Mike Pence

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise for a few brief moments to speak on behalf of title VI of this bill which calls for far-reaching reforms in the areas of planning, management, conduct and accountability of peacekeeping operations within the United Nations. It does, as the gentleman from California said quite accurately, it does involve some tough love and the potential for withholding support for the creation of new or expanded peacekeeping missions if the U.N. does not implement the most basic yet critically important reforms that are called for. As I have said before, the power of the purse is the power of the American people. While title IV of the peacekeeping reforms of this bill do not cut peacekeeping funds, they do withhold the expansion of any U.S. involvement in peacekeeping operations if these reforms are not enacted. The need for the reforms are obvious. The Congo in this last calendar year, U.N. peacekeepers and civilian personnel stand accused of widespread sexual exploitation of refugees in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In Eritrea in 2005, U.N. peacekeeping staff ran up more than $500,000 of unpaid international calls. In Burundi in 2004, two U.N. peacekeepers were suspended following allegations of sexual misconduct. In Sierra Leone in 2003, U.N. peacekeepers were accused by Human Rights Watch of systematic rape of women, and the list goes on and on and on. The need for reform is real. I am pleased to say there is broad agreement about the need for reform. In fact, the United Nations Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations has endorsed specifically all seven of the reforms that are included in this legislation. In fact, those reforms have been endorsed by Prince Zeid of Jordan, the Secretary General's special advisor on sexual exploitation and abuse, and all but one, the signature of an oath, have already been adopted by the U.N. special committee. According to officials at the U.N., most of these reforms are expected to be in place by the end of July 2005. Five of the peacekeeping reforms under this title are linked to immediate withholding of support for new and expanded missions. They are: the adoption of a uniform code of conduct; the training of peacekeeping personnel on that code of conduct; the signature of an oath to abide by the code of conduct; design of programs to explain prohibited acts to host populations so there would be greater accountability for the behavior of peacekeepers; and the creation of a centralized database to track these areas of misconduct. Once again I say that officials at the U.N. believe that most of these reforms will be in place in a matter of weeks, so it is difficult to understand how requiring these reforms before any additional U.S. missions are approved under peacekeeping operations is a little hard to understand. Two additional reforms are equally critical, but may require more time to implement: the adoption of a model memorandum of understanding; and the establishment of an independent investigative audit that functions for peacekeeping missions. These are all part and parcel of restoring the credibility of the good work that U.N. peacekeepers have done throughout the past 60 years, and it is central to the principle of the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform Act that we stand, even with tough love, for the idea that we use the power of the purse, which is the power of the American people, in this case the threat of withholding additional missions to the United Nations under peacekeeping operations to demand that these necessary reforms are implemented.

Mr. PENCE. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am a proud original cosponsor of the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform Act, and I rise today in support of the rule and with a profound sense of gratitude for the leadership that my mentor and friend, Henry J. Hyde of Illinois, has provided on this bill and throughout an illustrious career in this Congress. I also want to commend for what I know will be a vigorous debate that has already begun the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his thoughtful consideration of this bill. One of the extraordinary things about this debate as it unfolds before the American people, Mr. Speaker, is the degree of agreement between the two men that I just mentioned. It is a rare piece of legislation indeed where there is so much agreement about the goals. But I believe what will become apparent to any observer of this debate is that we are not so much arguing over the ends as the means, and that is a legitimate argument that will be, I believe, a great service to the country. The United Nations is desperately in need of fundamental reform, and the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform Act does just that. In 1994, staffers at UNICEF's Kenya office defrauded and squandered up to $10 million by some estimates. In the Congo last year, U.N. peacekeepers and civilian personnel stand accused of widespread sexual exploitation. And we all know of the $10 billion Oil-for-Food scandal. Both sides agree it is time for reform in the wake of years of mismanagement and outright scandal. But I submit humbly that it is time for U.N. reform with teeth, and that is precisely what the Hyde U.N. Reform Act provides. It focuses on budgets, streamlining, prioritization of programs, oversight, accountability, peacekeeping, and human rights. But the Hyde bill also uses the leverage of withholding up to 50 percent of U.S. assessed dues if certifications are not made in key areas. Under the Hyde bill, the U.N. must achieve 32 of 39 reforms, 14 of which are mandatory, or face the potential loss of 50 percent of U.S. assessed dues. Let us be clear. This is the point of contention, Mr. Speaker, that is, who controls the power of the purse. I submit at the beginning of this debate that the power of the purse is the power of the American people. It is not for the State Department or even the Secretary of State to say when and how the resources of the American people will be spent. That is the function of the Congress of the United States even where the United Nations is concerned. It is time to save the U.N. from its own scandals and mismanagement. It is time for U.N. reform with teeth. Let us begin the debate. Then let us pass the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform Act.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, in 1994, staffers at UNICEF's Kenya office defrauded or squandered up to $10 million. In the Congo in the last year, U.N. peacekeepers and civilian personnel stand accused of widespread sexual exploitation of refugees of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and a $10 billion oil-for-food scandal. Mr. Speaker, it is time for U.N. reform with teeth. It is time for the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform Act. In the Hyde bill, this Congress will bring about a new prioritization of programs, increased accountability and oversight, and strengthen human rights institutions within the body. Under the Hyde bill, the U.N. must meet 32 of 39 reforms, 14 of which are mandatory, or they face the potential consequences of a 50 percent reduction in U.N. assessed dues in the very near future. It is time to save the U.N. from scandals and mismanagement. It is time for U.N. reform with teeth. Let us pass tomorrow the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform Act.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong agreement with the sentiment expressed by the gentleman from New Jersey and our colleagues who have spoken in this Special Order, and I especially want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) for being one of the singular and most effective voices about the truth about the United Nations in the 21st century on Capitol Hill, and I appreciate his leadership in organizing this Special Order today. As a member of the newly organized Subcommittee on Oversight for the United Nations, I am especially grateful to have an opportunity to speak and to do so specifically, as the gentleman has requested, about legislation that we on the Committee on International Relations reported, literally just hours ago, when, by a very close vote, and what was I think an extraordinary and civil and thoughtful debate, the Committee on International Relations produced U.N. reform with teeth. The Henry Hyde U.N. Reform Act of 2005, we believe, will come to the floor of this Congress next week, and it will represent, in sum total, the most significant effort by the people of the United States of America to reform and amend this half-century-old institution. And that is the intention and the purpose of what, when it was introduced with the authorship of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and my singular cosponsorship, the Hyde/Pence bill purposes to do. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that if the United Nations did not exist as a forum for international deliberation, we would very likely have to invent it. The United Nations, not as a world government, but as a world deliberative forum, serves an important role. But because of years of mismanagement, mindless bureaucracy, and, as the gentleman has spoken with force and authority today, profound corruption, this institution's vitality and survival in the 21st century is at risk without fundamental reform. And that is precisely what the Henry Hyde U.N. Reform Act brings. But I say very carefully and directly, this is not a bill that provides an outline for reform of the United Nations with, if I can speak plainly, the United States providing virtually a third of the funding for this institution and then saying, we think these are good ideas for reform; we sure hope you do too. This is U.N. reform with teeth. In fact, we use a variety of methods of leverage in the United Nations Reform Act of 2005, but that which has caught the most notice is the potential withholding of 50 percent of U.S. assessed dues if certifications are not made in the critical areas of reform that are described. Those areas include budgeting. The Hyde legislation urges the shifting of 18 programs from regular assessed budget authority to voluntary funded programs that will be a great deal more accountable in the process. On the subject of accountability, the Hyde legislation mandates the creation of an independent oversight board with broad investigative authority through the Office of Internal Oversight Services, what will come to be known as the OIOS, will have the authority to initiate investigations into mismanagement and wrongdoing and establish procedures to protect U.N. employees or contractors who serve in a whistleblowing capacity. In the area of human rights, the U.N. Reform Act also has a get-tough policy mandating that the United Nations adopt criteria for membership on any human rights policy within the institution. Under these criteria, countries that fail to uphold the universal declaration of human rights would be ineligible for membership. Now, this may come as a shock to any that are looking in today, Mr. Speaker, but that is not required today. There are countries who participate in human rights forums in the United Nations that do not uphold the universal declaration of human rights. We say that should not be the case. And in the area of peacekeeping, where there have been such extraordinary scandals of late, children, little girls, 10, 11 and 12 years of age being sexually molested by blue-helmeted U.N. peacekeepers, which photographs record being made of the molestation and then the trafficking of those records, there are fundamental reforms in the Hyde legislation that would mandate a single and enforceable uniform code of conduct for all personnel serving in peacekeeping missions. And there is a strict mandate that the criteria of the commission on peacekeeping reform that was adopted by the United Nations, that the five criteria and objectives be implemented in the immediate before any additional peacekeeping operations can be authorized by the President of the United States. I want to yield back to the gentleman from New Jersey because there will be ample time on the floor next week, I believe, when the U.N. Reform Act comes to this floor, to unpack it for the American people. But it is, in a very real sense, an opportunity to take that information that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) is leading on to the floor today and who has been such a champion of, taking the truth about the U.N. and saying, here is the proper response of the American people. As I close, let me say that one response could simply be the American people, through their elected representatives, could profoundly reduce our participation financially in the United Nations. And it is important to say that the U.N. Reform Act keeps funding level. There is no reduction in funding by the people of the United States of America to the United Nations in the U.N. Reform Act. There is a potential for as much as a 50 percent reduction in assessed dues if the United Nations, through its membership and internal organs, does not fundamentally adopt and implement reform in the next 2 to 3 years. It is U.N. reform with teeth, and for all of the reasons that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) effectively brings to the floor today, the Henry Hyde U.N. Reform Act of 2005 is an idea whose time has come. I yield back with gratitude to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, as the largest financial contributor to the United Nations, the American people have every right to demand accountability and transparency at the U.N. and the U.N. Reform Act introduced by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and humbly coauthored by myself will be marked up today in the Committee on International Relations and does just that. To restore the credibility of this world forum, we have to have real reform: in budgeting, oversight, peacekeeping, and human rights. The Hyde/Pence bill authorizes a variety of methods of leverage to enact reforms, including the withholding of 50 percent of U.S.-assessed dues if certifications are not made in key areas. The U.N. plays a vital role in the world, but it cannot do so if it is bogged down in bureaucracy and scandal. Hyde/Pence provides a vision for U.N. reform and the tough incentives to accomplish it. Hyde/Pence is U.N. reform with teeth, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, with Memorial Day 2005 just around the corner, men and women in Congress are hurrying home for festivities like those that we will enjoy in Indiana. This Sunday, the Indianapolis 500 Mile Race will draw half a million people. But it will not be the most important occasion of this long family weekend, because Hoosiers will gather in places like New Castle and Muncie and Elwood, Indiana, to commemorate this Memorial Day. I could not help but think about the obligations of this day as I toured the battlefield of Antietam, near Sharpsburg, Maryland, just last weekend. There, Mr. Speaker, I walked on the ground that saw 6,000 Americans fall in battle in a single day, the bloodiest day in American history. Six thousand Americans at Antietam would turn into 600,000 Americans on both sides of the battle that fell in the Civil War. Just 3 years after the end of that conflict, Americans set aside the 30th day of May each year to remember their sacrifice, and for 130 years, Decoration Day became Memorial Day, and it is something that we take seriously in the Hoosier State, as it will be taken seriously in every State in this Union. The Bible says, If you owe debts, pay debts; if honor, then honor; if respect, then respect. I rise humbly as the Congressman from the Sixth District of Indiana to pay a debt of respect and honor to those men who have fallen most recently in the service of this Nation in my congressional district. These are men like Sergeant Jeremy Wright, who died January 3, 2005, when an improvised explosive device struck his military vehicle. He was 31 and a part of the Special Forces group from Fort Lewis. Master Sergeant Mike Hiester died March 26, 2005, when his military vehicle also struck a land mine 30 miles west of Kabul, Afghanistan. He was 33, from Bluffton, Indiana, survived by his brave wife, Dawn, and two small children. He was with the 76th Infantry Brigade, Army National Guard, Indianapolis. Both men fell in Operation Enduring Freedom. In Operation Iraqi Freedom we remember Lance Corporal Matthew Smith, who died May 10, 2003, in a vehicle accident in Kuwait, age 20, from Anderson, Indiana. He was a Reservist assigned to Detachment 1, Communications Company, 4th Force Service Support Group, Peru, Indiana. Private Shawn Pahnke was killed June 16, 2003, by a sniper while on patrol. He was 25, of Shelbyville, Indiana. He was with the 1st Battalion, 37th Armored Regiment, 1st Armored Division, Friedberg, Germany. Specialist Chad Keith who was killed July 7, 2003, in Iraq, when a roadside bomb exploded as his unit patrolled the streets of Baghdad. He was 21, from Batesville, Indiana. He was with Company D, Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Staff Sergeant Frederick Miller, Jr. Fred was killed September 20, 2003, when an IED hit his vehicle. He was 27, from Hagerstown, Indiana, and was with the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Carson, Colorado. Sergeant Robert Colvill, Jr., was among five soldiers killed 8 July 2004 in Baghdad. All were in the Iraqi National Guard headquarters when it came under mortar attack. He was 31 and from Anderson, Indiana, part of the 1st Infantry Division in Schweinfurt, Germany. And Specialist Raymond White. Ray died 12 November 2004, in Baghdad, when his patrol was attacked with small arms fire. Ray was 22 and from Elwood, Indiana. It is an honor to serve such men, Mr. Speaker, and it is an honor to rise and to pay some debt of honor and recognition to these brave men and their families. As we approach this Memorial Day, we do it with humility and no small amount of emotion, knowing that as we read these names, they are more than names. They are sons, they are husbands, they are brothers, they are uncles, they are friends and they are neighbors; and they are gone. Gone perhaps to this world, but I am confident not to the next. Their duty was to serve. Our duty is to remember. So I rise with a deep spirit of humility simply before this Memorial Day arrives to remember these men; to assure them and all of the tens of thousands who went before them that this Nation will never fail to feel the gratitude for their sacrifice, and on this Memorial Day never fail to pray for them, for the salvation of their immortal souls, and for the comfort of those they left behind. Happy Memorial Day.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, the State of Indiana lost a pillar of the community last week. On Thursday, May 19, 2005, Cal Brand passed away in the City of Columbus, Indiana, an intimate community in my Congressional District and also my hometown. Hundreds of Hoosiers mourned his passing yesterday at the First Presbyterian Church where Cal was an elder, deacon, trustee and Sunday school teacher. Cal Brand founded, owned and operated Brand Inc. Lumber, a successful venture that led to appointments on the Indiana Lumber & Builders Supply Association, the Indiana Building Congress and the National Lumber and Building Materials Dealers Association. In his role as a member of the Columbus Area Chamber of Commerce, Cal received both the Community Service award and the Small Businessman of the Year award. He was also a member of various service organizations including the Kiwanis Club and the Columbus Foundation for Youth. In his respected political life, Cal Brand carried himself in a gentle manner, all while advising Hoosier Governors, U.S. Senators and President Ronald Reagan. He even served as an elected official on the Columbus City Council in 1955 and in the Indiana House of Representatives from 1966-1970. Cal Brand's confidence and wisdom was outshone only by his gentle nature and humble attitude. He is the perfect example of a good businessman and citizen. The kind of person every community needs. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the City of Columbus, I extend heartfelt sympathies to the family of Cal Brand, specifically his wife Betty, his daughter Joan of New Jersey; his sons the Rev. D. Calvert Brand of Martinsville and John S. Brand and Jesse R. Brand, both of Columbus; and his seven grandchildren and eight great-grandchildren. Living in Columbus, Indiana, means making a commitment to getting involved and improving the community in which you live. Cal Brand embodied that allegiance to his Columbus. He will be deeply missed, and his generosity will never be forgotten.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and for the sincerity of his purpose in bringing forward legislation today that would fund the destruction of human embryos for the purpose of scientific research with Federal tax dollars. Mr. Speaker, I am not a scientist. I do know that there have been more than 60 successful treatments using adult stem cells; there have been zero treatments developed using embryonic stem cells. But let us be clear today about this debate. Embryonic stem cell research today, despite my objection and the objection of tens of millions of pro-life Americans, embryonic stem cell research is legal in America today. It goes on using private dollars every day. The debate on the floor today that the gentleman from Delaware just referred to, his legislation has to do with using Federal tax dollars to fund research that involves the destruction of human embryos. I believe it is morally wrong to destroy human embryos for the purposes of research, but I believe it is doubly morally wrong to force millions of pro-life Americans to see their tax dollars used to support research that they find morally offensive. Let the debate begin.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his visionary legislation, the Stem Cell Research Act. There is such enormous promise, Mr. Speaker, in adult stem cell research, the ethical research that has been under way for decades and has produced to date treatments to nearly 67 diseases including sickle cell, leukemia, osteoporosis, just to name a few. Even last October, a Korean woman who had been paralyzed for 19 years took a few steps for reporters in Seoul with the aid of a walker and ethical adult cord blood stem cells injected into her spine. I just spoke today to a young man in my congressional district who was injured last Saturday night and now faces a lifetime in a wheelchair. I can tell you, having spoken to his parents, I would do anything to help that brave young man out of that chair. I would do anything except fund the destruction of human embryos for research. President Kennedy said: ``To lead is to choose'' and today Congress will choose and should choose to promote ethical healing by adopting the Stem Cell Research Act, to prevent the erosion of the principle that all human life, even embryonic human life, is sacred. Say ``yes'' to ethical adult stem cell research and ``no'' to funding the destruction of human embryos for scientific advancement.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in respectful opposition to this sincerely conceived, but ill-founded, legislation known as Castle-DeGette, a bill that authorizes the use of Federal tax dollars to fund the destruction of human embryos for scientific research. As we begin this debate, I am confident we will hear the supporters of this bill argue in the name of President Ronald Reagan, that somehow this research is consistent with his long-held views on the sanctity of life. But it was Ronald Reagan who wrote: ``We cannot diminish the value of one category of human, the unborn, without diminishing the value of all human life.'' The supporters will also argue that this is a debate between science and ideology, that destroying human embryos for research is necessary to cure a whole host of maladies, from spinal cord injuries to Parkinson's. But the facts suggest otherwise. As Members will hear to date, embryonic stem cell research has not produced a single medical treatment, where ethical adult cell research has produced some 67 medical miracles. Physicians on our side of the aisle will make the case for the ethical alternative of adult stem cell research, and Congress today has already voted to greatly expand funding in this area. But the debate over the legitimacy or the potential of embryonic stem cell research is actually not the point of this debate. We are here simply to decide whether Congress should take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them to fund the destruction of human embryos for research. This debate is really not about whether embryonic stem cell research should be legal. Sadly, embryonic stem cell research is completely legal in this country and has been going on at universities and research facilities for years. The proponents of this legislation do not just want to be able to do embryonic stem cell research. They want me to pay for it. And like 43 percent of the American people in a survey just out today, I have a problem with that. You see, I believe that life begins at conception and that a human embryo is human life. I believe it is morally wrong to create human life to destroy it for research, and I further believe it is morally wrong to take the tax dollars of millions of pro-life Americans who believe, as I do, that human life is sacred, and use it to fund the destruction of human embryos for research. This debate then is not really about what an embryo is. This debate is about who we are as a Nation, not will we respect the sanctity of life, but will we respect the deeply held moral beliefs of nearly half of the people of this Nation who find the destruction of human embryos for scientific research to be morally wrong. Despite what is uttered in this debate today, I say again, this debate is not about whether we should allow research. This debate is not about whether we should allow research that involves the destruction of human embryos. This debate is about who pays for it, and it is my fervent hope and prayer as we stand at this crossroads between science and the sanctity of life that we will choose life. This morning on Capitol Hill I was surrounded by dozens of ``snowflake babies,'' some 81 children who were born from frozen embryos, the throw-away material we will hear about today. As I spoke over the cries and cooing of those little fragile lives, I could not help but think of the ancient text: ``I have set before you life and Earth, blessings and curses, now choose life so that you and your children may live.'' Let this Congress choose life and reject Federal funding for the destruction of human embryos for research.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, in the coming days Congress will consider legislation to make taxpayer dollars available for what is known as embryonic stem cell research, setting the case for an imminent Presidential veto. In 2001, President Bush made the moral dimensions of scientific testing on human embryos clear. These are the principles. It is morally wrong to create human life to destroy it for research. Also, it is morally wrong to take the tax dollars of millions of pro- life Americans and use them to finance research that they find morally objectionable. The choice of our time was described millennia ago: See I set before you blessings and curses, life and death. Now choose life that you and your children may live. I urge my colleagues to stand for the sanctity of life at every level. Stand with President George W. Bush. Reject taxpayer funding of human embryo research.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, last year President Bush put Social Security reform on the national agenda. His proposal to save Social Security by giving younger Americans the choice to choose personal savings accounts has been met, to date, by ridicule and silence by the loyal opposition in this Congress. The ridicule has taken a variety of forms, denouncing the President's motives and intentions. The intentions of Republicans have been described by some outside organizations as an effort to tear down the house of public retirement in America. Beyond that slur, there has just been, to date, simply silence. No ideas, no counterproposals, nothing to deal with what many refer to as a generational tsunami heading for Social Security, as some 40 million Americans over the age of 65 within 20 years will become 80 million Americans over the age of 65. I say silence with hesitation, Mr. Speaker, because that actually ended yesterday among the loyal opposition when the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) introduced his legislation at a press event in his home State, where he unveiled a bill which he described as Social Security forever, saying, admirably, ``I believe it is time for Democrats to offer an alternative to the President.'' And to the gentleman from Florida, I say with admiration, I could not agree more. I admire him for his leadership on behalf of his vision of government and also his honesty as he proposes to cure what ails Social Security in the next 50 to 75 years with that anecdote that Democrats run to most often, and that is, namely, higher taxes. The Wexler bill, with a 6 percent tax increase on income over $90,000 a year would be the largest marginal tax rate increase in a generation. Let us be clear about this, Mr. Speaker. House conservatives will vigorously oppose any effort to finance Social Security reform by raising taxes on working families, small businesses, and family farms. Thanks to the Wexler proposal, the American people now see a very clear choice before them, the President and the Republican Congress's vision for reform and the single Democrat vision that has been articulated, higher taxes. With one of the largest marginal tax increases in a generation, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler's) Social Security forever bill looks more like higher taxes forever. It is time for this Congress to move on to the substance of Social Security reform. Let us offer our conflicting visions in this chamber across the aisle and move forward to save and secure and reform Social Security for our children and our grandchildren.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday at noon was so much like September 11. Mr. Speaker, I was standing on the House floor with our majority leader as I saw Members beginning to hurry out of this Chamber. As I exited the House, an F-16 literally flashed across the sky as thousands yesterday, as that day in 2001, streamed from the Capitol into the sunlight of uncertain moments and an undefined threat. So much was the same, but so much has really changed. On September the 11 evacuation was largely disorganized and spontaneous. But yesterday, thanks to the extraordinary leadership of the United States Capitol Police; Bill Livingood, the House Sergeant at Arms; and Police Chief Terence Gainer, 25,000 public officials and personnel were evacuated from the Capitol and buildings around Capitol Hill in less than 6 minutes in an intense, but orderly, manner. It is an extraordinary comfort, I know, to millions of Americans who know that whatever the day may bring in our Nation's capital, thanks to the leadership and the security officials here on Capitol Hill, and the Department of Homeland Security, our national government is ready.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, with the specter of fiscal collapse facing our children and grandchildren's public retirement, Social Security reform is an idea whose time has come. And President Bush, never one to flinch from a good fight, is to be commended for taking it on. Social Security reform means keeping its promise in tact for seniors and all who choose to remain in the system. But Social Security reform also means offering a better deal to younger Americans in the form of voluntary personal accounts. And we can do it all, Mr. Speaker, without raising taxes on working families, small businesses and family farms. So let us get on with it. Let the House lead on Social Security reform. If the House goes first, we will produce a reform that is consistent with the President's vision for a 21st century public retirement system.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, as we were reminded with a thudding explosion on the streets of New York City at 3 a.m. this morning, we are a Nation at war. And so it is with particular pleasure that I rise to extol the arrest of Abu Farraj al-Libbi by Pakistani authorities yesterday in Pakistan. The capture of the third-ranking operative in al Qaeda is a momentous and significant event in the war on terror. The President said, ``His arrest removes a dangerous enemy who was a direct threat to America and a critical victory in the war on terror.'' Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, said he was not only doing operations, but was also into finance and administration; and he calls it a ``real accomplishment.'' As I learned when I visited Pakistan last December, and let us be clear on this point, while Pakistani authorities are to be commended for the third-ranking member of al Qaeda, let us make sure that we know as Americans it was a cooperation with American forces and American intelligence personnel on the ground in Pakistan that made that possible. A joint effort with Pakistan is winning the war on terror.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of the emergency war supplemental, and I commend in particular the new chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and all the members of his committee, for masterful and disciplined work on this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, last year I traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan to meet with troops and local leaders. I witnessed firsthand the challenges and opportunities they face, and I can tell my colleagues with conviction that heroes and a future of freedom are being forged every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. And while much work remains, I am more confident than ever in the justice and the ultimate success of our cause. And, Mr. Speaker, I remain confident that we here in Congress must do our duty, demonstrating the idealism and the perseverance of the American people, stand with the men and women serving in our Armed Forces, and speed the passage of this emergency supplemental bill without rancor or without delay. The men and women who liberated Iraq and Afghanistan deserve our very best. They deserve the resources they need to get the job done and come home safe. It was just this morning I received an e-mail from Dawn Heister, the courageous widow of Master Sergeant Mike Heister, who fell in Afghanistan along with four other Hoosiers just the day before Easter. The courage in her e-mail inspired and moved my wife and I to such an extent that I rise today and dedicate my humble efforts and my vote today in favor of this emergency war supplemental in the memory of Master Sergeant Mike Heister and his brave wife. But just like our troops, the American people deserve the very best protection, and the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the members of his committee, have succeeded in adding $635 million in budgetary resources for increased border security and enforcement, and this also is a critical advance in the war on terror. The money, just like what we will invest in Iraq and Afghanistan, will help hire, train, and equip and support an additional complement of over 500 Border Patrol agents and relieve current facility overcrowding. We also will provide resources for training. It will provide the Department of Homeland Security with additional resources to train and hire criminal investigators and immigration enforcement agents, recognizing that the 9/11 Commission concluded that for the terrorists, travel documents are every bit as powerful and important as weapons. This legislation will require all States to prove lawful presence in the United States if their driver's licenses are to be accepted as a form of identification as a travel document to a Federal official, including Federal officials working at airports for the Transportation Security Administration. So I say, we are doing our part to provide for the common defense. We are standing with our soldiers abroad as they fight on the front lines of the war on terror. But this legislation also importantly and urgently speeds additional resources to the fight here at home, with its increased complement of support for border security and travel security. I applaud, again, the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the House Committee on Appropriations for their disciplined and principled manner of approaching this legislation. I urge my colleagues to affirm their leadership with a yea vote, and I urge the passage of the emergency war supplemental.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I thank the gentleman from Iowa for his stalwart and courageous and unbending commitment to an independent judiciary and for calling this forum tonight, which is really about this body speaking of the obligations of the Congress as a whole to do what the American people sent us here to do, and that is, in very simple terms, Mr. Speaker, we vote for a living. And I am going to be in Muncie, Indiana on Friday. We make a lot of car parts there. We have got a lot of corn and soybean fields in Eastern Indiana, where they grow things for a living, they make things for a living. We actually just vote for a living here. Any other way one dresses it up, there are a lot of other aspects of our job, but when the bells go off, legislators in the House and the Senate vote. That is what taxpayers call us to do. This is not a debating society, and the effort by our colleagues with the constitutional option as it is rightly observed in the Congress is an effort to reestablish a 214-year tradition in the Senate of either approving or disapproving the President's nominations by a simple majority vote. As many of my constituents love to say, this is not really rocket science. I think for many Americans, the central question of the moment is can Mr. Smith still go to Washington? I mean, we could get lost in Article I, section 5 of the Constitution, and determining the rules and proceedings and all of the gobbledegook, but in my heart, I think many Americans just ask the question, can Jimmy Stewart still go to the floor of the United States Senate and expose the corrupt dam project? I really believe it comes down to that. With a lot of the hyperbole and the hyper-rhetoric about the ending of filibusters and the ending of democracy and great traditions in the Senate, I have got to think, Mr. Speaker, that many Americans looking in are still asking that question, can Mr. Smith still go to Washington? And I think it is absolutely imperative that we say tonight an emphatic yes, Mr. Smith can still go to Washington, that specifically all the duly-elected majority of the United States Senate seeks to do is to eliminate filibusters on judicial nominations, which, I will argue is unprecedented in the Senate to begin with. It has never been accepted. And recently, in the last 5 years, by prominent members of the Democratic then majority of the Senate, people like Senator Teddy Kennedy, people like Senator Patrick Leahy, people like Senator Tom Daschle, decried the use of the filibuster on judicial nominations. The filibuster that Jimmy Stewart used in the famous movie ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'' was the legislative filibuster, the ability to go to the floor and to use the rules of the Senate to tie the institution up, to use a minority power in the institution to expose truth. And the reality is that that remains untouched and ever should it remain untouched, in this legislator's judgment. It is an essential element of the power of the most deliberative body in the world. But that being said, Mr. Speaker, the introduction in recent years of filibusters on judicial nominations of the President of the United States is unprecedented, and it is precisely that which the majority of the United States Senate seeks to bring to an end. And let me just give a couple of quotes. There are those who say that filibusters on judicial nominations are a great part of the Senate tradition and that, indeed, by their own rhetoric, Democrats acknowledge this not to be the case. Senator Patrick Leahy, and I will quote from the Congressional Record 18 June 1998, who said, ``I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty.'' Senator Patrick Leahy. Senator Teddy Kennedy in 1998, also in the Congressional Record in March, said, ``We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues do not like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.'' And Senator Tom Daschle, then I believe the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, of Clinton nominees to the United States Senate, said, ``The Constitution is straightforward about the few instances in which more than a majority of Congress must vote,'' and he names them: ``A veto override, a treaty, a finding of guilt in an impeachment proceeding.'' But he said, ``Every other action of Congress is taken by majority vote.'' And he went on to say, this is Tom Daschle now: ``The Founders debated the idea of requiring more than a majority . . . They concluded that putting such immense powers in the hands of the minority ran against the democratic principle. Democracy means majority rule, not majority gridlock.'' Tom Daschle, Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator Ted Kennedy all acknowledging the fact during the Clinton administration, that filibusters have never been a part nor should they ever be a part of the deliberation of the Senate over presidential judicial nominees. I say as I close, and as I began, Congress is not a debating society. We vote for a living. And what we call on our colleagues to do, as much as our rules permit us, and I believe the American people that returned a widening Republican majority in the United States Senate in the last election and returned this President to office by the largest margin in American history insist that the Senate do its duty, that the Senate vote up or down, to quote Senator Ted Kennedy, up or down on the President's nominees to the bench.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, President Bush sent to Capitol Hill earlier this year a strong conservative budget that represented a good start down the road toward fiscal discipline. And the House Budget Committee, under the skillful leadership of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), began a process not so much of writing a Federal budget, as of truly changing the way we spend the people's money. Now, I would agree with my colleague who spoke just before me, that we can do better and we will do better. But this budget that we will adopt today is a good start. And most especially, from our perspective, it is important that we pass this budget because it includes not only new restraints, actual cuts in nondefense spending, actual savings in entitlements, but it gives Members of Congress the power to put our fiscal house in order by bringing with it today the new protection known as ``point-of-order protection,'' that any Member of Congress can now go to the floor for major spending bills and raise a procedural point to enforce the budget that we are adopting today. This budget is a good start, however modest, down the road toward fiscal discipline. And with the power to enforce it we are changing the way we spend the people's money.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I very pleased to announce that Metaldyne Corporation is holding an official ribbon cutting ceremony at their New Castle, Indiana, facility on May 21, 2005. This will be a wonderful celebration for the company, its employees and their families, and the entire New Castle community. Metaldyne is vital to New Castle, and the state of Indiana. It is the largest employer in Henry County, with over 1,000 employees producing more than 28 million chassis components, modules and assemblies each year. Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret that I cannot attend the gathering, but I do look forward to working with Metaldyne to create jobs and strengthen the economy in East-Central Indiana. I congratulate Metaldyne New Castle, and wish them the best in the coming years.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, the summer of 527s will long be remembered in American politics. Groups organized on the left and the right under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code spent more than $300 million to support candidates, while the two major political parties and the Nation's most respected labor units, associations, businesses, and constitutional groups watched in silence from the sidelines. In response to the summer of 527s, some here in Washington, DC want to exert more regulation and control. But my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), a Democrat, and I have taken a different approach by introducing the bipartisan 527 Fairness Act. The Pence-Wynn bill restores basic fairness to the political parties and outside organizations instead of attempting further regulation. Madam Speaker, when it comes to political speech, greater government control is never the answer. More freedom is. Now, The Washington Post calls the Pence-Wynn bill ``a dangerous notion'' that is ``misguided.'' And freedom is chaotic, but as Thomas Jefferson said, ``I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.'' I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider Pence- Wynn and support us as we answer the summer of 527s with more freedom, not less.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, my late father used to say, you only have to do two things in life: die and pay taxes. Just about 40 minutes ago, I did one of those things, and I will let my colleagues guess which one it was. Like millions of Americans, before midnight tomorrow night, I managed to fill out all of the forms which, for me, as a man of no significant means, a public servant married to a schoolteacher, there were only forms that I had to file in three States and with one national government. The full total of the pages that I had to fill out and file neared to 100. Mr. Speaker, the People's House is supposed to resonate with the hearts of the American people. As we approach this tax day and go through our usual spring ritual of arguments in Washington, D.C., I hope the Congress will resonate with the heart of the American people and seize upon the opportunity to simplify this tax system and end the tyranny of anxiety that reigns throughout the land every April 15.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, it is April 13; and to my fellow American procrastinators I say, 2 days and counting, until tax day, April 15. In 2003 alone, Americans spent $203 billion just preparing our taxes, let alone paying for them. Madam Speaker, 1 billion hours in annual paperwork has been added to tax preparation in just the last 10 years. Think of these comparisons: in 2003, your 1040 form is 73 lines long. In 1935 it was 34 lines long. In 2003, your 1040 booklet was 131 pages. When it was created in 1935, it was 2 pages. Are we having fun yet? I say no. Today we will scrap the death tax, and well we should. But while we are at it, let this majority rededicate itself to scrap the code, to create a new flatter and fairer and simpler system that ends the tyranny of April 15 on the American people, a tyranny of anxiety.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the rule and the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005. I do so, Mr. Speaker, really to just speak about small business America and about a small businessman who raised me. It was 17 years ago today at the too-young age of 58 that my father, Ed Pence, passed away. It happens to be an unfortunate anniversary in my family, but on April 13, 1988, we said goodbye to my father. He was a small business owner that many on the floor of the Congress today would classify as a rich American. Now, the rich American that I saw was a man who started out in a very small business in Columbus, Indiana, and worked tirelessly to raise his four sons and two daughters and build a business that employed several hundred local people in support of their families. It is really, with the memory of my father in mind, that I rise in vigorous support of the permanent repeal of the death tax. Because while my family was reeling from the grief of the loss of my father to a sudden heart attack 17 years ago today, also we were settling into the reality that much of what he had built, all of which he had already paid taxes on, was now subject to as much as a 47 percent estate tax. My father's death and the business that he built and the resources that he had husbanded, after paying all of his debts and all of his taxes, should not have been subject to another tax. And we come into this well today on behalf of small business owners and family farmers just like my dad to put to an end permanently this truly immoral death tax in America. It is the reality out there, not the heated rhetoric of rich versus poor, that explains why 89 percent of small business owners favor permanent repeal. In fact, they know that more than 70 percent of family businesses do not survive to a second generation; 87 percent do not make it to a third generation. Much is made of middle America that I am proud to represent and the fact that Main Streets and courthouse squares are largely boarded up. People want to blame the Internet. They want to blame mass retailers. Well, I put the majority of the blame in practical terms at the doorstep of the death tax. It has waged war on small business and family farmers all across America, and we will begin to reverse that in a permanent way today. So in the tender memory of my father, of his earnest labors, and with it in my mind the men and women who to this day labor to raise their families and build small businesses and family farms all across America that I extol the authors of this bill. I endorse the rule, and I vigorously support the permanent repeal of the death tax.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, the summer of 2004 will be remembered for many years in American politics. Groups organized on the left and the right under what was known as section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code and spent more than $300 million to support candidates, while the two major political parties and the Nation's most respected labor unions, associations, businesses, and constitutional groups watched in silence from the sidelines. In response to this summer of 527s, some in Washington will bring measures to rein in the 527 groups with greater government control and regulation, and that is certainly their right. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), a Democratic Congressman, and I have taken a different approach in introducing the 527 Fairness Act in the 109th Congress. The 527 Fairness Act seeks to restore basic fairness to the political process for political parties and 501(c) organizations instead of attempting further regulation on political speech. More freedom is always the answer of the difficulties and challenges and the politics of a free society. While this liberty may be a bit more chaotic and inconvenient for some in the political class, as Thomas Jefferson said, ``I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.'' I join the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), my colleague, in urging cosponsorship and swift passage of the 527 Fairness Act.