Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress from the heartland, I have supported the farm bill in the past. Regrettably, the 2007 farm bill that we will consider this week is a deeply flawed piece of legislation. It combines traditional agricultural programs with the misplaced priorities of the Democratic Congress. Tax increases, budget gimmicks, workplace restrictions, and a public union provision that offends States' rights, and I cannot support it.

This farm bill is a disservice to American farmers and an attack on hurting families in the State of Indiana.

At the behest of one of the Nation's largest public employee unions, the Democrat Congress added language to this bill that will prohibit States from working with private companies to improve the administration of welfare services. Since Indiana is leading the Nation in improving welfare services through these partnerships, this bill is bad for Indiana, bad for hurting families, and bad for Hoosier taxpayers.

In the interest of federalism, it's imperative that Congress give State governments the freedom to innovate in the delivery of food stamps and other welfare programs to benefit recipients and improve services.

I will vote against this farm bill because it raises taxes, busts the budget, and does a great disservice to our most hurting Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a very straightforward amendment. It would prohibit funds appropriated in this bill from being used by the Department of Justice to enforce the criminal penalties provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, commonly known as McCain-Feingold. It would, essentially, prevent the Justice Department from using funds to enforce criminal penalties against organizations that make electioneering communications under that bill.

The electioneering communications section of McCain-Feingold prohibits the use of corporate or labor union funds to finance broadcast advertisements that include the name or depiction of a Federal candidate within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days before a general election. Basically, it restricts the first amendment rights of Americans, whether they be in right-to-life organizations or the AFL-CIO or other labor organizations, from lobbying their Representatives and using the airwaves in those days before elections.

Happily, on June 25 of this year, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, ruled unconstitutional this provision of the McCain-Feingold law that prohibits the broadcasting of such issue advertisements prior to an election, even if those advertisements reference a Federal candidate, and even if the advertisements have some electoral effect. It was, in a very real sense, Mr. Chairman, a huge victory for the first amendment because it's a major step in restoring the free speech rights to grass-roots lobbying organizations, left, right, and center.

The ruling allows advocacy groups around the country, like Wisconsin Right to Life, the freedom to run ads to encourage citizens to contact their legislators on issues of importance to them. And it reasserts the principle that the presumption under the law should be in favor of free expression rather than the muzzling of speech.

Those of us who hailed this ruling and welcomed it as a first step toward the reversal of McCain-Feingold were encouraged, but we knew this was not the end of the story. As the sole House plaintiff in the McConnell v. FEC case that challenged McCain-Feingold, I believe we must maintain our effort, which is to ensure that that about McCain- Feingold that intrudes on the first amendment rights of every single American are challenged. And that's why I'm on the floor today.

The Pence amendment reaffirms the Supreme Court's ruling in Wisconsin Right to Life. It simply states that no funds under this bill can be used to enforce criminal penalties against any organization airing such an issue advertisement. It further prevents criminal penalties attendant to the reporting requirements associated with the airing of such ads. We should not allow criminal penalties to be imposed on citizens for engaging in protected speech and for not reporting to the Government about their protected speech.

That is the crux of the Pence amendment.

I'd be pleased to yield.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's question.

In fairness, my amendment says that no funds may be used to force amendments made subject to title A of title II of Public Law 107-155, which, according to some, is slightly broader than the Supreme Court decision. But this is the provision of the law that the Supreme Court essentially struck down. That's the crux of the Pence amendment.

All of those who claim allegiance to the first amendment, I believe, should be thrilled with the Wisconsin Right to Life decision and support the Pence amendment.

I think we still have much to do to reinstate full first amendment protections to the American people. But I continue to believe we're badly trampled by McCain-Feingold.

But passing the Pence amendment today in the Congress would simply reaffirm the essential elements of the Supreme Court's decision in the Wisconsin Right to Life case. It's an important first step on this floor. It's one I encourage my colleagues to support.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for bringing this important amendment.

Facts are stubborn things, Mr. Chairman. The CJS bill spends $53.6 billion. This amendment would reduce that by 1.4 percent, but it would still allow for

an increase in the Commerce-Justice, and Science spending. With the passage of this amendment that is being characterized as a cut in the CJS budget, this bill still increases by nearly $1 billion compared to last year.

And let me be clear on what we are trying to do, I think what the gentleman from Georgia is trying to do here, and that is we are trying to find a way to avoid having to raise taxes the way the Democrats are planning to do in the farm bill later today. I mean, the Democrat majority is planning to bring a $7.5 billion tax increase to the floor of the Congress in the context of the farm bill later today, and we are just trying to take this opportunity to make a cut in a single year that, if we did it over 10 years, we wouldn't have to raise taxes.

Now, that is being characterized as the work of a small minority versus a bipartisan majority. At least they are not calling us a fringe this week.

Well, I think if the small majority is the people that want to pay for increases in spending with budget discipline, and the bipartisan majority is the one that wants to pay for increases in spending by raising taxes, I am happy to be part of the small majority that I happen to think speaks for the overwhelming majority of the American people, who want this Congress to live within its means, who want this Congress in a bipartisan way to make the tough choices to put our fiscal house in order.

I commend the gentleman from Georgia. I thank him for his vision. I urge passage of the Price amendment, because if it passes, it will lay a foundation where we will not have to raise taxes by $7.5 billion in the farm bill later today.

Offered By: Mr. Pence

Amendment No. 25: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following new title:

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

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I'd like to express my admiration to our distinguished chairman; our ranking member, Ms. Ros- Lehtinen, as well as Mr. Sherman, for crafting this important legislation and for bringing it to the careful thought and consideration that colleagues and those looking on today would see easily in evidence in the gentleman from California's remarks, and I am grateful for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, we all understand that from time to time the Overseas Private Investment Corporation has been the subject of controversy. On the other hand, it is accurate to say that it is significant that every President since 1971 has believed that OPIC is an important tool for advancing international development in U.S. foreign policy by stimulating private capital investment.

In recent years, OPIC appears to have better focused its resources and efforts, bringing economic development to underserved markets in Central America, Africa, Afghanistan, and now in Iraq.

OPIC has also reached out to U.S. small businesses and minority- and women-owned enterprises. For example, more than 80 percent of all OPIC projects approved in fiscal year 2006 involved U.S. small- and medium- sized enterprises.

OPIC has also sought to enhance transparency and fight corruption, thereby leveling the playing field for U.S. businesses as they compete in international markets.

It's also worth noting that OPIC is embarking on new efforts to encourage investments that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote the use of clean energy; and by charging market-based fees for its products, OPIC continues to operate as a self-sustaining agency, which I applaud, effectively operating at no net cost to taxpayers and returning net income every year of operation, with reserves now totaling more than $5 billion.

On balance, then, despite controversy, I believe OPIC continues to serve foreign policy interests of the United States, and I urge support of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill as well, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to congratulate Idaho on its successful bid, as well, to host the 2009 Special Olympics World Winter Games and express strong support for H. Res. 380.

The Special Olympics program has benefited countless people with disabilities nationwide and around the globe, raising awareness, fostering support for a great cause while enabling the participants to enhance their self-confidence and gain a sense of well-deserved personal accomplishment through sports and competition. It is, in every sense, a blessing to the participants.

The millions of volunteers, coaches and athletes involved with the Special Olympics do a great service for their community and their country and, of course, to those with intellectual disabilities. I would also say, though, having been involved and been in attendance at Special Olympics programs, I haven't met a volunteer yet, Mr. Speaker, who didn't think that they were richer as a result of their participation in this extraordinary program, to see the courage of those who compete and the extraordinary sacrifice of the parents of those who bring them to such a wonderful opportunity.

Through the dedication of these volunteers, the Special Olympics have continued to grow and impact the lives of more and more people around the world.

The 2009 Winter Games in Idaho promise to be a great showcase for Special Olympics participants from around the world to compete at a high level and demonstrate that disabilities are no match for individuals who are driven to succeed.

Again, I congratulate Idaho for being selected as the host of an event of such magnitude. I extend my best wishes to their new Governor and my friend, and I am fully confident that it will be a resounding success.

I urge my colleagues to render their full support for this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I again express support for H. Res. 380 and congratulate the State of Idaho for winning the opportunity to host the 2009 Special Olympics World Winter Games.

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

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

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I would like to commend both Chairman Lantos and the author of this resolution, the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), as well as Mr. Smith for their leadership on working to bring this and so many other human rights issues to the attention of this body.

As we all know, India is not only the world's largest English- speaking democracy, but it's one of the world's richest and most diverse civilizations.

India is also emerging as one of the world's most dynamic economies, with the results of that growth uplifting the lives of millions of citizens. Yet despite this impressive record of reform and growth, India, like all countries, including our own, also faces a number of compelling domestic challenges.

As was recently reported in a front-page story in the Washington Post, one of these social traumas relates to the problem of inequality and deep-seated caste prejudice. More than 200 million people in India are considered untouchable, people tainted by their birth into a caste system that deems them impure and almost less than human.

Despite constitutional protections and other legal and regulatory efforts by the Government of India to improve the lives of the Dalits and other Tribal peoples, all too many continue to suffer from human rights abuses, as well as discrimination.

In this regard, the State Department reports that while rare in urban settings, examples of intolerance occur regularly in rural areas. Many Dalits are malnourished, lack access to health care, work in poor conditions and continue to face serious social discrimination.

In addition, Dalit women are all too often the victims of rape and exploitation at the hands of cruel human traffickers. Tragically, they also suffer disproportionately from the ravages of HIV/AIDS.

This Congress and the American people are enormously respectful of Indian sovereignty, its impressive democratic heritage and its respect for the rule of law. As awkward as circumstances may be, for this body not to acknowledge these extraordinary issues would be an error.

In a respectful and well-balanced way, this resolution appropriately shines a light on the plight of India's untouchables, and I believe it deserves our support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this resolution and would reiterate the spirit with which this resolution is brought cannot be more eloquently stated than the gentleman from California just did. This is brought in a spirit of cooperation with a friend to assist them in confronting a domestic challenge, but it is among friends that we speak and will support this legislation today.

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

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

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong and unqualified support of H. Res. 521, no Indiana exceptions, at least not today.

I congratulate Representative Gillibrand, as my colleague from California did, for this important resolution.

For close to a century, Lake Placid has been central to America's participation and achievements in international sports. It's the only site in North America to have hosted more than one Winter Olympics, both in 1932 and in 1980.

Moreover, in 1980, and if you haven't seen the movie, it was the site of one of America's greatest moments, when the U.S. national hockey team defeated the heavily favored Soviet Union. Walt Disney films recently created an extraordinary motion picture remembering that miracle on ice.

It was not only a victory for one hockey team over another, but for millions it symbolized the triumph of freedom over tyranny and seemed to be a part of setting into motion in 1980 what we would see with the collapse of Soviet communism in 1991. It forced you out of that, so in a very real sense, Lake Placid is important in the history of freedom as well as in the history of sport. Indeed, countless Americans actually remember where we were in that glorious moment.

Lake Placid's contributions to international sports continue to this very day. It's the home of one of the U.S. Olympic Committee's three national training centers and regularly hosts international sports competitions, bringing together athletes from across the globe to celebrate the excellence of sports.

Perhaps above all, Mr. Speaker, Lake Placid is an example of what a society can accomplish. This small village in New York with a population of less than 2,700 not only is a venue for grand-scale sporting events but also welcomes over 2 million visitors every year. This resolution recognizes Lake Placid's place in Olympic history, encourages Americans to visit that village's state-of-the-art Olympic facilities, and further encourages the U.S. Olympic Committee to select Lake Placid to represent the United States in the future for the Olympic or Para-Olympic games.

I commend my distinguished colleague from New York again, Mrs. Gillibrand, and Mr. McHugh, for introducing this important resolution. I urge its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the old book tells us to mourn with those who mourn and grieve with those who grieve. I rise in support today of H. Res. 535 in a spirit of bipartisanship and mutual mourning in the tragic end of the life of David Ray Ritcheson.

I rise to commend David Ray Ritcheson in this resolution, a survivor, as my colleague from Texas just described, of a horrific crime. We commend him for his activism in raising awareness of violent crimes in this United States.

As has been noted, at the age of 16 years, David Ray Ritcheson was brutally assaulted in April of 2006 while attending a party in Spring, Texas. He was hospitalized for more than 3 months, had more than 30 surgeries to restore his appearance and regain his health. David Ray Ritcheson recovered and became a spokesman and a tireless advocate against brutal crimes. He spoke eloquently and with great courage. He testified, even at his young age, with conviction before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. He did so in a way that gave honor to both his convictions and his character. David Ray Ritcheson's courage stands as a testament to all crime victims, especially those who suffer brutal attacks.

Violent crime strikes at the heart of every victim, the victim's family, and their community. We must do all that we can to eradicate all violent crimes.

Today we gather in support of this resolution simply to mourn the passing of David, to extend our heart-felt sorrow and respect to his family and his community and all those whose life he touched with his courage. His memory will live on in our hearts. His courage will inspire us all.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

With that, I'm pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I am actually prepared to close with the gentlewoman's forbearance.

I would be pleased to do that. I thank the gentlewoman for her courtesy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, H. Res. 535, commending David Ray Ritcheson, and urge my colleagues to support it.

Let me say from my heart, I have great respect for the gentlewoman from Texas. She and I have an intellectual difference of opinion on the merit of hate crimes legislation. The legislation specifically referenced in this resolution as having been passed in this Congress even earlier this year as a result of some of the work of the man that we are honoring, I did not support and I do not support.

I don't support hate crimes laws. I don't support penalizing thoughts like action. But I do support courage. I do believe in that ancient adage that says if you owe debts, pay debts; if honor, then honor; if respect, then respect.

I disagree with the gentlewoman on the subject of hate crimes legislation. I disagree therefore with the late David Ray Ritcheson on that issue. But I rise today because this resolution says that the House of Representatives mourns the passing of David Ray Ritcheson and commends him for his activism in contributing and raising awareness toward the eradication and elimination of hate crimes in the United States.

We can come together as a Congress, and I expect we will today, to pay a debt of gratitude that we owe to a life that ended too soon. I commend the gentlewoman for her quite typical and forceful advocacy of her views, but I urge my colleagues to meet on that common ground of paying a debt of gratitude to a life that, as his family looks into this debate, I hope they know whatever our views are on the issues in which David found himself caught in violence and then standing in the national debate, we admire him, we honor his life, and we mourn his passing as a Congress and as a Nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I appreciate the spirit of her remarks. Both her remarks and the express language of the resolution have to do with the House of Representatives mourning the passing of David Ray Ritcheson and commending him for his activism, and that is certainly a resolution I can and will support on the floor in whatever manner it comes forward.

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

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, it represents a bipartisan conviction that is unanimous in this Chamber that we owe those who serve in the uniform of the United States and who fall in that service everything. And we owe their families who share their sacrifice the same.

H. Con. Res. 175, brought to this floor today by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), will be an expression of a Congress acting on that gratitude and on that debt. It is a highly technical matter, but as I am sure the gentleman from Iowa will explain and the gentlelady from Texas explained, this is an issue that impacts the lives of people that this Nation cherishes the most.

There are a number of cases where the children of single-parent servicemembers killed in action and their guardians have not been able to access death benefits intended for them. This resolution addresses cases where specific instructions were left by a servicemember as to the distribution of benefits to caretakers.

In order of priority, death benefits are currently distributed to a surviving spouse, children, and other classes of persons such as siblings designated by the deceased. Benefits of a single parent's minor children must be held in trust by a State court which appoints a trustee who supervises the distribution of funds on behalf of the children. This consumes time and money in instances where the deceased clearly designated a caretaker to serve as a de facto trustee.

The fiscal year 2008 national defense authorization bill will include a provision allowing servicemembers to begin predesignating caretakers as recipients as part of the death gratuity payment. However, neither House nor Senate provisions help families that have already been affected. Although H. Con. Res. 175 takes the form of a congressional concurrent resolution and therefore has no legal effect, it is confidently hoped that attorneys for minor children will use the text, once passed by the House, to convince State courts to honor the wishes of deceased single parents who designated caretakers for this purpose.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) in particular for his tender care of the service families of these American heroes, for his advocacy on behalf of families whose loved ones paid the ultimate price while defending our great Nation. I urge the House to adopt H. Con. Res. 175.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield such time as he may consume to the principal author of H. Con. Res. 175, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me simply rise again on behalf of many of my colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee to commend to the attention of all Members H. Con. Res. 175 regarding the payment of survivor benefits to family members of deceased service personnel.

It is a highly formalistic sounding bill, highly technical, but I think you could sense, Mr. Speaker, the emotion in the voice and the countenance of its principal author. I would expect that Mr. Latham of Iowa is here on this floor for Kayla and for the children of those 143 soldiers who find themselves caught in a confused bureaucracy and unable to access the benefits to which they are entitled and to which the hero that they lost as a parent and a loved one intended them to enjoy.

So, again, I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 175, and I rise with a humble sense of gratitude for the tireless work of the gentleman from Iowa in bringing this legislation so quickly and so thoughtfully to the floor of this Congress.

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

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

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3095 which, simply put, will provide Indian tribes a 1-year extension in which to decide how to comply with the requirements of the Adam Walsh Protection and Safety Act of 2006. It's extremely important to note to colleagues looking in on this debate, H.R. 3095 does nothing to weaken the requirements of the Adam Walsh Act on Indian tribes. The children who live on Indian reservations deserve just as much protection as children in other communities.

The reality is that this important legislation simply creates an opportunity for Indian tribes to obtain 1-year extension to decide how to live under those requirements.

The Adam Walsh enacted new requirements for States and Indian tribes to maintain sex offender registration information, post such information on the Internet and share such information among States and other Indian tribes.

It allows Indian tribes one year to decide whether the Indian tribe itself will implement the sex offender registration and notification, or whether the tribe will rely on the registration and notification programs operated in an adjacent State to comply with the act's requirements.

H.R. 3095 simply extends the deadline for one year for Indian tribes to elect how they want to comply. The Justice Department recently proposed detailed regulations for States and Indian tribes to comply with the Adam Walsh Act, but those regulations are not yet final. The Indian tribes cannot make an informed decision on how to comply with the act until those regulations are final. And this year 1-year extension will give Indian tribes sufficient time to make that choice.

Again, let me say, H.R. 3095 does nothing to weaken the requirements of the Adam Walsh Act on Indian tribes. I urge my colleagues to support the bill as an important, somewhat technical amendment to this legislation.

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

Madam Chairman, I rise on behalf of the fringe in America. Madam Chairman, that would be the fringe that believes that governments ought to live within their means, ought to pay their bills, ought to balance budgets.

The gentleman from Ohio, whom I respect and admire his style as a legislator and a leader, has coined the phrase ``fringe,'' and I want to embrace it. I want to come to this floor and say every American who believes that we ought to balance the Federal budget, who believes that we ought to come together across the political divide and reform entitlements, who believes we ought to wrestle to the ground an $8 trillion national debt, that fringe is the fringe that I represent in America and those with which I proudly stand.

And let me say I know that number 8 trillion very well. On my way to the floor today, I passed the office of clearly a dozen of the gentleman from Ohio's colleagues' offices, Democrats all, who anyone looking on wouldn't necessarily know, who all have signs in front of their office lamenting an $8 trillion national debt. And as the other gentleman said, I lament the role of the Republican majority in creating that, and I fought members of my own majority in years that we saw the debt go from $5 trillion to $8 trillion.

But I say on behalf of the fringe, the fringe of Americans who say governments ought to live within their means, they ought to balance budgets, they ought to make the tough choices in a bipartisan way to live within the fiscal values that the American people represent, I say let's deal with it. And this cut today brought by the gentleman from Georgia is a modest step to be sure. It is a 1 percent cut. It says instead of doing with a 4.8 percent increase over last year, the Federal Government will have to get by on a 3.8 percent increase over last year. And it doesn't seem to me to be too much to ask, with an $8 trillion national debt, for us to come together and begin to trim and begin to make the hard choices. But it won't solve the real problem, and my cherished colleagues on the other side of the aisle know this. We have to get past the names; we have to get past the categories, and we have to represent the fringe of America that wants to see us balance this budget.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Allow me to say there are many good things happening in federally funded Family Planning clinics nationwide: 5 million Americans served, 90 percent of whom are low income; 900,000 unintended pregnancies were averted by title X family planning funding; and it is reassuring that abstinence education is required for all clients. But today, I am offering an amendment that is very simple.

The Pence amendment states that no funds under title X may be granted to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is the largest recipient of title X funding, and it is the largest abortion provider in America. Last year alone, Planned Parenthood's own annual report states that it received more than one-third of its $1 billion budget from government contracts and grants. And, again, according to their annual report, Planned Parenthood performed more than one quarter of a million abortions.

Millions of pro-life Americans should not be asked to fund the leading abortion provider in the United States. Now, let me stipulate, I know that title X funds may not be used for abortion. And my amendment does not cut or reduce the budget for family planning in this appropriation bill; it simply prevents appropriated funds from reaching an organization that profits from the abortion trade.

It is time the American people stop funding the Nation's largest abortion provider, and I urge support for the Pence amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, with acknowledgement of the gracious remarks of the chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I want to respond substantively to the gracious comments of the chairman whose work on this legislation I acknowledge heartily. But as to the issue of protecting all the values that the Republican majority advanced, I would hasten to remind that in the Foreign Operations bill we did great violence to the historic Mexico City policy. That change came. We must end the practice of funding Planned Parenthood.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Might I ask how much time I have remaining, Madam Chairman.

I yield 50 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

It is my pleasure to yield 50 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona, the eloquent Mr. Franks.

I thank my colleague from New York for his extraordinary courtesy. And let me say, I regret that this debate will only take 15 minutes. It is a great and serious matter, and I think the dignity with which it's been conducted thus far is evidence of the capacity of this Congress to discuss even the most contentious issues of our time in a manner that reflects civility and favorably on the institution.

Now, that being said, let me clear up a few points. This is not, as the chairman said, ``a frontal assault on family planning.'' There are no cuts in Title X in the Pence amendment. The Pence amendment states plainly that no funds under Title X may be granted to Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood is the largest recipient of Title X funding, and it's also the largest abortion provider in America.

And as to whether we are living under the same arrangements, as the chairman said, and I respectfully quote, ``same arrangements under Republican rule,'' it seems to me just a short time ago we saw this new majority overturn much of the decades long Mexico City policy that prevented Federal dollars from going to organizations overseas that provide abortion for family planning.

I think this Nation needs a domestic Mexico City policy. And frankly, if the common ground that this Congress has reached means tens of millions of Federal tax dollars going to the largest abortion provider in America, that is not a common ground I can accept.

Say ``no'' to Federal funds for Planned Parenthood in Title X. Say ``yes'' to family planning funding through Title X. Say ``yes'' to the Pence amendment.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hensarling amendment. I love a good debate. It is a great privilege for me to be able to come to the floor at a time when Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Jackson are here. I find them to be two of the most forceful and effective advocates of their view in the Congress in the majority, and so I welcome this opportunity to join in the debate. And I thank the gentleman from Texas who is consistently the strongest advocate for fiscal discipline and reform in the House of Representatives.

I will leave aside for the moment the whole question of which party forced the requirement of MTBE to be added to gasoline and created the regulatory challenges that the gentleman refers to, and just get to the larger question here.

Madam Chairman, we have an $8 trillion national debt. This is an amendment to cut $8 million. And it is being forcefully opposed. I think for anyone who would be looking on the people's House today, that is a rather dramatic comparison. Let me repeat that again. The Hensarling amendment, facing the stark reality of $8 trillion in national debt, comes to the floor with an idea to ask the Federal Government to do without spending $8 million.

The new majority, and I congratulate them again on securing the majority in the Congress, the American people spoke. But I do remember the new majority pledged no new deficit spending. I remember promises by this new majority in last year's campaign season that we would pay as we go in the Federal budget. If there was to be spending increases, they would be offset by cuts in other areas.

Yet this legislation, the bill is $7 billion over the 2007 request, $10.2 billion over the President's request, and it follows seven other pieces of legislation all of which have increased spending. And some of which, Madam Chairman, I have supported, but not all.

And it does seem to me as I walked here to this floor, I passed one sign after another in front of the offices of some of my most distinguished Democrat colleagues that bear the number $8 trillion writ large. If we are to be concerned about $8 trillion, will we not support an effort to cut $8 million?

That's the choice here today and whether the gentleman from Illinois, who I deeply respect, considers that this $8 million to be an enormous benefit, might there not be States and local governments that could make up for that, with the recognition that we are creating a burden for future generations of Americans that we ought not to create?

So I support the Hensarling amendment. It is the least we can do to take a step backwards.

I want to associate myself with the distinguished chairman of this committee who rose earlier to say, and I'm quoting now, that he was tired of defending administrative accounts with amendments by people who were coming to ask for more spending in other areas.

It is greatly to the credit of the gentleman from Texas that he is coming to this floor simply asking that we not spend this money. There's no other amendment or no other spending request that he's making in this regard, and it's what the American people ask us to do.

In fact, I would close, Madam Chairman, simply by saying I think the American people are tired of the national debt. I think they're tired of the sea of red ink. I think they were tired of it when my party had control of the place, and as the gentlewoman knows, I was one of the strongest opponents of wasteful government spending when my own party was in charge.

And so I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know the gentleman from Texas and myself and other colleagues, we come to this floor with sincerity of purpose and with consistency that we think government ought to live within its means and pay its bills, and we think we ought to balance budgets. And the Hensarling amendment simply asks that we might cut $8 million as a modest response to $8 trillion in national debt.

And I challenge my colleagues, in the spirit of goodwill, let's make this statement, let's start in the direction of fiscal discipline and reform or, for heaven's sake, Madam Chairman, and I say with a smile, let's take the signs down from the hallways. Let's stop pretending that we worry about the national debt if we cannot come together as a Congress and as a nation and accept an $8 million cut to deal with an $8 trillion national debt.

Offered By: Mr. Pence

Amendment No. 67: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

I thank the distinguished gentlewoman and my good friend from Florida for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we are come to this floor today, it seems to me, in an important moment in the life of two nations. We are come to this floor at a time when our colleagues in the other body are debating a Defense authorization bill and will be considering amendments about a new course in Iraq.

So I do not question the decision of the majority in this chamber to consider these same issues, particularly in light of the release of the initial benchmark assessment report by our military and diplomatic leadership in Iraq. It is a report, I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that is to me frustrating, as it is, I think, to Members on both sides of this aisle. Of 18 benchmarks included in the interim report to Congress, progress on eight of the benchmarks has been characterized as satisfactory, but progress on another eight are unsatisfactory, with it being too early to tell on another two.

Two months from now, the Crocker-Petraeus report that Congress has been promised will provide, we believe, a broader assessment. But, frankly, I am struggling, as a strong supporter of our effort in Iraq, with the failure of this Iraqi Government to step forward with progress toward enacting legislation on de-Ba'athification reform, hydrocarbon resources reform, and the scheduling of and planning of provincial elections.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be transparent about that frustration as much as I was when I met with Iraqi cabinet officials just a short 2 months ago. The Iraqi Government must do more. If there is any unintended benefit of this debate today, my hope is that some of this debate with that message would echo to those people.

But that being said, I will oppose this measure, Mr. Speaker, because I truly believe that defeat and an American failure in Iraq is not an option that we can consider.

With great respect to my colleagues who would endorse this proposal for a precipitous American withdrawal from Iraq by April 1 of next year, I truly believe that, before we make any decision adjusting our strategy on the ground, we ought to wait to hear from those Americans on the ground in Iraq who have been charged with implementing the strategy the President put into effect in January.

I want to reiterate, and I think I speak for many Republicans, Mr. Speaker, as the President said in January, our commitment to this Iraqi Government is not open-ended. But my commitment to an American and Iraqi success is deep and heartfelt. Whether this Iraqi Government can rise to that challenge or not, as the gentleman from Indiana in the other body said, we must find a way to forge agreement to achieve success in Iraq.

The good news of the assessment that has come before the Congress is that we have been achieving some progress as a result of the President's surge strategy on the ground. Between May and June, 26 high-level al Qaeda leaders have been killed or captured.

I know there are some, even the gentleman who just spoke, who questioned whether we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. Our soldiers don't question that. Eleven of those al Qaeda leaders killed or captured were emirs, local al Qaeda leaders; seven were facilitators who smuggled foreign weapons; and five were cell leaders who commanded terrorist units.

U.S. operations in the last 2 months, according to the reports released this week, have also uncovered an al Qaeda media network in a nondescript facility outside Samarra. U.S. forces also, I am happy to report, received 23,000 tips during this period of time, which is four to five times the number of tips we were receiving last year.

But, again, that goes against the backdrop of disappointing news. While the American soldier performs with courage and effectiveness, the Iraqi government still fails to demonstrate the urgency.

So as I struggle, I would just ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who share my concerns about the lack of progress in Iraq, as to this solution you bring to the floor, how will your plan for a unilateral withdrawal keep American soldiers safe?

We have 160,000 soldiers there now. The majority of this Congress would call for them to exit Iraq by April 1. Well, in effect it would take 3,000 large convoys, according to some press reports, to evacuate the country down the one road out through Basra and into Kuwait.

Also I would ask, how would this plan for unilateral withdrawal decrease the number of terrorist safe havens in that country? And since al Qaeda is clearly in Iraq, how would the plan for unilateral withdrawal succeed in fighting al Qaeda in Iraq?

Lastly, I say as the ranking member of the Middle East Subcommittee, how will a withdrawal, a precipitous, reckless, irresponsible withdrawal, make the Middle East safer and more stable?

I fear if we lose Iraq, we will lose Israel. We must come together as a Nation to find a way forward to succeed in Iraq.