Mike Pence

Mr. PENCE

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

Mr. PENCE

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 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. 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. 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, at the outset I'd like to express my admiration to our distinguished chairman; our ranking member, Ms. Ros- Lehtinen, as well as Mr. Sherman, for crafting this important legislation and for bringing it to the careful thought and consideration that colleagues and those looking on today would see easily in evidence in the gentleman from California's remarks, and I am grateful for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, we all understand that from time to time the Overseas Private Investment Corporation has been the subject of controversy. On the other hand, it is accurate to say that it is significant that every President since 1971 has believed that OPIC is an important tool for advancing international development in U.S. foreign policy by stimulating private capital investment. In recent years, OPIC appears to have better focused its resources and efforts, bringing economic development to underserved markets in Central America, Africa, Afghanistan, and now in Iraq. OPIC has also reached out to U.S. small businesses and minority- and women-owned enterprises. For example, more than 80 percent of all OPIC projects approved in fiscal year 2006 involved U.S. small- and medium- sized enterprises. OPIC has also sought to enhance transparency and fight corruption, thereby leveling the playing field for U.S. businesses as they compete in international markets. It's also worth noting that OPIC is embarking on new efforts to encourage investments that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote the use of clean energy; and by charging market-based fees for its products, OPIC continues to operate as a self-sustaining agency, which I applaud, effectively operating at no net cost to taxpayers and returning net income every year of operation, with reserves now totaling more than $5 billion. On balance, then, despite controversy, I believe OPIC continues to serve foreign policy interests of the United States, and I urge support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to congratulate Idaho on its successful bid, as well, to host the 2009 Special Olympics World Winter Games and express strong support for H. Res. 380. The Special Olympics program has benefited countless people with disabilities nationwide and around the globe, raising awareness, fostering support for a great cause while enabling the participants to enhance their self-confidence and gain a sense of well-deserved personal accomplishment through sports and competition. It is, in every sense, a blessing to the participants. The millions of volunteers, coaches and athletes involved with the Special Olympics do a great service for their community and their country and, of course, to those with intellectual disabilities. I would also say, though, having been involved and been in attendance at Special Olympics programs, I haven't met a volunteer yet, Mr. Speaker, who didn't think that they were richer as a result of their participation in this extraordinary program, to see the courage of those who compete and the extraordinary sacrifice of the parents of those who bring them to such a wonderful opportunity. Through the dedication of these volunteers, the Special Olympics have continued to grow and impact the lives of more and more people around the world. The 2009 Winter Games in Idaho promise to be a great showcase for Special Olympics participants from around the world to compete at a high level and demonstrate that disabilities are no match for individuals who are driven to succeed. Again, I congratulate Idaho for being selected as the host of an event of such magnitude. I extend my best wishes to their new Governor and my friend, and I am fully confident that it will be a resounding success. I urge my colleagues to render their full support for this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. 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.

Mr. PENCE

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

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

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

Mr. PENCE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. I want to respond substantively to the gracious comments of the chairman whose work on this legislation I acknowledge heartily. But as to the issue of protecting all the values that the Republican majority advanced, I would hasten to remind that in the Foreign Operations bill we did great violence to the historic Mexico City policy. That change came. We must end the practice of funding Planned Parenthood. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

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

Mr. PENCE. Allow me to say there are many good things happening in federally funded Family Planning clinics nationwide: 5 million Americans served, 90 percent of whom are low income; 900,000 unintended pregnancies were averted by title X family planning funding; and it is reassuring that abstinence education is required for all clients. But today, I am offering an amendment that is very simple. The Pence amendment states that no funds under title X may be granted to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is the largest recipient of title X funding, and it is the largest abortion provider in America. Last year alone, Planned Parenthood's own annual report states that it received more than one-third of its $1 billion budget from government contracts and grants. And, again, according to their annual report, Planned Parenthood performed more than one quarter of a million abortions. Millions of pro-life Americans should not be asked to fund the leading abortion provider in the United States. Now, let me stipulate, I know that title X funds may not be used for abortion. And my amendment does not cut or reduce the budget for family planning in this appropriation bill; it simply prevents appropriated funds from reaching an organization that profits from the abortion trade. It is time the American people stop funding the Nation's largest abortion provider, and I urge support for the Pence amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PENCE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. PENCE. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PENCE. I thank my colleague from New York for his extraordinary courtesy. And let me say, I regret that this debate will only take 15 minutes. It is a great and serious matter, and I think the dignity with which it's been conducted thus far is evidence of the capacity of this Congress to discuss even the most contentious issues of our time in a manner that reflects civility and favorably on the institution. Now, that being said, let me clear up a few points. This is not, as the chairman said, ``a frontal assault on family planning.'' There are no cuts in Title X in the Pence amendment. The Pence amendment states plainly that no funds under Title X may be granted to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is the largest recipient of Title X funding, and it's also the largest abortion provider in America. And as to whether we are living under the same arrangements, as the chairman said, and I respectfully quote, ``same arrangements under Republican rule,'' it seems to me just a short time ago we saw this new majority overturn much of the decades long Mexico City policy that prevented Federal dollars from going to organizations overseas that provide abortion for family planning. I think this Nation needs a domestic Mexico City policy. And frankly, if the common ground that this Congress has reached means tens of millions of Federal tax dollars going to the largest abortion provider in America, that is not a common ground I can accept. Say ``no'' to Federal funds for Planned Parenthood in Title X. Say ``yes'' to family planning funding through Title X. Say ``yes'' to the Pence amendment.

Mr. PENCE. Madam Chairman, I rise on behalf of the fringe in America. Madam Chairman, that would be the fringe that believes that governments ought to live within their means, ought to pay their bills, ought to balance budgets. The gentleman from Ohio, whom I respect and admire his style as a legislator and a leader, has coined the phrase ``fringe,'' and I want to embrace it. I want to come to this floor and say every American who believes that we ought to balance the Federal budget, who believes that we ought to come together across the political divide and reform entitlements, who believes we ought to wrestle to the ground an $8 trillion national debt, that fringe is the fringe that I represent in America and those with which I proudly stand. And let me say I know that number 8 trillion very well. On my way to the floor today, I passed the office of clearly a dozen of the gentleman from Ohio's colleagues' offices, Democrats all, who anyone looking on wouldn't necessarily know, who all have signs in front of their office lamenting an $8 trillion national debt. And as the other gentleman said, I lament the role of the Republican majority in creating that, and I fought members of my own majority in years that we saw the debt go from $5 trillion to $8 trillion. But I say on behalf of the fringe, the fringe of Americans who say governments ought to live within their means, they ought to balance budgets, they ought to make the tough choices in a bipartisan way to live within the fiscal values that the American people represent, I say let's deal with it. And this cut today brought by the gentleman from Georgia is a modest step to be sure. It is a 1 percent cut. It says instead of doing with a 4.8 percent increase over last year, the Federal Government will have to get by on a 3.8 percent increase over last year. And it doesn't seem to me to be too much to ask, with an $8 trillion national debt, for us to come together and begin to trim and begin to make the hard choices. But it won't solve the real problem, and my cherished colleagues on the other side of the aisle know this. We have to get past the names; we have to get past the categories, and we have to represent the fringe of America that wants to see us balance this budget.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hensarling amendment. I love a good debate. It is a great privilege for me to be able to come to the floor at a time when Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Jackson are here. I find them to be two of the most forceful and effective advocates of their view in the Congress in the majority, and so I welcome this opportunity to join in the debate. And I thank the gentleman from Texas who is consistently the strongest advocate for fiscal discipline and reform in the House of Representatives. I will leave aside for the moment the whole question of which party forced the requirement of MTBE to be added to gasoline and created the regulatory challenges that the gentleman refers to, and just get to the larger question here. Madam Chairman, we have an $8 trillion national debt. This is an amendment to cut $8 million. And it is being forcefully opposed. I think for anyone who would be looking on the people's House today, that is a rather dramatic comparison. Let me repeat that again. The Hensarling amendment, facing the stark reality of $8 trillion in national debt, comes to the floor with an idea to ask the Federal Government to do without spending $8 million. The new majority, and I congratulate them again on securing the majority in the Congress, the American people spoke. But I do remember the new majority pledged no new deficit spending. I remember promises by this new majority in last year's campaign season that we would pay as we go in the Federal budget. If there was to be spending increases, they would be offset by cuts in other areas. Yet this legislation, the bill is $7 billion over the 2007 request, $10.2 billion over the President's request, and it follows seven other pieces of legislation all of which have increased spending. And some of which, Madam Chairman, I have supported, but not all. And it does seem to me as I walked here to this floor, I passed one sign after another in front of the offices of some of my most distinguished Democrat colleagues that bear the number $8 trillion writ large. If we are to be concerned about $8 trillion, will we not support an effort to cut $8 million? That's the choice here today and whether the gentleman from Illinois, who I deeply respect, considers that this $8 million to be an enormous benefit, might there not be States and local governments that could make up for that, with the recognition that we are creating a burden for future generations of Americans that we ought not to create? So I support the Hensarling amendment. It is the least we can do to take a step backwards. I want to associate myself with the distinguished chairman of this committee who rose earlier to say, and I'm quoting now, that he was tired of defending administrative accounts with amendments by people who were coming to ask for more spending in other areas. It is greatly to the credit of the gentleman from Texas that he is coming to this floor simply asking that we not spend this money. There's no other amendment or no other spending request that he's making in this regard, and it's what the American people ask us to do. In fact, I would close, Madam Chairman, simply by saying I think the American people are tired of the national debt. I think they're tired of the sea of red ink. I think they were tired of it when my party had control of the place, and as the gentlewoman knows, I was one of the strongest opponents of wasteful government spending when my own party was in charge. And so I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know the gentleman from Texas and myself and other colleagues, we come to this floor with sincerity of purpose and with consistency that we think government ought to live within its means and pay its bills, and we think we ought to balance budgets. And the Hensarling amendment simply asks that we might cut $8 million as a modest response to $8 trillion in national debt. And I challenge my colleagues, in the spirit of goodwill, let's make this statement, let's start in the direction of fiscal discipline and reform or, for heaven's sake, Madam Chairman, and I say with a smile, let's take the signs down from the hallways. Let's stop pretending that we worry about the national debt if we cannot come together as a Congress and as a nation and accept an $8 million cut to deal with an $8 trillion national debt.

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

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman and my good friend from Florida for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we are come to this floor today, it seems to me, in an important moment in the life of two nations. We are come to this floor at a time when our colleagues in the other body are debating a Defense authorization bill and will be considering amendments about a new course in Iraq. So I do not question the decision of the majority in this chamber to consider these same issues, particularly in light of the release of the initial benchmark assessment report by our military and diplomatic leadership in Iraq. It is a report, I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that is to me frustrating, as it is, I think, to Members on both sides of this aisle. Of 18 benchmarks included in the interim report to Congress, progress on eight of the benchmarks has been characterized as satisfactory, but progress on another eight are unsatisfactory, with it being too early to tell on another two. Two months from now, the Crocker-Petraeus report that Congress has been promised will provide, we believe, a broader assessment. But, frankly, I am struggling, as a strong supporter of our effort in Iraq, with the failure of this Iraqi Government to step forward with progress toward enacting legislation on de-Ba'athification reform, hydrocarbon resources reform, and the scheduling of and planning of provincial elections. Mr. Speaker, I want to be transparent about that frustration as much as I was when I met with Iraqi cabinet officials just a short 2 months ago. The Iraqi Government must do more. If there is any unintended benefit of this debate today, my hope is that some of this debate with that message would echo to those people. But that being said, I will oppose this measure, Mr. Speaker, because I truly believe that defeat and an American failure in Iraq is not an option that we can consider. With great respect to my colleagues who would endorse this proposal for a precipitous American withdrawal from Iraq by April 1 of next year, I truly believe that, before we make any decision adjusting our strategy on the ground, we ought to wait to hear from those Americans on the ground in Iraq who have been charged with implementing the strategy the President put into effect in January. I want to reiterate, and I think I speak for many Republicans, Mr. Speaker, as the President said in January, our commitment to this Iraqi Government is not open-ended. But my commitment to an American and Iraqi success is deep and heartfelt. Whether this Iraqi Government can rise to that challenge or not, as the gentleman from Indiana in the other body said, we must find a way to forge agreement to achieve success in Iraq. The good news of the assessment that has come before the Congress is that we have been achieving some progress as a result of the President's surge strategy on the ground. Between May and June, 26 high-level al Qaeda leaders have been killed or captured. I know there are some, even the gentleman who just spoke, who questioned whether we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. Our soldiers don't question that. Eleven of those al Qaeda leaders killed or captured were emirs, local al Qaeda leaders; seven were facilitators who smuggled foreign weapons; and five were cell leaders who commanded terrorist units. U.S. operations in the last 2 months, according to the reports released this week, have also uncovered an al Qaeda media network in a nondescript facility outside Samarra. U.S. forces also, I am happy to report, received 23,000 tips during this period of time, which is four to five times the number of tips we were receiving last year. But, again, that goes against the backdrop of disappointing news. While the American soldier performs with courage and effectiveness, the Iraqi government still fails to demonstrate the urgency. So as I struggle, I would just ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who share my concerns about the lack of progress in Iraq, as to this solution you bring to the floor, how will your plan for a unilateral withdrawal keep American soldiers safe? We have 160,000 soldiers there now. The majority of this Congress would call for them to exit Iraq by April 1. Well, in effect it would take 3,000 large convoys, according to some press reports, to evacuate the country down the one road out through Basra and into Kuwait. Also I would ask, how would this plan for unilateral withdrawal decrease the number of terrorist safe havens in that country? And since al Qaeda is clearly in Iraq, how would the plan for unilateral withdrawal succeed in fighting al Qaeda in Iraq? Lastly, I say as the ranking member of the Middle East Subcommittee, how will a withdrawal, a precipitous, reckless, irresponsible withdrawal, make the Middle East safer and more stable? I fear if we lose Iraq, we will lose Israel. We must come together as a Nation to find a way forward to succeed in Iraq.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, the American people love a fair fight, and so do I. In the debate over America's future, we especially want to hear all the facts and all the arguments on every side of the issue. Unfortunately, some in our Nation's Capitol want to achieve that result by bringing back what is known as the Fairness Doctrine, an archaic government regulation imposed by the Federal Communication Commission that for decades required broadcasters to present controversial issues in a fair and balanced manner. Now, it sounds acceptable enough. But there is really nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine, Mr. Speaker. This is a relic of America's broadcasting past, and it should stay in the past where it belongs. Fortunately, 2 weeks ago, 309 Republicans and Democrats in the Congress voted in favor of the Pence amendment to prevent the FCC for 1 year from reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine. While I was pleased with the bipartisan passage of this legislation, today we will open a second front to ensure that the Fairness Doctrine can never come back again. In cooperation with colleagues in the House and the Senate today, we will unveil the Broadcaster Freedom Act, which will ensure that the FCC and any future administration cannot re- regulate the airwaves of America without an act of Congress. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, join me in cosponsoring the Broadcaster Freedom Act and preserve the free airwaves of America.