Mike Pence

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, 3 years ago this month, I read a newspaper editorial decrying a growing trend of cases where reporters were being subpoenaed and threatened with jail time to reveal confidential sources. The article also lamented how Republicans in Congress would never support such a statute to shield reporters in those cases. The next day I asked my congressional staff two questions: First, I asked, what's a Federal media shield statute? And next I asked, tell me what I will never do. And it was in that moment of challenge and inquiry that the Free Flow of Information Act was born. Shortly thereafter I partnered with the gentleman from Virginia, Congressman Rick Boucher, the lead sponsor of this legislation today. And the legislation that we will bring to the floor of the House of Representatives this afternoon is a direct result of a bipartisan partnership that has been a singular personal and professional pleasure for me. It is indeed humbling for me to work with Mr. Boucher, Chairman Conyers, and colleagues on both sides of the aisle to truly put a stitch in what I believe is a tear in the fabric of the Bill of Rights. When the Free Flow of Information Act passed out of the Judiciary Committee on August 1, 2007, Mr. Speaker, I was informed that in the past 30-odd years approximately 100 Federal media shield statutes had been introduced in Congress. But the Free Flow of Information Act is the first of those to be passed out of the committee, and it will be the first Federal media shield bill to ever be considered by the House. It is arguable, in fact, that the Free Flow of Information Act is the first Federal legislation regarding the freedom of the press since the words ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press'' were added to the Constitution. As such, and I say humbly, passage of this legislation today would be both momentous and historic. So what's a conservative like me doing passing a bill that helps reporters? I have been asked that question many times. It would be Colonel Robert McCormick, the grandson of the founder of the Chicago Tribune, who once said: ``The newspaper is an institution developed by modern civilization to present the news of the day and to furnish that check upon government which no Constitution has ever been able to provide.'' 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. The Free Flow of Information Act is not about protecting reporters. It is about protecting the public's right to know. Thomas Jefferson warned that ``our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that limited without danger of losing it.'' Today, the Congress has the opportunity to heed President Jefferson's words and take this important step towards strengthening our first amendment, a free and independent press. Not long ago a reporter's assurance of confidentiality was unquestionable. That assurance led to sources who provided information to journalists who brought forward news of great consequence to the Nation, like Watergate, where government corruption and misdeeds were brought to light by the dogged persistence of Woodward and Bernstein. However, the press cannot currently make the same assurance of confidentiality to sources today, and we face a real danger that there may never be another Deep Throat. In recent years, reporters like Judith Miller have been jailed, James Taricani placed on house arrest, Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams threatened with jail. The protections provided by the Free Flow of Information Act, I submit, are necessary so that members of the media can bring forward information to the public without fear of retribution or prosecution and, more importantly, so that sources will continue to come forward. Compelling reporters to testify, and in particular compelling them to reveal the identity of confidential sources, is a detriment to the public interest. Without the promise of confidentiality, many important conduits of information about our government will be shut down. The dissemination of information by the media to the public on matters ranging from the operation of our government to events in our local communities is invaluable to the operation of democracy. Without the free flow of information from sources to reporters, the public will be ill prepared to make informed choices. Which is not to say the press is always without fault, as the chairman of the Rules Committee said just moments ago, or always gets the story right. In fact, President James Madison wrote: ``To the press alone checkered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs that have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression.'' As a conservative, I believe that concentrations of power should be subject to great scrutiny. Integrity in government is not a Democrat or Republican issue, and corruption cannot be laid at the feet of one party. But when scandal hits either party, any branch of government, or any institution, our society is wounded. The longer I serve in Congress, the more firmly I believe in the wisdom of our Founders, especially as it pertains to the accountability that comes in a free and independent press. And it is important to note this legislation is not a radical step. Thirty-two States and the District of Columbia have various statutes to protect reporters from being compelled to testify and disclose confidential sources. And the Free Flow of Information Act, I would say to all of my colleagues, has been carefully drafted after reviewing internal Department of Justice guidelines, State shield laws, and gathering input from many talented members on the Judiciary Committee and throughout the Congress. It puts forward only a qualified privilege for journalists to protect sources and strikes an appropriate balance between the public's need for information and the fair administration of justice. In most instances under our legislation, a reporter will be able to use the shield provided in the bill to refrain from testifying or providing documents. But testimony or documents can be forced under certain circumstances if all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted and the document or testimony is critical to criminal prosecutions. A reporter may also be asked to reveal the identity of a confidential source in very specific and exceptional cases. And the manager's amendment we will consider today will add even additional exceptions. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, let my say how humbling it is for me to have played a small role in moving this legislation forward. From my youth I have enjoyed a fascination with freedom and with the American Constitution. I learned early on that freedom's work is never finished, that it falls on each generation of Americans to preserve, protect, and defend our freedom as those who have bequeathed it to us did in their time. The banner of the Indianapolis Star, the newspaper of record in my home State, quotes a verse from the Bible that reads: ``Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.'' As I opened my Bible this morning for devotions, it was that verse that just happened to be in my daily readings. It reminded me that when we do freedom's work, like putting this stitch in a tear in the fabric of the Bill of Rights, His work has truly become our own. I ask all of my colleagues in both parties to join us today in freedom's unfinished work. Say ``yes'' to a free and independent press. Vote ``yes'' on the Free Flow of Information Act.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank Ranking Member Smith for his spirit of cooperation on this legislation. While we may differ ultimately on the vote today, he is a public-minded man deeply committed to the free press, and I appreciate his engagement. My heartfelt thanks to Chairman Conyers for his yeoman's work in moving this legislation forward. And I also want to express my profound gratitude to the gentleman from Virginia, Congressman Rick Boucher, who is the lead sponsor of this legislation today and has been my partner these last 3 years as we've moved the Free Flow of Information Act to this moment on the House floor. This legislation today is a direct result of his bold and thoughtful leadership, and it is a result of a bipartisan partnership that has been a singular, personal and professional pleasure for me. 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. The Free Flow of Information Act is not about protecting reporters; it's about protecting the public's right to know. Not long ago, reporters' assurance of confidentiality was unquestionable, but today the press cannot currently make the same assurances, and we face a time when there may never be another Deep Throat. Compelling reporters to testify, in particular, compelling them to reveal the identity of confidential sources is a detriment to the public interest. The Free Flow of Information Act has been carefully crafted after reviewing internal Department of Justice guidelines, State shield laws, and other gathering input from interested parties. In most instances, under our bill, a reporter will be able to use the shield provided to refrain from testifying or providing documents or revealing a source, but the privilege is not absolute or unlimited. Testimony or documents can be forced if all other reasonable alternative sources have been exhausted, it's critical to a criminal prosecution, and a judge determines, through a balancing act, that its disclosure is in the public interest. In a situation where a reporter is being asked to reveal the identity of a source, the bill provides several exceptions where a reporter can be compelled to reveal a source, and in the Boucher-Pence manager's amendment we will add additional exceptions to this bill under which compelled disclosure of a source will be permitted in cases of unauthorized leaks of national security secrets. It is important to know what the bill does not do. It does not give reporters a license to break the law, the right to interfere with police or prosecutors; it simply gives journalists certain rights and abilities to seek sources and report information without intimidation. Lastly, let me say how humbling it is for me to have played a small role in moving this legislation forward. From my youth, I have enjoyed a fascination with freedom and the Constitution. I learned early on that freedom's work is never finished, that it falls on each generation to preserve the freedoms we inherit. The banner of the Indianapolis Star in my home State reads below the name, ``Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.'' I opened my Bible this morning for my devotions, and it was that verse that happened to be in my daily readings; just happened to be. It reminded me of when we do freedom's work by putting a stitch in a tear in the fabric of the Bill of Rights, His work has truly become our own. I urge my colleagues and both parties to join us in freedom's unfinished work. Say ``yes'' to the Free Flow of Information Act.

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for a thoughtful question. The answer would be no, that was not our intent and it is not how this provision should be read. This provision is meant to close a potential loophole in the bill. Without this provision, we were concerned that a person would be able to call a journalist to testify or provide documents for the purpose of showing why the journalist's testimony or documents are needed in the litigation. That obviously would short-circuit the statute and would not make sense. The news article would be a matter of public record and would not be obtained from the journalist, and therefore could be used at such a hearing.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, Saturday, Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis passed into eternity after a long and courageous struggle with cancer. The gentlewoman from Virginia was elected in 2000, the same year I arrived in Washington, D.C., and we became fast friends. From the start, Jo Ann Davis stood out. Her commitment to her family, her devotion to God, and her commitment to a strong defense and traditional values were inspiring. On the day I met Jo Ann, she said to me very simply, ``Mike, the Lord put me here. I am going to serve Him every day that I am here.'' Representative Jo Ann Davis kept her word. May our Savior, hers and mine, comfort her and Chuck and the boys with the words, ``Well done, good and faithful servant.'' May this Congress always remember the service of Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, new jobs are always really cool, but especially yesterday for Cambridge City, Indiana. Really Cool Foods, based in New York, announced that Cambridge City will be the home of their national production and distribution center. I am especially pleased that Really Cool Foods will invest $100 million in the complex with the possibility of creating more than 1,000 new jobs. Madam Speaker, the integrity and work ethic of the people in the greater Richmond area are a perfect fit for Really Cool Foods and I heartily welcome the company to eastern Indiana. This new company will bring new opportunities to Hoosier families in Wayne County. I would also like to congratulate Cambridge City, Wayne County officials, and Governor Mitch Daniels who worked so hard to bring Really Cool Foods to eastern Indiana. It is because of their efforts to create a positive environment for business and the quality of the Hoosiers in Wayne County that we are able to welcome such a well respected business to Cambridge City, Indiana.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 948, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, the enmity that exists between American talk radio and the Democratic Congress came into high relief this Monday as leaders in the Senate engaged in repeated and distorted personal attacks of a prominent American commentator. Now, while many see this as more politics as usual in Washington, DC, I see something more. I believe these attacks on talk radio are a precursor for returning censorship to the airwaves of America in the form of the Fairness Doctrine. This week Congressman Greg Walden and I requested that the Democratic leaders bring the Broadcaster Freedom Act to the floor of this Congress immediately and take the power away from the FCC in this or any future administration to regulate the airwaves of America. The Broadcaster Freedom Act is cosponsored by 203 Members of Congress, and it enjoys broad bipartisan support. The freedom of the press should not be a partisan issue. Let's reject the attacks on American radio personalities and ensure that the Fairness Doctrine stays on the ash heap of broadcast history, where it belongs.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, in 1998 the Republican Congress enacted the State Children's Health Insurance Program to help children of families near poverty. But now, true to their big government agenda, the Democrat Congress has sent the President a massive increase in the SCHIP program that will usher in a new era of socialized medicine in America. This bill will take a program designed to help children near the poverty level and expand it to include families with incomes of up to $83,000 a year, and Democrats would pay for this middle-class entitlement with a 61 cent per-pack tax increase on cigarettes. Let's provide health insurance for children of the poor and the near poor, but let's reject a liberal Democratic Congress's attempt to create middle-class entitlements on the backs of American smokers. Mr. President, veto this bill.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor an icon of the Indiana airwaves, Jeff Pigeon. After serving Hoosiers for 27 years at WIBC in Indianapolis, IN, Jeff bid a bittersweet farewell this morning during his final broadcast. Jeff Pigeon has never been anything but upbeat and positive and for nearly 20 years on the WIBC Morning News and that is how he helped Hoosiers wake up and start their day. It's hard to imagine WIBC or Indiana without him. Jeff's energy touched the hearts of Hoosiers far beyond Indianapolis as people in Muncie, Anderson, Columbus, New Castle and areas throughout Indiana cherish Jeff and his ebullient personality. His heart for people stretched beyond the airwaves and is attested to by his work for Crossroads Rehabilitation Center, Gleaners Food Bank and the Indianapolis Police Department. Jeff Pigeon started working at WIBC in 1981 as host of the 7 p.m.- midnight shift. He took over the morning drive-time show in 1988. His radio background stretches across the country, from stations in Minneapolis, Denver and Chicago. An espouser of Midwestern values, Jeff graduated from the University of Illinois before launching his radio career. Hoosiers of Eastern Indiana congratulate Jeff Pigeon on 27 great years of service to our State and a voice they have come to know, respect and love. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to this SCHIP proposal. I see this as a bad deal for America, which is not to say that I oppose a reauthorization of this program or its essential elements. And in the continuing resolution this week, we will see to it that this program does not lapse as a virtue of my vote. But beyond the budget gimmickry, beyond increasing taxpayer liability for illegal immigrants, this compromise is no deal the American people should accept. It is interesting that a health insurance program for poor kids doesn't require your kids to be poor. Families with incomes of up to $83,000 a year could be entitled to assistance in health insurance in this program. Also, a State program to provide health insurance for children doesn't require families to have children to participate. This program allows childless adults to continue to receive SCHIP through 2012. Also, it pays for all of this by raising taxes 61 cents per pack and more on cigars. The headline ought to read, ``Smokers in America to pay for middle class welfare.'' Congress should reject this SCHIP program, continue this program, and reject all of the bad elements of this bad deal.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I also thank the ranking member and the distinguished chairman of this committee for their extraordinary and visionary work in bringing H.R. 1400 to the floor of this Congress to enhance United States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran by imposing additional economic sanctions against Iran. As the ranking member and my other senior colleagues have described, this legislation would continue an expanding effort to confront Iran's rhetoric and reality in a manner both diplomatic and economic. And the reasons to do so are legion. Iran, for instance, denies the Holocaust and hosted a Holocaust-denying conference which aired on Arab television across the region. President Ahmadinejad, as I will describe in a moment, has repeatedly advocated ``wiping Israel off the map.'' Their headlong and reckless pursuit of a nuclear weapons program ominously would enable them to do that in a matter of minutes when combined with their missile technology. Iran supplies and trains insurgents fighting U.S. forces and Iraqi forces in Iraq, as General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker and the physical evidence and the incarceration of Iranian intelligence personnel now in Baghdad attest. Iran supports Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations. But I want to speak specifically, Mr. Speaker, to yesterday and today's events involving the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who arrived yesterday for a forum in Columbia University and an address at the United Nations today. Let me be clear: If my colleagues have no other reason to support H.R. 1400, we can look to the rhetoric and the statements in the past 48 hours of President Ahmadinejad. He is a destabilizing force leading a threatening country and gave evidence of that repeatedly in statements on American television, Columbia University, and I expect at the U.N. today. Ahmadinejad veers regularly between the deadly and the bizarre. He is perhaps best known for the menacing statements about advocating the elimination of the State of Israel. But at last year's address to the U.N. General Assembly, President Ahmadinejad told an Iranian cleric that he had felt the hand of God entrancing world leaders as he addressed that body. All of these various threats and outrages are delivered with a trademark eery grin, which would be easy to dismiss as the rantings of a madman were he not vested with the power of a head of state. Yet his musings are as clear and as threatening as those musings written in a prison cell in the 1930s entitled ``Mein Kampf.'' This is a man who is on a misguided mission; he is a dangerous and deluded leader. We ignore his intents at our peril. While his speech at Columbia University yesterday was described as a rambling speech by the New York Times that meandered from science to religion to the creation of human beings, it was his claim that he was a ``peaceful'' man, that Iran possessed, as he made some reference to, a thriving Jewish community, and his claim that Iran was a country where no homosexuals lived. For me, I cannot decide which of those statements was more Orwellian or more offensive to reality or to western respect for individual liberty. But they do give us a window into the mindset of a leader. And, Mr. Speaker, I believe no terrorist despot deserves an Ivy League forum, and have said so. On ``60 Minutes'' Sunday night, Ahmadinejad refused to address what we all know to be true: his forces and weaponry, as I said before, are directly implicated in the deaths of American forces in Iraq, and that would have been reason enough to deny him a podium. Now, we are occasionally told, and maybe some will hesitate to support this legislation today because Ahmadinejad is not in charge, that some believe a relatively moderate group of clerics are the real power in Iran. But in a military parade just Saturday, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, allegedly a moderate in some versions, had a banner displayed alongside him that read: ``The Iranian Nation is ready to bring any oppressive power to its knees.'' Clearly, this threatening posture is deep-seated; it is not focused on one man. But I think as we argue today for H.R. 1400 to bring additional economic sanctions against Iran, we should look at the man who is the leader of the country. H.R. 1400, sponsored by our distinguished chairman and ranking minority member, does the reasonable step of imposing additional economic sanctions against Iran. But let me say I believe it is imperative that we must continue to use every tool in our power to pressure and isolate this dangerous and threatening regime. And the people of the United States of America, the U.N. Security Council, our neighbors and allies in the region also need to be prepared to keep all options on the table as we confront this regime. It is my hope H.R. 1400, with its diplomatic and economic initiative, will prevail and bring Iran back from the nuclear brink, and that would be my prayer. But we must remain committed to the notion that this nation and this leader in Iran must not be permitted to come into possession of a usable nuclear weapon.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, through a hailstorm of political attacks that continue on the floor of the Congress this morning, last week, America's two lead men in Iraq brought news to this Congress which should be welcome to every American family. Despite the lack of political progress at the national level in Iraq, the military surge is working. And because the surge is working, our troops can start coming home. I urge every American to tune out the rhetoric in Washington, D.C. and read the report. But don't just read the testimony of General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker; read the recent report issued by the more liberal-leaning Brookings Institution. In each case, our men and that liberal think tank found civilian deaths are down. Sunni leaders are cooperating with U.S. forces, and al Qaeda is on the run in Baghdad and Anbar province. These independent assessments should be read by every American, and every American should be encouraged; for even to a war-weary Nation, I say, if we do not grow weary in doing well, freedom will prevail in Iraq.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, scripture tells us to mourn with those who mourn and to grieve with those who grieve. I rise today to join our allies and his family and neighbors and friends to grieve the passing by assassination last week of a courageous Iraqi in Anbar province, Sheik Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al Rishawi, a man 37 years of age that I had the privilege of meeting this last April when I visited Falluja in Ramadi. It was there that I learned from General Odierno, as well, in our nearly 1-hour meeting with Sheik Sattar about how what has come to be known, Mr. Speaker, globally as the Anbar Awakening was born. You see, it was this Iraqi sheik, whose father had been killed by al Qaeda in Iraq, his three brothers had been murdered by al Qaeda, who said sometime in late 2006, ``I have had enough.'' What the general told me, and the Sheik affirmed, as he came across the river in Ramadi, sat down with the Marines perhaps in the same room where we are pictured here, and said, ``How can we, as Sunni sheik leaders, work with you, American forces, and the Maliki government to rid Ramadi, to rid al Anbar of al Qaeda?'' It was the end of a bloody year in 2006, just a few months earlier that Ramadi was at the very center of what was called the Triangle of Death. According to National Intelligence Estimates, Ramadi was so far gone that it could not be reclaimed militarily. But Sheik Sattar stepped forward. He had a vision for driving terrorists from his community. As General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker reported to Congress last week and independent organizations, like the Brookings Institution, a left-leaning think tank, have confirmed, because of the leadership of Sheik Sattar and over 42 other Iraqi sheiks that he recruited, Anbar province is transformed. The city of Ramadi is transformed. It has truly been a miraculous turnaround with the virtual elimination of al Qaeda in western Iraq being the result. Iraqi military leaders say to the world media, ``We considered the sheik our first line of defense.'' President Bush just 10 days ago met with Sheik Sattar in Ramadi to celebrate the first anniversary of the Anbar Awakening. Of his passing, the interior ministry named a national police brigade after him. The leader of that ministry said, ``We will be building a great statue for Sheik Sattar Buzaigh al Rishawi at the entrance of Anbar province so it will be a witness to his great accomplishments and those of the people of Iraq.'' Amidst the thousands who gathered for his funeral on Friday in Ramadi, his brother would say, ``All of Anbar is Abu Risha, so Abu Risha has not been killed.'' He went on to say, ``I pledge to you, my father, my brother, my cousins, we will follow the road taken by Sheik Abdul Risha. We will follow it until we kill the last terrorist in Iraq.'' I was pleased to see that even this Sunday U.S. military forces took into custody a man believed to have been involved in his assassination. We mourn with those who mourn. In my meeting with Sheik Sattar, he said a few things to me I will never forget. He said, ``Congressman Pence, when you go home, tell your people that we in Anbar believe that an attack on an American is an attack on an Iraqi.'' He said, ``Anyone who points a weapon at an American is pointing a weapon at an Iraqi.'' He also looked at me, at age 37, wearing those flowing robes with a pinstripe suit underneath them, he looked at me, and he said through those warm brown eyes, he said, ``Anyone who tells you that Iraqis don't like Americans is lying to you.'' He said, ``Iraqis love Americans.'' And then he asked me, sitting at Camp Falluja and Ramadi, why we would even discuss permanently leaving Iraq. He was a man of hope, a man of courage, a man of conviction. I mourn his loss as should every American and every freedom-loving citizen of the world mourn the passing of Sheik Sattar.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of an amendment that would simply clarify patent law in what is known as ``best mode.'' Before explaining my amendment and the need for it, I want to take a brief moment to express my personal gratitude to Ranking Member Lamar Smith for his years of work on this issue, and to express my appreciation not only to Chairman Conyers, but to Chairman Berman, for the bipartisan manner in which they have proceeded on this legislation, so vital as it is to our national life and to our economic vitality. Years of countless hearings, great dedication have gone into this bill on both sides of the aisle. And while, Mr. Chairman, I'm not convinced that it's a perfect bill, I believe, as the gentleman from California said, it's a work in progress, as is all complex American law, and I think that moving forward is the right thing to do today. With that, I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for his support. Mr. Chairman, the Constitution vests, in article I, section 8, clause 8, the power and the duty of the Congress ``to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to inventors the exclusive right to their discoveries.'' This is an express obligation of the Congress under the Constitution. Our patent laws, as currently written, were essentially drafted over 50 years ago, and I believe it is time to update them to account for changes in our dynamic 21st century economy. We need to strengthen out patent laws to make sure that patents that are issued are strong and high quality, but I would submit that we also need to reform our patent laws to eliminate lawsuit abuse that has become so prevalent. Aspects of this legislation will do that; my amendment seeks to do that further. As I said before, I am sympathetic to those who say that further work on damages needs to be done in conference. I agree with their sentiment to that point, and I trust that will occur. On balance, though, I have determined that this legislation is an important and useful step toward modernizing and strengthening our American patent law, and I am pleased to support it. But I encourage Members of the House not to take this step without first supporting the Pence amendment, which makes an important clarification of provisions governing what is known as best mode in patent law. At the Judiciary Committee markup of this bill, I first supported an amendment which would have repealed best mode in full. American patent law requires that a patent application, ``set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention'' at the time the application is filed. But providing the best mode at the time of application is not a requirement in Europe or in Japan or in any of the rest of the world, and it has become a vehicle for lawsuit abuse. In my view, the best mode requirement of American law imposes extraordinary and unnecessary costs on the inventor and adds a subjective requirement to the application process, and I believe public interest is already adequately met in ensuring quality technical disclosures for patents. At the Judiciary Committee, I offered a best mode relief amendment that was accepted. The Pence amendment then retained best mode as a specifications requirement for obtaining a patent, the intent to maintain in the law the idea that patent applicants should provide extensive disclosure to the public about an invention. But the Pence amendment endeavored to remove best mode from litigation. Increasingly in patent litigation defendants have put forth best mode as a defense and a reason to find patents unenforceable. It becomes virtually a satellite piece of litigation in and of itself, detracts from the actual issue of infringement, and literally costs American inventors millions in legal fees. The intent of the amendment was to keep best mode in the Patent and Trademark Office. My amendment today continues this effort toward eliminating this archaic and costly provision of the law. Specifically, the amendment today makes it clear that arguments about best mode cannot serve as the basis for post-grant review proceedings. It's quite simple in that effect. With my amendment, under the new post-grant review system, best mode will not be litigated. That will lessen the burden put on patent holders in defending their patents in post-grant review proceedings, and it will prevent the expenditure of millions of dollars in needless lawsuit abuse. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PENCE. I would be very pleased to yield to the distinguished Chair.

Mr. PENCE. I thank the chairman for his remarks. And I urge my colleagues to support the Pence amendment so we can further clarify the intended best mode relief.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, as America awaits word from our military and diplomatic leaders in Iraq early next week, it is apparent to me that many in Congress seem prepared to prejudge our progress and dismiss the report of General David Petraeus even before he makes it. Many, as has been done here this morning, cite the recent GAO report as a basis for accepting retreat and defeat in Iraq. But as Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute pointed out recently, the mandate of the GAO report was not to evaluate progress broadly defined in Iraq, it was to determine whether or not the Iraqi Government had met 18 benchmarks set by the U.S. Government. Fred Kagan pointed out that the term ``Anbar'' actually only appears twice in the GAO report, despite the extraordinary progress in the Anbar Province where we have seen Sunni leadership come forward, working with marines, working with the al-Maliki government and defeating terrorism. The so-called ``triangle of death'' is so safe the President of the United States was able to land there and meet with Sunni and Shia leaders earlier this week. I think it is imperative that we stand with our soldiers, we wait and hear from our military and diplomatic leaders, and for the purpose of freedom in Iraq and for the purpose of our national honor, we accept nothing short of victory in that nation.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, as America awaits word from our military and diplomatic leaders in Iraq early next week, it's apparent to me that many in Congress seem prepared to prejudge our progress and dismiss the report of Gen. David Petraeus even before he makes it. Many, as was said on the House floor this morning, cite the recent GAO report as a basis for accepting retreat and defeat in Iraq. But as Fred Kagan, of the American Enterprise Institute, pointed out recently, ``the mandate of the GAO report was not to evaluate progress broadly defined in Iraq; it was to determine whether the Iraqi Government had met eighteen benchmarks set by the U.S. Congress.'' Kagan pointed out that the term ``Anbar,'' actually appears only twice in the GAO report despite the extraordinary progress in the Anbar province where we have seen Sunni leadership come forward working with marines, working with the Al-Maliki government, and defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq. The so-called ``triangle of death'' is so safe the President of the United States was able to land there and meet with Sunni and Shiite leaders earlier this week. It's imperative that we stand with our soldiers; wait and hear from our military and diplomatic leaders, and that we, for the purpose of freedom in Iraq, for the purpose of our national honor, we accept nothing short of victory in that nation.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor one of the great high schools in the Sixth District of Indiana: Anderson High School. During the 2007-2008 academic year, Anderson High School will offer its students a nearly completed new instructional facility for the first time in approximately 3 or more years. On May 17, 2007, Phase II of the new building was completed and a dedication ceremony was held with Principal Phil Nikirk cutting the ribbons, in symbolic red and green school colors, held by 2 Student Council members. This spectacular facility replaces a beloved landmark of over 100 years, the old Anderson High School building which burned in 1999. It ushers in a new era of history for this proud school. With this thought in mind, the Anderson High School yearbook staff, which will be celebrating 100 years of student publishing in 2007-2008, will host on Friday, September 7, 2007, ``The Ultimate Celebration.'' During this event, every member of the student body will participate in an all-school student celebration of both the new school building and the oldest student publication in the City of Anderson. Further, at present, the Anderson High School yearbook, the Indian, will receive written commendation from the Indiana High School Press Association, Indiana University's Department of Journalism, and the Madison County Historical Society. In addition, students will observe (and no doubt cheer) during the presentation of a new address for the school's famed Indian mascot. This presentation will be made by a descendant of Chief Anderson for whom the City of Anderson is named. The celebration also will include a presentation by the Marching Indians of their State Fair trophy to the school, and the football team will be recognized. Speakers are scheduled to include Mr. Carl Erskine, an Anderson High School graduate who has achieved national prominence as a former member of the Dodgers baseball team; Mr. Mike Pace, a descendant of Chief Anderson; and the Honorable Kevin Smith, Mayor of the City of Anderson. Also speaking is Mr. Johnny Wilson, an Anderson High School graduate and Harlem Globetrotter team member, and Mr. Ray Tolbert, a graduate of Madison Heights High School and former professional basketball player for the Los Angeles Lakers, NBA champions. To make this experience more meaningful to the students of Anderson High School, the yearbook staff and the school will present every student present on the day of the celebration a book written by Mr. Erskine. The book is entitled, Tales from the Dodger Dugout. In it, Mr. Erskine specifically mentions the City of Anderson, the Anderson High School Indians, and his personal humble beginnings. With this gift, the yearbook staff and school hope to encourage reading, teach today's students about their school's ``family tree,'' and offer hope and encouragement to students who might otherwise feel that success only can be obtained by the wealthy. Seeing Mr. Erskine in person and reading his book will enhance the education of today's Anderson High School students and build pride among the student body for an accomplished graduate. September 7th should be a day and a celebration that will be long remembered in school history, for it will be captured in living color for presentation in the 100th anniversary issue of the Indian yearbook. Madam Speaker, I again commend Anderson High School for its long history, its newly completed facilities and its distinguished yearbook, the Indian.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have heard a lot of generosity on the floor today, Mr. Speaker. People can always be generous with other people's money. And it seems that the new majority back in power has already gone the way of the old Democratic majority and, in fairness, along the way of mistakes that we made. I was one of the Republicans that opposed our effort to vastly expand Medicare with the prescription drug entitlement. I think voters actually put some of us on the pavement because, with an $8 trillion national debt, they are tired of reckless and runaway spending in Washington, D.C. This bill is a massive increase in the government's role in health care. It makes millions of middle-class families eligible for government insurance, many of which are already covered under private plans. I don't think taxpayers should be required to pay for government insurance for the children of parents who earn up to $80,000 a year. And we do this at the expense of seniors, cutting into the Medicare Advantage program. And I would say to you American taxpayers should not have to support a system that provides health insurance coverage for illegal immigrants. This legislation allows funding of illegal immigrants in health care. It cuts health care for millions of senior citizens in the Medicare Advantage program. It provides government insurance for higher-income families, and it drastically expands the role of the government in America's health care system. It just seems to me this new majority does well when it reminds the American people that we have a moral obligation to come to terms with an $8 trillion national debt. The next time I hear one of those speeches on the floor, Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me if I run to the floor to remind people of a $47 billion middle-class entitlement that passed the Congress today. I urge my colleagues to oppose the CHAMP Act, to oppose middle-class entitlements.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that the so-called Fairness Doctrine was rescinded by the FCC nearly 20 years ago, some of the most powerful voices in Congress are calling for a return of this outright censorship of the broadcast airwaves of America. In response, we introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act, legislation that would ensure that no future President could return to the Fairness Doctrine without an act of Congress. I am pleased to report, Mr. Speaker, that more than 140 Members of Congress have cosponsored this legislation to date. Last week, the current chairman of the FCC wrote to say that there was ``no compelling reason to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.'' Its predecessor from 20 years hence said that reimposing the Fairness Doctrine would be a ``colossal mistake.'' Mr. Speaker, let's say yes to the freedom of the press. Let's say yes to the freedom of the American people to choose when and how and where they get their information on government. I urge all of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to join me in cosponsoring the Broadcaster Freedom Act this week.

Mr. PENCE

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