Mike Pence

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about an issue that is not so much on our agenda in these first 100 hours, but I believe it will encompass much of our focus during the course of the 110th Congress. It has to do with the how and why that we will achieve fundamental entitlement reform. President Bush and many leaders in the new majority in the House and Senate have spoken of the priority of reforming Social Security and dealing with the extraordinary unfunded obligations of our mandates in future years. The President, to his credit, 2 years ago raised the prospect of fundamental Social Security reform. But the American people rejected the President's call. And I rise today to speak about what I believe the parameters of that debate should be from the perspective of a conservative in the minority who believes in the principles of limited government. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the American people did not reject the Social Security reform or the personal retirement accounts that the President advanced. I think they rejected the entire debate and how it unfolded. I think they rejected the notion that the predominant goal of Social Security reform was to make the numbers add up or, in the language of the wonks, to achieve solvency in Social Security. Such a yardstick expresses no opinion on how to fix an increasingly bankrupt system, and I believe that as a result it invariably blesses benefit cuts or tax increases as a result. And while President Bush has spoken to his opposition to tax increases, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has repeatedly said, in conversations with Members of the House and Senate, that ``everything is on the table,'' raising the specter of the possibility of raising taxes to achieve Social Security reform. And even the President's own Press Secretary, when asked directly whether the White House was ruling out a tax increase to achieve Social Security reform with this newly minted Democrat majority in Congress, the Press Secretary said, ``No, I'm not.'' I believe, Mr. Speaker, this is all code for a willingness within the Bush administration to consider raising taxes in exchange for achieving Social Security reform. Such a tax increase would likely come from lifting or eliminating the cap on the amount of salary and wages subject to the payroll tax. The current income that is subject to the payroll tax is $94,200. But raising payroll taxes, I would offer, would prove devastating to working Americans, small businesses and the economy as a whole and, worse, if we eliminated the cap on income subject to payroll taxes for Social Security, would only add a brief 7 years to Social Security's financial solvency. According to the Heritage Foundation, eliminating the cap will increase taxes by $484 billion over the first 5 years. This 12.4 percentage point marginal tax rate increase would hit middle income families struggling to make ends meet, pay for college and save for retirement, and much of the increase would be borne by the 3 million small business owners who pay both the employer and employee portion of the tax hike. These entrepreneurs are the driving force of our economy, Mr. Speaker. And as a result, a tax increase of this nature would result in a 2 to 3 percent reduction in economic growth, causing massive layoffs across the country. And, again, eliminating the cap on income subjected to Social Security payroll tax would only extend the life of Social Security for 7 years. Now, there are many, even on my side of the aisle, that are flirting with the notion of raising taxes. But, Mr. Speaker, we have been down this road before. It was 1990, when I was a candidate for Congress, when another President Bush teamed up with a Democrat majority in Congress and headed to Andrews Air Force Base all in the name of entitlement reform and deficit reduction, brought the American people the promise of reform in the future, and the largest tax increase in American history. We must not go down the road of compromise again. I think the administration needs to be clear that any Social Security compromise must reject tax increases of any kind. That means no increase in the payroll tax rate and no change in the cap apart from the current indexing that happens under the law. I would say, respectfully, to my colleagues and to the President of the United States, we should say to our good friends in the new majority, ``Read our lips. No new taxes.'' It is imperative that we bring reforms like personal savings accounts to this new deal program. I think it is imperative that we make the new deal a better deal for younger Americans, but raising taxes on small business owners and family farmers in the manner of lifting the cap or raising the rate is an idea whose time should never come.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Last week, President George W. Bush outlined a new strategy and new tactics in our war in Iraq; he called it, ``The Way Forward.'' Sadly, many in Congress and many around the country want to go backwards; to redeploy, to undo our military commitment to freedom in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I understand this temptation, even though I disagree with it. It is always tempting to go backwards, always tempting to want to go back before loss and hardship and war. The Old Book tells us otherwise, reading, ``Forgetting what is behind, I press on.'' Winston Churchill gave us this counsel: ``One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it; if you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.'' So said Winston Churchill. I support our Commander in Chief. I support our new way forward. We must come together as a Nation. We must decide as a Nation not to see freedom fail in Iraq.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in respectful opposition to H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, a bill, Mr. Speaker, that authorizes the use of Federal tax dollars to fund the destruction of human embryos for scientific research. The late President Ronald Reagan wrote, ``We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life, the unborn, without diminishing the value of all human life.'' The supporters argue that this debate today is between science and ideology or dogma; that destroying human embryos for research is necessary to cure a whole host of maladies, from spinal cord injuries to Parkinson's. But the facts suggest otherwise, and physicians on our side have and will continue to make the case for the ethical alternative of adult stem cell research and new breakthroughs, past and present. But, Mr. Speaker, the debate over the legitimacy or potential of embryonic stem cells, I believe, is actually not the point of our debate today. We are here simply to decide whether Congress should take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them to fund the destruction of human embryos for research. This debate is not really about whether embryonic stem cell research should be legal. Sadly, embryonic stem cell research is completely legal in this country and has been going on at universities and research facilities for years. But proponents of this legislation apparently don't want to just be able to do embryonic stem cell research, they want me to pay for it. And like more than 40 percent of Americans, I have a problem with that. You see, I believe that life begins at conception and that a human embryo is human life. And I believe it is morally wrong to create human life to destroy it for research. But I believe it is also morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of Americans who believe that life begins at conception and use it to fund research that they find morally offensive. This debate then, Mr. Speaker, is not about what an embryo is. This debate is about who we are as a nation. Not will we respect the sanctity of human life, but will we respect the deeply held moral beliefs of nearly half of the people of this Nation who find the destruction of human embryos for research to be morally wrong. Despite what may be uttered in this debate today, I say again, this debate is not about whether we should allow research that involves the destruction of human embryos. This debate is about who pays for it. Last year here in Congress, I was surrounded by dozens of snowflake babies, Mr. Speaker, children born from frozen embryos. I couldn't help but think of that ancient verse: I have set before you life and blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live. It is my fervent hope, Mr. Speaker, and my prayer, as we stand at the crossroads of science and the sanctity of life, that we will choose life.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in respectful opposition to H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. And I do so understanding that what I do may well be misunderstood by some of my constituents at home and even by some looking on in this debate. But let me say emphatically that a 41 percent increase in the minimum wage that is brought to the well of Congress without providing any relief to small business owners and family farmers is irresponsible and unwise, and it will harm both the wage payer and the wage earner. An excessive increase in the minimum wage will hurt the working poor, Mr. Speaker, and especially those who are trying to begin the American Dream by entering the workforce at entry level jobs. Minimum wage increases, the unbroken record of our economic history attests, raise unemployment among the young, minorities and part-time workers, the very people that a minimum wage is thought to help. And sadly, for reasons I don't entirely understand, for every increase in the Federal minimum wage, African Americans have been hit the hardest with the advent of jobs that are lost with an increase in the minimum wage. It would be the late economist Milton Friedman, a Nobel laureate, who said, ``The high rate of unemployment among teenagers, and especially black teenagers, is both a scandal and a serious source of social unrest.'' And then he went on to say, ``It is largely a result of minimum wage laws.'' I believe the minimum wage and this increase is one of the most anti- minority, anti-poor laws that we could bring into this Congress. It violates fundamental free market economics, and it will cost jobs. The Heritage Foundation recently reported that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage there is a loss of 2 percent of entry level minimum wage jobs. This means, for what we consider today, we literally could see evaporate overnight 8 percent of the entry level jobs in this country. I recently received an e-mail from a small sub sandwich restaurant owner in Anderson, Indiana, who told me of his frustration about what Congress would consider today, Mr. Speaker; and he begged me to ask for balance and justice for the wage payer as well as the wage earner. He said he had 200 applications on file, but he knew that if Congress passed this irresponsible 41 percent increase in the minimum wage, not only would he not be able to extend opportunity to some, he would have to cancel jobs for others. Let us serve the wage earner and the wage payer. Let us reject this irresponsible increase in the minimum wage.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the element of the rules package that we will consider today, but I do so conflicted; conflicted, because as a long-time advocate of earmark reform and fiscal discipline, I am in large measure encouraged by the efforts of my colleagues in the new Democratic majority to step forward in good faith and open the process whereby we spend the people's money to greater transparency, particularly in the area of earmarks. I say from the heart that I appreciate the substantive reforms and transparency and accountability that my Democratic colleagues will bring forward today on earmark reform. That being said, I will oppose this element of the rules package having to do with the pay-as-you-go provisions, which, while they sound in a common sense way attractive, this particular version I believe is lacking for three reasons: Number one, I believe it is a weak and watered down version of PAYGO proposals of the past, including Democrat party PAYGO proposals of the past. Number two, it doesn't reduce current spending levels or require a reduction of current spending levels. Number three, it is, as so many of my colleagues have said, a means of justifying tax increases on working families, small businesses and family farms. In a very real sense, the American people ought to know that this proposal translates to you-pay-as-Congress-goes on spending. In the category of a watered down provision, other PAYGO versions were enforced by across-the-board spending cuts. That is what created the incentive to control spending. But the Democrats PAYGO proposal is only enforced by a point of order, which can be waived fairly easily, as we all know. Secondly, it only applies to new spending. Mr. Speaker, I say with some pain, having been a part of the former majority, but we currently don't pay for what goes out the door now. The 2007 budget right now is projected at $286 billion in deficit. This does nothing to require us to address our current deficits. Lastly, as others have argued, I truly believe that by assuming that the 2001 and 2003 tax relief will automatically expire, this Democrat PAYGO provision will cause a substantial tax increase for working families, small businesses and family farms. The American people just simply need to know, however well- intentioned, and I assume good intentions by my colleagues in the newly-minted majority, however well intentioned, I believe this PAYGO provision comes up short. It is, in a very real sense, the American people pay, as Congress goes on spending

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. On behalf of an extraordinary career, but what we know will be an extraordinary future, I am pleased to announce Henry Hyde's recent marriage on the day after Thanksgiving. We wish you all the best, our friend, for many, many years.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on International Relations be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 1095) commemorating the one-year anniversary of the November 9, 2005, terrorist attacks in Amman, Jordan, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I think the sentiment that we heard the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee just express, as well as the incoming Speaker of the House express, is deeply admirable. We are speaking about 600 men and women who have demonstrated their integrity and their commitment to public service in this Nation, and for that we are grateful. But, Mr. Speaker, I say very humbly that this is still not the right way to reflect the will of the American people with regard to those capable men and women who have served our major committees and our leadership staff. I am pleased to hear the incoming Speaker's sentiment for Republican staff, and I am confident that sentiment will be there in the early days of the 110th Congress. And well we should call it a night, Mr. Speaker, come back, and allow the people's House in an equitable and a thoughtful way to consider what the needs are of this Nation relative to all of the good men and women who have served this majority so ably, not merely in the leadership offices, not merely in the major committees, but even those excellent men and women who have served many of the colleagues for whom these waning moments will be their last moments in the House of Representatives. Let us do this right. Let us not do this tonight.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were refused. So (two-thirds of those voting having responded in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Ernest Istook began his career in Congress in November of 1992, serving as a distinguished Member of the House Appropriations Committee where he served as the chairman of the Transportation and Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee. Before arriving in Congress, he served as a city councilman in Oklahoma City, and during that time also sat on the board of many local interests. He also served in the State legislature there in the Sooner State, beginning in 1986. Ernest Istook leaves us after 14 years of service in the United States House of Representatives, and he takes with him not only an optimistic, cheerful conservatism that was the source of mentoring to me and other conservatives in the Republican Study Committee for many years, but he really takes his greatest asset, which is his wife Judy, who, while she did not become the first lady of Oklahoma this year, she was I think the first lady of the Republican Study Committee for many years and will always be so in our hearts. I recognize the gentleman from the Fifth Congressional District, Ernest Istook, for such time as he may consume, with the deepest gratitude and admiration of his junior colleagues in the Republican Study Committee, an organization, I might add, Mr. Speaker, that Congressman Ernest Istook founded during his 14-year tenure in the United States House of Representatives, the largest caucus in the Congress of the United States today. I yield such time as he may consume.

Mr. PENCE. I would like to yield the balance of that to the new chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Mr. Hensarling of Texas.

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. Mr. Speaker, before we bring a Member of Congress who is the appropriate clean-up batter tonight in this Special Order celebrating the life and career of members of the Republican Study Committee, I cannot help but feel that we have loaded the bases and the Babe is about to come to bat. At the risk of having to interrupt him, which I have not done in my 6 years in Congress and would not have the courage to do tonight, allow me to do a little housekeeping before that and mention the names of Bob Beauprez of Colorado's Seventh Congressional District, a dairy farmer, community banker, a United States Congressman and a member of the Study Committee. Mark Green of Wisconsin served his fourth term in the United States House of Representatives with impressive, populist leadership. We have heard from Gil Gutknecht tonight. Melissa Hart, a cherished member of the Republican Study Committee from Pennsylvania's 4th Congressional District, was elected in the year 2000. Her district included southwestern Pennsylvania, and she rose swiftly in this institution to some of its most important committees and most powerful positions in the national party. She is a voice that we will hear and see again soon. We heard of John Hostettler tonight from Indiana's Eighth Congressional District, and from Ernest Istook of Oklahoma's Fifth. Anne Northup, a feisty, strong, principled conservative who served the Third Congressional District in Kentucky since 1996 is retiring, and she and her tenacity will be missed. From California's 11th District, finishing his seventh term in the United States House of Representatives, a man who brought principled conservative reform to American environmental policy, Richard Pombo, will be receiving the Congress and our caucus this year. And a man I might lastly add, Jim Ryun of the Second Congressional District of Kansas, a five-term Member of Congress, a budget hawk, but a man who along with his wife, Anne, have simply been in the business of ministering to families in this institution every day they have been here. Jim Ryun came to global fame as the world record holder in the high school mile, a record that he held for 36 years until one day when we walked from the Capitol together and he received word of a young Virginia teenager who had bested him. And Jim Ryun in his typical style jumped in the car, drove to meet with that high schooler, and congratulated him. Jim's faith, his integrity, his character, his voice will be missed in this place as will the charm and ebullience of his wife, Anne. Lastly I would just mention the staff of the Republican Study Committee. During my term as chairman of the Republican Study Committee, we have had not one but two extraordinary executive directors. Sheila Cole served as the executive director during the first year of my tenure, a tumultuous time where the winds of change and circumstances buffeted House conservatives, and our staff led by Sheila Cole, a courageous woman who has gone on to be an at-home mom, we simply would not have been able to achieve what we achieved in impacting the policy of this Nation for fiscal discipline and conservative pro-life values had Sheila Cole not been at the helm. And if I might also add Dr. Paul Teller, who stepped into her stead and served and led the staff of the Republican Study Committee with equal distinction. Whether it be his passion and guidance on fiscal issues, whether it be his capacity to build coalitions within the Congress or his professionalism in informing Members in a timely way of the issues that we confronted as a caucus, Dr. Paul Teller has provided exceptional leadership to this organization. And I know that his future is so bright that he has got to wear shades, and we thank Dr. Paul Teller. To Russ Vought, to Joelle, to Derek, to the balance, Mr. Speaker, I would just add to the Record tonight my humble and heartfelt gratitude. Anything that we have accomplished as a caucus, we have accomplished because of an extraordinary staff. With that said, allow me to yield to our last speaker of the evening, Mr. Speaker. He is the gentleman from the Fifth Congressional District of Arizona. J.D. Hayworth represented Arizona's Fifth District, which includes Scottsdale, Tempe, and its environs. First elected in 1994. He was the first Arizonian ever to serve on the House Ways and Means Committee, which is one of the most powerful legislative panels in Congress. J.D. also added another key subcommittee assignment to his duties for the 109th session of Congress. He served on the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health during a particularly crucial time, the debate over the Medicare prescription drug entitlement. He was a key voice in ensuring that there were free market reforms included in that legislation as it moved through the Congress. He also, being a westerner, served on the Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over public lands, water, Indian affairs. He has been a powerful voice for reform and private property and humanity in the development of those policies. Since coming to Washington, DC, Mr. Speaker, as anyone looking in tonight might also know, he has become simply the most prominent Republican on the airwaves of the Nation. Whether it was radio talk shows, whether it was television programs on every single network, there has been no more compelling voice for conservative values, no more compelling voice for a strong stand on immigration in America. There has been a no more passionate voice for conservative fiscal and social policies than the gentleman from Arizona. I yield to Mr. J.D. Hayworth.

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for his gracious words. I know that I speak on behalf of all of the people of Indiana when I express my gratitude for your career of service that we know will be ongoing. Just the hours will be better, but we are grateful for your participation in allowing us to embarrass you tonight. I want to yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Speaker, this was a time of transition in particular for my home State, the Hoosier State. Indiana this year will bid farewell to the extraordinary service of Congressman John Hostettler of southwestern Indiana and to a two-term congressman from the land of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana, Congressman Chris Chocola. Throughout both of their careers, they have been men of integrity, commitment to their families, and in the case of Congressman Hostettler and Congressman Chocola, they are both men who throughout their career in Congress were active members of the Republican Study Committee and they brought the principles of their conservative values day in and day out to committees and to this floor. Another example of that is Congressman Mike Sodrel who joins us on the floor today. Mike and his wife, Keta, who most members of the Republican Study Committee have come to know well since he was sworn in as the congressman for the Ninth District of Indiana in January of 2005, have made an extraordinary impression on the heart of our caucus and the heart of this Congress in a relatively short period of time. Mike Sodrel served in the Army National Guard from 1966 to 1973. In 1976, Congressman Mike Sodrel and his wife Keta scraped together a few dollars and bought a truck and turned it into one of the most prolific and successful transportation companies in the Midwest. A veteran Indiana political reporter called Mike Sodrel, upon his election Congress, ``the closest thing to Mr. Smith goes to Washington as I think you will find in Congress.'' Mike Sodrel and I come dialectically from a very different part of our State. Pronunciation of words is a little different farther south of Highway 40. I hope however long the Lord permits to serve the people of Indiana in this place, that I will serve with the integrity every day to principles and family and to conservative values that the gentleman from Indiana served. I yield to the congressman from the Ninth Congressional District of Indiana.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, before he leaves the floor I would echo the sentiment of my gratitude for the friendship, the public service and the example of integrity of the gentleman from New York, and his leadership and his kindness will be greatly missed here as well as his passion for public service. Mr. Boehlert, I congratulate you and thank you. We gather today in a caucus known as the Republican Study Committee in this leadership hour to do what my colleagues from New York have just completed doing, Mr. Speaker, and that is really taking a moment to both speak of and hear from some of our cherished colleagues who will be moving on to other careers, some voluntarily, some involuntarily, but all of them ending time, short and long, here on Capitol Hill that have been marked by a commitment to principle and a commitment to integrity. I sometimes will say, Mr. Speaker, that my ambition in Congress is to get out of this place with my family and my reputation for commitment to principle intact, and all of those that we will hear from tonight have accomplished that. I served as the chair of the Republican Study Committee in this Congress and will be joined this evening with an assist from the newly- elected chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Jeb Hensarling from Texas, who will be helping me introduce and also extol the careers of those individuals who will be leaving the employ of the people of the United States of America at the end of the 109th Congress this week. I want to begin by introducing for a few remarks the gentleman from Minnesota's 1st Congressional District. Gil Gutknecht represents the peak of the baby boom generation in his career in public service. After serving in the Minnesota House of Representatives for 12 years, Gil Gutknecht was elected to Congress in 1994, part of a storied class that brought a new majority to Capitol Hill. He has served as the chairman of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry, but more than that he has earned a reputation nationally as a deficit hawk for his service while on the House Budget Committee. He has also throughout his career earned many awards as a friend of the farmer, a friend of the taxpayer, and if I may say so, as I yield time to the gentleman from Minnesota, one of simply the most plain spoken, eloquent Members of the House of Representatives. Gil Gutknecht has often said that he believes, ``Words have meaning, ideas matter and actions have consequences,'' and he set an example of that throughout his 12 years here on Capitol Hill. It is with great pleasure that I recognize a colleague and a friend and inspiration for the Republican Study Committee, Minnesota's 1st Congressional, Gil Gutknecht.

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma's Fifth Congressional District for his service, his founding service to the Republican Study Committee, and would recognize our nearly elected chairman for a few brief remarks.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume, as we see other outgoing Members arriving, to the newly elected chairman of the Republican Study Committee for the 110th Congress, Jim Hensarling from Texas.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding and rise in strong support of H. Res. 1087. As this Congress draws to a close, this legislation that I had the privilege of authoring is a source of great personal satisfaction to me, and I cannot help but feel a sense of privilege about being able to have played a part in bringing this important honor to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, as this session of Congress draws to a close, so draws to a close the storied career of a lion of the House of Representatives, Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois. As the chairman of several major committees at the center of repeated national controversies, Henry Hyde, as Members on both sides of the aisle have already said today and know, has been a paragon of dignity, civility, and commitment to principle, and I would add that he has been a lion of the right to life, and this Chamber will miss his roar. I offer this legislation before us today to name H-139 in the United States Capitol after this storied legislator. It is an act we sometimes do in this body to honor a figure whose public service indicates a significant benchmark or milestone in the history of the House of Representatives, and the career of Henry Hyde certainly speaks for itself. He is the holder of no fewer than eight honorary degrees from eight separate colleges and universities, in addition to his B.S. from Georgetown and J.D. from the Loyola University School of Law in Chicago. His service in the Navy took him to Lingayen Gulf, an extension of the South China Sea. Upon returning home, he was elected to the Illinois House of Representatives in 1966 and then to this body, the United States House of Representatives, in 1974 where he has served with great distinction. Throughout his career, whether it was closed-door White House briefings or high-level meetings with diplomats, Henry Hyde has played a vital role in our Nation's security and in defining America's place in the world, and as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he has held fair hearings and respected the constitutional rule of law ordained by our Founding Fathers. But Mr. Speaker, it is the Hyde amendment itself for which the gentleman of Illinois will perhaps be best remembered. He eloquently remarked on this floor on one occasion, ``I look for the common thread in slavery, the Holocaust and abortion. To me, the common thread is dehumanizing people.'' The first Hyde amendment passed in 1976 banning abortions financed by Medicaid and has remained in force ever since. An argument can be made that it is the most important piece of legislation this Congress has considered in the past 50 years, and that would be an argument that I endorse. Henry Hyde's respect for life extends to his support of other legislation, including sponsorship of legislation to expand the number of women eligible for pregnancy benefits. Mr. Speaker, quite simply, when I think of Henry Hyde's career and the classic speeches he has given in this Chamber, I cannot help but think of the poem ``Ulysses'' by his favorite poet, Alfred Lord Tennyson. Mr. Hyde once quoted this poem to me verbatim as we sat in this Chamber between votes, and I think it applies to his service and his retirement and his dedication today. Tennyson wrote: ``Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho' We are not now that strength which in the old days Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are One equal-temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.'' Such was the career of this rare leader and the gentleman from Illinois. May God bless his golden years and may God bless all the deliberations that will take place in the Henry Hyde Room in the United States Capitol for generations to come.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. As this session of Congress draws to a close, so draws to a close, also, the storied career of the Lion of the Right, Henry Hyde of Illinois. As the chairman of several major committees at the center of repeated national controversies, Henry Hyde, as Members on both sides of the aisle know, has been a paragon of dignity and civility and commitment to principle. I would add he has been a lion of the right to life and this Chamber will miss his roar. I will offer legislation today to name the Rayburn International Relations Committee room after this storied legislator, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure. When I think of Henry Hyde's career, I think of Ulysess by Alfred Lord Tennyson who wrote: ``Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho' we are not now that strength which in old days moved heaven and earth, that which we are, we are; one equal temper of heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.'' Let us honor this rare leader and may God bless the golden years of the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, it is not every day that a fallen soldier is laid to rest 56 years after he was killed in action. But such is the case of Private Charles ``Buddy'' Sizemore. As a young graduate of Rushville High School in Rushville, Indiana in 1948, Buddy was drafted into the U.S. Army where he was assigned to Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion, 8th Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division. Mr. Speaker, it was on October 19, 1950 that the men of the 1st Cavalry, hitching rides with the 70th Tank Division, took the North Korean capital of Pyongyang at great cost. But the advance of the 8th Army resumed despite a shortage of supplies, including winter clothing. Some riflemen had as few as 16 rounds of ammunition. On November 1, about seventy miles north of Pyongyang, two Chinese divisions attacked and almost completely destroyed the U.S. 8th Cavalry Regiment and the 1st Cavalry Division. Soon thereafter, six Soviet- supplied armies from Manchuria attacked on all fronts. On November 2, 1950, just six weeks after he had left his Rushville home for Korea, Private Buddy Sizemore and his entire battalion were lost. Fifty-six years later, after much negotiating between the United States and North Korea, forensic teams from the United Nations and the Pentagon have identified his remains, and on October 14th, there will be a full military funeral at the First Baptist Church in Rushville, Indiana for Private Charles ``Buddy'' Sizemore. Mr. Speaker, the Bible tells us if you owe debts, pay debts; if honor, then honor; if respect, then respect. I rise humbly today to pay a debt of honor and respect to Buddy Sizemore. Buddy is a hero whose service and sacrifice will forever be emblazoned on the hearts of a grateful Nation. I offer my deepest condolences to all of those friends and family members who loved and admired this young man.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago, this year, former White House aide Chuck Colson launched Prison Fellowship, now the world's largest Christian outreach to prisoners and their families. While serving 7 months in a federal prison for a Watergate-related offense, Colson was appalled by the humiliation, drudgery, and hopelessness experienced by his fellow prisoners. After he was released from prison, Colson decided he could not turn his back on the men he left behind. So, in 1976, inspired by his own prison experience and his faith in Christ, Colson began Prison Fellowship. Since then, Prison Fellowship has become a movement of like-minded citizens who are touching the lives of millions of prisoners and their families here in America and in 114 countries around the world. Prison Fellowship has helped maintain the bonds between prisoners and their families through the amazing Angel Tree program, in which some 7 million children of prisoners have received Christmas gifts on behalf of their incarcerated parent. At the state and national level, Prison Fellowship has also been at the forefront of criminal justice reform, helping states cope with prison overcrowding, fostering victims' rights, combating prison rape, promoting reentry programs, and so much more. By launching the InnerChange Freedom Initiative, Prison Fellowship has helped corrections systems reduce recidivism by working to transform prisoners from the inside out and linking them to mentors and communities of faith once they leave prison. Clearly, by reaching out to the very men and women our society would like to forget, Prison Fellowship has not only helped former prisoners become productive members of society, it has also made our communities safer places to live. Mr. Speaker, the Good Book reads ``I was in prison, and you came to visit me . . . I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'' I find it appropriate today to recognize and celebrate the incredible service that Chuck Colson and Prison Fellowship have rendered not only to prisoners and their families, but also to our communities, our Nation and our world. Mr. Speaker, all Americans concerned with the reduction of crime and the restoration of lives celebrate both the man and the ministry on the 30th anniversary of Prison Fellowship.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the gentleman's leadership on this issue. I rise in strong support of the Public Expression of Religion Act; and I do so with particular gratitude to my Hoosier colleague, John Hostettler, who, during the course of his career in the United States House of Representatives, has stood for the freedom of religion as perhaps no other American. And I say that with understandable parochial Hoosier pride, but I also say it as an objective observation, that the gentleman from Indiana has stood for a constitutional accommodationist view of respect for the expression of religion and its importance in American heritage. Mr. Speaker, I commend him for his outstanding work on this legislation. In 1976, a statute was passed in this Congress called the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act. Very simply and plainly, this statute was intended to protect the constitutional rights of citizens and level the legal playing field. Under this Act, a citizen who felt that his or her constitutional rights had been violated could sue a government official or entity and receive attorney's fees if they win. This was important legislation, and it has served a great public good. But it has also served to catalyze a form of litigation since the advent of decisions by the United States Supreme Court in the 1960s and 1970s that moved away from our historical view that the freedom of religion was not the freedom from religion, and it has become a tool, I say very respectfully, to their cause. It has become the tool of elements who would advance a radical secularist view of the public square in America, and who have used the opportunity to access the public Treasury in the form of attorney's fees to not only finance massive litigations against government entities to scrub our public square of any vestige of reference to God or reference to the religious heritage of the American people, but also it has been used to prevent that day in court from happening. The availability of massive amounts of attorney's fees have caused many municipalities, even some in Indiana, to relent in their fight to preserve the public display of the Ten Commandments or references to God in the public square because of the local government's inability to access Federal funds to pay their attorney's fees. So in a very real sense the unintended consequence of the 1976 law was to take a playing field that was imbalanced to one side and make it imbalanced to the other. And today, because of Congressman John Hostettler's leadership in the Public Expression of Religion Act, we are leveling the playing field once again. We are saying to every American who believes in their heart that ``In God We Trust'' should not appear in the well of this Congress as it does behind me, that every American who thinks there should be no reference to religion in the public square whatsoever, it says to every American whose view of the Constitution is that the Establishment Clause is somehow an antiseptic to remove any reference to our religious heritage in this country, it says: The courts are open to you, but the Treasury is not. As we might say in Indiana, where I was born and raised and lived, that, to put it very plainly, I may fight to the death for your right to hold the views that you hold, but that doesn't mean that I have to pay for it. And because of Congressman Hostettler's leadership on the Public Expression of Religion Act, we say the courthouse doors are open to anyone who would challenge the public expression by local governors or government officials the acknowledgement of the deep and rich heritage over hundreds and hundreds of years of the American people, who we would say, in this instance, in these cases, the public treasury is not open. Raise your money, bring your challenges, and let the court work its will.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, a Nation without borders is not a Nation. In recent days, this Congress has taken important first steps to restore operational control of our borders. I was pleased to support the Secure Fence Act of 2006 and additional measures that we will bring to the floor of this Congress this week. American people want Congress to put border security first, Mr. Speaker. But border security first does not mean border security only. Congress must secure our borders, but the American people know that securing our borders is a necessary but insufficient solution to the crisis of illegal immigration. After we secure our borders, Congress must also enact a new temporary worker program, without amnesty, and without creating a new Federal bureaucracy, and I believe we will. We must do no less than secure our border, but we must do more to ensure that we solve this domestic crisis in a manner consistent with law and order and the compassionate character of the great American Nation.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership on House Resolution 1000, providing for earmarking reform in the House of Representatives. I also feel moved to thank particularly the House majority leader, John Boehner, for his yeoman's leadership and keeping his word on this issue with Members in our effort to bring this modest but meaningful reform to the floor of the Congress. Under Article I of the Constitution of the United States, the power of the purse is the power of the House of Representatives. And today we will not yield that power in any way. The Constitution gives this body the ability to spend the money of the American people in ways large and small. House Resolution 1000 simply requires that we earmark the earmarks. Mr. Speaker, we actually had a cow farm when I was growing up, and I know what an earmark is. It is a tag in the ear of a cow that will tell you whose cow it is. Well, the reality is under the rules that have developed over generations here in the House, we can add provisions to legislation, authorizing bills and appropriation bills, without adding names. Today by H. Res. 1000 we will simply require that we earmark the earmarks. Transparency promotes accountability, and this institution would do well to embrace this modest but meaningful step toward greater transparency. As Jeff Flake, a great leader on this issue, said earlier, it saddens me to see evidence of the low regard that millions of Americans hold the institution of the Congress. It is an historic institution filled with men and women of both parties of goodwill and integrity. By adopting this modest but meaningful earmarking reform today, we will take an important step toward restoring public confidence in the fundamental integrity of our legislative process at the national level. I urge my colleagues in both parties to say ``yes'' to transparency and greater accountability, say ``yes'' to earmarking reform.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, on September 11 I saw things I never thought I would live to see and pray I will never see again. I was here on Capitol Hill standing under a tree at 10 in the morning as I saw columns of smoke billow out of the Pentagon in what was the first attack on this Nation's capital since 1812. People were running in every direction. Jet fighter aircraft were at virtually treetop level. It was the sight and sounds of war. And then 10 days later I accompanied more than 100 of my colleagues as we walked through the ashes of Ground Zero and saw the horror of what for all the world was the front door of hell in the ashes of the World Trade Center. I saw the firefighters launching themselves into a scene there and at the Pentagon that was still aflame. I have seen Americans launch themselves into recruiting stations to respond in the last 5 years. And I also saw one unusual and extraordinary sight which has shaped my career since, and that is on that day, September 11, 2001, I saw Republicans and Democrats completely set aside their differences and work in the national interest, to pray together, to sing together, to set aside whatever might be contentious among us and do that which is necessary to heal our Nation and to launch a counter strike against our enemies. For that day truly, there were no Republicans in Washington, there were no Democrats in Washington, there were just Americans. I live to see that, and it gives me hope as we go into the contentious debates of our time. In my four trips to Afghanistan and Iraq, I have also seen the extraordinary bravery and commitment of the American soldier. I am convinced that we are winning the war on terror because of the courage and valor of the men and women in uniform, both home and abroad. It is to them that I will close my remarks today. When I went home that afternoon on September 11 and sat down with my three small children and wife to tell them what was happening, that we were likely going to war, Audrey, my 6-year-old daughter, grabbed me by the leg and said, ``Daddy, if we have to make a war, do you have to go?'' I buckled down on my knee and I gave her a hug and I told her, ``No, daddy's too old.'' But not a day has gone by in the last 5 years, Mr. Speaker, that I haven't thought about all of the daddies and moms and sons and daughters who answered that with a ``yes,'' and some of them with a ``yes'' that rings into eternity. And so we remember those that fell on 9/11, the victims. We remember the brave soldiers who have fought the war since, and we commend them this day as we remember 9/11.