only by providing medicine and health care to those in need, but also by providing funding resources for evidence-based programs that have been successful in preventing infection.

It's imperative, I believe, that we not only send our resources, but that we send them in a manner that is consistent with our values. We cannot send billions of dollars to Africa without sending values-based safeguards and techniques that work to fight the spread of HIV/AIDS by changing behavior, and this current version of the global AIDS bill includes those safeguards.

It was essential that we preserve these prevention methods that focus on behavioral change, and that we continue to work with faith-based, nongovernmental organizations that promote programs, including the ABC model, which has produced such undeniable results.

But as a conservative let me say, as we tend to the suffering abroad, we also have to figure out how to pay for it. The Federal budget, I believe, is filled with opportunities to responsibly fund this program, and I look forward to finding the right priorities to do just that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5501, the ``Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde Global AIDS Bill.''

The Bible tells us, `to whom much is given, much is expected,'' and I believe the United States has a moral obligation to lead the world in confronting the pandemic of HIV/AIDS.

The dimensions of this crisis are truly staggering. The HIV/AIDS pandemic has infected more than 60 million people worldwide. It has killed more than 25 million, a number which grows grievously every day by more than

8,500. HIV/AIDS has orphaned some 14 million children. And today, 70 percent of the people in the world with HIV/AIDS reside in Africa. Within that continent there are entire countries where more than one- third of the adult population is infected.

More startling, if current infection rates continue, new epicenters for the disease are likely to arise out of India, China and Eastern Europe, with numbers that could surpass Africa in a few short years.

And the threat that this pandemic poses to our security is also real. If not addressed, this plague will continue to undermine the stability of nations throughout the third world, leaving behind collapsing economies and tragedy and desperation--a breeding ground for extremist violence and terrorism.

This is truly a global crisis and because the United States can render timely assistance, I believe we must.

You know, every so often in this place, we have the opportunity to do something for humanity and serve the American people--and this is such a time.

I thank Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for their strong leadership. I commend my colleague, Mr. Chris Smith, in particular for his yeoman's work on carefully preserving the delicate balance of this legislation.

And I'd also like to publicly acknowledge the work of our President, George W. Bush. Mr. President, because of your moral leadership and compassion, Africa will never be the same, and history will record your work.

And this Global AIDS bill seeks to address the crisis, not only by providing medicine and health care to those in need, but also by providing funding resources for evidence-based programs that have been successful in preventing infection. It is imperative, I believe, that we not only send our resources but also that we send them in a manner that is consistent with our values. We cannot send billions of dollars to Africa without sending values-based safeguards and techniques that work to fight the spread of HIV/AIDS by changing behavior.

Within the current version the Global AIDS bill that the Senate recently passed, these pivotal provisions exist in the form of a requirement to provide `balanced funding for prevention activities for sexual transmission of HIV/AIDS,' and to ensure that abstinence and faithfulness programs `are implemented and funded in a meaningful and equitable way.' This is enforced by requiring the Global AIDS Coordinator to report to the appropriate Congressional committee if funding for abstinence, delay of sexual debut, monogamy, or fidelity programs drops below 50 percent of the total sexual prevention program funding.

It was essential that we preserve prevention methods that focus on behavioral change, and that we work with faith-based and non- governmental organizations at the local level, in particular through the ABC Model, which has produced undeniable results.

As we tend to the suffering, through, we always have to figure out how we're going to pay for it.

The federal budget, I believe, is packed with wasteful and bloated programs, which could supply more than enough opportunities to cover the cost of the Lantos/Hyde Global AIDS bill.

When it comes time to fund this program in the appropriations process, I believe Congress should make the hard choices necessary to ensure that this global health crisis does not become a crisis of debt for our children and grandchildren.

I believe it is possible to be both responsible to our fiscal constraints while being obedient to our moral calling. The greatest of all human rights is the right to live. America is a nation of great wealth--wealth of resources, but more importantly, a wealth of compassion. The history of the world is filled with telling moments regarding the character of a people. Sometimes we are witness to mankind's great inhumanities. Other times we marvel at the beauty of mankind's selfless acts of compassion, when we rise above politics and raise up those in dire need. Let this be such a day.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

Well, back in Indiana, Hoosier families are hurting. Pain at the pump is harming the vitality of our families, our family farms, and small businesses, and the time has come for Congress to act.

Madam Speaker, we've heard from many of our Democrat colleagues that the answer is to go deeper into our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I believe the answer is to go deeper into the reserves that are in the Outer Continental Shelf, in Alaska, and in the Gulf of Mexico.

The American people know the only way to lessen our dependence on foreign oil is to lessen our dependence on foreign oil by giving the American people more access to American oil.

I joined all my Indiana colleagues this past Monday at a press conference in Hoosier State urging you, Madam Speaker, to bring to this floor a vote on allowing American oil companies access to the Outer Continental Shelf. The President's lifted his executive ban. Now the only thing standing in between the American people and more access to American oil is one up-or-down vote on the floor of the Congress.

I urge you respectfully, Madam Speaker, bring the bill to the floor to allow the American people access to the reserves in this Outer Continental Shelf, and that bill will pass. If Congress is allowed to work its will, America will vote to drill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the American housing market is in turmoil and homeowners are anxious. And let me say from the heart I believe Congress is right to act decisively to cure what ails our housing markets. But with the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act, the cure may be worse than the disease.

H.R. 3221 increases the national debt by $800 billion, and it raises taxes on the very entities that we say we are trying to help, putting the money in the pockets of special interests and politically motivated groups. In a time of crushing national debt and rising deficits, we're considering a package that would give a blank check to the administration for bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at a time when the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and regulators of those entities insist they're solvent and fiscally sound.

The most troubling part to me is that whatever we do for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we shouldn't be raising taxes on them. This legislation includes a 4.2 percent tax of basis points for each dollar of unpaid principal balance of total new business purchases. In plain language, CBO estimates that 4.2 basis points could equal a slush fund of $710 million for 2009, $9 billion over 10 years that could go to organizations like ACORN and the National Council of La Raza, which, in addition to being involved in legitimate pro-housing programs, are also unquestionably involved in political mobilization, voter turnout, registration, and the like.

Congress can do better than H.R. 3221 to quell the anxious housing markets that beset our Nation today.

The American people deserve a housing bill without corporate bailouts, without tax increases, without slush funds for politically motivated organizations. The American people deserve better than the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor what would have been the 100th birthday of a great Hoosier legislator and American patriot, Senator William Jenner.

Born in Crawford County, Indiana, Senator Jenner graduated with a law degree from Indiana University in 1930 and began a career practicing law in Paoli, Indiana. In the meantime, he quickly rose through the ranks of Indiana politicians, becoming Majority Leader and President Pro Tempore of the Indiana State Senate less than ten years after graduating from college. In a selfless act that placed the defense of freedom above political ambition, Senator Jenner resigned his seat in the Indiana Senate to serve as a captain in the Army Air Corps during World War II.

In 1944, Senator Jenner returned from service overseas to fill a vacancy in the U.S. Senate resulting from the death of Frederick Van Nuys. He would later be elected for two complete terms, serving until 1959.

As chair of the Internal Security Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jenner spent much of his time in the Senate promoting American values while guarding against the spread of communist ideals during a fragile period of American history. A conservative and a proponent of equality, Senator Jenner laid out a plan that led to the inclusion of all races within the Republican Party.

During his tenure as a politician, Senator Jenner believed in the ideals of the Senate as a forum for free-flowing discussion and a body that protected the viewpoints of the minority. As he famously said on January 4th, 1957, ``Jesus Christ was killed by a majority; Columbus was smeared; and Christians have been tortured. Had the United States Senate existed during those trying times, I am sure these people would have found an advocate. Nowhere else can any political, social, or religious group, finding itself under sustained attack, receive a better refuge.''

Following his retirement from the Senate, Jenner returned to law practice in Bedford, Indiana until his death in 1985 at the age of seventy-six. Gone but not forgotten, Madam Speaker, the legacy of this great Hoosier legislator lives on as a model of courage and patriotism for all members of Congress and indeed, all Americans as well.

Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the United States provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. These two rights form the bedrock of our democracy by ensuring the free flow of information to the American people.

Sadly, today, the free and independent press in America is under fire. In recent years, more than 40 journalists have been subpoenaed, questioned or held in contempt for failure to reveal their confidential sources.

For a journalist, maintaining an assurance of confidentiality to a source is sometimes the only way to bring forward news of great consequence to the Nation. Being forced to reveal a source chills reporting of the news, and, thereby, restricts the free flow of information to the public.

Now, not long ago, a reporter's assurance of confidentiality was unquestioned. That assurance led to sources that willingly provided information to journalists who brought forward news of enormous consequence to the Nation. One thinks of Watergate, recent stories of misfeasance at Walter Reed Army medical center, and even the abuse of steroids in major league baseball.

All of these stories never would have come to the light, stories great and small, were it not for confidential sources and the dogged persistence of a free and independent press. As a conservative who believes in a limited government, I believe the only check on government power in real time is a free and independent press.

A free press ensures the flow of information to the public, and in this time of scandals and rumors of scandals and corruption in high places, such information is needed now more than ever to hold those in power to account. In order to maintain our free and independent press, I authored the Free Flow of Information Act with Congressman Rick Boucher of Virginia several years ago. This bill is also known as a Federal media shield statute. It provides a qualified privilege of confidentiality to journalists, which enables them to shield sources from disclosure in certain situations.

Now, the bill is not about protecting reporters, it's about protecting the public's right to know. We introduced the bill in May of 2007, and on October 16 of last year, it passed in this House of Representatives by an overwhelming and bipartisan margin of 398-21. I was especially pleased to earn the support of Republican and Democratic leadership, the chairman and ranking members of the Intelligence and Armed Services Committee, and many other leaders throughout the House of Representatives.

The bill received wide bipartisan support because of measures we added to specifically address very real and legitimate concerns about how a privilege for journalists could impact national security. The Federal Government, as we know, is tasked with a tremendous responsibility of protecting the Nation. We must always put national security in the forefront of our consideration.

The Free Flow of Information Act does just that. Well, with news that the United States Senate may be taking up a version of this legislation as soon as next week, I wanted to rise to speak about the bill and what some of its critics may say.

Critics of the bill will point always to concerns about national security. But our version of the bill only provides a qualified privilege, meaning that disclosure of a source's identity may be required in certain situations. The foremost of those situations, of course, is when the Nation's security is placed at risk. The bill permits compelled disclosure to prevent or identify the perpetrator of an act of terrorism against the United States or its allies, to prevent significant or specified harm to national security, or, in cases that involved the unauthorized disclosure of classified information that caused or will cause significant or articulable harm to national security. In such cases, a judge will be able to determine whether the public interest, in compelling disclosure of a source, outweighs the public interest in gathering or disseminating news or information.

Overall, I sincerely believe the bill strikes a reasonable balance between the public's right to know and the fair administration of justice. In striking that balance, the version of the legislation that passed this House puts national security first.

Long ago Thomas Jefferson warned, ``Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that limited without danger of losing it.'' Jefferson's words hold true today.

The passage of the Free Flow of Information Act in this Congress is necessary not only to explicitly and fully provide for the freedom and press of our Nation, but also to protect our liberty for future generations of Americans. With the extraordinary bipartisan support of my colleagues in the House of Representatives, and support in the United States Senate, which includes both major party candidates for President of the United States, it is my hope that the United States Senate will take up the Free Flow of Information Act and report it next week with a strong bipartisan affirmation.

Mr. Speaker, no one wants war with Iran, but America and our allies in Europe have been exerting increased diplomatic and economic pressure to move the nation of Iran and its government away from developing a nuclear program.

In May, Congressman Gary Ackerman and I introduced bipartisan legislation, H. Con. Res. 362, urging this administration to impose expanded economic sanctions on key sectors of the Iranian economy. It appears as though it's having its good effect. In what's being reported today as what will be the ``closest contact between the two countries since the Iranian revolution of 1979,'' this weekend, U.S. Ambassador William Burns will meet with top arms negotiators from Tehran. It will be more of a listening session and should not be overstated.

However, I would offer that this glimmer of hope in these negotiations is precisely because of the resolve of the United States and the European community to economically and diplomatically isolate Iran over its nuclear ambitions. But now is not the time for us to shrink from renewed diplomatic pressure.

I urge all of my colleagues to join Congressman Gary Ackerman and me and cosponsor H. Con. Res. 362 before this weekend. Let's send a deafening message to the negotiators in Iran that the American people stand for diplomatic and economic isolation until they abandon their nuclear ambition.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I'm pro-life. I don't apologize for it. I believe that the sanctity of life is a central axiom of Western civilization.

Let me say, as we gather this evening under the leadership of the chairman of the Pro-Life Caucus here in the House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker, we are not really gathered this evening to debate the sanctity of life. We're really gathered tonight to shed light on a fact about Federal funding that, I think, escapes most Americans, and that is this simple fact:

That the largest abortion provider in America is the largest recipient of Federal funding under title X.

You know, when I'm walking down the street in Anderson, Indiana or in Muncie, Indiana, people know about my work on this particular issue. With the legislation I authored last summer during the appropriations process that received 189 votes to defund Planned Parenthood, one person after another will grab me by the elbow and will say,

``Mike, I did not know. I did not know that we gave a penny to the largest abortion provider in America, let alone the fact that the largest abortion provider in America, namely Planned Parenthood, is the largest recipient of Federal funding under title X.''

I mean the truth is that there has been much debate since 1973 and the decision of Roe v. Wade about the sanctity of life and the fault lines of the law and life, but where there has been national consensus since the very early days of this debate when a Congressman from Illinois named Henry Hyde conceived of the Hyde Amendment, there has been a national consensus behind the notion that, whatever your view of abortion, it is simply morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of Americans who believe abortion is morally wrong and use it to pay for or to subsidize the performance of or the promotion of abortion.

The Hyde Amendment gave birth to what has been the dominant philosophy in our foreign aid funding. It's called the Mexico City Policy. It essentially says that no U.S. foreign aid can go to any organization that performs or that promotes abortion as a means of birth control.

You know, Madam Speaker, I really think many Americans think that that's the law here at home, too, that because the overwhelming majority of Americans think that pro-life Americans should not be forced to pay for abortions or to subsidize organizations that promote abortion, they think it doesn't happen here, when, in fact, let me say again that the largest abortion provider in America is the largest recipient of Federal funding under title X.

Now, abortion-rights advocates and, most especially, Planned Parenthood would be the first to step forward to say that they don't use title X family planning money to perform abortions. In fact, there are very strict Federal regulations that are in place that require a separation between Planned Parenthood abortion service clinics and Planned Parenthood title X clinics for the poor. I suppose, while there have been instances of alleged misfeasance and of the commingling of funds, I'll leave that completely out of this conversation and will allow for the fact that there is this separation, but I've got to tell you, Madam Speaker, that anybody knows that the money that Planned Parenthood receives for its non abortion activities frees up resources to go into its abortion activities.

The American people also deserve to know that this nonprofit organization received over $336 million in government grants and contracts, I think, in 2006. It had an excess of revenue over expenses of $56 million in 2005, and it had $112 million in 2006, which has given rise to the building spree that was reported on page 1 of the Wall Street Journal. Well, now Planned Parenthood is planning to go suburban with all new up-scale abortion mills around the country. So I commend the gentleman from New Jersey for bringing this conversation to the floor.

I authored a bill last year in the Labor-HHS legislation that would have denied any Federal funding in title X from flowing to Planned Parenthood of America, and it received 189 votes, including 20 Members of the majority voting for it. If Congress ever got around to considering the Labor-HHS appropriations bill this year, I sincerely believe that that number would grow as public awareness has grown about the simple fact that the largest abortion provider in America, Planned Parenthood, is the largest recipient of Federal funding, and that ought not to be.

Whatever a person's view of abortion is, it is my hope--and frankly, it is my prayer--that this Congress will come together in a bipartisan way and will implement a domestic Mexico City Policy and will say to the millions of Americans, to the hundreds of millions of Americans, perhaps, who have moral objections to abortion, we will not take your tax dollars and use it to subsidize the largest abortion provider in the United States of America. That's all we're here to talk about today.

I urge my colleagues to reflect deeply on the fundamental fairness of this issue and to support the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act that would bring a change to the law. In the appropriations cycle, if we ever get around to it in this Congress, let's take decisive action to defund Planned Parenthood, not cut a dime out of title X and its family planning programs, but let's say no more Federal tax dollars to the largest abortion provider in America.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend and recognize the extraordinary contributions of emergency management, disaster response, and recovery personnel as well as elected officials and community leaders in my district which was devastated by the recent severe weather in Indiana.

I wish particularly to honor the Board of Commissioners, County Council, and all the other outstanding individuals in Dearborn County who rose to the occasion during these difficult times. This area suffered greatly from severe storms and weather, creating a catastrophe of nature that inflicted injuries, destroyed property, and displaced many of our citizens. In response, these officials went above and beyond the call of duty, showing great poise while saving many lives and serving the people of their communities.

Madam Speaker, I commend these fine men and women for their tremendous dedication to the Hoosier families, businesses, farmers and communities that they serve. As Hoosiers continue to recover from Mother Nature's fury, I feel confident that the people of Dearborn County will be well served by these officials.