Mike Pence

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, when Chuck Mosey of Richmond died unexpectedly last month, Richmond lost a leader and, like countless others who had the privilege to know him, I lost a friend. So much attention has rightly been paid to his role as a business leader, a son of Richmond who helped build Mosey Manufacturing into one of the largest employers in our city and rightly so. At a time when so many American business leaders seem willing to take the easy route to profits available to those willing to move jobs out of our community and country, Chuck Mosey traveled the world and proved that Hoosier companies and workers can compete on the world stage and win. Chuck was a fighter and Chuck fought for the jobs of the hundreds of Wayne County families that depended on his courage and vision every day. Chuck Mosey was from Richmond and he was determined to make his enterprise prosper in his hometown, and he succeeded. And at a time when so many let work crowd out the most important people in their lives, Chuck Mosey applied the same commitment at home. His utter devotion to his Maxine, wife and mother to Scott and Christopher, was evident to anyone who knew him for more than five minutes. Every time I spoke to Chuck in the last year it was all about Maxine and his profound gratitude to those whose prayers and thoughtfulness had helped carry her through some recent difficult days. And Chuck loved his brothers and sisters but Steve and George were more than brothers, they were Chuck's best friends. As one of four boys myself, I know how challenging sibling relationships can be, but Chuck made it look easy. He did so by taking every opportunity to boast of his brothers, their accomplishments and integrity. I learned a lot about being a brother from Chuck Mosey. Lastly, Chuck Mosey was a patriotic American who believed in the highest ideals of our Nation. His wit and insight once caused me to refer to him as the ``Will Rogers of Eastern Indiana,'' and so he was. During a recent heated debate in Congress, I called Chuck for some advice. I was determined to take a stand for fiscal responsibility and I figured he was the right guy to call to get a good perspective from home, and I'll never forget what he said. When I explained the latest bloated government proposal being brought before the Congress, Chuck Mosey said, ``Don't those people know how much money we don't have?'' We both burst out laughing but I was so moved by the simple wisdom of the statement that I returned to the floor of the Congress and used his line in the debate. A business leader, devoted husband, father, brother and, in my life, a friend was lost to us but gained to heaven last week. Goodbye, Chuck. We will miss you for a while. I can't wait to hear what you have to say about heaven. I'm sure it will be priceless.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Marriage Protection Act. I commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) for his principled leadership on this issue. The Marriage Protection Act is a constitutional remedy to a looming constitutional crisis. Let me say, despite what we have just heard on this blue and gold carpet, nothing in this bill shuts access by petitioners to any State court in the land. What brings us here today is that activist judges in some States are poised to force a new definition of marriage on States like Indiana, and the Marriage Protection Act will stop that strategy in its tracks. Let me say clearly not on my watch will I stand idly by while the courts in Massachusetts redefine marriage in Indiana, and despite what my colleagues have said on the other side of the aisle about high principle and constitutional ideals and a history lesson, this is about marriage. The Bible says ``If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?'' And marriage is such a foundation in our society. Marriage was ordained by God, established in the law. It is the glue of the American family and the safest harbor to raise children. We must preserve and defend this foundation in our society, and we begin by defending the right of States like Indiana to define marriage as it has ever been defined and will always be defined in the hearts of the overwhelming majority of the American people.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning in support of the fiscal year 2005 District of Columbia Appropriations Act and most especially the responsible educational choice scholarship provisions that were added in just last year's bill, provisions that reflect the support and leadership of Mayor Anthony Williams of the District of Columbia. It was decades ago that a southern governor stood in the doorway of a public school and said to young African American children, because of their race, they may not come in. For years the education establishment stood in the schoolhouse door and said to the grandchildren of many of those Americans that, in the interest of preserving the establishment, they may not come out. That wall, that barrier, started to crack in recent years in Wisconsin and in Ohio and last year here on the floor of the Congress when millions of dollars were made available for thousands of children in inner city schools that have been failing for decades here in the District of Columbia. We have the opportunity today to renew the second year of the District of Columbia opportunity scholarships. I am confident we will. I rise to praise the leadership of the Committee on Appropriations and District of Columbia Mayor Anthony Williams for taking such a strong stand for educational opportunity for all the children of the District of Columbia.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lantos amendment, and I appreciate so much the gentleman's leadership on this, as much as I appreciate the strong leadership of the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) on this legislation as a whole; excellently prepared, thoughtfully conceived. I find it difficult to add to the arguments that have been made, so I will add a new argument. The State Department asserted earlier today that the United States had developed a strategic partnership with Egypt that has contributed to the global war on terrorism, stabilization, and reconstruction of Iraq. If the truth be told, Mr. Chairman, Egypt has been largely absent from the war on terror, despite the contribution of $1.3 billion in military assistance by the people of the United States of America; despite its sizable and, we learned today, increasingly well-funded military force that has contributed no combat forces to our effort in Afghanistan; and, unlike Jordan, Egypt has not offered to send a single soldier to even help the Iraqi interim government establish peace and stability. It is for these reasons that I think it is time to send a message to Egypt to transfer resources into humanitarian purposes and bring them on board on the war on terror.

Mr. PENCE

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

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today urging my colleagues to support H. Res. 713, and I find myself very humbled by the power and the eloquence that has preceded me. So I will simply close, Mr. Speaker, with words of gratitude from my heart and perhaps an explanation why this Midwestern Evangelical Christian finds himself carrying this timely and important resolution before the Congress. I first want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for his strong leadership on this issue, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), who continues to be for me an example of everything that is right about what Congress can mean on the world stage on behalf of not only Israel but human rights, and a special thanks and affection to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), without whose leadership this resolution would not be on the floor today. In fact, in its original version, the Pence-Berkley resolution recruited over 160 cosponsors, Republicans and Democrats alike; and it is my fondest hope that tomorrow when this measure is voted that we will see an equal reference of strong bipartisan support. My motivation is very simple. In January this year a dream of my life came true, Mr. Speaker. I traveled to that ancient country of Israel with my beautiful wife, Karen, and in the midst of that inspiring experience, we engaged in security briefings. We found ourselves along a chain-linked fence. In the 2 hours that we toured the security fence, the guards who escorted and protected us received three notices of attempted terrorist incursions. I came back to this blue and gold carpet with a burden on my heart to help tell that story. I went alongside the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) and said we have to get the story out of what the people of Israel are dealing with and the necessity for the fence. And I came back and authored the resolution that will be considered in the Congress tomorrow. The truth is that the fence saves lives, Mr. Speaker, without any question whatsoever. Evidence is resplendent. We have heard it tonight. Hundreds of suicide attacks but only one from Gaza where Hamas and Islamic Jihad are actually based, but Gaza city and the Gaza area completely surrounded by a fence. In the north of Israel, where a section of the fence has been completed, there has not been a single suicide attack in more than 8 months. Before the first stage of the fence became operational in July of 2003, the average number of attacks was 8.6 per month. In the past 11 months, that has dropped to 3.2 attacks. I hesitate to use statistics because we are talking about families. We are talking about men and women and one terrible tale after another of teenagers and small children made subject of terrorist suicide bombings. So we ought not to get lost in the numbers. We ought to remember the fence saves lives. So last week when the International Court of Justice, by a 14 to 1 decision, violating many of its own rules of jurisdiction where it ordinarily would have recognized the authority of the Supreme Court of Israel to decide such matters, as it has very recently with great equity towards the interests of Israelis and Palestinians, the government of Israel has literally moved the fence some 20-mile stretches, and recently the Supreme Court of Israel ruled in favor of Palestinians in ordering the fence to be moved. But, nevertheless, the International Court of Justice ignored the sovereign interests of Israel, calling Israel an occupying power and calling portions of that sovereign nation occupied Palestinian territory. And that is a disgrace. Mr. Speaker, I close simply with the words that I pray for the peace of Jerusalem. I believe, as millions of Americans do, that still to this day He will bless those who bless her. And it is my hope that tomorrow this Congress will stand and speak as near as we ever can with one voice that we condemn the International Court of Justice, this act of disgrace, and we stand by our precious ally Israel in this her most difficult hour.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, we come tonight just almost 1 week after truly a dark day in the history of international justice and in the course of this debate and I trust in the course of this Congress' deliberations over H. Res. 713, deploring the misuse of the International Court of Justice by a plurality of the United Nations General Assembly for a narrow political purpose. I hope that we will have the opportunity to elaborate the genuine significance of the decision by the International Court of Justice relative to the construction of a security fence by the government of Israel. I intend in the immediate here, before I make any extensive remarks, to yield to my superior and a woman without whose leadership on this issue we would not be here tonight; but let me say by way of context, Mr. Speaker, that when by a 14 to 1 decision the International Court of Justice condemned the construction of a wall being built by Israel and described Israel as an occupying power in occupied Palestinian territory, it was most assuredly a dark day and a day of disgrace for the International Court of Justice. Mr. Speaker, it is my profound privilege to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, a woman who is not only a distinguished member of this institution, but perhaps one of the most clarion voices in America on behalf of our precious alliance with the people and the nation of Israel.

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

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 713) deploring the misuse of the International Court of Justice by a majority of the United Nations General Assembly for a narrow political purpose, the willingness of the International Court of Justice to acquiesce in an effort likely to undermine its reputation and interfere with a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentlewoman for her passion and her leadership. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 713, the resolution under consideration.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In the last 4 years, Palestinian terrorists have attacked Israel's buses, cafes, discos and pizza shops, murdering over 1,000 innocent men, women and children. Despite this unprecedented savagery, as former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wrote in the New York Times earlier this week, the International Court of Justice's 60-page opinion mentions terrorism only twice, and only in citations of Israel's own position on the fence. This court has become a mockery of justice and an international disgrace. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), another advocate of our strong and historic relationship with a free and democratic Israel.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, last week was a dark day in the history of international law. By a vote of 14 to 1, the International Court of Justice at The Hague condemned Israel's right of self-defense in the construction of a security fence to protect innocent civilians from terrorist attacks. During my visit to Israel in January, I saw firsthand, as I toured the fence, how the fence each and every day protects innocent civilians' lives. I came back and, along with the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), authored a resolution, cosponsored by 163 of my colleagues. Today, in form and fashion, this will come to the floor of Congress as H. Res. 713. Today, Congress will respond by standing strongly and boldly with our precious ally, Israel, in her right to defend her own innocent civilians from terrorist assault. I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors again and, of course, to support H. Res. 713, deploring the misuse of the International Court of Justice by a majority of the United Nations General Assembly for narrow political purposes.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to join the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and thank him as well as the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), for their extraordinary efforts in bringing what is very likely the largest scandal in the history of the United Nations into the public domain. Mr. Speaker, a very limited fan of the Larry King Live program would know that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) is one of the most eloquent and compelling Members of Congress in the national media, and I, for one, am grateful that the chairman is willing to dedicate so much of his energy to calling the Nation's attention to this issue and wish to commend him for doing that. There seems to me to be an opposite impulse afoot in both the international community as well as here in our Nation's capital. Despite the fact that this multibillion dollar Oil-for-Food program, which operated from 1996 to 2003, resulted in billions of dollars lost in graft and payoffs, there seems to be an impulse among some quarters within our own diplomatic community here in Washington and even around the world to simply move on. Clearly, I would be, as a strong supporter of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I would be the very first to say we ought not to let the mistakes of the past interfere with opportunities for alliances in the future. And I, for one, am extraordinarily encouraged to see the United Nations Security Council embracing a new role of partnership in the development of a free and stable and Democratic Iraq. But it seems to me to be all together consistent with the aims of a vital and important role of the United Nations on the world scene, especially in difficult areas like Iraq, or even in Sudan, of which we may well be talking in the near future, it seems to me we ought to always seek to defend the basic reputation of integrity of the United Nations. As we gather here today, we reflect, Mr. Speaker, on this program, which was, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) just said very eloquently, a program born of compassion. It was about trying to provide assistance, both food and medical supplies, to a beleaguered people in the difficult years that followed the first Persian Gulf War, and to no less extent the decades of oppression and abuse by the tyrannical dictator Saddam Hussein. It was to provide them with resources and assistance by letting the regime of Saddam Hussein sell oil, the payments for which would go into an escrow fund that would then purchase medical supplies and food stores to be then delivered back into Iraq. Sounds like a pretty flawless arrangement, like a triangle, if you will. The only problem, and I believe hindsight is 20/20, and I understand why these decisions were made, but as we learned in the Committee on International Relations, at the end of the day this Oil- for-Food program deferred to the principle of sovereignty of Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq. And why that was problematic, we believe, is because it permitted Saddam Hussein to choose who he would sell oil to and to choose who he would buy supplies from. Allowing this deplorable dictator and his corrupt government to choose to pick the winners in this multibillion dollar Oil-for-Food program created an environment, the preliminary evidence of which created opportunities for graft on a global scale. And as Chairman Shays just suggested, the interrelationship between this program and some countries who were loathe to support our efforts militarily against Iraq is troubling and intriguing and bears fleshing out. I believe that is what we are about here tonight, simply doing our part in this chamber, the people's House, to raise public awareness about this extraordinary scandal and an attempt by a dictator to siphon off an estimated $10 billion from a program that was truly simply designed to help people. A few brief points, and then I will yield back to my betters on this issue. The role of Congress. I think what we are about tonight, Mr. Speaker, is an important role. It is to at least be that one quarter of the national government in the most powerful and freest Nation in the history of the world that says, yes, we do care what happened to the billions of dollars that went out of the Oil-for-Food program; we want to know who benefited through those illicit profits and kickbacks. And let me hasten to add that I serve a heartland district in central Indiana where I grew up seeing the billboards that would read ``get out of the U.N.'' This is not a ``get out of the U.N. move'' in the Congress. This is rather a move about saying, if we are not prepared to demand a full accounting of the resources that move through the United Nations in the programs that they are charged with governing, I think that is a greater threat to the long-term vitality of the United Nations as a legitimate forum for addressing grievances in the free world than any billboard or any accusation could ever be. Congress, it seems to me, has a role, and there are a couple. Number one, to do everything in our power to strengthen the position of the chairman of the independent investigating committee, the former Federal Reserve Chairman, Paul Volcker; to do that by the means of the pocketbook in the Congress. And I am confident that we have done that and will continue to do that. Secondly, it is to ensure that the Iraqi interim government and congressional investigators are able to conduct an effective and exhaustive investigation. We have heard tonight on the floor about some of the barriers that the U.N. has not yet been willing to waive in contract arrangements that need and must be waived to permit our government and the Iraqi government to get to the bottom of the facts. Lastly, something of what we are doing tonight is to push the State Department within the Bush administration to ensure that the Oil-for- Food scandal is thoroughly investigated. I understand, as I said before, and with this I close, I understand that we have bigger fish to fry, as we like to say on the Flat Rock River in Bartholomew County, and those fish to fry include moving forward in a multilateral way in Iraq and bringing the family of freedom-loving nations together in that project. But I hasten to add that I simply do not believe that demanding a strict accounting of the administration of the Oil-for-Food program that took place in the last decade in the United Nations is in any way inconsistent with bringing the United Nations and the countries represented on the Security Council more to bear on the challenges that we face in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. If we can find out where the illicit profits went, and if in fact there were misdeeds done within the United Nations itself by United Nations personnel, we need to hold them accountable, create new systems whereby that kind of abuse is no longer as possible as it apparently was in the 1990s, and I think that will bolster world opinion for the United Nations and bolster the confidence in future programs, whether they be in Iraq or elsewhere around the world. So that when the United Nations says they are going to oversee a program that is designed to accomplish humanitarian aims, that it will accomplish those aims and it will not do so in a way that involves graft or the enrichment of individuals at the public expense. So once again I commend Chairman Shays for his extraordinary leadership on the public stage on this issue. I commend him for being willing, as he candidly in his career frequently is, willing to swim upstream against what may be the current of the day, but to seek, as he so doggedly does, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) does, and all of us I believe in our hearts do, to seek the truth, knowing that the truth is the only foundation upon which the international community should ever come together in the United Nations or in any project that faces us in the 21st century.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, full-page ads across official Washington say it all: ``True conservatives oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment.'' Oh, really? As one of a handful of Members of Congress with a 100 percent rating from the American Conservative Union, I think I can legitimately claim that title, and I profoundly disagree with the assertion in the ads. In fact, true conservatives believe in conserving, protecting, and defending the foundational institutions of our society and of Western Civilization. True conservatives believe, as I do, that marriage was ordained by God, established by law, that it is the glue of the American family and the safest harbor to raise children. And true conservatives also know that the only effective response to judicial activism at the State and Federal level is a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Do not believe what one reads, Mr. Speaker. True conservatives support the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, the sad news reached Hoosiers last week. Army Lieutenant Robert Colvill, Junior, of Anderson, Indiana, lost his life fighting to liberate Iraq and defend American ideals overseas. He and three other soldiers died as a result of wounds suffered during a terrorist car bombing and mortar attack. Robert Colvill, Jr., was a hero who believed in this great Nation. In the ninth grade, he determined he would serve his country in the Marine Corps. And so, after graduating from Madison Heights High School in 1991, he joined the Marines. He retired after 8 years of service, having achieved the status of sergeant. But his passion for fighting for his country was too much to ignore; and Robert Colvill, Jr., enlisted in the United States Army after only 1 year as a civilian. I think Mayor Kevin Smith of Anderson, Indiana, said it best when he said, ``Soldiers like Lt. Colvill represent the best of the United States of America, men and women of ideals who are unafraid to fight for freedom for themselves, their country, and other peoples of the world.'' Mr. Speaker, Lt. Robert Colvill, Jr., is a hero whose service and sacrifice brought freedom to 25 million Iraqis. His memory and the memory of that sacrifice will forever be emblazoned on the hearts of two grateful nations. I offer my deepest condolences to his family and friends and the community at large as we deal with the loss of a hero.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, on July 8, 2004, Army Lieutenant Robert Colvill of Anderson, Indiana, lost his life while fighting to defend America and liberate Iraq. He and three other soldiers died as a result of wounds suffered during a terrorist car bombing and mortar attack. Mr. Colvill was a hero who believed in this great nation. In the ninth grade, he determined that he would serve his country in the Marine Corps. And so, after graduating from Madison Heights High School in 1991, he joined the Marines. He then retired after 8 years of service having become a Sergeant. But his passion for fighting for his country was too much to ignore and Mr. Colvill enlisted in the United States Army after only a year as a civilian. I think Mayor Kevin Smith of Anderson, Indiana said it best, stating, ``Soldiers such as Lieutenant Colvill exemplify the best of the United States of America; men and women of ideals and who are unafraid to fight for freedom for themselves, their country and other peoples of the world.'' Mr. Speaker, Lieutenant Robert Colvill is a hero whose service and sacrifice brought freedom to 25 million Iraqis. Memory of his sacrifice will forever be emblazoned on the hearts of two grateful nations. I offer my deepest condolences to his wife, Chris; his two sons, Zachary and Travis; his stepdaughter, Suzanne; his father, Robert Colvill; his mother, Anita Walker; his stepfather, Danny Walker; his sister, Angela Seward; his sister, Melanie Watkins-Smith; and his brother-in-law, Barton Smith.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, this is a dark day in the history of international law. Today, the International Court of Justice, at the request of the United Nations General Assembly, ruled, ``The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying power in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around east Jerusalem and its associated regime, is contrary to international law.'' With this extraordinarily biased decision, the International Court of Justice has become an international disgrace. This outrageous ruling confirms what many of us have feared, that opponents of Israel have overtaken the judicial process at the U.N.'s highest judicial court and have begun to use it for political aims on the world stage. Mr. Speaker, the referral of this issue itself was biased and prejudged Israel. The referral actually used contestable political language such as ``occupied Palestinian territory'' and referred to the Israeli security fence repeatedly as a wall. It is as if the court simply did a cut and paste of those terms and issued them in their ruling today, completely failing in their multipage ruling to talk about context, namely years of brutal terrorism at the hands of Palestinian extremists against Israeli civilians. Mr. Speaker, it is crucial today that we make a pair of points that the International Court of Justice completely ignored. Number one, Israel's security fence prevents terrorism; and, number two, the ICJ had no authority to hear this case. These two points, Mr. Speaker, are actually reflected in a resolution that I authored along with the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) that has garnered nearly 163 co-sponsors, Republicans and Democrats alike. The Pence-Berkley resolution resolves, in effect, that Congress supports the construction by Israel of a security fence to prevent Palestinian terrorist attacks; and, number two, that Congress condemns the decision by the UN General Assembly to request the Court of Justice to act. Mr. Speaker, I rise humbly today to say Congress would do well in the coming days to act with all expeditious speed on this legislation, on this resolution, and make a statement that America stands with Israel. I authored this resolution after my wife, Karen, and I toured Israel in January of this year. Seen in this photograph, we are standing with Israeli defense forces along the side of a chain-linked fence, which the International Court of Justice today repeatedly described as a wall. A chain-linked fence that nevertheless has proven to be an effective tool in thwarting terrorist attacks. In the north of Israel, where a section of the fence has been completed, there has not been a single suicide attack in more than 8 months. Before the first stage of the fence became operational in July of 2003, the average number of attacks was 8.6 per month. In the past 11 months, that figure has dropped dramatically to only 3.2 attacks per month. In the 2 hours that we toured the security fence this day in January in Israel, the security officials traveling with us received in my presence three separate calls on their radios about attempted terrorist incursions. In 2 hours, three separate terrorist incursions. These incursions, while they do not succeed but on an intermittent basis, the reality is that the attempts are a daily reality for Israelis. The truth is the Israeli Security Fence has prevented terrorism, and that was a fact completely lost on the International Court of Justice. Also lost is that under international norms, the Israeli Supreme Court, just like if it was the United States Supreme Court and not the court in the Hague, has sole jurisdiction over this matter. In fact, the Israeli Supreme Court is an independent judiciary of a sovereign and democratic nation. Its rulings on the Israeli Security Fence has struck a fair balance between the rights of Israelis to live free from suicide bombings and the right of Palestinians to their economic well- being, and there is no legal basis for the court in the Hague to usurp its authority. So I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to urge this Congress to act on House Concurrent Resolution 371 that the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) and I introduced and enjoys 163 cosponsors and to act deliberately. Or if not on our resolution, that in the next several days to rise with one voice, Democrats and Republicans alike, to condemn this unjust decision by the International Court of Justice. I also challenge my colleagues, as we think about funding issues and resources that will be spent in the direction of the United Nations, that we seriously reconsider any effort to direct U.S. taxpayer dollars to this international court, if I may say, of injustice. Like so many million Americans I pray for the peace of Jerusalem and I stand with Israel, believing as those same millions do that He will bless those who bless her, He will curse those who curse her. Let the voice of the American people be heard. Let us condemn this unjust and disgraceful decision by the International Court of Justice.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, one can scarcely imagine a more horrifying and terrifying experience than what happened yesterday to Todd Buchanan as his van coasted with its electrical systems failing on Indiana State Road 67. Todd Buchanan is a 39-year-old quadriplegic. The electrical system in his van not only failed, but the sparks ignited a flame; and he sat helpless, unable to extricate himself from his vehicle with no one in sight. At that moment with smoke and flames beginning to emit from the hood of the car, Allen Webster passing by pulled his car over and immediately began to reach into the flames and into the smoke to extricate him. Muncie police officer Kyle Temple joined as well as nearly a dozen passersby, and one police officer fought through the flames to their own injury to extricate Todd Buchanan safely. The Bible says ``No greater love has a man than this, that he should lay down his life for his friends.'' Todd Buchanan is alive this morning and grateful to Allen Webster, Officer Kyle Temple, and many others because they brought this proverb to life and showed no greater love on Highway 67 yesterday, and they are rightly remembered on this floor of this Congress today.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of turn and claim the gentleman from Nebraska's (Mr. Osborne) time.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, as we depart for the Independence Day recess on Capitol Hill, families and communities across America will prepare for celebrations and remembrances of the 4th of July; and as I and my family and my heartland district in eastern Indiana prepare to do likewise, I could not help but feel that, in fact, in coming days we will celebrate not one, but two Independence Days: one for an 18th century colonial power born in violent conflict, aided by an ally in liberty to throw off the shackles of a despotic tyrant who beset its people for decades, and of that struggle, those people would write some 228 years ago that they held truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. They went on to cite a long string of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object of absolute despotism, and claimed with their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor that it was their right and their duty to throw off such government. One independence day. The other will take place for the first time this coming Wednesday, not an 18th century colonial nation, but a 21th century modern power in the Middle East whose freedom is also being born at this very hour in violent conflict, aided by the armies of a liberty-loving ally to throw off the despotism and tyranny that has beset its people for decades and of their freedom the people of Iraq wrote these words in the preamble to their Constitution: ``The people of Iraq, striving to reclaim their freedom which was usurped by the previous tyrannical regime, rejecting violence and coercion in all its forms, and particularly when used as instruments of governance, have determined that they shall hereafter remain a free people governed under the rule of law.'' Two Independence Days: One, 228th anniversary of ours on the 4th of July; and the other, the first-ever Independence Day for a free and democratic Iraq on a day that will live in history for the people of that great nation as a day of celebration, June 30, 2004. Two independence days. We will celebrate in each of them the inexorable rise of freedom in the world, and its advance is ever to be heralded. And may we ever add to the calendar of this planet, until each and every month is filled with the anniversary of such freedom days. Until that great day comes, and the veil of tyranny is lifted from the four corners of planet earth, two independence days in the next 7 days. Let freedom ring in the United States of America and in a free and Democratic Iraq.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. It is an honor to be able to join the most energetic voice for growth and prosperity in America in this Congress today. I commend the chairman for his leadership and his passion, so evident to anyone looking in today. But it is not really about the passion or eloquence that people have been exposed to today, Mr. Speaker, it is just simply about the facts and has been stated and quoted on this floor. Facts are stubborn things. And the reality is that because of the leadership of George W. Bush and because of this Congress's willingness in the wake of both recession that took hold in the waning days of the Clinton administration, and a horrific national tragedy that took place on a day that I was in this building in September of 2001, this President, nevertheless, has led this Nation on the world stage to a place where we will celebrate, as the chairman said moments ago, an Independence Day for a free and democratic Iraq this week, just a few days before we celebrate the 228th anniversary of our own Independence Day. And because of the leadership of that very same president, George W. Bush, we are, despite the best efforts of the likely democratic nominee, Senator John Kerry and many in his party on this floor who would wish it away or talk it away, we are in the midst of an extraordinary recovery that is as my colleague just suggested, being experienced by Americans in real ways in New Mexico, in the State of Indiana, in the State of California where the chairman serves, and all across this Nation. But I was very intrigued by the comments of the gentleman from New Mexico that he is hearing from citizens that he serves that they are sorry that things are not better elsewhere, but they are really good here. Because I am going home to my heartland district in eastern Indiana hearing much the same thing. It is as though, when the statistics that the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) just went over, Mr. Speaker, 1.5 million new jobs since August, 257,000 new jobs per month, I pulled the Indiana statistics in preparation for this, Indiana, where manufacturing is really right there with agriculture, Indiana is the second leading exporting State in the union. And manufacturing and exporting in our state, rather than the 11 percent of the national average, is 20 percent of our State's economy. And in the State of Indiana in the last year alone, international exports from Indiana increased nearly 10 percent in 2003. And it is because of the President's lean-forward approach to tax relief, deregulation, and an issue that probably no one champions here more than the gentleman from California, Mr. Speaker, is this business of expanded international trade. Hoosiers know that trade means jobs. And it is contributing mightily to these undeniable statistics that the chairman has cited so eloquently and passionately today. America's standard of living is on the rise. Real after-tax income up 11 percent since December of 2000, consumer confidence at its highest level in the past 4 months alone, mortgage rates remain near historic lows, and yet it is as though many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and their democratic presidential candidate would say to us what Groucho Marx said famously in his career, ``Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?'' And it seems to me all together fitting that as we approach this Independence Day recess, that the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) would pull this special order together as many of us are outbound back to our States, as I and my family are, to go to work and to enjoy picnics and have family times to say one last time before we go into this break what the reality is. The reality is that freedom is expanding at home and abroad, a free market economy is expanding because of the policies and practices of George W. Bush and a Republican majority in the House and in the Senate that have doggedly and determinedly pursued economic freedom at home and abroad. And for all those reasons, as the chairman said, I think very eloquently in his opening remarks, for all of those reasons, the United States of America is able to be the arsenal of democracy, is able to come along side the people of Iraq and even 30 years of despotism by a murderous, barbaric, dictator who literally claimed the lives, snuffed out the lives of over 1.2 million men and women, boys and girls over the last 30 years. 400,000 bodies have been found, 600,000, 700,000 remain missing. These are the facts. Facts are stubborn things. But we are able, and the families of American servicemen and women are able, to project forward the interest of the advancement of liberty because we are prosperous at home. It seems to me, as I close and prepare to yield back my time, that freedom is contagious, economic freedom is contagious, political freedom is contagious, but it is only contagious when freedom at home is vibrant. What my colleague understands and what the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) understands, and President George Bush understands, and I hope anyone looking in today understands, is that that Republican majority and this Republican President believe in freedom. They believe in a vibrant freedom at home and a contagious freedom across the world, economic and political, and are prepared to make the sacrifices and take the blows from the left to achieve that. So I thank the chairman for his dogged optimism and vision.