Mike Pence

Mr. PENCE

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

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for bringing this important amendment. Facts are stubborn things, Mr. Chairman. The CJS bill spends $53.6 billion. This amendment would reduce that by 1.4 percent, but it would still allow for an increase in the Commerce-Justice, and Science spending. With the passage of this amendment that is being characterized as a cut in the CJS budget, this bill still increases by nearly $1 billion compared to last year. And let me be clear on what we are trying to do, I think what the gentleman from Georgia is trying to do here, and that is we are trying to find a way to avoid having to raise taxes the way the Democrats are planning to do in the farm bill later today. I mean, the Democrat majority is planning to bring a $7.5 billion tax increase to the floor of the Congress in the context of the farm bill later today, and we are just trying to take this opportunity to make a cut in a single year that, if we did it over 10 years, we wouldn't have to raise taxes. Now, that is being characterized as the work of a small minority versus a bipartisan majority. At least they are not calling us a fringe this week. Well, I think if the small majority is the people that want to pay for increases in spending with budget discipline, and the bipartisan majority is the one that wants to pay for increases in spending by raising taxes, I am happy to be part of the small majority that I happen to think speaks for the overwhelming majority of the American people, who want this Congress to live within its means, who want this Congress in a bipartisan way to make the tough choices to put our fiscal house in order. I commend the gentleman from Georgia. I thank him for his vision. I urge passage of the Price amendment, because if it passes, it will lay a foundation where we will not have to raise taxes by $7.5 billion in the farm bill later today.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress from the heartland, I have supported the farm bill in the past. Regrettably, the 2007 farm bill that we will consider this week is a deeply flawed piece of legislation. It combines traditional agricultural programs with the misplaced priorities of the Democratic Congress. Tax increases, budget gimmicks, workplace restrictions, and a public union provision that offends States' rights, and I cannot support it. This farm bill is a disservice to American farmers and an attack on hurting families in the State of Indiana. At the behest of one of the Nation's largest public employee unions, the Democrat Congress added language to this bill that will prohibit States from working with private companies to improve the administration of welfare services. Since Indiana is leading the Nation in improving welfare services through these partnerships, this bill is bad for Indiana, bad for hurting families, and bad for Hoosier taxpayers. In the interest of federalism, it's imperative that Congress give State governments the freedom to innovate in the delivery of food stamps and other welfare programs to benefit recipients and improve services. I will vote against this farm bill because it raises taxes, busts the budget, and does a great disservice to our most hurting Americans.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I'd be pleased to yield.

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

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a very straightforward amendment. It would prohibit funds appropriated in this bill from being used by the Department of Justice to enforce the criminal penalties provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, commonly known as McCain-Feingold. It would, essentially, prevent the Justice Department from using funds to enforce criminal penalties against organizations that make electioneering communications under that bill. The electioneering communications section of McCain-Feingold prohibits the use of corporate or labor union funds to finance broadcast advertisements that include the name or depiction of a Federal candidate within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days before a general election. Basically, it restricts the first amendment rights of Americans, whether they be in right-to-life organizations or the AFL-CIO or other labor organizations, from lobbying their Representatives and using the airwaves in those days before elections. Happily, on June 25 of this year, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, ruled unconstitutional this provision of the McCain-Feingold law that prohibits the broadcasting of such issue advertisements prior to an election, even if those advertisements reference a Federal candidate, and even if the advertisements have some electoral effect. It was, in a very real sense, Mr. Chairman, a huge victory for the first amendment because it's a major step in restoring the free speech rights to grass-roots lobbying organizations, left, right, and center. The ruling allows advocacy groups around the country, like Wisconsin Right to Life, the freedom to run ads to encourage citizens to contact their legislators on issues of importance to them. And it reasserts the principle that the presumption under the law should be in favor of free expression rather than the muzzling of speech. Those of us who hailed this ruling and welcomed it as a first step toward the reversal of McCain-Feingold were encouraged, but we knew this was not the end of the story. As the sole House plaintiff in the McConnell v. FEC case that challenged McCain-Feingold, I believe we must maintain our effort, which is to ensure that that about McCain- Feingold that intrudes on the first amendment rights of every single American are challenged. And that's why I'm on the floor today. The Pence amendment reaffirms the Supreme Court's ruling in Wisconsin Right to Life. It simply states that no funds under this bill can be used to enforce criminal penalties against any organization airing such an issue advertisement. It further prevents criminal penalties attendant to the reporting requirements associated with the airing of such ads. We should not allow criminal penalties to be imposed on citizens for engaging in protected speech and for not reporting to the Government about their protected speech. That is the crux of the Pence amendment.

Mr. PENCE. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's question. In fairness, my amendment says that no funds may be used to force amendments made subject to title A of title II of Public Law 107-155, which, according to some, is slightly broader than the Supreme Court decision. But this is the provision of the law that the Supreme Court essentially struck down. That's the crux of the Pence amendment. All of those who claim allegiance to the first amendment, I believe, should be thrilled with the Wisconsin Right to Life decision and support the Pence amendment. I think we still have much to do to reinstate full first amendment protections to the American people. But I continue to believe we're badly trampled by McCain-Feingold. But passing the Pence amendment today in the Congress would simply reaffirm the essential elements of the Supreme Court's decision in the Wisconsin Right to Life case. It's an important first step on this floor. It's one I encourage my colleagues to support. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong and unqualified support of H. Res. 521, no Indiana exceptions, at least not today. I congratulate Representative Gillibrand, as my colleague from California did, for this important resolution. For close to a century, Lake Placid has been central to America's participation and achievements in international sports. It's the only site in North America to have hosted more than one Winter Olympics, both in 1932 and in 1980. Moreover, in 1980, and if you haven't seen the movie, it was the site of one of America's greatest moments, when the U.S. national hockey team defeated the heavily favored Soviet Union. Walt Disney films recently created an extraordinary motion picture remembering that miracle on ice. It was not only a victory for one hockey team over another, but for millions it symbolized the triumph of freedom over tyranny and seemed to be a part of setting into motion in 1980 what we would see with the collapse of Soviet communism in 1991. It forced you out of that, so in a very real sense, Lake Placid is important in the history of freedom as well as in the history of sport. Indeed, countless Americans actually remember where we were in that glorious moment. Lake Placid's contributions to international sports continue to this very day. It's the home of one of the U.S. Olympic Committee's three national training centers and regularly hosts international sports competitions, bringing together athletes from across the globe to celebrate the excellence of sports. Perhaps above all, Mr. Speaker, Lake Placid is an example of what a society can accomplish. This small village in New York with a population of less than 2,700 not only is a venue for grand-scale sporting events but also welcomes over 2 million visitors every year. This resolution recognizes Lake Placid's place in Olympic history, encourages Americans to visit that village's state-of-the-art Olympic facilities, and further encourages the U.S. Olympic Committee to select Lake Placid to represent the United States in the future for the Olympic or Para-Olympic games. I commend my distinguished colleague from New York again, Mrs. Gillibrand, and Mr. McHugh, for introducing this important resolution. I urge its adoption.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me simply rise again on behalf of many of my colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee to commend to the attention of all Members H. Con. Res. 175 regarding the payment of survivor benefits to family members of deceased service personnel. It is a highly formalistic sounding bill, highly technical, but I think you could sense, Mr. Speaker, the emotion in the voice and the countenance of its principal author. I would expect that Mr. Latham of Iowa is here on this floor for Kayla and for the children of those 143 soldiers who find themselves caught in a confused bureaucracy and unable to access the benefits to which they are entitled and to which the hero that they lost as a parent and a loved one intended them to enjoy. So, again, I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 175, and I rise with a humble sense of gratitude for the tireless work of the gentleman from Iowa in bringing this legislation so quickly and so thoughtfully to the floor of this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, it represents a bipartisan conviction that is unanimous in this Chamber that we owe those who serve in the uniform of the United States and who fall in that service everything. And we owe their families who share their sacrifice the same. H. Con. Res. 175, brought to this floor today by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), will be an expression of a Congress acting on that gratitude and on that debt. It is a highly technical matter, but as I am sure the gentleman from Iowa will explain and the gentlelady from Texas explained, this is an issue that impacts the lives of people that this Nation cherishes the most. There are a number of cases where the children of single-parent servicemembers killed in action and their guardians have not been able to access death benefits intended for them. This resolution addresses cases where specific instructions were left by a servicemember as to the distribution of benefits to caretakers. In order of priority, death benefits are currently distributed to a surviving spouse, children, and other classes of persons such as siblings designated by the deceased. Benefits of a single parent's minor children must be held in trust by a State court which appoints a trustee who supervises the distribution of funds on behalf of the children. This consumes time and money in instances where the deceased clearly designated a caretaker to serve as a de facto trustee. The fiscal year 2008 national defense authorization bill will include a provision allowing servicemembers to begin predesignating caretakers as recipients as part of the death gratuity payment. However, neither House nor Senate provisions help families that have already been affected. Although H. Con. Res. 175 takes the form of a congressional concurrent resolution and therefore has no legal effect, it is confidently hoped that attorneys for minor children will use the text, once passed by the House, to convince State courts to honor the wishes of deceased single parents who designated caretakers for this purpose. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) in particular for his tender care of the service families of these American heroes, for his advocacy on behalf of families whose loved ones paid the ultimate price while defending our great Nation. I urge the House to adopt H. Con. Res. 175. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PENCE

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

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

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

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

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, the old book tells us to mourn with those who mourn and grieve with those who grieve. I rise in support today of H. Res. 535 in a spirit of bipartisanship and mutual mourning in the tragic end of the life of David Ray Ritcheson. I rise to commend David Ray Ritcheson in this resolution, a survivor, as my colleague from Texas just described, of a horrific crime. We commend him for his activism in raising awareness of violent crimes in this United States. As has been noted, at the age of 16 years, David Ray Ritcheson was brutally assaulted in April of 2006 while attending a party in Spring, Texas. He was hospitalized for more than 3 months, had more than 30 surgeries to restore his appearance and regain his health. David Ray Ritcheson recovered and became a spokesman and a tireless advocate against brutal crimes. He spoke eloquently and with great courage. He testified, even at his young age, with conviction before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. He did so in a way that gave honor to both his convictions and his character. David Ray Ritcheson's courage stands as a testament to all crime victims, especially those who suffer brutal attacks. Violent crime strikes at the heart of every victim, the victim's family, and their community. We must do all that we can to eradicate all violent crimes. Today we gather in support of this resolution simply to mourn the passing of David, to extend our heart-felt sorrow and respect to his family and his community and all those whose life he touched with his courage. His memory will live on in our hearts. His courage will inspire us all. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PENCE

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

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I would like to commend both Chairman Lantos and the author of this resolution, the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), as well as Mr. Smith for their leadership on working to bring this and so many other human rights issues to the attention of this body. As we all know, India is not only the world's largest English- speaking democracy, but it's one of the world's richest and most diverse civilizations. India is also emerging as one of the world's most dynamic economies, with the results of that growth uplifting the lives of millions of citizens. Yet despite this impressive record of reform and growth, India, like all countries, including our own, also faces a number of compelling domestic challenges. As was recently reported in a front-page story in the Washington Post, one of these social traumas relates to the problem of inequality and deep-seated caste prejudice. More than 200 million people in India are considered untouchable, people tainted by their birth into a caste system that deems them impure and almost less than human. Despite constitutional protections and other legal and regulatory efforts by the Government of India to improve the lives of the Dalits and other Tribal peoples, all too many continue to suffer from human rights abuses, as well as discrimination. In this regard, the State Department reports that while rare in urban settings, examples of intolerance occur regularly in rural areas. Many Dalits are malnourished, lack access to health care, work in poor conditions and continue to face serious social discrimination. In addition, Dalit women are all too often the victims of rape and exploitation at the hands of cruel human traffickers. Tragically, they also suffer disproportionately from the ravages of HIV/AIDS. This Congress and the American people are enormously respectful of Indian sovereignty, its impressive democratic heritage and its respect for the rule of law. As awkward as circumstances may be, for this body not to acknowledge these extraordinary issues would be an error. In a respectful and well-balanced way, this resolution appropriately shines a light on the plight of India's untouchables, and I believe it deserves our support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. PENCE

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