Mike Pence

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for her support of this amendment. Let me also say to the gentlewoman that I intend to support the underlying legislation and appreciate her strong work in support of Israel. The reason for bringing this bill, to answer the gentlelady's question, Mr. Chairman, is very simple. In recent days, the State Department has indicated its intent to ``lift restrictions on aid to Palestinians.'' And the Pence amendment today will simply say that any aid that would go to the Palestinian Authority must, with an exclamation point, only go to the Palestinian Authority under current restrictions in current law. That is my sincere intent.

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

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding and for her extraordinary leadership on that area of the world about which I have some responsibilities as the ranking Republican on the Middle East Subcommittee. And like the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), I too wish to congratulate the principal author of H. Con. Res. 21. There is no greater or more eloquent advocate for that precious relationship between the free peoples of the United States of America and Israel than Congressman Steve Rothman of New Jersey. And I commend the gentleman for his leadership on this measure and would echo the gentlelady's remarks about the force and eloquence of his presentation. And I will not seek to emulate that today, nor compete with it. But I will take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to reflect on the importance of this resolution and the facts and the wisdom underpinning the need for Congress to be heard on the issue of calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the U.N. charter because of his calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. The United Nations, in a very real sense, was formed when history failed. History and the international institutions on the planet failed to prevent barbaric action by fascist Nazi and Axis powers against the free world. And in every sense, genocide, the genocide that we saw perpetrated by the Germans against indigenous Jewish people and other ethnic populations, the genocide perpetrated by certain Japanese forces on mainland China, was part and parcel of the reason for the formation of the United Nations. And therefore the United Nations charter and the aforementioned Treaty on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide are all tied up one with another. And so for this Congress, as the legislature of that nation which sits on the Security Council, to call on the United Nations to live up to its historic commitment to prevent and confront genocide is, as we say in Indiana, not a stretch. This is at the very essence of what the United Nations was created to do, and the need for action by the United Nations Security Council when one considers the facts in this case truly speak for themselves. And let me lay those facts out. The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, commonly known as the Genocide Convention, defines genocide as, among other things, ``the act of killing members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group with the intent to destroy in whole or in part the targeted group.'' Now, let's see if some of the statements by the leadership of the nation of Iran against the people of Israel qualify as calling upon the act of killing members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group with the intent to destroy in whole or in part that group. Also, the Genocide Convention bans the conspiracy or incitement to commit genocide and states that violators shall be punished ``whether constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.'' 133 member states of the U.N. have ratified the Genocide Convention, including Iran. Article II, section 4 of the U.N. charter, also to which Iran has agreed, requires all member states of the United Nations ``to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.'' Now, let's get to the facts because that's what the U.N. requires, that's what the treaty requires, that's what the Genocide Convention requires, that's what the U.N. charter requires. Well, let's start with October 26, 2005. Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be ``wiped off the map,'' and described Israel as a ``disgraceful blot on the face of the Islamic world,'' and declared that ``anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury.'' 12 December 2006, that same leader, Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, addressed a Holocaust Denial Conference in Tehran and said that Israel would ``soon be wiped out.'' 15 December 2000, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamene'i stated that ``Iran's stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon'' referring to Israel as the ugly phenomenon. He went on to say, ``We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region.'' Iran, as we know, has aggressively pursued a clandestine effort to arm itself with nuclear weapons. Iran funds, trains and supports terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah, which have murdered Americans, Israelis and non-Israeli Jews, and seeks to destroy Israel. 14 December 2001, the President of Iran's Expediency Council and former leader of Iran, Ali Rafsanjani, threatened Israel with nuclear destruction saying, and I quote, ``if one day the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel now possesses, then the imperialist strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything, while it will merely harm the Islamic world.'' Men and women, these are comments made by the leaders of a sovereign nation that is in a headlong pursuit to obtain nuclear weapons, and has, by international consensus, already obtained missile technology that could deliver such weapons within the theater of the Middle East. History teaches no truth more clearly than this: nations should take tyrants at their word. For the United States of America to fail to call on the institution of the United Nations to take the tyrants in Iran at their word would be a grievous historical error and one for which future generations of Americans like those injured soldiers that I toured through the Capitol earlier this afternoon will likely have to pay. This resolution, authored by Mr. Rothman from New Jersey and Mr. Kirk from Illinois, strongly condemns Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's offensive remarks, contemptible statements, and reprehensible policies directed at the destruction of Israel; calls on the United Nation's Security Council to take up charges against Ahmadinejad for violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and article II, section 4 of the United Nations charter. It also calls on the Security Council and all member states of the United Nations to consider stronger measures to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, which would both be in violation of nuclear non-proliferation treaties and give them the potential to eliminate Israel. And it reaffirms, of course, the unwavering strategic partnership and close friendship between the United States and Israel, and reasserts the steadfast commitment of the United States to defend the right of Israel to exist as a free and democratic and Jewish state. The time for this resolution has come. I commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman) for his bold leadership, and I pledge my strong support and urge all of my colleagues to make this strong and deafening statement that this Congress and this Nation will take tyrants at their word, and we will call on the United Nations today to live up to their charter.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Indiana's native sons who served his country honorably in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I was deeply saddened to learn that Staff Sergeant Michael Bechert of New Castle had succumbed to wounds he suffered in Baghdad last month when his vehicle was hit by an improvised explosive device. Staff Sergeant Bechert served in the 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Division, 1st Infantry Division since 2001. He received numerous meritorious citations during 2 enlistments and 6 years in the Army, all stationed in Germany where he lived with his wife and young son. He was serving his second tour in Iraq. The infantry is the oldest of the combat arms. From the dawn of time, wars have been predominantly fought by men on foot. Staff Sergeant Bechert continued that proud tradition as an expert soldier who had mastered the skills of an infantryman and served bravely in combat. Staff Sergeant Bechert was the recipient of the Expert Infantryman Badge and Combat Infantryman Badge, highly regarded decorations in the U.S. Army that certify his elite skills and service to his country in combat. His other medals include an Army Commendation Medal for heroism and a Purple Heart for a previous injury. He will be awarded posthumously with a Bronze Star and a second Purple Heart because he died in the line of duty. We all owe a debt that can never be repaid to Staff Sergeant Bechert's family and friends for the tragic loss of husband, father, son, friend, citizen, soldier and hero. Madam Speaker, I wish to express my profound sadness to the community at the loss of this talented young Hoosier who made the ultimate sacrifice to preserve and protect these United States. Let us remember Staff Sergeant Bechert, his family and friends in our thoughts and prayers.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Reclaiming my time, and before I withdraw my objection, let me say I appreciate that clarification from the minority leader and from the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I assume good faith by both the distinguished gentlemen, and I will say I certainly reserve the right to object to future unanimous-consent agreements, but I look forward to supporting the unanimous-consent agreement today. And I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, I want to commend the minority leader and the majority leader and the chairman of the committee for an arduous task of coming together across what is an increasingly very wide gulf between the two sides of this aisle and appreciate the difficulty of doing that? If I may, Madam Speaker, ask the majority leader a question just for clarification purposes and colloquy. Mr. Leader, on the point of order protection, I was directly involved with a handful of our own when we worked through our side changing the rules in the spring of 2005 for that point of order protection. It is, in effect, a stopgap at the point of consideration of the conference report. An essential element of that is that the point of order is debatable, and I wanted to get your assurance that as we move toward adopting that rule change that that point of order would be debatable. I believe it was for at least 10 minutes per side. Without the opportunity to debate, there was no capacity for Members or the public to know what projects are objectionable, and that might prevent going forward in consideration. And I would welcome and yield time for your response.

Mr. PENCE. I thank the distinguished majority leader for that very direct and clear reply. The minority leader nodded his assent. There's very little value in point of order protection if Members do not have the ability to point to those aspects of the legislation that are objectionable. But I will also, and I'm prepared to yield time to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee for a question, I would also say that point of order protection obviously calls for a vote on whether to proceed with consideration for the entire conference report. It would not, and Members should be alerted, it would not be a specific vote on a specific objectionable project; and, therefore, the likelihood that a point of order would be successful, given the fact that appropriations bills generally have many fathers and mothers in this institution, is fairly remote. So I would say to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee that it certainly is not a substitute for the opportunity in the regular process here on the floor to challenge specific elements of bills, whether they be earmarks or other policy-related additions and programs. And so it's to that point and to this longer-term understanding that I wanted to ask the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for some further clarification. And, again, I want to reiterate my respect for the chairman, for the leader and my special respect and gratitude for the minority leader for their efforts in this regard. But with regard to your expectation, I think you just used the phrase that the amount of time that would be subject to a negotiation for a unanimous consent on each bill going forward would be a good-faith negotiation, and it would be based on, in your words roughly, the same amount of time that had been attributable to those specific appropriations bills in the past. I think the chairman made reference to 108 hours earlier in the last session of the last year of the Congress. I would note that we did not consider, to my recollection, a Labor-HHS bill during that period of time. I just wanted to give the chairman a respectful opportunity to express what your expectation of that may be because for many of us the opportunity to come to the floor and challenge individual provisions of bills and also make amendments for additions to bills is critical, and I would yield.

Mr. PENCE. Reclaiming my time, I would yield to the minority leader for a response on this, if he would like.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Reclaiming my time, the distinguished gentleman should know that I have supported earmark reform, not banning earmarks, but we can't have earmarks that deny the legislative process here on the floor. Where are the reformers?

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, but I come to the floor today having responded to the gentlelady from Florida, a distinguished colleague in the Democrat majority, who asked I think a very poignant question on the floor within the last hour, and that was: Where are the reformers? I must admit, Mr. Chairman, I didn't get the whole gist and the whole context of her question, but it seemed to me that could be a headline. That could be the lead of an editorial. It really represents the question in which much of the exercise in which we are now involved could be summarized. The chairman of this committee I think has earned throughout his career the label of reformer. I give Chairman Obey that with great respect, not just as a colleague but as a man who has earned that reputation. But today, as someone who over the last 6 years in this Congress has engaged in fights almost exclusively with my own colleagues on the Republican side, to achieve the beginnings of earmark reform, I ask: Where are the reformers? And let me specifically say to my Democrat colleagues who share my passion for transparency and accountability, I ask the question: Where are the reformers? In the last 3 years, and there are colleagues in this room whom I consider not just friends but good friends with whom I have clashed. The ranking member of this subcommittee, we have been on this floor together, Republican on Republican, using, in some cases, the same tactics that we are using today, but we were not training them on the majority. We were training them on our own. We were training these tactics on our own Republican colleagues. That is how passionately we felt for the need for point of order protection in conference reports and for fundamental earmark reform. It would be Members of the Republican Study Committee that virtually singularly took on, not Democrats in the minority, we took on Republicans in the majority. And it was painful among our friends to do it, but we withheld our support for the majority budget. We negotiated fairly but firmly with our own colleagues and friends to achieve the beginnings of earmark reform, requiring that people add their names to earmarks, requiring that earmarks be included in legislation, that they be subject to challenge on the floor of this Congress. These were modest gains, and clearly, the result of election day on November 2006, they were too little, too late. Our clock ran out on this side of the aisle. But we were fighting on this side amongst ourselves and making halting progress toward earmark reform. That is why, as I watched this debate and as I participate in it, I will be here, as we say in Indiana, until the cows come home. I ask with a sincere heart: Where are the reformers in the majority? Where are the reformers who will come down into this well, and I see some up there that wear that label and deserve it, but on this issue, where are the reformers who are willing to come into this well and say, how about ``no''? How about we don't bring appropriation bills to the floor without all of the spending items in the bill, including Member projects and earmarks, so they can be subject to the accountability and the scrubbing of the legislative process? I know it is inconvenient. I do not question for one second the sincerity of the chairman of this committee, that he is trying and laboring to find a way forward to achieve his goals. But at the end of the day, we cannot set aside the accountability of the legislative process. I ask again: Where are the reformers?

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

Mr. PENCE

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

Mr. PENCE. I rise in strong support of the Lamborn amendment, Mr. Chairman, for many of the reasons that have been expressed more eloquently by my colleagues, including the gentleman from Arizona. It does strike me that at a time of an $8.8 trillion national debt, that we should be able to ask the Department of Homeland Security to get by on last year's public affairs budget, which is really all the Lamborn amendment does, by my way of thinking, is it asks the Department of Homeland Security to stay at the $6 million level for a public affairs budget as opposed to moving to a $6.3 million. As my friend from Arizona just expressed, this legislation overall will allow for a 13.6 percent increase in a single year. And as other amendments have illuminated, much of those increases are simply going for the same kind of bureaucracy that we will argue over in every other aspect of government. But I go back to my previous point, Mr. Chairman. I thought for sure when we created the Department of Homeland Security that it would be different. And I have to say, that is probably a naive thought. We excluded it from many of the public employee protections. We gave the President of the United States greater flexibility because we said, you know, very much like the military, the Department of Homeland Security will have a special and unique mission. It would not just be another Cabinet agency that we would be feeding from the trough here on Capitol Hill in the appropriations process every year. But here we are. Here we are with a Democrat majority that is opposed to even our willingness, with the outstanding leadership of the ranking member, to let this Department get by a 7 percent increase next year as opposed to 13.6. I also would renew my objection expressed in much of the procedure that is happening on the floor today and well into tonight, and perhaps well into the rest of the week; that is, it is astonishing to me that a Democratic Congress is against democracy when it comes to providing for accountability in the spending process in the United States Congress. I mean, to simply say that there are tens of thousands of specific so- called earmark projects that have been requested of the committee that are in some filing cabinet here in the Capitol Building, but that were not able to be added to this bill in a timely fashion so that the democratic process and the accountability of this open rule could serve as that antiseptic that it is supposed to function is quite beyond me. It is quite beyond me that the Democrat majority would think that the American people would be willing, having clamored loudly in the last election for fundamental reform in the way we spend the people's money, fundamental earmark reform, with the infamous ``bridge to nowhere,'' would now allow and stand idly by while the Democrat majority brings about earmark reform that says we will only bring earmarks when they can no longer be removed from bills. We will presumably make them public during the month of August so people can look at them, but we will give Members of Congress absolutely no power to challenge those earmarks in the legislative process. That seems to me to be a breathtaking step backwards from the earmark reform that the American people demanded in 2006. And so I renew my support for the Lamborn amendment, Mr. Chairman, but I also renew my objection to the fact that we are seeing appropriations bills, starting today, coming to the floor with, shall we say, room to grow, room to add earmarks at a time in the legislative process when they cannot be challenged, and therefore, the interests of the American people and the accountability they demand cannot be served in the ordinary legislative process.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the King amendment, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to call for this apparently Draconian cut in the Office of the Chief of Staff of the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today in the context of having, like you, served in the Congress before September 11 and before there was a Department of Homeland Security. And I'll never forget in the hurried moments that would follow 9/11 how we dealt with the immediate issues, funding, reconstruction and recovery efforts in New York and at the Pentagon, how we put together to the best of our ability transportation security for our country. But I will never forget coming to this floor and feeling a great and ominous sense of foreboding as we created a Department of Homeland Security. I couldn't help but feel then that we might be unleashing, however well-intended, on the American taxpayers a behemoth of a new bureaucracy that we would someday find ourselves arguing over on this floor in the way we argue over every other bureaucracy. But it was not meant to be the case. To be candid with you, Mr. Chairman, I thought this day might come decades from now, when the bureaucratic instinct would overtake even the wisdom and the clarity that would be derived on September 11, that made us focus a new department on the specific purpose of protecting our people from a real and present threat of terrorism. And yet as I look at the watch, it is less than half a decade from that horrific day, and here we are with the party in the majority opposed to keeping bureaucratic and administrative staff funding levels at their previous year. It's really extraordinary to me; $8.8 trillion of national debt, and the majority comes to the floor of this Chamber with a 13.6 percent increase in the Department of Homeland Security. The current budget, $31.9 billion, the proposed budget, $36.2 billion, more than 50 percent larger, or is $2 billion larger than the President's request. It's astonishing to me. I just have to wonder, as the American people look in on this issue, if they aren't just scratching their heads just the same. But here we are, having these typical and predictable arguments on the floor of the Congress about bureaucracy and levels of bureaucracy when we are talking about homeland security. We are also doing it very much without, as most of my colleagues have said, without the daylight and the sunshine and the accountability of knowing what will ultimately be in this legislation. I mean, it is extraordinary to me that a Democrat Congress seems so opposed to practicing democracy on the floor of the House of Representatives. To bring a bill to the floor of this Congress with the promise that Member projects, so-called ``earmark projects,'' will be added long after we have had the opportunity to challenge them. The Democratic process on this floor is breathtaking to me. Again, it bespeaks of the embrace of a bureaucratic, big-government attitude even where our own homeland security is involved. We ought, rather, in this process, to know what Members have requested what projects, and we ought to be having a thoughtful and focused discussion on this floor and calling votes one after another on those individual projects to decide what will keep our cities and our people and our families and our children safe. We ought to be having that discussion in the context of a full and open debate. But, instead, we are told that we don't have time to do that. We are told the public will be made aware of these projects some day in the future. That's not democracy, that's not the process.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, today the President of the United States will come to the Capitol Building to revive a deeply flawed immigration bill being considered in the U.S. Senate. One year ago, the President challenged this Congress to find an answer to the crisis of illegal immigration, and, Mr. President, amnesty is not the answer. The core fallacy of the Senate bill would grant unlimited Z visa amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants who simply pay a fine and submit to a background check. While the Senate bill is not the answer, there is a way forward, Mr. Speaker. I truly believe that after the Senate bill goes away, the House of Representatives would do well to come together across party lines and find a way forward that puts border security first, rejects amnesty and creates a new guest worker system that requires illegal immigrants to leave the country to apply and to learn English once they're here. There is a way forward. We can achieve immigration reform in this Congress, but the Senate bill is not that way.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his strong and clarion remarks on this rule. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and rise to oppose the underlying bill as well. I must tell you, as I listened to the gentlelady from Ohio bring her remarks to the floor, I want to say, there they go again. There they go again, telling the American people that this is a debate between science and ideology when, in fact, destructive embryonic stem cell research, despite my strong moral objections, is completely legal in the United States of America. The debate today is not about whether embryonic stem cell research, research that destroys a human embryo for scientific research, should take place. This is just about who pays for it. I can understand why Members of the majority want to focus on this false choice between science and ideology. The language like America becoming a hostile environment for medical research is amusing me, because destructive embryonic stem cell research, and I say this with a heavy heart, is legal in all 50 States in America. It is simply that liberals in this country are not content to simply have research that destroys human embryos for unproven human science, but they want me to pay for it. They want tens of millions of Americans who, like I do, believe that life begins at conception to see their taxpayer dollars used to fund research that they find morally objectionable. That's really the issue. The debate is not about whether we should do embryonic stem cell research, would that it was, would that we were here on the floor actually debating along the fault lines of science and morality. I am ready for that debate. Forty-eight years and nine months ago today, I was an embryo. I am ready to have the debate about the sanctity and the value of human life. But we are not having that debate today. America since Roe v. Wade has moved past the issue that was framed so eloquently by the late President Ronald Reagan. He said, we cannot diminish the value of one category of one human life without diminishing the value of all human life. But our Supreme Court made a decision decades ago that we would put choice above life. But I will stay in that moral debate. But, again, it's not what we're about today. And any one of my colleagues here on the floor and anyone listening in, let's at least be honest about what we're talking about. And that is, this debate is not about whether we should do embryonic stem cell research. And I know we've heard from wonderful scientists on our side of the aisle who've reminded us, inconvenient for the majority, that 100 percent of the scientific breakthroughs that have taken place in stem cell research have taken place in adult stem cell research. There's not been a single therapy developed from embryonic stem cell research, and there are scientific reasons why we can expect that there never will be, given the instability of nascent human life at that stage. But I'm not an expert in that area. You know, I'm a guy; I come from south of Highway 40 in Indiana. I keep things real simple. This is just a debate about who pays for research that destroys human embryos. And I simply want to say again, this debate is not really about what an embryo is. This debate is about who we are as a Nation; whether or not Congress will, as they did before, send legislation to the President of the United States that will take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use it to fund research that they find morally objectionable. But I can count, Mr. Speaker. I expect this legislation will pass again. But I thank God that we have a President in the White House who will, I have every confidence, veto this legislation just as he did before, and that we have a tenacious pro-life minority in this House that will defend the President's veto. Let me say, again, I believe that life begins at conception. And I believe it's morally wrong to create human life to destroy it for scientific research. But that is not what this debate is about. This debate is not about whether we should do embryonic stem cell research; it's about who pays for it. And liberals in this Congress are not content simply to have embryonic stem cell research legal in all 50 States. They want pro-life Americans like me to get our wallets out and finance it, and I'm not having that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, today Congress is once again poised to pass legislation that authorizes the use of Federal tax dollars to fund the destruction of human embryos for scientific research, and I oppose it. I believe that life begins at conception. A human embryo is a human life, and therefore I do think it is morally wrong to create human life to destroy it for research. But while supporters of this bill will argue this debate is a battle between science and ideology, that really misses the point. The debate today is not about whether we should do embryonic stem cell research. It is legal in all 50 States of this country. The debate today is about who pays for it. It is simply morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans who believe that life is sacred and use it to fund the destruction of human embryos for research. The debate today is not really about what an embryo is. The debate is about who we are as a Nation and whether we will respect the deeply held moral views of more than half of our citizenry. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. Having been here before, I expect its passage. On behalf of millions of pro-life Americans, I say, Mr. President, veto this bill again.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Yes, I am in its current form.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion to recommit with instructions. Part of my responsibilities here in the Congress are that I serve as the ranking Republican member on the Middle East Subcommittee on the Committee on Foreign Affairs. As such, I have been intimately involved in the development of the underlying legislation and am strongly supportive of it. But I think it is also imperative that we adopt this motion to recommit and add language that addresses an issue of great concern to the United States of America, to Afghanistan, and to the free world. Mr. Speaker, we are receiving numerous reports that Iranian-made arms are being shipped to Afghanistan and transferred to the Taliban and other radical Islamic forces that seek to kill U.S. troops and Afghan forces. This past April, General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed that, ``We have intercepted weapons in Afghanistan headed for the Taliban that were made in Iran.'' This past Monday, on a visit to Kabul, Defense Secretary Robert Gates noted that the weapons are flowing not only to the Taliban but to drug traffickers as well. ``There have been indications over the past few months of weapons coming in from Iran. Some weapons,'' he said, ``are coming into Afghanistan destined for the Taliban, but perhaps also for criminal elements involved in the drug trafficking coming from Iran.'' The arms transferred reportedly include mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, C-4 explosives, surface-to-air missiles reportedly supplied by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and rockets with a 30-mile range. Most disturbingly, an explosively formed projectile, an EFP, similar in characteristics to the Iranian-made ones that have killed our soldiers in Iraq, were recently discovered in Kabul. Given Iran's unceasingly hostile rhetoric and actions in opposition to the United States, our interests and our allies, and given that these weapons were made in Iran, it is very reasonable to draw the conclusion that the Iranian regime transferred these arms to the Taliban. We cannot allow Iran to undermine U.S. efforts and kill our soldiers in Afghanistan or to return that country to the status of a failed State and pave the way for increased terrorism against the West. What we must do, simply, is to confront and respond to any efforts to subvert our efforts and kill our troops in Afghanistan. As General Pace noted, ``I think we should continue to be aggressive inside of Iraq, and aggressive inside of Afghanistan, in attacking any element that's attacking U.S. and coalition forces, regardless of where they come from.'' If we are to be vigilant in protecting the lives of our soldiers and our allies' soldiers and security forces, we cannot tie the hands of our President and our commanders in the field. They need to have every option at their disposal and opportunity to combat an insidious threat from Iran that appears to be supplying weapons to our enemies. Accordingly, we offer this motion to recommit which explicitly states that the Afghanistan Freedom and Security Support Act does not limit America's ability to respond to attacks that Iran supports or facilitates against our forces or interests in Afghanistan. As the United States begins to engage Iran diplomatically, we must also make it clear that we will defend our allies and our interests in Afghanistan with all the means at our disposal. Mr. Speaker, our relationship with Iran should be described as follows: one hand extended in diplomatic negotiation and another hand resting lightly on the holster of the arsenal of democracy. Mr. Speaker, in support of our troops, in support of freedom and stability in Afghanistan, I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to strongly support this motion to recommit.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, last year, the President of the United States called on Congress to find a rational middle ground between amnesty and mass deportation in the debate over immigration reform. Then, as now, the Senate is moving legislation that would respond to the President's call by simply granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. But amnesty is not the middle ground. The true middle ground of this national debate would put border security first; reject amnesty and require that all illegal immigrants leave the country and apply outside the United States for the legal right to live and work here; create a new center built on the private sector that could make that an orderly process; temporary workers returning to America would learn English; and employers hiring illegals would face serious penalties. That is the true rational middle ground, and after the Senate is done with its work, I hope it is the middle ground that we find in this Chamber on behalf of the American people.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control the time of the gentleman from Texas.

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