Mike Pence

Mr. PENCE

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

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Flake amendment. There are 38,000 post offices, stations and branches in the U.S. Postal Service. The Flake amendment contemplates a pilot program that would affect 20 communities. By my bad math, that is about \1/20\ of 1 percent of the communities that are served by 38,000 post offices, stations and branches. But that is an unacceptable reform. I rise with great respect to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), who has been a champion of postal reform for much longer than I have been in Congress. I do respect the gentleman and have great respect for the chairman. It is lost on me why we cannot say, in the name of reform, in the greatest free-market economy in the history of the world, that we will allow for competition in 20 pilot programs to run out inefficiencies and to bring innovation and new ideas to the delivery of postal services. The Flake amendment is just simply that; 38,000 post offices, stations and branches. The Flake amendment asks humbly that we identify 20 communities to test the feasibility and desirability of alternative methods of delivery of postal services, and this reform bill and its reformers oppose that pilot program. Let us bring real reform to reform. If we cannot, let us introduce a pilot program where reform and the ideas of reform might be able to take hold to create a truly diverse 21st century postal delivery system for America.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to offer the Pence amendment to the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, and, along with several of my colleagues, will endeavor to bring real reform and real enhancement to a bill however well conceived and well intentioned by my colleagues. In fact, I rise today to begin by thanking the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the author of this legislation, for their leadership on this measure and their sincerity in attempting to ensure the ongoing vitality of the U.S. Postal Service and the tradition that it has enjoyed in this Nation, an invaluable part of our economy since before our Nation was formed. But before I get to the substance of the Pence amendment, Mr. Chairman, I want to begin to address the reasons why the Bush administration did today issue a Statement of Administration Policy opposing significant portions of this legislation and, in fact, suggesting that if this legislation did not achieve the objective of budget restraint and fiscal reform, that the President's advisers would encourage him to veto this legislation that will come before the House today. A few observations from the report on the President's Commission of the United States Postal Service are in order. The Commission found that the number one problem facing the United States Postal Service is its complete inability to control costs, and ratepayers have been paying the freight as a result of that along with taxpayers, who recently financed nearly $7 billion in a Postal Service bailout just a few short years ago. Of that uncontrollable cost, 80 percent of the United States Postal Service costs are constituted in labor, this in a competitive marketplace where its competitors like UPS and FedEx spend only 56 percent and 42 percent of their cost on labor. Clearly the United States Postal Service is, as the President's Commission found, desperately in need of flexibility to achieve labor and workforce reforms. The USPS is currently providing its workers roughly $870 million more in benefits than Federal workers receive as a result of lucrative health and life insurance benefits, and that is just the beginning. H.R. 22 that we will consider today contains none of the main collective bargaining proposals offered by the President's Commission. It contains none of the reforms offered by the Commission to establish a BRAC-style process to consolidate and shut down facilities that use money. And while H.R. 22 does laudably contain a cap on postal rate increases, many are highly skeptical about how that will work. The Congressional Budget Office states that the USPS will ``increase rates . . . more frequently than under current law, but by smaller increments.'' In addition, the cap could be blown if such an increase were ``reasonable and equitable and necessary'' for the continuation of services. Such a cap hardly equips the U.S. Postal Service with the tools to control costs and renegotiate its labor costs. So we come today, a series of us, with the kind of reforms that we believe will give the Postal Service the opportunity and the flexibility to achieve reforms necessary to live within its means. That is why I submitted an amendment to enact the Commission's recommendation to ensure that health care and pension benefits ought to be a part of normal collective bargaining. It was rejected and will not be considered today. That is why the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) had offered an amendment to enact the Commission's recommendation to reform the workmen's compensation reforms to align more closely with the private sector. Unfortunately, these amendments were made not in order. In fact, today the Pence amendment will deal with a provision of this legislation that, believe it or not, would set aside a seat on the Board of Governors specifically for an individual unanimously approved by all labor unions. More on that in a moment. I say this with deep respect, Mr. Chairman. I understand why the Democratic minority whip just said on this floor that this was ``a good bill that should be passed this year.'' I just do not understand why a Republican majority in Congress, with the firm and clear opposition of a Republican President, would do likewise. Let me get to the substance of the Pence amendment, if I may. The Pence amendment essentially removes a provision of H.R. 22 that requires that the first vacant slot on the Board of Governors literally be filled by an individual with the unanimous backing of ``all labor organizations.'' The headlines today would attest that it might be difficult, depending on the definition of ``all labor organizations,'' to get all labor organizations to agree on anything these days. Currently the Board of Governors consists of nine members with no more than five from the same party. This bill would ensure that one of these seats would be set aside to represent the interests of one special interest group to the exclusion of other interests like mailers or, dare I say it, taxpayers. It is this type of provision that we must confront in this legislation, and the Pence amendment humbly seeks to strike that. And workforce is the issue. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Postal Service is the second largest employer in the United States, second only to Wal- Mart. And according to the President's Commission report, 3 out of every $4 earned by the Postal Service went to pay wages and benefits of its employees in fiscal year 2002. The unions have been extraordinarily effective over the last 25 years, as has been said over and over again, preventing layoffs and recently announcing having inked the second largest pay increase in the unions' history. I believe that is why the Statement of Administration Policy that was issued today simply read, and I quote, ``Should the final bill have such an adverse impact on the federal budget, the President's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.'' The Pence amendment is all about bringing the kind of reforms in this bill that will allow the U.S. Postal Service to maintain its vitality and its fiscal integrity for years to come. The Pence amendment in its effort to strike section 401 is a modest effort to achieve that goal. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, apart from the decision to go to war, a President makes no more consequential choice than filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States. I rise today for a few short moments to say that in choosing Judge John Roberts as the next Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, President Bush has chosen wisely. Judge Roberts built a career of excellence in the legal profession and in public service on the values of personal integrity and civility that I say proudly he learned growing up in my home State of Indiana. While he was born in Buffalo, New York, he was raised and to this day says he is from what we call the region in northwestern Indiana, going to school in La Porte, Indiana, before heading off to Harvard where he would graduate with honors and then Harvard law school where he would be a member of the Law Review and graduate with highest honors. He is one of four children. Today he lives in Bethesda, Maryland and was, prior to being appointed to service on what is routinely referred to as the second highest court in the land, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, he built an almost unprecedented career in the law, both in and out of public service. The National Journal actually wrote not long ago: ``John Roberts seems a good bet to be the kind of judge we should all want to have. All of us, that is, who are looking less for congenial ideologues than for professionals committed to the impartial application of the law.'' Indeed, his entire career has been, as the former White House counsel C. Boyden Gray reflected recently, ``one of unquestioned integrity and fairmindedness.'' He is an extraordinary individual who has actually argued before the United States Supreme Court on 39 separate occasions. He is, as the President reflected during his nomination on Tuesday night, he is singularly one of the most accomplished and brilliant legal minds of his generation. And it has been acknowledged in the political process as well. Because he personifies the very qualities that most Americans would seek on the Supreme Court, Judge Roberts was reported favorably out of the Senate Judiciary Committee just 2 short years ago for his appointment to his present post. In fact, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 16 to 3, and Judge Roberts was confirmed by the United States Senate for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by unanimous consent. And let me speak to this point of timing because we are 1 week away from the August recess. As I rise today, understanding that the House of Representatives has no formal role in the confirmation of an Associate Justice to the Supreme Court, I would urge nonetheless respectfully my colleagues in the Senate to give every deliberate consideration to Judge Roberts' nomination because time is of the essence, and time is on our side. History tells us President Clinton's two nominations to the Supreme Court took an average of 58 days from the day of nomination to confirmation. Over the past 30 years, the confirmation process has averaged 72 days from confirmation to nomination. And as we look at the calendar today, there are essentially 73 days between when the President nominated Judge Roberts and when the Court would begin its work this fall. The Senate has the time for a thoroughgoing vetting of Judge Roberts' credentials and his background and his capacity to serve in this august position, and I urge them to move with all deliberate speed and I do so with respect. Again, I simply rise today recognizing that apart from a decision to go to war, a President makes no more consequential choice than filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court; and I say with gratitude to the President of the United States that in choosing Judge John Roberts, a son of the State of Indiana, a man who is devoted to the law and devoted to the application of the law and not the creation of the law, the President has chosen wisely.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding me time. I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for their tireless advocacy of the liberties of the American people, and I rise in strong support of the bipartisan Flake-Schiff amendment. President Harry Truman, I am told, had a plaque on his desk that simply read ``The buck stops here.'' It seems to me that the Flake- Schiff amendment is all about saying that when it comes to that sacred relationship that the American people feel between their local library and their local bookstore, that the FBI Director himself or herself must be directly involved if that relationship is to be intruded upon in the name of an investigation into the war on terror. The Flake-Schiff amendment requires the Director of the FBI to personally approve any library or bookstore request for records under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. Currently the law permits a designee of the Director whose rank cannot be lower than an Assistant Special Agent in Charge to approve section 215 orders, and that will change. Also under this amendment, the Director of the FBI cannot delegate the duty to personally approve a section 215 request for library and bookstore records. This amendment, as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) said earlier, will prevent section 215 from being abused or used in a fishing expedition intruding upon the privacy of ordinary Americans in the name of the war on terror. Again I quote President Harry Truman's famous plaque or missive, ``The buck stops here.'' The Flake-Schiff amendment is simply about saying if the war on terror demands it, when it comes to intruding upon that sacred relationship between the American people and a bookstore or a library, we have to have those who are of the highest accountability in our political system to answer to that. I strongly support the Flake-Schiff amendment and the commonsense underpinning that brings it to the floor today, and urge its passage.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me time, and especially I rise to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for his tireless efforts on behalf of the security and the liberty of the American people in developing this reauthorizing legislation. Today in London we have seen yet again the work of terrorists on the soil of a freedom-loving people. The explosions in that city today, while less lethal than a few weeks ago, follow the deadly attacks that took place on July 7, and the anguish in London is a vivid reminder of why we cannot relent in taking the steps necessary to defend our homeland from a present terrorist threat. We all lived through September 11. I was here at the Capitol that day. I saw the evil of our enemies written in the smoke rising above the Pentagon. And we are reminded yet today that their desire to do such violence in our homeland and in the homeland of our allies is real. The PATRIOT Act is essential to our continued success in the war on terror here at home. In the last 4 years under the PATRIOT Act, we have seen a great increase in the ability of law enforcement officials to investigate and track terrorists. For example, aided by provisions of the PATRIOT Act, law enforcement officials in Ohio were able to arrest Iyman Faris, an Ohio truck driver who authorities said plotted attacks on the Brooklyn Bridge and a central Ohio shopping mall. In 2003, he pleaded guilty to charges of aiding and abetting terrorism and conspiracy, acknowledging that he had met with Osama bin Laden in the year 2000 at an al Qaeda training camp and then was provided assistance by al Qaeda. He is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence. While 16 provisions of the PATRIOT Act are set to expire at the end of this year, the threat of terrorism to our families and our cities will not. Therefore, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 is as necessary today as the PATRIOT Act was when it was originally signed into law in October of 2001. This reauthorization legislation does make permanent 14 of the 16 sections from the original PATRIOT Act that were set to expire this year. But under the bill, those sections of the act that have caused the greatest concern in the hearts of many millions of Americans are set to sunset, sections 206 and 215, within 10 years, thanks to the leadership of this committee and of this Congress. The concerns that have been raised about abuses simply have not been borne out. With over 4 years of oversight hearings and six Department of Justice Inspector General reports, there is no evidence of abuse under the PATRIOT Act. I know what the people of London are feeling today. I felt it that day, September 11, and my heart and my prayers go out to them. I am absolutely convinced that what we have done in this country in a bipartisan way has contributed mightily to the fact that there has not been another major terrorist event in our Nation since that awful day. The PATRIOT Act and the elements which we will reauthorize today are central to the ongoing victory in the war on terror, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the United States reads in part ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.'' These freedoms represent the bedrock of our democracy, by ensuring a free flow of information to the public. Sadly, these freedoms are under attack. And while politicians here in Washington, D.C. engage in a familiar clash along the fault lines of the politics of personal destruction, a much greater scandal languishes in a quiet prison cell in suburban Washington, D.C. in the sad image of an American journalist behind bars whose only crime was standing up for the public's right to know. Judith Miller is not alone. In the past year, nine journalists have been given or threatened with jail sentences for refusing to reveal confidential sources. That is why my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), and I have introduced the Free Flow of Information Act, which will have its first hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow. Nothing less than the public's right to know is at stake, and I urge my colleagues to join us in standing for a free and independent press by supporting and cosponsoring the Free Flow of Information Act.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time; and more importantly, I thank him for his leadership on the Blunt amendment. Sometimes one has to go to Missouri to state the obvious. The Blunt amendment does just that, but it does it with real teeth. Like many of the reforms in this legislation that we will seek to move today, the Blunt amendment not only requires every representative of the United States on every U.N. body to oppose the creation of an international tax, but it also clearly states that United States citizens and corporations are exempt from any taxation that is imposed on the United Nations. This is the kind of show-me clarity that the American people have come to expect from Missourans. I am grateful for the Blunt amendment. What you tax you get less of. What you subsidize you get more of. We have subsidized the United Nations as an experiment in a world forum, but we must not permit the United Nations to become an entity of taxation on the American people or for our part the world.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, all of us remember the summer of 527s. Groups organized on the left and right under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code spent nearly $400 million in the midst of the Presidential campaigns while the Nation's two major political parties, its most respected labor unions, associations, businesses, and constitutional groups seemed to stand on the sideline in mute amazement. In response to that summer of 527s, some here in Washington, D.C. want to exert even more regulation and control, and that is certainly their right to pursue. But the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) and I have a different approach. We believe that the only proper response to inequities in the political economy of a free society is more freedom, not less freedom. The Pence-Wynn bill is our effort to restore freedom and fairness to political parties and outside organizations, to give them the opportunity to compete more effectively with not only 527 organizations but their progeny that may arise if the Congress decides even yet to regulate them. Thomas Jefferson said, ``I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to consider the Pence-Wynn Freedom resolution.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, on the quiet afternoon of July 7, 2005 in Parker City, Indiana, Tim Hammer, who is paralyzed and wheelchair- bound, was crossing a set of railroad tracks on Franklin Street. Almost immediately after he began to cross the tracks, the traffic arms lowered to signal an approaching train. Hammer's wheelchair hit a rough spot and he was thrown to the ground. At the same time, Jerry Hale and Dave Bragg of Parker City were repairing an herbicide sprayer about fifty feet from the railroad crossing. Hale and Bragg saw Hammer lying on the tracks unable to move and the freight train approaching the crossing at approximately 55 miles per hour. In an instant, Hale and Bragg dropped their work and sprinted to the crossing where they pulled Hammer to safety just seconds before the train barreled through and crushed his empty wheelchair. Hale and Bragg should be commended for their feats of courage and the nobility of purpose behind their actions. These men risked their lives in order to save the life of a stranger during his moment of need. Their actions on July 7th speak volumes about their good character and the high regard with which they hold human life. After the incident, Hale and Bragg stated that they were uncomfortable with being called heroes and believed that they had been placed near the railroad crossing by the grace of God. Mr. Speaker, through the grace of God, America is blessed to have heroes such as these men, and I am honored today to commend them as heroes whose courage and selflessness should serve as an example to all Americans.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, Winston Churchill said, ``Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on a strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter.'' Last night, the Commander-in-Chief addressed the Nation on the war in Iraq, laying out a clear strategy for victory built on the courage of our troops and the determination of the American people. The President reminded us that the war in Iraq is a central battlefield in the War on Terror that began the morning of September 11, and the President said, when Iraqi troops stand up, American forces will stand down. President Bush reminded me of that great leader Winston Churchill, who also said, ``It is not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what is required.'' Let us do what is required. Let us win the peace and democracy the good people of Iraq so richly deserve after decades of tyranny, and then, and only then, let us bring our troops home.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, for many years we in this body have been discussing the issue of the use of methyl bromide and the impact of the elimination of this chemical as stated in the Montreal Protocol. We must look at how this will affect our diverse economy as well as lay the groundwork for new alternatives to replace methyl bromide. As signatories to the Montreal Protocol, the United States negotiators have a responsibility to Congress and the Administration to seek an acceptable balance as they travel to Montreal in a few days to attend the Twenty-fifth Open-Ended Working Group Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, Second Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties, and associated meetings 26 June-2 July 2005. I am proud to say that the answer to this international problem is found right in the State of Indiana and is being promoted by a Hoosier with a vision to create a safer environment while at the same time stimulating growth in the Hoosier economy. This person is David Mueller of Westfield, Indiana. He is a fumigator and the son of a flour miller and has been fumigating since he was a teenager. His privately owned family business was founded in 1981 and has 25 employees. Methyl bromide is a product that his company Fumigation Service & Supply, Inc. began using in the 1980s for fumigating flourmills, food processing structures, and post harvest commodities throughout the United States. At one point Mr. Mueller and his company used or sold over 300,000 lbs of methyl bromide per year in the early 1990s. This represented about 55 percent of their total fumigation business. As of January 1, 2005, this Indiana company no longer uses methyl bromide, How did they phase out of this biocide? In 1995 they heard that methyl bromide was going to be phased out under the Montreal Protocol. Dave understood that the loss of methyl bromide would have a dramatic effect on his business. He attended several domestic and international meetings to determine if this was a true story. After determining that alternatives would, in fact, be required under the U.S. Clean Air Act and the international treaty signed by President Reagan called the Montreal Protocol, his company began to search for credible alternatives. As a stored product entomologist, Mr. Mueller started this search process by looking at methyl bromide and how it affects the insects and other pests. It is a biocide that kills like napalm. When it touches something, it kills it: egg, larva, pupa and adult. Other fumigants needed more time or a higher dosage rate to work. However, he understood that the respiration of the insects could be increased substantially by increasing the temperature in the flourmills and food factories or choosing the warmest time of the year to plan the scheduled fumigations. By increasing the temperature of the insects they were observed to become stressed, dehydrated, and would die faster. The dosage rates for conventional fumigants and insecticides like phosphine, dichlorvos, and sulfuryl fluoride worked better, faster, and at lower dosage rates when temperatures of 90-100 deg. F (30-40 deg. C) were created. He also added carbon dioxide (3-5 percent) to the mix to allow for better mortality and shorter shutdown times for these post harvest fumigations. The carbon dioxide makes the insects and rodents breathe harder and faster allowing the fumigants to kill better and faster. This is called the combination fumigation method. The ten-year findings to this search for alternatives to methyl bromide showed those who were willing to listen that credible alternatives to methyl bromide do exist. The combination of heat and/or carbon dioxide added to existing E.P.A. registered fumigants and insecticides offers credible, technical, and economic alternatives to methyl bromide. During this search for alternatives, Mr. Mueller noticed that many companies don't use methyl bromide. He asked how they do it. The answer was simple, they don't fumigate because they do all the things that they should do to prevent having to fumigate. Brand name companies like Frito Lay, Nestle, PepsiCo, Kal Kan, Purina, Gerber, Procter and Gamble, Wal-Mart, and many more don't fumigate with methyl bromide. Good cleaning, good prevention and monitoring strategies to be proactive rather than reactive have allowed these companies to prioritize their sanitation program with excellent results and corporate reputations. Their brand names are the best in the industry because they spend the resources to stop the insects and other pests from entering their facilities. If pests do get through the ``gatekeeper'' they have strategies to monitor for their early detection. Local treatments are then applied in a timely manner to eliminate any outbreaks. This is post harvest IPM and it works for those willing to be proactive instead of reactive. In summary, life without methyl bromide is possible. This Hoosier company is doing it and other companies are doing it with credible alternatives for the protection of the environment. There is a price to pay for protecting the environment and everyone can find credible alternatives if they search for them like Fumigation Service & Supply, Inc. did. Companies that continue to use methyl bromide when there are credible alternatives available should spend the time, resources, and effort to make the right choice as did Mr. Mueller and Fumigation Supply & Service, Inc.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. More importantly, I thank the chairman for bringing fiscal discipline and leadership to the appropriations process. I rise today not so much as a Member of Congress from Indiana but as the chairman of the largest caucus in the House of Representatives. The Republican Study Committee boasts over 100 members, men and women who are committed to fiscal discipline and traditional moral values. And so when the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) brings to the floor a Labor-HHS appropriations bill that makes the tough decisions to put our fiscal house in order, I have to rise, even on a controversial issue like Big Bird, to stand with this chairman and to thank him. The stakes are high; $7.7 trillion is the current running money on the national debt. According to CBO, our fiscal 2004 national deficit number is $413 billion. In order to bring this bill in and to keep discretionary spending below last year's level, this legislation literally eliminates 57 programs encompassed in this bill and asks many programs to accept up to a 50 percent cut. Asking the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that receives only 15 percent of its funding from the Federal Government to accept what amounts to a 22 percent reduction as we attempt to put our fiscal house in order is reasonable and responsible and precisely that which the American people elected the Republican majority to do. We have no higher stewardship, no higher calling than to come onto this floor and into this Chamber and make the tough decisions. And put in the context of recognizing that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting receives 85 percent of its funding from sources beyond the Federal Government, in the context of its overall budget we are simply asking them to do with 4 percent less. I rise in opposition to the amendment. I stand in strong conservative support of the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and his desire to make the tough decisions and put our fiscal house in order.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, it is time to turn down the rhetoric and to stop the raid on the Social Security trust fund and start allowing Americans to invest their Social Security taxes in personal savings accounts. For more than 40 years, the United States Congress has shamelessly used payroll taxes intended for Social Security to fund Big Government spending. Thanks to the leadership of President George W. Bush, Congress has undertaken a national discussion about how we deal with the inevitable insolvency in the program. And while there are multiple plans for reforms, several of my colleagues yesterday offered a thoughtful approach. The Ryan-Johnson-McCrery-Shaw plan is a good start down the right path for form, first and foremost by stopping the raid on the Social Security fund, by requiring that any surplus in Social Security taxes be returned to the American people in personal savings accounts. The plan ensures that Social Security taxes will be used for Social Security. Let us stop the raid, start the accounts. Let us move forward with this commonsense plan. I urge all my colleagues to give thoughtful consideration to the Ryan-Johnson-McCrery-Shaw plan for beginning the reform of Social Security.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I was detained late yesterday afternoon. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: Rollcall 289 (Motion to Recommit with Instructions--H.R. 2475)--nay; Rollcall 290 (On Passage--H.R. 2475)--yea.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for not only his extraordinary and courageous service to our Nation in uniform, but for his ongoing service to our country in bringing this important legislation to the floor of the Congress. I also want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary on which I have the privilege of serving. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) continues to provide leadership that reflects the values of the overwhelming majority of the American people to this Congress. By entertaining this legislation and bringing this debate again to the floor, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) demonstrates the quality of that leadership again. After surviving the bloodiest battle since Gettysburg, a platoon of Marines trudged up Mount Suribachi on Sulfur Island with a simple task: to raise an American flag above the devastation below. When the flag was raised by Sergeant Mike Strank and his makeshift squad, history records that a thunderous cheer arose from our troops on land and sea, in foxholes and on stretchers, across Iwo Jima and its surrounding waters. Hope was returned to that battlefield when the American flag began flapping in the wind. Mr. Speaker, it was written long ago: ``Without a vision, the people perish.'' That day, on Mount Suribachi, the flag was the vision that inspired and rallied our troops; and that flag, Mr. Speaker, is still that vision for every American who cherishes those who stood ready, and this day stand ready, to make the sacrifices necessary to defend freedom. By adopting the flag protection amendment, I humbly offer that we will raise Old Glory one more time. We will raise her above the decisions of a judiciary that was wrong on our law and our history and our traditions. We will raise the flag above the cynicism of our times. We will say to my generation of Americans, those most unwelcome of words: there are limits. Out of respect for those who serve beneath it and those who died within the sight of it, we must say that there are boundaries necessary to the survival of freedom. C.S. Lewis said: ``We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.'' Mr. Speaker, let us this day cease to laugh at honor. Let us elevate out of dishonor our unique national symbol to its rightful place. Let us pass this amendment to restore to Old Glory the modest protections of the law she so richly deserves.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, Social Security reform is an idea whose time has come. And thanks to the leadership of President George W. Bush, we are engaged in a national conversation about addressing the long-term 21st century challenges that the Social Security system faces when some 40 million retirees become 80 million retirees. The American people, candidly, Mr. Speaker, have not agreed on what the right thing to do is yet. But most of my constituents know that we ought to stop doing the wrong thing. It has simply been wrong these last 4 decades for the Congress of the United States to take the Social Security surplus and apply it to spending on big government. We need to stop raiding the Social Security trust fund. Use those resources to give younger Americans voluntary personal savings accounts and that will begin the reform of this critical entitlement. Let us stop the raid on the Social Security trust funds. Let us give younger Americans more choice. It is time to reform Social Security. Let the debate begin.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, human cloning is coming. Despite ominous developments in South Korea and in laboratories across the land, last week, the House Committee on Appropriations rejected, by a narrow margin, a thoughtful amendment authored by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon). The Weldon cloning amendment would essentially prohibit any entity, institution, private or public, from receiving NIH funds if that entity engages in human cloning for research or reproductive purposes. While that amendment failed, human cloning continues to advance, and the breakthrough in this unethical and morally questionable science is around the corner. Now is the time for Congress to act. On two separate occasions, Congress has enacted the Weldon-Stupak cloning ban by a 60 percent-plus bipartisan majority. And the time is now, after last week's disappointing vote in the Committee on Appropriations, with the Labor- HHS bill headed to the floor, now is the time, this summer, to once again bring a human cloning ban to the floor and enacted into law.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Colleagues, there is an old saying south of Highway 40: You have to pay to play. Having an equal veto on the Security Council when the United States pays ten times what China pays is unfair to the American people. It is unjust, and it defies logic. The Pence amendment will amend this inequity. If China and Russia will have the equal right to veto tough action at the Security Council level, they should also have the equal obligation to support the work of the United Nations in the form of dues. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to pass and accept the Pence amendment, and I thank the gentleman from California for his gracious acceptance, compliments, and leadership. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with an amendment that I believe brings fairness and common sense to the United Nations and specifically to the administration of the Security Council. The Security Council is tasked with some of the most difficult decisions in the United Nations. Of the 15 member states that serve on the council, only five have veto power. These nations are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset, I realize the United States has the largest economy in the world. We pay more in assessed dues to the United Nations than any other member state, but I do not believe that all nations are able to pay equally to the U.N. However, those member states, I would humbly offer today, that serve as permanent members on the Security Council with veto power should be assessed equally balanced dues to the United Nations. Where I grew up down south of Highway 40 we have an old saying that you have got to pay to play; but that is not the way it really works at the United Nations, at least with regard to the veto power of the Security Council. The United States, for instance, was assessed dues in the last year of approximately $440 million, 22 percent of the U.N.'s total assessment. China, a country home to over 1 billion people, with a rapidly growing economy, was assessed dues of $36.5 million or 2.1 percent of the U.N. assessment. Let me say again, the United States' $440 million, 22 percent of the U.N.'s assessment; and China, a voting member with veto power on the Security Council, paid just $36 million, less than 10 percent, and with only 2.1 percent of the U.N.'s assessment. The Pence amendment today would direct the President of the United States to have the United States' permanent representative to the U.N. use the voice vote and influence of the United States to make every effort to ensure that the difference between the scale of assessments of the five permanent members of the Security Council is not greater than five times that of any other permanent member of the Security Council. In addition to that, if the Secretary of State determines a permanent member of the Council with veto power is not in compliance with that requirement, the President could direct the U.S. permanent representative of the U.N. to use his voice vote and influence to make every effort to deny such permanent member the use of veto power. Not only does common sense and fairness argue for the Pence amendment, but there are serious issues that will come before the Security Council in the immediate future. For instance, China is, in many respects, acting on the global scene contrary to U.S. interests. Recently China state-owned oil companies began massive investments in Iran's energy sector. This is in direct violation of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. In the event serious decisions have to be made on the Security Council on U.N. sanctions against Iran, China and Russia, who have complicated relationships with Iran, are almost certainly to veto any measure. They can play, but they do not have to pay. If China and Russia will have an equal right to veto tough action at the Security Council, should they not also, Mr. Chairman, have an equal obligation to support the work of the United Nations in the form of dues? Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Pence amendment to bring justice and fairness and common sense to the assessment of dues at the United Nations. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, 1 week ago the House Committee on the Judiciary convened a memorable hearing on the PATRIOT Act. Members of the Democratic minority called the hearing. All of the witnesses at the hearing opposed the PATRIOT Act, and, in fact, broadly opposed administration action. Since I was there, I can say with authority, throughout a contentious hearing the Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), was tough, fair and respectful to Members and witnesses regardless of their point of view. Now, some have called the hearing undemocratic. Well, there were hard issues, strong disagreements, but they were debated under the rules fairly administered. Undemocratic? Hardly. This was democracy at work. I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his leadership of the Committee on the Judiciary and am proud to serve on it.