Floor Statements

I think war funding bills ought to be about war funding. Last week, the Democrat Congress tried and failed to pass an Iraq funding bill by piling billions of dollars in unrelated domestic spending and higher taxes on the backs of our soldiers. But because House Republicans took a stand, the American people could plainly see that the majority of the majority is willing to cut off funding to our soldiers, even when they are in harm's way.

With Memorial Day just around the corner, this Congress should stop playing politics with funding for our troops. We should pass a clean Iraq funding bill, legislation authored by Representative Jerry Lewis of California, and we should pass it this week. As we prepare to remember the heroes of conflicts past, let's make sure that today's heroes have the resources they need to get the job done and come home safe.

Mr. Speaker, along with the gentle lady from Wisconsin, Representative Tammy Baldwin, I have sponsored legislation to allow farmers who grow fruit and vegetables for processing to opt out of farm programs on an acre for acre basis without limitation. That legislation would reduce farm program costs and improve the environment by allowing more extensive crop rotations. I am very pleased that the conference report takes a step toward that proposal by establishing a pilot project to allocate 75,000 acres of new authority for production of fruit and vegetables for processing in specified Midwestern states. USDA has broad discretion in administration of this pilot project to meet the objectives of the pilot project. The conference report does not specify a procedure for allocation of the pilot project acreage or other administrative matters, such as re-allocation of unused acreage allocations among states. However, USDA is clearly required to establish rules to assure that this additional fruit and vegetable production authority will not be abused. Only fruit and vegetables under contract for processing are to be produced under this authority. USDA is to assure that the crop produced is delivered to a processor and that the quantity of crop delivered under the original contract, the contract in existence upon Farm Service Agency certification, does not exceed the quantity that is produced on the contracted acreage. Further, the effects of the pilot project and FAV restrictions on the specialty crop industry, both fresh and processed, are to be evaluated. These restrictions are intended to ensure protection of the objectives of the pilot project, not to compel food waste or excessive regulatory burden. Further, the conference report includes an important statement of policy indicating that in the next recalculation of base acreage, fruit and vegetable production will not cause a reduction in farmer's base acreage. While this is a timid step in reducing restrictions on production of fruits and vegetables, I commend this step in the right direction.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous speaker from Illinois, whom I greatly respect, I support the war in Iraq. I have supported it from the beginning. I support providing the resources to our soldiers who are in the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. I pray for some 3,000 Indiana soldiers who are on the ground in Operation Iraqi Freedom every day. But though I support providing our soldiers with the resources they need to get the job done and come home safe, I cannot support this war supplemental bill.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the American people need to know what is going on here. I mean, this is a backroom deal for $250 billion that includes $72 billion in domestic spending that has nothing whatsoever to do with our soldiers and the war on terror. It also will increase taxes on working families by $51 billion. Higher taxes and higher domestic spending put on the backs of our soldiers is indecent, Mr. Speaker.

When my colleague from Illinois speaks about decency, it is indecent to come to this floor and play politics with our troops during a time of war. This Congress should bring a clean supplemental bill to this floor that provides our soldiers with the resources they need to get the job done and come home safe, not billions of dollars in domestic spending and higher taxes.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation to reject playing politics with our troops in the field.

Mr. Speaker, Indiana is agriculture, but Hoosiers on and off the farm also believe in fiscal discipline and reform. And it's for these reasons that I regretfully express my opposition to this farm bill, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.

During my years of service on the House Agriculture Committee, I have sought to be a voice for Indiana family farmers and an advocate for reform. I have worked to advocate changes in this legislation. And I want to express my profound appreciation to Chairman Peterson and to Ranking Member Goodlatte for including provisions in this farm bill that will save Indiana jobs and create new opportunities for farmers across the Midwest. While I differ ultimately in the support for the final product, I respect deeply these two men and am grateful for their work on behalf of these issues.

I'm opposing the farm bill because I believe it's fiscally irresponsible and does not contain the kind of reforms in American agriculture that these times demand. This bill fails to reduce government subsidies to farmers, fails to encourage market-based reforms to the Nation's agricultural policy, and fails to promote international trade. It also fails to meet our Nation's farm policy needs within our own budget guidelines.

The farm bill being considered today will actually increase the size and scope of government and will cost taxpayers more than $650 billion over the next 10 years. In comparison with the previous farm bill, this bill will cost $65 billion a year as opposed to the $45 billion before. It is in effect a 44 percent increase in spending.

And let me say I support family farming and I loathe the demagoguery of many who criticize farm subsidy programs, ignoring completely the real world input costs that American farmers face. But this bill still goes too far, in my judgment. It will continue to allow married couples with household incomes up to $2.5 million to receive subsidies. Subsidy payments oftentimes, under this legislation and previous bills, are concentrated in the hands of a few with the top 10 percent of recipients receiving nearly two-thirds of all farm payments.

There are other problems with this bill as well. It will allow farmers to lock in price support payments at the lowest possible market price and sell their crops at the highest price. And the bill also ignores the plight of consumers facing skyrocketing food prices by making a bad sugar program worse.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor with a sense of melancholy about this, having been on the Agriculture Committee during development of the last farm bill and coming from the great State of Indiana. It has always been my ambition to support Indiana farmers, to support them with Federal policy that enables farmers to sustain the American cutting edge in global agriculture. But I have always sought to do that in a way that protects our Federal budget and protects the American taxpayer at large.

It's for those reasons that I am opposing this farm bill legislation and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Well, I don't know what it's going to take, Mr. Speaker. Indiana is right up there with the rest of the country pushing about $4 a gallon. We'll get people out on the road for vacations this summer, and I don't know what it's going to take for Congress to take dramatic action to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

I've got to tell you I was little bit encouraged last night, Mr. Speaker. The Democrat majority brought a bill to the floor that actually endorsed the idea that the cost of oil and gasoline is affected by supply and demand. We voted to suspend purchases by the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, therefore lessening the demand on global oil, believing that the price would come down.

Well, today, this motion to instruct conferees is all about increasing the supply. Look, we hear a lot about oil profits; we always have. And no one respects the previous speaker more than me. But who in the world thinks that raising taxes on oil companies is going to lower their prices at the pump?

I mean, for heaven's sakes, we understand as Americans that commodities and the price of commodities are dictated by supply and demand. We simply have to take those measures in an environmentally responsible way to explore and further exploit the resources that we have in the ground, and I speak specifically of the Alaska National Wildlife region and the other areas that are affected by this motion to instruct conferees.

As long as we are going to continue to look at the most volatile area of the world for the majority of our energy needs, we are going to continue to see the extraordinary per barrel prices that we're seeing today, and Americans and Hoosiers are going to be suffering at the pump.

Let's get real. Let's do something about the supply. Let's lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Vote for this motion to instruct conferees so that America can begin to realize on the vast natural resources that this country has.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and, more to the point, in opposition to the housing omnibus package, $300 billion bailout, corporate welfare in this country.

It is extraordinary, after having endured the first three terms of my career in Congress and oftentimes being castigated for those aspects of the Republican agenda to try and promote business and try and encourage corporate investment in this country, how many times I and my colleagues were chastised for corporate welfare on the floor of this Congress, and yet we come here today with this extraordinary bailout for Wall Street, disguised as housing assistance for hurting Americans.

Now, let me say, I have great sympathy for those affected by the current housing crisis. I'd like to see our housing markets and our neighborhoods stabilized, but a $300 billion taxpayer bailout to lenders and speculators who made poor decisions is not the answer, and it's not fair to millions upon millions of Americans who have sat down month after month at the kitchen table and figured out how to make those mortgage payments, who have taken on a second job and sometimes a third job to make the mortgage payment. And it's not fair to nearly one-third of the American public that rents.

When my wife and I first got started out, I remember we rented our first place. We saved our pennies to be able to make that down payment, to get that FHA loan and to get our dream started. Now along comes Congress with this enormous handout, which, as the gentleman from Texas said, says to lenders, if you'll take a 15 percent haircut, a 15 percent hit, we'll move your liability on to the taxpayers, on to taxpayers who have rented, who have saved, who have scrimped.

They ought not to be required to pay this bailout for Americans. There are alternatives that we should support.

Madam Speaker, today America's eyes are turning to Indiana and North Carolina as tens of thousands of Americans are making their decision in primary election days. And thanks to the United States Supreme Court decision in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, et al., Hoosiers will be voting today with greater confidence than ever before.

The Supreme Court decided last week in a 6-3 decision that Indiana's laws requiring photo identification to vote is constitutional. In its opinion, the Supreme Court noted, ``There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a State's interest in counting only eligible voters' votes.'' It further stated, ``Indiana's interest in protecting public confidence in elections, while closely related to its interest in preventing voter fraud, has independent significance, because such confidence encourages citizen participation in the democratic process.''

Indiana's laws had its critics in this body, but I rise to extol the Supreme Court and all of those in Indiana and North Carolina who, with greater confidence today, will exercise their franchise and guide America's future integrity.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for the privilege of having the opportunity to speak in favor of this important resolution expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives on the death of William F. Buckley, Jr. I also want to thank the Democratic leadership of the Congress for scheduling this bill and giving this Congress and this country an opportunity to express appreciation for an extraordinary American life.

This resolution was introduced by Congressman Tom Feeney. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the bill. I want to thank Congressman Tom Feeney for his leadership and his compassionate attentiveness in bringing this legislation before the Congress. Congressman Feeney cannot be with us today. He is on a congressional delegation trip to China. But I know that were he here, he would regale this floor and those watching in with his deep affection and appreciation for the life and work of William F. Buckley, Jr.

As this resolution attests, William F. Buckley, Jr., was an American hero and an intellectual leader of the conservative movement for more than five decades. As the previous speaker just alluded, he led in a manner that earned both the respect and the friendship of his political adversaries.

William F. Buckley, from his many years on television, the program, Firing Line, which was the longest running political television program in the history of American television, he demonstrated that wit and sharpness and civility can all go together, and it is a lesson that I suspect many of us on an ongoing basis can continue to learn and apply in the institutions of our government.

By virtue of his distinct personality, his talents, his humor and his goodwill, William F. Buckley has been recognized as the premier conservative intellectual in post-World War II America. He once commented that he would ``rather live in a society governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone directory than in one governed by the 2,000 members of the Harvard faculty.'' It was that kind of rapier wit, beginning with the publication of his book ``God and Man at Yale,'' that ended up resulting in the publication of thousands of books, thousands of columns, and thousands of debates that turned him into a force of nature in the American public debate.

We also recognize him as a man who played a critical role in helping this Nation understand the great calling of his generation, which inasmuch as the calling of the greatest generation, was to confront Nazism and fascism.

William F. Buckley and his intellect and his capacity for elocution managed to help focus the Nation on the threat of Soviet communism and the realities of the Soviet Union, and I believe that history will record that it was William F. Buckley, Jr., perhaps more than any other American, who outside of government influenced the leadership in the 1980s that led to the collapse of Soviet communism and the Soviet Union.

Upon the election of Ronald Reagan, it was reported to me once that William F. Buckley was asked what position he would like to have in the new Reagan Administration, to which he apparently put his hand in his jacket pocket and replied with a twinkle in his eye, ``ventriloquist.'' And in many respects William F. Buckley was a ventriloquist for so many of us in public life, reading his columns, reading his books, having from time to time the privilege of watching him long distance or in person as he made the case for limited government. He made the case for traditional values. He made the case for the American ideal of freedom, here at home and on a global basis. We, all of us, were happy to have that extraordinary intellect and heart filled with goodwill pull the strings on our careers and guide us and direct us.

So, I join my colleagues, and especially Congressman Tom Feeney, in taking this moment to give honor and thanks to William F. Buckley, Jr., for all he did to advance the vision for America and a capitalist democratic vision for the world and to express the profound sorrow this Nation feels upon his death.

The Bible says if you owe debts, pay debts; if honor, then honor; if respect, then respect. Today, thanks to the leadership in the minority and the generosity of the majority, Congress and the American people will have the opportunity once more to pay a debt of gratitude to this great American, who was William F. Buckley, Jr.

Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago next month, the State of Israel, under the leadership of a small band of courageous Zionists declared independence in its ancient homeland. It was promptly recognized by the United States, as the majority leader just eloquently described, and it was promptly attacked by its Arab neighbors. The more things change, the more they seem to stay the same.

Well, Israel has prevailed against long odds, and we celebrate 60 years of that on the floor today and around the United States and around the world next month. It was against those extraordinarily long odds. It was forced again in 1967, 1973, and on countless other times since.

It is important that we note through these trials and travails, Israel remains the only fully functioning democracy in the Middle East. It was founded by Holocaust survivors resolved to overcome the horrors of the mid-20th century Europe's atrocities.

Today, Israel's boasts a vibrant economy with a well-educated populace. Israel's GDP exceeded most major economies in 2007 and it's reached Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development candidate status.

Israel's 60 years on from that historic day next month is an extraordinary

success. But Israel is still in the neighborhood of sworn enemies. In its 60th year of history, all of two Arab countries have seen fit to recognize Israel. And today's leader of Iran threatens with regularity to wipe Israel off the map.

That's why I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to say two things: Number one, I join my colleagues in both parties who rise to congratulate this historic accomplishment of 60 years hence. But I also say that as we commend Israel, we in this body in both parties should look for opportunities to recommit ourselves to her defense. We cannot stand idly by while a gathering menace grows in the region. We cannot stand quiet while some Americans travel overseas and associate themselves with the blood-soaked enemies of Israel.

So today we celebrate, and we celebrate in a spirit of bipartisanship. But I hope as this historic 60th anniversary approaches, we in this body in both parties will look for those opportunities upon which we can come together to rededicate ourselves to the preservation and the protection of Israel as a Jewish state and to Jerusalem as her eternal capital.

Madam Speaker, 3 years ago, I authored H.R. 2102, the Free Flow of Information Act, with my colleague Rick Boucher from the State of Virginia.

As a conservative who believes in limited government, I believe the only check on government power in real time is a free and independent press. And the Free Flow of Information Act is not about protecting reporters, it's about protecting the public's right to know.

American people should know, Madam Speaker, we're at a unique moment in the history of this legislation. The overwhelming bipartisan House passage of the Free Flow of Information Act has now been joined with Senate action that includes the leadership of Senator Richard Lugar, Senator Arlen Specter, Senator Patrick Leahy and others. Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton add themselves as cosponsors of the bill this week, and I heartily welcome the strong endorsement of Senator John McCain of this legislation.

I believe there's now a bipartisan majority in both the House and the Senate to support this vital legislation and ensure the vitality of a free and independent press for generations to come.

We just need one vote in the other body. And I believe we'll put a stitch in this tear in the first amendment freedom of the press.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Don Dillman's remarkable life of selfless service. Inspired by his strong Christian faith, he subordinated his personal struggle with diabetes to his singular focus on the important volunteer work he did to improve the community of Hope, Indiana. His admirable courage in the face of adversity is something special that deserves honoring today on the floor of the people's House.

Donald W. Dillman was born in Columbus, Indiana on March 8, 1940, to Shirley ``Bud'' and Jessie Cecil Anderson Dillman. He was a graduate of Hope High School, Class of 1957. On June 24, 1962, he married Rena Blake, with whom he shared and celebrated forty-five years of marriage.

The ``unofficial mayor'' of Hope, Don helped organize countless civic projects and community initiatives over the years ranging from new playground equipment for the town square to launching the Hope Chamber of Commerce. He even stepped in as an anonymous reporter covering Hope Town Council meetings for the Hope Star Journal.

Don worked for decades to improve the community, serving in important leadership positions. He served as President of Heritage of Hope for over thirty-five years. He was a founder and board member of the Hawcreek-Flatrock Endowment Fund, applying his fundraising prowess to help it grow to over $225,000. Since the early 1970s, Don led the Hope Heritage Days festival, which draws thousands to the town each fall.

Don was not just bold about fundraising for the community; he was also bold about his faith. He served as a deacon at the First Baptist Church of Hope for many years. But most of all his faith shone through his commitment to the community of Hope, Indiana despite his own physical illnesses.

Sadly, Don has passed away, but he leaves a strong legacy of personal faith and selfless service that serve as a powerful example to all who knew him. I offer my sincere condolences to his wife Rena, their sons Jon and Darrell, and two grandchildren James and Jessica.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the newest member of the Indiana State Senate. The sun has set on the long and proud legacy of one visionary leader, but a new dawn is rising in the Hoosier heartland.

Tomorrow at the Indiana Statehouse, surrounded by family and friends, Travis Holdman will raise his right hand to be sworn in as State Senator for Indiana's 19th District.

After his victory, Holdman said he had no acceptance speech prepared. He simply thanked the caucus and quoted Proverbs 15:22: ``Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with advisors they succeed.'' I'm sure he will receive a lot of counsel in the months and years ahead as he seeks to serve his constituents.

I've known Travis and his wife Becky for years. He has a wealth of business and political experience that will serve his constituents well.

Travis has been involved with banking for the past 15 years, serving as a bank CEO, bank holding CEO, and chairman of the board. Previously, he spent 6 years as a deputy prosecutor in Wells County.

Travis has served as both chairman and vice chairman of the Wells County GOP for the past 12 years. Most recently he served on the Wells County Council.

Travis and Becky are also leaders in a number of civic and community activities. At the Zanesville United Methodist Church, they volunteer for the UPWARD sports ministry. Travis serves on the board of trustees for Huntington University and has worked with Youth for Christ student ministry.

Travis was the youngest of eight children and grew up in a poor but hard-working family of farmers. He will tell you that his parents instilled in him five core values: traditional family values, conservative political views, ``Hoosier common sense,'' a Judeo- Christian worldview, and integrity.

Madam Speaker, no one will ever fill Senator David Ford's shoes, but Indiana will be well served by Senator Travis Holdman.

I move to strike the last word.

I rise in strong support of the Flake amendment because the American people need taxpayer protection more than we need beach protection. Now I understand this is important legislation that Congress is considering today. And I do not rise to trivialize this bill. It has its moorings in and its heritage in bipartisan foundations. I rise, rather, to say that the time has come for this Congress to get serious in large ways and in small ways about the epidemic of earmarking that has taken hold of the Federal budget process.

In fiscal year 2008, according to one estimate, legislation that passed in one catch-all omnibus bill included some 11,610 earmarks in all of those different appropriations bills in the course of the year costing taxpayers some $17.2 billion. It was the second highest number of earmarks any Congress has ever approved. It represented a 337 percent increase above fiscal year 2007.

What the Flake amendment says, in effect, is that none of the funds appropriated pursuant to this section may be used for a congressional earmark as defined by the House rules. Now, this is part and parcel of an effort by many of us that I believe, while it is being led by Republicans, I believe there are many in the other party who understand that earmarks is a cancer in the belly of the Federal budget. And we must address it.

The Flake amendment seizes this opportunity and this moment of this legislation that says that should the Beach Protection Act of 2007 be signed into law, that at no point in the future may it be used as a vehicle for earmarking. And as the author of this amendment has suggested, we have been assured in the past before that those things pertaining to homeland security, the Department of Homeland Security, would not become vehicles for earmarking, and they have.

And for my part, let me say this is not an issue that I am interested in demagoguing, Madam Chairman. For my part, through the course of my career up until very recently, I have requested earmarks and special projects for my district. But I must tell you, having negotiated when Republicans were in charge for earmark reform, having supported Democrat efforts for earmark reform, at the end of last year when I saw a catchall omnibus bill come to the floor of this Congress with hundreds of unexamined earmarks dropped in at the last minute in the dead of night that hadn't been subject to the scrutiny the American people demand, I knew it was time for a change. And so I had to tell the people of my district that I could no longer be a part of this flawed system. And I commend the gentleman from Arizona for his extraordinary leadership on this issue.

I want to challenge my colleagues to support the Flake amendment. But

let's just begin there. Let's support a moratorium on earmarking in this Congress. The American people know there is something fundamentally wrong with the way we spend the people's money, especially when it comes to earmarks.

Frankly, I used an analogy not long ago, Madam Chairman, of an airplane. When you're flying an airplane through the air, and the meters on the control panel tell you that something is wrong with the engine, the first thing you do is put the plane on the ground and get the hood open and find out what is wrong. Well, many of us who are advocating an earmark moratorium believe the time has come for us to put the plane on the ground in a bipartisan way, embrace an earmark moratorium and reform this system in the way that Congressmen Frank Wolf and Jack Kingston have suggested in their commission format.

And let me say, as I close in strong support of the Flake amendment, that there is enough blame to go around on this earmarking business. I recognize earmarking came of age under Republican control of the Congress. And I am not rising here to point fingers. I am, however, rising to say that we need to change the way we spend the people's money. The only way we will do that is by embracing the bold leadership that Congressman Jeff Flake has brought to this Congress in connection with the Beach Protection Act, but it also means embracing a moratorium and coming together, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, and saying we are going to push away from the table, and we are going to bring fundamental earmark reform to the American people. And that's my hope.

And I urge support for the amendment as a first step in that direction.

I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I joined a bipartisan group of Members of the House and Senate just a few short hours ago here in the Capitol where we were accompanied by Martin Luther King III, and we gathered to remember a day that tens of millions of Americans will pause to remember tomorrow. That was the day that saw the assassination of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 40 years ago.

I rise today as someone who, as a 9-year-old boy, was deeply inspired by the example of Dr. King and as a 9-year-old boy who was shaped by those tragic events.

But I also rise today as a Hoosier and as a congressman representing Muncie, Indiana, because it may not be known to many, Mr. Speaker, but both Indiana, and Muncie, Indiana, in particular, played a small role in the unfolding drama of that day, April 4, 1968. And I will borrow generously from an article written by Nick Werner recently in the Muncie Star Press as I reflect on that connection.

Muncie helped shape history after the King assassination because it was in Muncie and at Ball State University where Senator Robert Kennedy was speaking. He was speaking at the men's gym, which is now Irving gym. He was running for President of the United States. And it was there after his speech, as he was moving through the crowd, that historians recall and record that he had first learned of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. And as he went to the Muncie Airport and traveled from the Muncie Airport to Indianapolis, Robert Kennedy would prepare what for all the world appeared to be an impromptu speech but one that perhaps he had been writing all of his life. A speech that he would deliver to a stunned crowd in Indianapolis that night, and it was a speech that I rise today to remember.

It was humbling to me, despite our differences on philosophy and politics, to sit today on the same row with Senator Ted Kennedy as we remembered the tragic events of that day.

Robert Kennedy stood before a largely black audience in an outside park in Indianapolis, and he spoke these words:

``I have some very sad news for all of you and I think sad news for all our fellow citizens and people who love peace all over the world, and that is that Martin Luther King was shot and was killed tonight in Memphis, Tennessee.''

As Nick Werner wrote: ``The crowd gasped and screamed, but they remained fixed on Kennedy as he continued speaking, words that condemned violence and lawlessness.

He said, and I add, ``For those of you who are black, considering the evidence evidently that there were white people who were responsible, you can be filled with bitterness, with hatred, and a desire for revenge. But,'' he added, ``what we need in the United States is not division. What we need in the United States is not hatred. What we need is not violence and lawlessness, but love and wisdom, compassion toward one another. He asked those gathered to ``return home tonight to say a prayer for the family of Martin Luther King. Yeah, that's true, but

more importantly, say a prayer for our country, which all of us love; a prayer for understanding and the compassion of which I spoke.''

After he spoke those words, rioting would break out in more than 100 cities across the United States. But Indianapolis was peaceful. Robert Kennedy would go on to a tragic end of his own.

But I rise today as an American shaped by the courage in the life of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and I will remember tomorrow with gratitude his example. I will also say very humbly that the words of Robert Kennedy are as true today as ever, and that Muncie, Indiana, and the State of Indiana, will always be proud of the small role we played as a backdrop to those historic and tragic events.

May the words of Robert Kennedy, may the example of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., continue to inspire our Nation to aspire to a more perfect union.

I thank the ranking member for yielding.

I rise in support of the Tom Lantos and Henry Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008.

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 startlingly, if current infection rates continue, new epicenters for the disease are likely to arise out of India,

China, Eastern Europe with numbers that could surpass Africa in a few short years.

And the threat this pandemic poses to our security is also real. Left unaddressed, this plague will continue to undermine the stability of nations throughout the two-thirds world, leaving behind collapsing economies and tragedy and desperation, a breeding ground for extremist violence. This is truly a global crisis. And because the United States can render timely assistance, I believe we must.

Originally titled the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR put the world on notice that America will not ignore despair, desperation and disease. I am proud to have supported the original passage of PEPFAR in 2003, and I'm proud to support it today.

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, Chris Smith in particular for his yeoman's work on carefully preserving the delicate balance of this legislation.

And I also would 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.

This Global AIDS bill seeks to address the crisis, not by providing medicine and health care to those in need, but also by providing 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 we also send them in a manner that is consistent with our values. We cannot send billions of dollars to Africa without sending value-based safeguards and techniques that work to fight the spread of HIV/AIDS by changing behavior.

Currently, within the Global AIDS bill, these pivotal provisions exist in the form of a requirement to ``provide balanced funding for prevention activities'' and to ensure that abstinence and faithfulness programs are ``implemented and funded in a meaningful and equitable way.''

It was essential that we preserve these prevention methods that focus on behavioral change, that we work with faith-based and nongovernmental organizations at the local level, particularly through the ABC model that has produced such undeniable results.

Also, it was absolutely critical that we administer this foreign aid under the historic pro-life guidelines that prevent our foreign aid from going in a direction that's antithetical to the values of millions of Americans. I'm pleased to say the Lantos/Hyde Global AIDS bill preserves all of these vital pro-family provisions.

As we tend to the suffering though, 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 costs of the Lantos/Hyde Global AIDS bill.

This summer, Madam Chairman, when it comes time to fund this program during 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 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 support the Lantos/Hyde Global AIDS bill and its carefully crafted bipartisan compromise.