Mike Pence

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, in my lifetime, no issue has so disturbed our domestic tranquility than immigration reform. Thanks to the leadership of this House, the American people are convinced we have a serious problem with illegal immigration and the American people know the Senate bill granting amnesty to 12M illegal immigrants is not the answer. There are many ideas of how we can move forward. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and I have proposed a compromise that would: --put border security first and reject amnesty; --after 2 years of border security only, our plan would set up a new guest worker program using American employment firms outside the United States; --illegal immigrants would be required to leave the country and apply at these Ellis Island Centers by submitting to a background check and health screening before being issued a 2-year guest worker visa. They also would have to pass an English course to renew it; and --tough employer sanctions would drive companies and employees into this new system. Pence-Hutchison puts border security first, and once that is accomplished, it creates a new guest worker program outside the United States without amnesty and without creating a new federal bureaucracy. Some in Congress think we have done enough. I believe we must do more. Even in this contentious election year, the American people expect us to ``be strong, courageous and do the work'' they elected this Congress to do.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity today to join President George W. Bush at the White House, along with colleagues from the House and Senate and, most poignantly, with the families of victims of September 11 as President Bush gave a forceful and fact-based address about the war on terror. The President declassified today a CIA program that over the last 5 years has resulted in securing vital information in the war on terror from some of the most nefarious characters that we captured, along with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and others. The President also announced today that those same individuals, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was the mastermind behind the attack on our country 5 years ago this Monday, will now be transferred to Guantanamo Bay, and the process will begin of facing a military tribunal. Five years hence, we have proven that justice will not sleep for the terrorists in this country. America remembers 9/11, and today our Commander in Chief spoke truth to the world that justice will prevail.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to highlight the importance of basic life-saving skills such as CPR and the Heimlich Maneuver. One of my constituents, Monty Brooks, recognizes the importance of these skills following a frightening experience in August. On this warm Indiana evening, Monty Brooks and his 9-year-old daughter, Carrington, were spending time together on their porch. Carrington had prepared some leftovers from dinner and after a lull in the conversation, Monty realized something was terribly wrong with his daughter. Carrington clutched her neck indicating that she was choking. Mr. Speaker, Monty Brooks knows first-hand the importance of basic life-saving skills. Monty is the director of health and safety for the Hoosier Heartland Chapter of the American Red Cross. His experience with Carrington only serves to highlight his longtime understanding that these skills are important. Monty Brooks put his basic life-saving knowledge to use on that warm August evening. He performed the Heimlich Maneuver on Carrington, dislodging the food and allowing her to breathe freely once again. I rejoice with Monty Brooks that Carrington is well after this frightening episode. I also commend Monty for his dedication to educating and training others in basic life-saving skills through the American Red Cross preventing the unnecessary deaths of his fellow Hoosiers. Along with Monty Brooks, I encourage Hoosiers and all Americans to get trained and become familiar with basic life-saving skills.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I come to this floor wishing for a different choice than the one before me. The bill under debate provides permanent estate and gift tax relief--something I have long supported. That is why the choice before us tonight is so difficult. While this bill will provide relief to American farmers and small business owners, it also will do much harm to those very same people and the people they employ because of the irresponsible 41% increase in the minimum wage that it also contains. This increase in the minimum wage is excessive and will hurt the poor and those entering the workforce by reducing the number of entry level positions in our economy. Minimum wage increases raise unemployment among teenagers, minorities and part-time workers. The minimum wage violates fundamental free market economics. It costs jobs, and I cannot support policies that will take jobs from those who need a paycheck the most. Any proposal containing a minimum wage increase should be jobs- neutral. If the federal government increases costs for businesses with one hand, it is only right that it reduce costs for businesses with the other. And while this legislation does contain good tax extensions, in totality, it is not jobs-neutral. This increase in the minimum wage will cost American jobs, and I cannot support it. Additionally, this bill contains unrelated elements added during the eleventh hour. A budget-busting provision is included that converts the Abandoned Mine Land program from discretionary to mandatory spending. The result is an increase in the deficit of $3.9 billion over the next 10 years. Mr. Speaker, I would like to stand before you tonight and say that I could support this bill because more than anyone, I want permanent death tax relief. But, I cannot in good conscience vote for a bill that also contains an excessive minimum wage increase that will hurt small businesses and cost American jobs. And, I cannot vote for a bill that busts the budget by nearly $4 billion over 10 years. Regretfully, Mr. Speaker, for those reasons I stand tonight in opposition to this bill.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, a tragic tale of death and sniper shootings over the weekend has turned into a bittersweet success story for law enforcement in my home state of Indiana. Early Sunday morning, after leaving a relative's hunting party on a Washington County farm, Zachariah Blanton, a 17-year-old Gaston, Indiana native, committed four shootings--two along Interstate 65 in Jackson County and another pair along Interstate 69 in Delaware County. The previous two left Jerry Ross, age 40 of New Albany, dead and another man injured. Mr. Speaker, this tale is all too familiar to those living in the 50- mile radius of this very Chamber from which we speak today. For it was October of 2002 when the hearts of the American people were troubled by barbaric acts of terror that felled innocent women, men, and even children, in the vicinity of our Nation's Capital. Whatever the motivation, the acts of John Allen Muhammad in Washington and Zachariah Blanton are acts of terror. These perpetrators defied civilized behavior and believed they could defy the finest local, State, and Federal law enforcement in the world. How wrong they were. Mr. Speaker, Zachariah Blanton was apprehended by Indiana law enforcement on Tuesday of this week, just two days after his heinous crimes. Compared to the sad slayings that paralyzed Washington for nearly two months in 2002, one can only stand in honor and amazement at the quick end to the events of this week in the Hoosier State. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the coordination efforts of the Indiana State Police with Jackson County officials, but rise with particular deference to Sheriff George Sheridan and his Delaware County Department of whom the residents of East Central Indiana are most proud this morning. Mr. Speaker, the nation is watching Delaware County and Sheriff George Sheridan, and the nation is impressed. On behalf of the residents of east central Indiana, I offer a heartfelt thanks to Sheriff George Sheridan and all law enforcement officials across the Hoosier State. God Bless you for your hard work.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding and I thank him from my heart, as a dad of three small children, for Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, once again, tenaciously achieving measurable gains in the law to protect our families and protect our children in the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. I am particularly humbled because title V of this legislation is derived from a bill that I introduced in Congress, the first session, the Child Pornography Prevention Act. As the title states, the intent of my legislation is to prevent American children from becoming victims of pornography because, as we know, child pornography is the fuel that fires the wicked hearts of child predators, in addition to abusing the children involved. A main tenet of my bill is the addition of language that will fix a technicality that so-called home pornographers have used to evade Federal prosecutions, and it is in this legislation. Another element of my bill is the addition of a new section to the criminal code, section 2257(a) which adds a recordkeeping requirement that will force producers of sexually explicit material to keep records of the names and ages of their subjects when they are engaged in simulated sexual activity, another measurable gain in the law for children. Providing law enforcement with the tools to combat child pornography contained in this legislation is a much needed and overdue step that must be taken to protect our kids from those in society who have no decency, no conscience and no shame. I urge passage of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. It is time to protect our kids. Today, thanks to the leadership of Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, we take a giant step toward doing just that. Mr. Speaker, before us today is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (H.R. 4472). I am a strong supporter of this legislation, and urge and command Chairman Sensenbrenner for tenaciously acting measurable gains for families and children again. Title V of this legislation is derived from a bill that I introduced in the First Session of this Congress, the Child Pornography Prevention Act. As the title states, the intent of my legislation is to prevent American children from becoming victims of pornography because as we know, Mr. Speaker, the fuel that fires the wicked hearts of child predators is child pornography. Every day in America, children are exploited in pornography-- sometimes by those closest to them in their homes. In the home, children are forced to pose for pornographic pictures or act in pornographic videos by family members, family friends, caretakers and other trusted individuals who violate that trust. These pictures and videos are posted on the Internet or surreptitiously spread to sexual predators. A main tenet of my legislation is the addition of language that will fix a technicality that so-called home pornographers have used to evade federal prosecution on child pornography charges. Home pornographers use digital cameras, Polaroid cameras and video cameras to make pornographic pictures and videos of children, and they download child pornography from the Internet onto their home computers. My legislation makes clear that federal prosecutions of home pornographers can proceed in federal courts because their activities impact interstate commerce. This is a fix that must be made now in order to protect children at home. Another element of my bill is the addition of a section to the criminal code, Section 2257A, which adds a record-keeping requirement that will force producers of sexually explicit material to keep records of the names and ages of their subjects when they are engaged in simulated sexual activity. Congress previously enacted the PROTECT Act of 2003 against the background of Department of Justice regulations applying section 2257 to both primary and secondary producers. That fact, along with the Act's specific reference to the regulatory definition that existed at the time, reflected Congress' agreement with the Department of Justice's view that it already had the authority to regulate secondary procedures under the applicable law. A federal court in Colorado, however, recently enjoined the Department from enforcing the statute against secondary producers, relying on an earlier Tenth Circuit precedent holding that Congress had not authorized the Department to regulate secondary producers. These decisions conflicted with an earlier D.C. Circuit decision upholding Congress' authority to regulate secondary producers. Section 502 of the bill is meant to eliminate any doubt that section 2257 applies both to primary and secondary producers, and to reflect Congress' agreement with the regulatory approach adopted by the Department of Justice in enforcing the statute. My bill goes a step further by requiring that records be kept for lascivious exhibitions--nude photographs and displays. No child should be used in either nude pictures or sexually explicit materials because these items only serve to inflame the prurient interest in child predators. Requiring that records be kept will serve as a deterrent. Additionally, my bill requires that the records be made available to investigators for inspection. Failure to keep the records or allow inspections is a criminal offense. By strengthening the law in this manner, we will provide both a strong deterrent to the use of children in sexually explicit materials and the necessary tools to law enforcement to investigate and prosecute those who are not deterred. Finally, the legislation expands the ability of investigators and prosecutors to pursue the people who distribute child pornography. These distributors also will be required to follow the record-keeping provision, and this will provide law enforcement with a powerful tool to use against them. These are devious people who work in cohorts with pornographers to sell child pornography, but who currently can work out of sham corporations to avoid prosecution. My legislation will empower prosecutors with the ability to charge and convict these people. Providing law enforcement with the tools to combat child pornography contained in my legislation is a much-needed and overdue step that must be taken to protect our children from those in our society who have no decency and know no shame. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. It is time to protect our children, and today we take a significant step toward that goal.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, before us today is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (H.R. 4472). I am a strong supporter of this legislation, and urge its passage. Title V of this legislation is derived from a bill that I introduced in the First Session of this Congress, the Child Pornography Prevention Act. As the title states, the intent of my legislation is to prevent American children from becoming victims of pornography because as we know, Mr. Speaker, the fuel that fires the wicked hearts of child predators is child pornography. Every day in America, children are exploited in pornography-- sometimes by those closest to them in their homes. In the home, children are forced to pose for pornographic pictures or act in pornographic videos by family members, family friends, caretakers and other trusted individuals who violate that trust. These pictures and videos are posted on the Internet or surreptitiously spread to sexual predators. A main tenet of my legislation is the addition of language that will fix a technicality that so-called home pornographers have used to evade federal prosecution on child pornography charges. Home pornographers use digital cameras, Polaroid cameras and video cameras to make pornographic pictures and videos of children, and they download child pornography from the Internet onto their home computers. My legislation makes clear that federal prosecutions of home pornographers can proceed in federal courts because their activities impact interstate commerce. This is a fix that must be made now in order to protect children at home. Another element of my bill is the addition of a new section to the criminal code, Section 2257A, which adds a record-keeping requirement that will force producers of sexually explicit material to keep records of the names and ages of their subjects when they are engaged in simulated sexual activity. Congress previously enacted the PROTECT Act of 2003 against the background of Department of Justice regulations applying section 2257 to both primary and secondary producers. That fact, along with the Act's specific reference to the regulatory definition that existed at the time, reflected Congress' agreement with the Department of Justice's view that it already had the authority to regulate secondary producers under the applicable law. A federal court in Colorado, however, recently enjoined the Department from enforcing the statute against secondary producers, relying on an earlier Tenth Circuit precedent holding that Congress had not authorized the Department to regulate secondary producers. These decisions conflicted with an earlier D.C. Circuit decision upholding Congress' authority to regulate secondary producers. Section 502 of the bill is meant to eliminate any doubt that section 2257 applies both to primary and secondary producers, and to reflect Congress' agreement with the regulatory approach adopted by the Department of Justice in enforcing the statute.'' My bill goes a step further by requiring that records be kept for lascivious exhibitions nude photographs and displays. No child should be used in either nude pictures or sexually explicit materials because these items only serve to inflame the prurient interest in child predators. Requiring that records be kept will serve as a deterrent. Additionally, my bill requires that the records be made available to investigators for inspection. Failure to keep the records or allow inspections is a criminal offense. By strengthening the law in this manner, we will provide both a strong deterrent to the use of children in sexually explicit materials and the necessary tools to law enforcement to investigate and prosecute those who are not deterred. Finally, the legislation expands the ability of investigators and prosecutors to pursue the people who distribute child pornography. These distributors also will be required to follow the record-keeping provision, and this will provide law enforcement with a powerful tool to use against them. These are devious people who work in cohorts with pornographers to sell child pornography, but who currently can work out of sham corporations to avoid prosecution. My legislation will empower prosecutors with the ability to charge and convict these people. Providing law enforcement with the tools to combat child pornography contained in my legislation is a much-needed and overdue step that must be taken to protect our children from those in our society who have no decency and know no shame. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. It is time to protect our children, and today we take a significant step toward that goal.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I thank the distinguished majority whip for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pledge Protection Act and commend its author, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) for his yeoman's work on this thoughtful legislation. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I admire my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their intellectual acumen and their commitment to their view and their philosophy of government. But while each of us may have a different philosophy of government, we don't get to have different facts. The clear policy of Article III, section 2 of the United States Constitution reads, ``In all other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have developed jurisdiction, but it is the law and the fact with such exceptions and under such exceptions as the Congress shall make.'' It is black letter law in the Constitution of the United States of America that this body, this Congress, shall have the authority to set the jurisdiction of the courts. So if I may say, respectfully, let us stop with all the conversation about anticonstitutional action being taken. In fact, restricting the Federal courts' jurisdiction is a common practice in the House of Representatives, and a long litany of recent legislation, like the Black Hills National Forest, the recent Class Action Fairness Act, attests to that. But we are here about the business of protecting the contents of the Pledge of Allegiance, which some Federal courts have either resolved as unconstitutional or left unresolved. We stand here today to say those words, which appear above you, Mr. Chairman, in the phrase ``in God we trust'' in our national model, words which were reflected in our founding documents that speak of a Nation that believes its rights are endowed by our Creator, and words that President Abraham Lincoln spoke at Gettysburg, that this is one Nation under God, be protected and vouchsafed in our Pledge. Let us take this jurisdiction away, which is our constitutional power to do, and leave that power with the people of the United States and the States severally.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, President Ronald Reagan famously said, ``We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life, the unborn, without diminishing the value of all human life.'' Yesterday the United States Senate passed a bill that authorizes the use of Federal tax dollars to fund the destruction of human embryos for scientific research. While supporters of the bill argue this debate is a battle between science and ideology, that really misses the point. If the Castle-DeGette bill returns to the Congress tonight, we will simply decide whether Congress should take the taxpayer dollars of millions of prolife Americans and use them to fund the destruction of human embryos for research. You see, I believe that life begins at conception; that a human embryo is human life. I believe it is morally wrong to create human life to destroy it for research, and I believe it is morally wrong to take the tax dollars of millions of prolife Americans who believe that life is sacred and use it to fund the destruction of human embryos for research. This debate then tonight will not be about what an embryo is. It will be about who we are as a Nation and whether we respect fully half of our country. On behalf of those millions of prolife Americans, Mr. President, veto this bill.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the marriage amendment and offer heartfelt thanks and congratulations to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) for her principled, compassionate, and courageous leadership on this issue from her very first term in Congress. Mr. Speaker, in the wake of ominous decisions by activist courts across the land, I come to the well today to defend that institution that forms the backbone of our society: traditional marriage. Like millions of Americans, I believe that marriage matters, that it was ordained by God, instituted among men, that it is the glue of the American family and the safest harbor to raise children. I believe first, though, marriage should be protected, because it wasn't our idea. Several millennia ago the words were written that a man should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. It was not our idea; it was God's idea. And I say that unashamedly on the floor where the words ``In God We Trust'' appear above your chair, Mr. Speaker. And let me say emphatically that this debate today is not about discrimination. I believe that if someone chooses another life-style than I have chosen, that that is their right in a free society. But tolerance does not require that we permit our courts to redefine an institution upon which our society depends. Marriage matters, according to the researchers. Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that throughout history, societal collapse was always brought about following an advent of the deterioration of marriage and family. And marriage matters to kids. As my Hoosier colleague and friend Vice President Dan Quayle first accurately observed, Mr. Speaker, marriage is the safest harbor to raise children. Sociologists tell us that children raised by married parents experience lower rates of premarital childbearing, illicit drug use, arrest, health, emotional and behavioral problems, school dropout rate, and poverty. And marriage even matters to adults. A recent 5-year study in 1998 found that continuously married husbands and wives experience significantly better emotional health and less depression than people of other marital status. Let us say ``yes'' very humbly today to the marriage as traditionally defined. Let us say ``no'' to activist courts bent on redefining it. Marriage matters, Mr. Speaker. It was ordained by God, instituted in the law. It is the glue of the American family and the safest harbor to raise children. Let us put in that most sacred of documents an affirmation of that institution upon which our society demands. I urge my colleagues to embrace H.J. Res. 88, the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in gratitude to Chairman Sensenbrenner for his leadership on the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. It is historic in its scope, and I admire his thoughtfulness and the dignity with which he has gone about this process. I also rise, although in opposition, with deep respect for the gentleman from Iowa, whom I would support for anything, including Pope. Even though, from time to time, we differ on issues, he is a man of integrity and principle. The arguments have been made today by the chairman, and they will be by others in opposition to the King amendment, in a substantive way, that even though section 203 only affects 12 percent of the counties of this country, it was enacted for sound reasons and we still need it; that to support the King amendment could literally hurt the elderly, who in many cases were excluded from the English proficiency requirements of naturalization and, therefore, would, if this amendment passed, be denied the language assistance to participate as American citizens in the voting process. There has also been the thoughtful discussion that we are not just talking about choosing between candidate A and B, but rather, Mr. Chairman, we are talking about ballot initiatives that can oftentimes be written in double negatives, and so language assistance is appropriate for Americans in exercising their blood-bought right to vote. So I just simply rise today in opposition to the King amendment; to say that language requirements belong in immigration law, not in the ballot box. I myself have authored an immigration reform proposal that would require all new guest workers within 2 years to pass a 40-hour course in English proficiency. And I believe, as many of my colleagues who support this amendment believe, that it is central to assimilation and to becoming a part of the American experience to achieve English proficiency. But I say with deep respect to my sincere colleague, Mr. King, not here, not in the ballot box, and not for Americans. There is a certain amount of sacred soil in America. I tend to think this floor, Mr. Chairman, is sacred soil in democracy. But I think the four corners of that curtained ballot booth are also sacred soil, and we ought to do everything that is necessary in our power to make sure that Americans can exercise their blood-bought, God-given right to vote in an informed manner. And so I rise to oppose the King amendment and to thank again the gentleman for his sincerity.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Jim Morris, who over the last five years has guided the U.N. World Food Programme through five years of vital, life-saving support to millions of victims of war and natural disaster across the globe. A former Indianapolis business executive, president of the Indiana University Board of Trustees and head of the Lilly Endowment, Jim Morris could have retired to private life. Instead, Jim accepted the call and rose to the challenge to manage the world's largest food aid organization. Since 2002, Jim has been an eloquent spokesman and tireless administrator for relief programs stretching from Sudan to Iraq, Africa to Asia. Under Jim's stewardship, the World Food Programme (WFP) provided food aid to over 4 million Ethiopian drought victims in 2003. That year, he also successfully guided WFP in carrying out the largest humanitarian operation in history, feeding 26 million Iraqis. When tropical storm Jeanne struck Haiti in 2004, WFP showed up big for the 160,000 flood victims. In Darfur, Sudan, WFP battles insecurity and bad roads to get food aid to the 2 million refugees who have fled their homes in response to the conflict. Reacting to the 2005 tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands of people from Indonesia to Somalia and left hundreds of thousands more without their homes or livelihoods, WFP mounted one of its most complex emergency operations ever. Using helicopters, aircraft, cargo ships, landing craft and traditional trucks, WFP provided essential food aid to 1.75 million tsunami survivors, averting starvation and widespread malnutrition in the wake of the disaster. Under Jim's leadership, the WFP has made a difference, time and again by quickly getting food to millions of hungry and hurting people who desperately need it. Jim Morris is to be commended for his tireless advocacy for the world's poorest children, which has raised awareness and support for hunger programs, including in this body. To this heroic Hoosier, who for five years has led the global effort to combat the daily hunger faced by more than 800 million people worldwide, I say, ``Well done, good and faithful servant.''

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, in the coming days, Congress will consider legislation to make taxpayer dollars available for what is known as embryonic stem cell research. Stating the case for an imminent presidential veto, in 2001 President Bush made the moral dimensions of scientific testing on human embryos clear. These are the principles: It is morally wrong to create human life to destroy it for research. Also, it is morally wrong to take the tax dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them to finance research that they find morally objectionable. The choice of our time was described millennia ago: ``See, I set before you blessings and curses, life and death. Now choose life that you and your children may live.'' I urge my colleagues to stand for the sanctity of life at every level. Stand with President George W. Bush. Reject taxpayer funding of human embryo research.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, the White House Office of Management and Budget just released its annual midyear budget update. Under article I of the Constitution, the House of Representatives has no higher priority than to see to the wise expenditure of the resources of the American people, and the word is, the news is good. This year's budget deficit is now forecast to be $296 billion, 2.3 percent of our economy, essentially equal to a historic average. The really good news is, the deficit is 30 percent below the administration's February forecast. Revenues grew by a dynamic 14.5 percent last year and are forecast to grow this year by $245 billion, or 11.4 percent. Revenues to the Federal Government are increasing because of the progrowth tax cuts that President Bush and this Republican majority brought forward. The tax cuts are working. The economy is growing. Revenues to the government are up. The deficit is down. All in all, not a bad day's work.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, within the hour, the people of Indiana will hear the news firsthand: 2,000 jobs and a $550 million Honda plant is coming to Greensburg, Indiana, in the heart of the Sixth Congressional District. Thanks to the leadership of Governor Mitch Daniels, Mayor Frank Manus and other State and local officials, Honda will soon break ground on a vehicle plant that will produce 200,000 automobiles in southern Indiana every year. Through its decision today, Honda has chosen to partner with the people of my congressional district. While many deserve credit for seeing these 2,000 jobs come to this city of 10,200 citizens, Honda's decision today is mostly a reflection of its confidence in the hardworking people of Indiana. Honda said yes to Indiana and yes to the skill, integrity and ethic of working Hoosiers. On behalf of the people of the Sixth Congressional District, I rise to express my profound gratitude and best wishes to Honda for providing this extraordinary economic boost for the citizens of Greensburg, Indiana, and the surrounding area.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time on this important issue. I do rise in support of the permanent Estate Tax Relief Act of 2006, although I am mindful, as I listen to my good friend who just spoke about the estate tax, of what Confucius once wrote a millennium ago. He said: ``When words lose their meaning, men lose their liberty.'' I would prefer in the balance of my remarks to speak not about an estate tax, because I do not know too many estates in eastern Indiana, but I would rather talk about the death tax, because this is a tax that is death to the American Dream for small business owners and family farmers all across eastern Indiana. It is why, Mr. Speaker, I have dedicated myself in my nearly three terms in Congress to the principle of ending this immoral tax, a tax which, by the way, was instituted in 1916 primarily to raise revenues for World War I. It was a product of a time where the redistribution of wealth was seen globally to be an acceptable practice of economics. It was the very nascent time of socialism on the world stage, and America embraced this principle of redistribution with the estate tax in 1916. Let me just say that I believe death taxes are immoral. I believe it is morally wrong to make death a taxable event. I believe it is also morally wrong to say to small business owners and family farmers and any American, whatever their means, that after a lifetime of obeying the law and a lifetime of paying your share honestly and legally to the Federal Treasury that we will make your death a taxable event. So I want to say today that I still believe that we ought to repeal the death tax, and the legislation we will consider under this rule does not repeal, but I want to say that it is relief and it is progress and this Congress should embrace it. The estate tax relief provided in previous legislation is scheduled to end in 2010, and what we will pass today will literally bring permanent estate tax relief to millions of American families, especially increasing the exemption to $5 million per person effective January 1, 2010. So let me emphasize that what we will do today is not repeal, but it is relief; and I want to recognize that progress and embrace it. Let me close with a word of caution to our colleagues who may think of this as a starting point, that this is a deal, Mr. Speaker, that we can send down the hallway and we can negotiate from: let me say, having spoken to many of my colleagues who share my belief that we should repeal this onerous death tax outright, that if this is the deal, it is a good deal for the American people. But we say with conviction: this far and no farther. We must demand, at the very minimum, this relief stand when this bill goes to the desk of the President of the United States.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I was away earlier this evening and thus unable to cast a vote on a number of measures before the House. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: rollcall 289 (on Passage of H.R. 5540)--``yea''; rollcall 290 (on Passage of H.R. 5504)--``yea''; and rollcall 291 (on Passage of H. Res. 826)--``yea.''

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and commend the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives for facilitating this extraordinary debate over the war on terror and our military efforts in Iraq. I have made three trips to Iraq over the last 3 years. I have led delegations to Baghdad, Basra, Ramadi, Balad and Mosul, and I have two messages to contribute to this discussion. In the course of those trips, I have met with our soldiers in mess halls. I have flown in the belly of C-130s. I have talked with soldiers far away from anyone with any brass on their shoulders, and I have never met a soldier that did not believe in the effort in Iraq. Let me say again, Mr. Speaker, in all of my three different travels throughout the lengths and bounds of Iraq, I have never met a U.S. soldier in uniform who did not believe in the mission. Each and every one I met believed in the nobility of the cause. Each of them expressed the view of an Indiana soldier by the name of Jim Newland from Washington, Indiana, in Baghdad. I will never forget the day I said to Jim, what do you think, Jim; are we doing the right thing here? He looked me in the eye and he said, Congressman, we are out on patrol every day on the streets of Baghdad. We look this enemy in the eye every day, and he said to me very solemnly, we have got to stop these people right here. They kill Americans because they like it. That is the sentiment I heard from our soldiers. My other message is very simply and plainly and humbly, while it will be hard for some around this country to hear, we are winning the war in Iraq. We are defeating the enemy in every engagement. The enemy has never taken down so much as a full platoon in any military engagement. It is an extraordinary credit to our soldiers. We have had three national elections. We have stood up a quarter of a million Iraqis in uniform, and there is now a freestanding elected government in Iraq. We are winning the war in Iraq, Mr. Speaker. It is a message that I would deliver and from the hearts of the soldiers that I met. I would also say I believe in this mission. Support the resolution.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, it is Flag Day, and I rise in support of the Flag Protection Amendment. February 23, 1945, after surviving the bloodiest battle since Gettysburg, a platoon of marines trudged up Mount Suribachi on Iwo Jima with a simple task, to raise the American flag above the devastation below. When the flag was raised by SGT Mike Strank and his platoon, history records that a thunderous cheer rose from our troops on land and on sea and in foxholes and on stretchers. By adopting the Flag Protection Amendment, we will raise Old Glory again. We will raise her above the decisions of a judiciary that were wrong in the law and the history of our values. We will raise her above the cynicism of our time. Out of respect for those who served beneath it and those who died within the sight of it, we must say that there are boundaries necessary to the survival of freedom. Let us pass the flag amendment and restore to Old Glory the modest protection of the law that she represents.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I was detained the evening of June 6, 2006 and wish to clarify any confusion as to how I intended to vote, most notably on rollcall 225, the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: Rollcall 223, King Amendment to H.R. 5441--``aye''; rollcall 224, Kingston Amendment to H.R. 5441--``aye''; rollcall 225, motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair--``aye''; rollcall 226, on passage of H.R. 5441--``aye.''

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rejoice in the death of no man, but today I will make an exception. As America and the world just learned, the al Qaeda leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead. The President of the United States said it was an opportunity to turn the tide and that the ideology of terror had lost one of its most visible and aggressive leaders, and it has. But this was not simply a tactically significant strike by U.S. and Iraqi forces. Somebody dropped a dime. It is also evidence, as U.S. General George Casey in Iraq said earlier today, of increased cooperation. I commend U.S. and Iraqi forces for this extraordinary accomplishment. The leading enemy of freedom in Iraq is dead. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is gone. Let freedom reign in Iraq.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I was detained earlier this evening. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: Rollcall 223 (Campbell Amendment to H.R. 5441)--``aye''; rollcall 224 (Kingston Amendment to H.R. 5441)--``aye''; rollcall 225 (Mo- tion to Recommit H.R. 5441)--``no''; rollcall 226 (On Passage of H.R. 5441)--``yea.''

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, one week ago President Bush set out his views on immigration reform to the American people. He stated, ``There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant and a program of mass deportation.'' I agree with the President that there is a rational middle ground that can be found between amnesty and mass deportation, but amnesty is not that middle ground. Today at the Heritage Foundation, here in Washington, DC, I will unveil the real rational middle ground on immigration reform. I call it the Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act. It sees the solution to this crisis as a four-step process. First, secure the border. The second step is to make the decision once and for all to deny amnesty to people whose first act in the United States was a violation of the law. Third, is to put in place a guest worker program without amnesty that will efficiently provide American employers with willing guest workers who come into America legally. The final step is tough employer sanctions that ensure a full partnership between American business and the American government in the enforcement of our laws on immigration. There is a real rational middle ground on immigration reform, and I hope and humbly submit the Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act might just be it.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, this weekend with the news of the adoption of a new government in Iraq, the silence was deafening. You could hear a pin drop among the critics of U.S. policy in Iraq. But there it was. Prime Minister al-Maliki kept his word. He named 39 cabinet ministers, each of whom was approved by more than 90 percent of the 275-member elected Iraqi Parliament, the first government of Iraq formed since the toppling of Saddam Hussein. May God bless Prime Minister al-Maliki and all those brave ministers in his new government; for despite what you read, despite some of what you see, freedom is winning in Iraq and this new government's formation stands for that truth.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and more to the point, I thank Representative Ros-Lehtinen for her extraordinary leadership of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia where it is my privilege to serve. My heartfelt appreciation to Chairman Henry Hyde to demonstrate that the lion still roars. His leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor is meaningful and of global significance. And to my mentor and friend, the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) I rise with gratitude for your moral leadership again demonstrated on this floor this evening with your eloquent and powerful words. I rise today in strong support of the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act. As an original co-sponsor of the act, I come to this floor tonight saddened. I am saddened at what seems to be a diminishing opportunity for peace. In the wake of a world hopeful with the election of President Abbas, we saw it followed with the election of a legislative majority within the Palestinian Authority of a terrorist organization known as Hamas. I am saddened tonight by the story of Daniel whose family's loss will be remembered, not just as it was poignantly this evening by Congressman Cantor on this floor as he spoke of his own flesh and blood, but will be remembered later this week as the Prime Minister of Israel comes with some of Daniel's family at his side. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) reminded us of the human cost about which we debate tonight, and the policies and the messages that we will send from this well to a waiting world will speak to real human loss, a loss of opportunity, a loss of promise, to the loss of Daniel. It has been said many times tonight, and I take my colleagues at their word, that the State Department has said that this legislation is ``unnecessary.'' But let me say, as one of 435 Representatives in the United States House of Representatives, that the world waits for the leadership of this Congress and this Nation, and they wait for moral leadership that is clarion, and this serious debate tonight about which there are serious differences that I deeply respect, this debate tonight about the future of American financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority is such a debate. Let us say plainly, Hamas is a terrorist organization that advocates for its political ideology the murder of innocent civilians. This Congress, this President, his administration and the American people have been clear, the United States does not support, negotiate or fund terrorist organizations, even those that have won a majority of a legislature. Tonight we will say clearly in this Palestinian Anti- Terrorism Act: Not one penny for Hamas. The Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act promotes, however, a democratic Palestinian Authority that denounces and combats terrorism, de-arms and dismantles terrorist agencies, networks and facilities, and works to eliminate anti-Israel and anti-Semitic incitement and the commemoration of terrorists; one that agrees to respect the sovereignty of its neighbors and acknowledges, respects and upholds the human rights; and one at its very core that has agreed to recognize our cherished ally, the State of Israel, as an independent, sovereign, Jewish, democratic state. Now, there are criticisms tonight well spoken and no doubt well intentioned that say that the administration and our country will lack the flexibility to meet the humanitarian needs on the ground. But I must say, Mr. Speaker, with the clear language of this legislation that I would argue otherwise; that this legislation excludes funding for ``basic human health needs.'' There is also the allowance of security for President Abbas, and then perhaps the broadest exception that has even met with some criticism tonight, an exception for nonsecurity expenses that are ``related to the facilitation of a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the Palestinian people and Israel.'' Back in southern Indiana, we call that a hole that you could drive a truck through, and it is precisely the kind of flexibility that we need in these uncertain days. In these days, even in the last 24 hours, where we have seen nascent evidence of even a civil war emerging within the Palestinian Authority, as much as I might like a much more narrowly construed bill, I am prepared to endorse this legislation, carefully crafted for the exigencies of our time. I pray for the peace of Jerusalem and for all the people that live there. Mr. Speaker, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act sends a clear signal once again that the United States will not tolerate terrorism, and we take a critical stand at this moment in history in advocating for meaningful reform to the very center of the Hamas charter. I salute my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, for bringing this critical and moral legislation to the floor of this Congress, and I speak my heartfelt condolences to Daniel's family. May we act in such a way that Daniel and his loss will soon, some day soon, be simply a part of a history of a time gone by, a history that will be remembered as other violent pages of the history of mankind have been remembered, with respect, with grief but representative of a time that is past. And that will be my prayer.