Mike Pence

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, Mary Dollison, of Muncie, Indiana, sees peoples' needs and selflessly works to help them. Yet her generosity does not stop there. Mary motivates others to do the same. In this way, she continues to dramatically improve children's lives, and as a result, transform the entire Muncie community. The Muncie Star Press newspaper publicly recognized her outstanding community service on December 31, 2004, when they declared her the ``Person of the Year'' for her work with Motivate our Minds (MOM). What began in 1987 as a group of 20 children in her living room has grown into a program of 350 to 400 students who meet for after-school activities in MOM's permanent facility in downtown Muncie. Starting MOMs and shepherding it to its present form was not always easy, though. Over the years, Mary dealt with major budget shortfalls, the lack of a permanent building, and numerous other potential roadblocks that would have caused other people to give up. Fortunately, Mary persisted, and succeeded. Past MOMs secretary Lenella Maxwell says of her, ``She is just a very giving and loving person. She has a heart for children. She loves God very much, and her family is important to her. She has a very contagious smile. It's just like magic watching when she works with children. She can bring out the best in them. She has a heart of gold, and she wants to just help people.'' Mary recently told the Muncie Start Press, ``I'm not happy not working with kids. My reward is just hearing young people or children come back and tell me stories that I've made a difference in their lives. The goal is still the same, help improve the lives of people, and I think education is one of the ways that we can help do that.'' Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mary Dollison for her tireless service to the Muncie community. She truly makes the community, and the world, a better place.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 32) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, in December I had the privilege of leading a delegation of my colleagues to visit American forces serving in Operation Enduring Freedom in Kabul, Jalalabad and Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan. As we learned during our journey, Mr. Speaker, Afghanistan is a place where American generosity and American power are succeeding. But upon my return I had a grim and heartbreaking reminder of who deserves the credit. The American soldier. Literally, the day that I arrived back to work here on Capitol Hill this week, I was notified by the military and by his family of the combat death of Sergeant Jeremy Wright of Shelbyville, Indiana, an incident that claimed his life just 6 short weeks after arriving for duty in Afghanistan. It is written that no greater love has a man than this that he should lay down his life for his friends. So I conclude that Sergeant Jeremy Wright's name, like every other American soldier lost in the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq, Sergeant Jeremy Wright's name will be enshrined in the hearts of two grateful nations, the United States of America and the free Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, forever.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight recent and profoundly heartbreaking situations in the brutal authoritarian dictatorship of Burma. For nearly two decades, the ruling military regime has sought to crush any and all opposition to their complete domination of the country. The military junta's actions have led to the unjust imprisonment of over 1,000 political opponents, including the world's only imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Aung San Suu Kyi. While indications recently hinted at the release of most, if not all, of these political prisoners, once again the regime has proven that no trust can be lent to their promises. Just days after the promising release of a handful of democracy activists, the military junta informed Aung San Suu Kyi that her sentence would be extended one more year. Mr. Speaker, even more appalling, recent reports indicate that five Burma Army battalions are involved in slash and burn campaigns in ethnic minority controlled areas in eastern Burma. These actions follow an all-too-familiar pattern of tactics employed by the regime to stifle resistance by anti-regime, ethnic minorities. Military are actively burning villages and crucial rice supplies. Perhaps a greater outrage is the military then land mining the empty villages, and most times, the paths to and from that village so people are unable to return. There is no other intention in these actions than extermination. As a strong advocate for children, I am saddened that the nearly 7,500 displaced villagers recently fleeing to the jungle include numerous children. The child mortality and malnutrition among these displaced people are staggering. Not only the children are suffering the effects of this displacement. With nowhere to go, many families are divided and many people die of preventable, treatable diseases. Mr. Speaker, I add my voice to others in this great nation that continue to seek freedom and democracy for the people of Burma. I strongly object to the continued imprisonment of Nobel Peace Prize recipient Aung San Suu Kyi, and call for her immediate release. I also encourage the Administration to take whatever measures necessary to exert more pressure on the ruling military regime.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, the 108th Congress is coming to a close. The Congress has essentially finished its work, although we may reconvene, hope springs eternal, and move an intelligence reform bill before Christmas arrives. But, in essence, we are done with much of what we have come to do. Before we adjourn for rest and reflection with family and friends on Thanksgiving, I thought it would be helpful to reflect on what we have to be thankful for in the 108th Congress, and it is much. I begin my remarks with two ancient references, one from the sacred texts of the Bible where one generation spoke to another, words of admonition in leadership with these words, ``be strong and courageous and do the work.'' The Founders of this country in 1787 in that summer in Philadelphia crafted these words that are essentially a mission statement for the government of the United States, stating that we the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves in our prosperity, do ordain and establish this Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I would argue, against both of those timeless standards, the 108th Congress has excelled. We have been strong and courageous and done the work. We have provided for the common defense. We have promoted the general welfare, and we have secured the blessings of the liberty for ourselves in our posterity. In the area of providing for the common defense, it scarcely seems that it was just 2 years ago, but in this Congress, following on the heels of having given the President the authority to confront the menacing dictatorship in Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched, and Congress was there to support our troops, provide the resources they needed to get the job done in a stunning victory in the spring of last year, but also financing reconstruction in the War Supplemental Appropriations Act and providing our troops the resources that they need to finish the hard work of liberty in the streets of Baghdad and Fallujah. We have also seen freedom come to other countries like Afghanistan, that elected its first national leader in its 5,000 year history of the region. We saw daylight come to the regime of Mohammar Khadafi, who responded to U.S. and coalition action in other theaters in the Middle East to give up his weapons of mass destruction program, and in a multilateral way we supported the administration efforts to confront North Korea's head- long effort to expand its own weapons of mass destruction program. We have stood by our ally Israel, defending her right of self-defense in construction of the security fence, and we condemned the United Nations' World Court for similarly condemning Israel. In short, we have in so many ways provided for the common defense and stood by our allies. We have been not only a beacon of freedom but we have been the arsenal of democracy that America calls us to be. This Congress did that. We have also promoted the general welfare by cutting taxes on working families, small businesses and family farms and extending the tax relief previously effected in the 107th Congress. The 108th Congress pursued economic policies, both in tax relief and in trade, that caused the creation of nearly 2 million jobs in the last year. Our economy is expanding. Our economy in the world is expanding with new trade agreements in Morocco and in Australia. And even just today, we managed to complete our work on a budget. Beyond spending on national defense and homeland security, even the omnibus spending bill we passed today represents a freeze in nondefense discretionary spending. It is a small return to fiscal discipline on Capitol Hill, but it is a beginning and I applaud it. We have also secured the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. And what are the blessings of the liberty, but the faith and family values that make this Nation great. We have stood by the right of Americans to refer to the Creator God in our Pledge of Allegiance. We have passed legislation banning the moral abomination known as partial birth abortion. We have passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, reaffirming our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life. Mr. Speaker, the list goes on, most notably passing on this floor by a majority a constitutional amendment to defend marriage. We have done our work, and we have been strong and courageous, and I rise to commend the 108th Congress of which it has been my privilege to be a part.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn?

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) for leading this special order tonight that I expect will be well attended as we celebrate 35 years of principled, conservative leadership on Capitol Hill. I have scarcely been in this institution 4 years, Mr. Speaker. The very thought of arriving at a place 31 years from now in my career and still enjoying a reputation for integrity to principle, for personal integrity that Congressman Phil Crane enjoys is a lodestar for me. I rise today to speak on behalf of the gentleman from Illinois. I spoke today as the new incoming chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a 96-member caucus of the House of Representatives, with one of our new freshmen who, when I spoke to her about our plans for this evening, said that one of the great thrills of her life 10 years ago in Washington State at the Republican convention as a brand new freshman member of the State legislature was a chance to introduce Phil Crane, the keynote speaker at the Washington State Republican convention. She was thrilled at the thought of being able to spend however few days in the same Congress and call Phil Crane a colleague. I rise today to make sure that the Congressional Record remembers this principled, conservative man for who he was in totality. Congressman Phil Crane was first elected to Congress in a special election held in November of 1969 to fill a vacancy created by the resignation of another noteworthy Illinoisan by the name of Donald Rumsfeld who has gone on to other productive ventures for his Nation. Phil Crane was born on November 3, 1930, the second of five children. His father, Dr. George Crane, was the author of a nationally syndicated newspaper column entitled ``Worry Clinic'' which ran in papers for over 40 years. His mother, Cora, reared their children on Chicago's south side where my own family grew up. Crane received his bachelor's degree from Hillsdale College in Michigan, and with that pedigree, after college, he served in the United States military from 1954 to 1956. He continued his education in history by earning a master's and a doctorate degree from Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana. The career and the life and the legacy of Phil Crane, or Dr. Crane as we like to call him, continues to be a source of enormous pride for Hoosiers. After graduation, Dr. Crane served as a professor at both Indiana University and Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois. He also served as the director of schools at Westminster Academy in Northbrook, Illinois. Crane also has received three honorary doctorates. In his career, he has authored three books: The Democrats' Dilemma, in 1964; Surrender in Panama, in 1978; and The Sum of Good Government, a classic tome in conservative circles, published in 1976. He married his wife, Arlene Catherine Johnson, on 14 February 1959. The Cranes have eight children and six grandchildren. In 1997, the Crane family lost Rachel at age 31 following a long battle against non- Hodgkin's disease lymphoma but is blessed by an abundant family that remains. Crane also serves as a trustee for Hillsdale College, as a member of the Board of Directors of the Ashbrook Center, as a director of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, and an advisor to the Young Americans for Freedom. In short, Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to move around even briefly in the landscape of American conservatism or in the American intellectual conservative movement without crossing the shadow and experiencing the wake and wash of the career of Congressman Phil Crane. There will be others who will speak about his vice chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee, his extraordinary work as a leader expanding the markets all over the globe for American trade and, of course, his extraordinary leadership on taxes. I choose to focus what remains of my comments tonight, Mr. Speaker, on Congressman Phil Crane as a conservative leader. As I said, again, I am the incoming chairman of the largest caucus in the House of Representatives. It is known as the House Republican Study Committee. The relationship of that to Phil Crane is personal and poignant because it was in 1974, as a relatively new Member of Congress, that Congressman Phil Crane started the Republican Study Committee. And in many respects, as a book written by Ed Feulner, now president of the Heritage Foundation, the most influential conservative think tank in the English-speaking world, as that book indicates, it was the Republican Study Committee that in so many ways created the environment where the ultimate election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 was made more possible and ultimately the Republican revolution manifested itself with the takeover of this institution by a Republican majority governing from a mainstream conservative agenda that was first advocated by a young Congressman Phil Crane when he started the Republican Study Committee in 1974. In fact, as evidence of his impact on the conservative movement, the very first staff level executive director of the Republican Study Committee was the same aforementioned Dr. Ed Feulner who has gone on to lead the Heritage Foundation and himself become an extraordinary leader in our movement. Phil Crane first became active and well known in conservative circles actually earlier in his life, in the 1960s. He campaigned heavily for Barry Goldwater in 1964, and after his election, he became one of the most sought after conservative speakers in the country. It was not just his dashing good looks. It was the soundness of his thinking, advocating free-market values, limited government and traditional moral values with courage and fierceness and compassion. As I mentioned, he later founded the Republican Study Committee, was involved in other conservative organizations like the American Conservative Union, Americans for Sound Foreign Policy, the Free Congress Foundation, just to name a few. Fearful that Ronald Reagan would not repeat his effort to run for President as 1980 approached, Congressman Phil Crane announced in late 1978 his intent to seek the nomination for President of the United States. I will never forget the evening sitting on the House floor when Congressman Crane told me the story of that night. He said, ``We all just figured that one day Governor Reagan would look at Nancy and say, `I think, Mommy, we should just go and retire to the ranch.' '' Ronald Reagan and history had different intentions, but as he has always been throughout his career, Phil Crane was ready to stand in the gap. And when Ronald Reagan made his candidacy a reality, Phil Crane stayed in the race to honor his delegates from Illinois who had supported their favorite son, but he was one of the strongest supporters of President Reagan in 1980, enabling and assisting in his election and also being one of the great champions of the Reagan revolution from the minority here on Capitol Hill. I close with simply a personal reflection. As I shared at several venues since learning that Congressman Crane was not returning to participate in the 109th Congress, I reflected on the fact that as a new conservative in the House of Representatives over the last 2 years, I have made it my practice just a few feet from where I am standing during the course of long votes to sit to the right hand of Phil Crane. I have joked many nights as the gentleman knows about wanting to sit on the Phil Crane commemorative row. I did it out of affection. I did it out of admiration, and frankly, I did it out of a deep desire in the 2 years that we served, these past 2 and the 4 in totality, to learn as much as I possibly could from this man. My only consolation, as Congressman Phil Crane goes on to be private citizen Phil Crane and no doubt in many respects will become, I suspect, with his newer and freer schedule an even wider influence in American conservatism and, we hope, a more prolific author than he has been in the last 15 years, my hope is however long I serve in this Congress that I will ever do so at the right hand of Phil Crane; that however long I serve here, that I will be guided by his example of courage, of integrity, of decency and of fealty to conservative principles. In so many ways, when we talk of the Reagan revolution, and we rightly credit Ronald Reagan, but I suspect if the President were able to speak tonight and he would if he could, were he still among us, I suspect he would rise to say that one of the great generals in the field who won the hearts and minds of the American people by renewing our Nation, bringing us back to the ideals of our Founders, he would rise and extol the 35-year career of principled, conservative leadership that we celebrate tonight in the life and work and service of Congressman Phil Crane.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam 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 Army Specialist Raymond L. White of Elwood, Indiana. On November 12, 2004, Ray lost his life while fighting to defend America and liberate Iraq. His convoy, with the 1st Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Calvary Division, Fort Hood, Texas, was ambushed this last Friday by 30 insurgents while traveling near Baghdad to meet with local community leaders. Ray died, according to all of his superiors and all of those present, courageously providing cover to protect his fellow soldiers. While there were injuries, there were no casualties as a result of his self- sacrifice. His bravery saved the lives of each of his men. Ray was a hero who believed in this great Nation. As his father recounted to me yesterday, Ray recently told his mother, ``It is my patriotic duty, mom. I would rather fight terrorists in their country than have them come here and have my friends, family and Americans killed on our soil.'' He entered the military in April of 2003 to fulfill his duty, following in the footsteps of his father, uncle, grandfather and great- grandfather. Madam Speaker, Specialist Raymond White is a hero, whose service and sacrifice brought freedom to 25 million Iraqis. Memory of his sacrifice will forever be emblazoned on hearts of two grateful nations. I offer my deepest condolence to his parents, Henry and Sharon, his three brothers, Henry, Jesse and Daniel, his grandparents Clayton and Clara Menefee, and John Francis, and all other families and friends who loved and admired this courageous American hero. May God rest the soul of Army Specialist Raymond White.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, as we were grimly reminded in Egypt yesterday, our terrorist enemies are afoot. As we conclude our work on the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act today, we do so under a veil of uncertainty abroad and here at home, which makes both the content and tone of our debate on intelligence reform so important. The 9/11 Commission performed a great public service, and its recommendations were thoughtful. Let us make this point. The 9/11 Commission was not elected by the American people to see to their security, we were. By retaining the independence of our defense and intelligence, while increasing coordination among agencies and adding vital immigration reforms, this Congress is doing just that. Our enemies wish to do us harm, and the days before elections seem to be especially attractive to them for their treachery. As we debate the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act today, let live up to that ancient charge. Let us be strong and courageous and do the work the American people sent us here to do.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Stephen Scott Abernathy of Centerville, Indiana. He died on Saturday, September 25, 2004 of injuries resulting from a motorcycle accident. Upon graduating from Centerville High School in 1995, Scott nobly served four years with the United States Marine Corps, where he joined the rugby team. He served as the assistant wrestling coach at Avon High School from 1999-2001 and graduated magna cum laude from Indiana University in 2003. Scott settled back in Wayne County and became a member of American Legion Post 18 and the Centerville Christian Church. Mr. Speaker, I express my heartfelt condolences as well as those of the United States Congress to Scott's parents, Stephen and Barbara; his brother, David of Richmond; his niece, Kaytlyn; and his grandparents, James and Josephine Williamson of Munster, Indiana. Stephen Scott Abernathy was a role model for all Americans and led a life of great quality. All those who knew him well will sorely miss him.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in the wake of, I think, a very important question by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays): What are we afraid of? And the gentleman from Connecticut knows that I admire him and have great affection for him and the integrity with which he does his work, but I would like to answer that. My colleague, we are afraid of the decline of marriage. We are afraid that what has happened in the last 15 years in the Netherlands since the advent of same-sex marriage is going to happen in America, and that our children and our society will be harmed as a result. As Dan Quayle first said on the national stage some 14 years ago, we know that marriage matters to children. Children born outside of wedlock are more than two times more likely to fall into every form of social malady that besets our kids. The experience in the Netherlands is undeniable. Since the advent of same-sex marriage in the Netherlands and in Holland, the decline of marriage has been from 95,000 to 82,000. As Dutch academics wrote in their newspapers there recently: ``Over the past 15 years, the number of marriages has declined substantially. The same period also witnessed a spectacular rise in the number of out-of-wedlock births. In 1989, one in 10 children were born out of wedlock, roughly 11 percent; by 2003 that number had risen to almost one in three children.'' That is what we are afraid of, Mr. Speaker. We are afraid of the decline of marriage and the attendant harm to the American family that will undeniably follow. Marriage matters. And we come into this hallowed place today to stand by that institution knowing that we are informed by our core values that it matters and that it is central to our society, but also knowing the experience of our neighbors in Europe has been that when we change the definition of marriage, we begin the decline and ultimately the abolition of marriage as we know it.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. More to the point, I thank the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), for his extraordinary moral courage in leading this critical issue to the floor of this Congress and leading the debate today. I also congratulate the original author of this legislation (Mrs. Musgrave), who even as a freshman has left already an indelible imprint on the national debate in this legislation. I rise today in support of the Marriage Protection Act because I believe, as the overwhelming majority of the American people have ever believed, that marriage matters; that it was ordained by God, established in the law; that it is the glue of the American family and the safest harbor to raise children. We have heard again and again throughout this afternoon that marriage is under attack by judicial advocates. But I rise today to say that marriage matters to children. And we need not look to the theoretical. Marriage in Scandinavia and in Holland is dying since the advent of same-sex marriage over the last decade in those countries. As a result, a majority of children in Sweden and Norway are now born out of wedlock. In some parts of Norway, as many as 80 percent of first-born children and two-thirds of subsequent children are now born out of wedlock. And we know ever since my colleague from Indiana, Dan Quayle, first said it, marriage matters to children. Children born out of wedlock have statistically been proven to be more than twice as likely to be poor, to give birth outside of marriage themselves, to have behavioral or psychological problems, and fall into every form of social malady that besets our children. Marriage matters to children. I rise today to say against this extraordinary phalanx of legal attacks in virtually every jurisdiction of the country that I commend the leadership of this Congress and, to no less extent, the President of the United States of America for saying that marriage matters enough to find space in the Supreme Court of our land to defend it.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and of the underlying Marriage Protection Act, and consider this to be an extremely important day in the life of this institution and the life of this Nation. Let me say to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) who just spoke, who I respect greatly as the national leader that he is, although I am a conservative and although I support a constitutional amendment to define marriage in the terms which the overwhelming majority of the American people wish to continue to define it, I have no distaste for love; and neither is it my desire to impose views or attack any individual or anyone in a relationship in America. I am from south of Highway 40 in Indiana, but I do know the difference between defending and attacking. And the truth is, as legal scholars and millions of Americans know, the institution of marriage is under attack by activist judges; and it brings us, as the majority leader said so eloquently, to this place, by necessity, where a constitutional amendment is the only way we can express the will of 3 out of 4 or more Americans who desire to continue to have this fundamental institution of marriage defined as it has been throughout the millennia. Activist judges have had successes since 1999 when they convinced the Vermont Supreme Court that they should order the State legislature to legalize same-sex marriage. A second major victory came when they convinced the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to force that State to give full marriage licenses. The activists have literally plotted a State-by-State strategy to increase the number of judicial decisions mandating same-sex marriage, and the U.S. Supreme Court provided potent ammunition to activists when they decided the Lawrence v. Texas case in June of last year. In that case dealing with same-sex sodomy, the court strongly signaled that a right to same-sex marriage could be found in the Constitution. Scholars ranging from Supreme Court Justice Scalia all the way to Harvard liberal scholar and author Lawrence Tribe agree that the Lawrence v. Texas case paves the way for this Supreme Court in this Nation's Capital to recognize same-sex marriage. Same-sex couples are now challenging marriage laws in States across the Union, including my own little State of Indiana. So we come here not to attack but, rather, in a spirit of civility to defend an institution that is cherished and is so essential to the American people in the life of our Nation. In closing, we are here today because marriage matters; because, like millions of Americans, I believe it was ordained by God, instituted in the law, it is the glue of the American people, and the safest harbor to raise children. Let us adopt the rule, defend the institution of marriage, and ensure that our society's most cherished social institution is defined by we the people and not unelected judges.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of a measure we will consider today in the Congress authored by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). It is the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act, and there will be much sound and fury throughout the day and perhaps this evening on this measure. The measure actually overturns local District of Columbia laws that ban the sale and possession of hand guns, ammunition and certain types of semi-automatic weapons to law-abiding citizens in the District of Columbia. I believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans actually save lives, and there will be arguments and statistics on both sides of that debate. But I rise very briefly to begin the argument, specifically to refute what I believe will be the false federalism argument that many will employ today, to say that the District of Columbia has the right to pass its own gun laws even when, in so doing, they ban and discriminate against the blood-bought right to keep and bear arms that is enshrined in the Constitution. Let us be clear on this point and this definition of federalism: No State has the right to legislate away the blood-bought constitutional right of every law-abiding American to protect their person, their family and their liberty.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) for leading this Special Order tonight. I thank him for his courageous leadership as a freshman. Madam Speaker, I associate myself with the remarks about our previous speaker. While we address the Speaker, we are nonetheless cognizant at times many millions of Americans look into our deliberations on this floor, and I think it is altogether fitting to recognize that a freshman, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave), arrived in this institution and brought her support for traditional marriage to the floor of this Congress, and has turned her face like flint against the wind and has brought us to this point where we are on the eve of an enormously important vote in the life of our Nation, and I commend the gentlewoman for her tenacity and courage. To a lesser extent, I commend the people from Colorado for sending leaders like the gentlewoman to this institution. That said, we are here tonight for the purpose of gathering thoughtful colleagues like the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and those that will follow to consider out loud what will no doubt be lost in sound and fury on this floor tomorrow when the Marriage Protection Act, a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in the traditional terms as a union between a man and a woman, is brought to the floor of the House of Representatives. There are those, and it is almost understandable in a season where a national election is just around the corner, there are those who will say this is politics. The more initiated among us would use phrases like ``wedge issues'' to explain the value of tomorrow's vote. But I must say and I believe I speak for the heart of this President whose moral courage has brought us to this vote today, of the leadership of this majority, of Republicans and even many Democrats who will tomorrow stand for this constitutional amendment when I say this is not about politics. This is, as the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) said, this is about who we are as a people. This is about the foundations of our society. It is about what it is we will hand on to our children and grandchildren. In my judgment it all comes down to the simple belief, that is millenia old, that marriage matters. In one debate after another with some constituents in Indiana and in some national broadcast forums, I have allowed people who disagree with me on the need for a constitutional amendment. I have said if you do not think marriage matters to children, to communities, and thereby to the life of the Nation and to the vitality of our civil society, then I can understand why you would not be prepared to go to the necessary means of a constitutional amendment to defend it and define it in traditional terms. But if you believe, as I do, and as survey after survey shows us, that the overwhelming majority of the American people do, that marriage matters, that far beyond the conviction that I share and that millions of Americans share that it first matters because it was ordained by God, we see it even beyond those terms as an institution upon which our society was founded. Rightly understood, marriage and the family is the first and original unit of government. It is the glue of the American family and it is the safest harbor for raising children. None other than a predecessor who represented northeastern Indiana on this floor from 1976 to 1980, Dan Quayle, made this point when he was Vice President of the United States in 1992. Dan Quayle, against a withering assault, suggested in a national debate that the statistics proved that children who were raised, however imperfectly, in a two- parent home with a mother and father did significantly better in avoiding all types of social maladies than children, who for whatever reason, no fault of their own or their parents, found themselves in a different circumstance. Dan Quayle's Murphy Brown speech became a national political joke, Madam Speaker, until after the election was over and the esteemed Atlantic Monthly Magazine pulled together a group of psychologists and sociologists and published in February 1993 that famous headline ``Dan Quayle Was Right''; because what Vice President Quayle said is even more true today, that children that are raised in traditional two- parent homes find themselves, for whatever reason, but looking at the facts, find themselves able to avoid a host of social maladies that beset our children: teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, falling into gang violence or drugs, dropping out of school. Children raised in two-parent homes are significantly less likely to fall into those maladies. That is not to say that single parents are less significant to our Nation. My wife was raised by a single mom, and we laid her to rest early this year, and I honor single moms maybe more than any other moms in our Nation because they bear such an extraordinary burden with such dignity and grace. But in the development of social policy, you recognize good, better, and best, and the reality is the sociologists have spoken; the unflagging truth of western civilization and of modern American history is that marriage matters to kids and therefore is worth being preserved. My second and only other point before I yield to my colleagues is much addressed to all of us who will consider this debate on this floor tomorrow. I am a conservative Republican Member of this Congress, and yet I have noted there are conservative colleagues of mine who are troubled that we are bringing an amendment to the Constitution every bit as much as there are liberal Democrat colleagues of mine. And so I wanted to take just a few more minutes to speak about why this Marriage Protection Act is necessary to amend the Constitution of the United States, because I truly believe that it is. Let me say from my standpoint, the constitution of a nation rightly understood as the supreme law of the land of which it is a part is a document, yes; but as John Locke first described, it is part of a charter between the people. What I would offer today, the question is not whether our charter will be changed, or whether marriage will be defined one way or another in our social contract. Rather, it is whether that definition will be brought by the people in an orderly amendment process to the Constitution or whether this issue in a constitutional perspective will be decided by unelected Federal judges. That is it. The point that I will make here in the few remaining minutes that I will take I hope, Madam Speaker, will make this point. This issue is coming to the fore. It is coming to our Federal courts. As I will prove in a few moments, the United States Supreme Court, which I venerate and respect, has in recent decisions signaled a willingness to extend the right of privacy to certain types of behavior which could very well, according to legal leading scholars, have laid the foundation to recognize gay marriage by a narrow majority of the Supreme Court. Here is the record. Activist lawyers and their allies in the legal academy over the last decade have devised a strategy to override the public opinion that I described earlier which is, by one reckoning or another, by referendum in Missouri recently, 71 percent of the public affirmed the traditional definition of marriage, survey after survey shows the overwhelming majority of the American people support it, but there has been an effort to use the courts much in the same vein as in Roe v. Wade in 1973 to redefine the laws of all 50 States through judicial fiat. They achieved their first success in 1999 when they convinced the Vermont Supreme Court that they should order the State legislature to legalize same sex marriage or create same sex civil unions. The legislature chose the latter despite strong public opposition. The activists won their second victory when they convinced the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to force that State to give full marriage licenses to same sex couples. Even though citizens of that State opposed same sex marriage and no law had ever been passed to authorize it, same sex marriage in Massachusetts became a reality on 17 May 2004. The activists have, Madam Speaker, literally plotted a State-by-State strategy to increase the number of judicial decisions mandating same sex marriage. The goal is to force the same sex marriage issue on the Nation piecemeal and then to demand the United States Supreme Court order the holdout States to accept and do the same. It is a fairly transparent and ingenious legal strategy. And the United States Supreme Court has provided potent ammunition for these activists when they decided the Lawrence v. Texas case of June 2003. In that case, dealing with same sex sodomy, the Supreme Court strongly signaled that a right to same sex marriage could be found in the number of the Bill of Rights, in the so-called right of privacy of the U.S. Constitution. This, Madam Speaker, is precisely the same right that the late Justice Blackmun derived the right for an abortion in 1973 in the infamous Roe v. Wade case. Again I say, this Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas in June of 2003 signaled that a right to same sex marriage could be found in the U.S. Constitution. In fact, experts as varied as Laurence Tribe of Harvard and Justice Antonin Scalia agree that the court's decision points to the end of traditional marriage laws. Let me say it again. This is something of a consensus opinion when Justice Scalia on the right and the famed author and professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard on the left agree that the Texas case lays the foundation for essentially the redefinition of traditional marriage. Activists are attempting to build on their successes as we speak. In Vermont, Massachusetts, and in the Supreme Court in the Lawrence case, same sex couples are now challenging marriage laws in my State of Indiana, California, Florida, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington, and West Virginia. In addition, lawsuits have been filed in Alaska and Montana to force those States to grant particular marital benefits to same sex couples. And while I support the Defense of Marriage Act strongly, according to many experts it provides a weak defense to these lawsuits. State and Federal courts are poised to strike down that law under the Constitution's equal protection and due process clauses and force recognition of same sex marriage. The only way, therefore, Madam Speaker, to prevent this core societal decision which, as the gentleman from New Mexico said, is central to who we are as a people, it is central to that which we would bequeath to our children and grandchildren, the only way to prevent this core societal decision from being made by unelected judges is to allow the people to speak on this issue through the constitutionally mandated amendment process. This process which requires, and we will attempt to achieve it tomorrow, two-thirds of the Congress and three-fourths of the States by votes of their legislature is the most dramatic grassroots political mechanism available to let the people speak. Let me close and yield back to my colleague with that point. We are in the people's House. Our founding documents speak of we, the people. Abraham Lincoln, standing on what would become the graveyard at Gettysburg, spoke of a Nation of the people, by the people and for the people. Yet there are those, and we will hear it on this floor tomorrow, I suspect, Madam Speaker, who will make the case that rogue, unelected judges know better than the people of the United States and that somehow what we are doing on this floor tomorrow in an amendment to protect marriage as it is traditionally defined is somehow contrary to our best traditions. I would offer to you as I close, our best tradition is that we are a government of the people, by the people and for the people. And when it comes to that institution which is marriage, which is so central to who we are, so necessary to the vitality of our society, we must hear from the people and that is what this majority will bring with our great leadership to the floor tomorrow for consideration. I yield back my time with gratitude to the gentleman from New Mexico and my colleagues for being a part of this very important starting conversation about the Marriage Protection Act.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 806) and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise in the midst of, I think, a very important debate on the floor of this Congress, although I am sure many of my constituents in Indiana wonder why we are debating such a contentious social issue in the midst of a critical National Defense Authorization Act. Nevertheless, we are here, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. I deplore violence for any reason against any person; and I believe, without hesitation, that that is the view of the good and decent men and women who serve on the floor of this Congress. But I oppose the motion to instruct and hope our conferees will remove the so-referenced hate crimes language because in addition to questioning whether this issue has a place in the defense bill, I consider it, as many have argued more eloquently than me, unnecessary, repetitive of State jurisdiction, and it is constitutionally suspect, claiming as its constitutional basis the 13th amendment, which would likely be rejected in the courts, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) has argued. But I rise today, Madam Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary and a civil libertarian deeply concerned over the issue of creating a crime for thought. It is difficult for me to understand how the governing of thought in any way, Madam Speaker, is consistent with the principles underlying a free society. That the Kennedy bill serves to punish thought per se is nowhere more obvious than in how, if passed, it will discredit the public mores of tens of millions of Americans on matters of sex and sexuality. Specifically, the Kennedy language in the bill that we are considering includes a prohibition against gender-based and sexual- orientation-based crimes. As the 2001 committee report of the Senate committee on the bill made clear, the use of the term ``gender,'' instead of the proper term ``sex,'' is a deliberate effort to extend the law's protections to individuals in the categories of transvestites and those who have undergone sex change operations. Obviously, Madam Speaker, it goes without saying that a great many Americans have deeply felt, sincerely held moral beliefs about homosexuality and about the various derivatives thereof. And make no mistake about it, the language in this legislation condemns implicitly those thoughts. We all condemn actions that take the form of crimes, whatever their motivation. Crimes of violence are to be deplored, and they have been eloquently deplored by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle today. But legislation that focuses on the thoughts of Americans who have moral reservations about certain behavioral choices ought not to be a crime.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pledge Protection Act with a particular sense of gratitude to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), as well as the capable gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), who authored the legislation today. The Pledge of Allegiance which we perform every day on the floor of this Congress reads: ``I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God.'' Two words in the pledge ``under God'' help in a very real way, Mr. Chairman, to define our national heritage as the beneficiaries of a Constitution that, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) said, was sent to the States for ratification ``in the Year of our Lord'' 1787. Our Nation was established by a generation that saw itself in so many ways and by overwhelming numbers guided by a providential God who was not indifferent to the establishment of a free Nation on this continent, a Nation that would be, in John Winthrop's terms, a shining city on a hill, a Nation that both went to war and continues to fire the imagination of the world, as we heard today in the eloquent words of Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi. Even in our own Declaration of Independence there is clear reference to the belief of our Founders that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. In November of 1863, President Abraham Lincoln traveled not far from here, delivering the Gettysburg Address, the dedication of a cemetery at the site of that extraordinary battle, saying that ``we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.'' What Lincoln resolved that day under God, unfortunately, today, the Federal courts have put in jeopardy in one case after another, most notably the Newdow case. There have been Federal courts that have either struck the term ``under God'' from our Pledge or, in the case of the Supreme Court of the United States, simply deferred the decision altogether. This, despite the fact that the American people overwhelmingly, in survey after survey, and more importantly, through votes here on the floor of the House of Representatives, have expressed their will on this matter in deafening terms. The Congress itself, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) referred, has voted not once but twice in recent days in overwhelming numbers, more than 400 of the 435 Members of Congress, reaffirming the inclusion of the words ``under God'' in our Pledge of Allegiance. Today, I expect in the course of this debate we will continue to hear a great deal about constitutional theory, which as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, as a man trained in the law, I have great and passionate interest in; but those who will come to this floor today and suggest that the Congress does not in effect possess the ability to limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts do so in a way that virtually ignores the express language of the Constitution itself, which gives to the Congress the establishment of the jurisdiction of the courts. Even the dean of the Stanford Law School wrote recently, ``the Constitution leaves room for countless political responses to an overly assertive court. Congress can strip it of its jurisdiction. The means are available, and they have been used to great effect when necessary, used, we should note, not by disreputable or failed leaders, but by some of the most admired Presidents and Congresses in American history.'' Far from violating separation of powers, legislation that leaves State courts the jurisdiction on issues of great and deep meaning to the American people is in keeping with our best tradition. Let us say the American people will be heard, not lifetime-appointed judges, on the recognition that this is one Nation under God.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago the American people made a choice. It was a choice between decades of a tax-and-spend Congress that believed America prospered when Washington had more of what people earn and a new Republican majority that believed that America prospers when the American people are able to keep more of what they earn. That change has made all the difference in America today, welfare reform, the advances on traditional moral values. And every single year of the Republican majority, including again later today, this Republican majority has cut taxes on working families, small businesses and family farms. The choice 10 years ago was clear. Another choice is just around the corner, between a party that believes that America prospers when government prospers and another party who believes that when the American people have more of what they earn to keep, that our Nation prospers as well. Join us today as we cut taxes again and keep the promises of the Contract With America.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings had during the recess be printed in the Record.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to welcome Dave and Kelly Keim of Berne, Indiana, to our Nation's capital. They are in town today to stand with many others in this building to oppose embryonic stem cell research. Why would people come from Berne, Indiana? The answer can be found in their 18-month-old twins, Caroline and Spencer, who are a daily and profound reminder that embryonic adoption should be preferred in the law always over destroying human embryos for stem cell research. Mr. Speaker, Caroline and Spencer Keim are fully human today, just as they were 18 short months ago when they were in the frozen embryonic stage of their development. They stand as a living testament to the truth that it would have been morally wrong to destroy their embryonic lives, even for well-intentioned medical research. Ronald Reagan said it wisely in the year 1984, ``We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life, the unborn, without diminishing the value of all human life.'' Mr. Speaker, I welcome Dave and Kelly Keim and their two beautiful twins, Caroline and Spencer, to Washington today, and I thank them for their courageous stand for life in this critical issue of embryonic stem cell research.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, it is with particular pleasure that I rise to welcome the Reverend L. John Gable and his wife Kris to the Chamber of the United States House of Representatives today. Reverend Gable is a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary as well as Hanover College in Hanover, Indiana, and his ministry has carried him through Ohio, Iowa, and now he serves as senior pastor for a decade at Crossroads Presbyterian Church in Mequon, Wisconsin. The Good Book says, ``If you owe debts, pay debts.'' I rise today to discharge a large one in my life, for it was 25 years ago as a young man at Hanover College that the then student John Gable, more than anyone else, challenged me to take seriously the claims of Christ. I will never forget the day, Mr. Speaker, that young John Gable said to me, ``Remember, Mike, you have got to wear it in your heart before you wear it around your neck.'' As those at Crossroads Presbyterian Church know and people in Ohio and Iowa and all over the country, John Gable has made a difference in America, in the lives of thousands, and he most certainly made a difference in mine. It is my pleasure to welcome the Reverend L. John Gable and his wife Kris to the United States House of Representatives today as our chaplain.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, the American Congress in 1776 adopted a Declaration of Independence which asserted the belief that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. In fact, the Congress that adopted the first amendment and its freedom of religion clause also established the chaplaincy and the practice, as we saw today, of opening this House in prayer. Nevertheless, over the past 42 years, since the famous prayer in school cases, our Federal courts have showed increased hostility toward the acknowledgement of God in the public square. But as we heard yesterday before the Judiciary subcommittee, Congress can finally do something about it. The Constitution Restoration Act simply put, Mr. Speaker, would use article III powers to deny the Federal courts jurisdiction over any case where the action is brought because a public official simply acknowledges God. Let us restore that basic freedom of religion in the public square, the acknowledgment of God that our founders so cherished and enshrined in this institution. The freedom of religion must never become the freedom from religion. Let us pass the Constitution Restoration Act in this Congress.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Neugebauer amendment as a commonsense statement about what I think the American people would have us do in this majority, and that is, after allowing our distinguished appropriators to do their level best in producing legislation that the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) has produced is to come to this floor and in the absence of a Presidential line item veto to try and do that ourselves. The amendment in particular of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) in focusing, as it does, on funding that would in one case explore the value and merit of dormitory decorations is precisely that which, I believe if the President had a line item veto, would be struck from legislation again and again. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) is new to this institution, but he is demonstrating a courage and a conviction and, more to the point, a common sense that I think is a great value to this institution. I rise with great respect to the members of the committee who have produced this important and meritorious legislation to strongly support the Neugebauer amendment. Bring common sense back to the spending process. Pass the Neugebauer amendment today.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, 3 years ago this Saturday, at precisely this hour, I found myself standing in the sunlight of a September morning in this city near the elm tree on the Capitol grounds. Like so many of my colleagues, I experienced September 11 in Washington, D.C., and not just the smoke-filled skies and pandemonium that followed those moments, but I experienced the lack of deliberation that followed those times. It is in that spirit that I rise, as I did the day the 9/11 Commission report was produced, to say that this Congress should proceed with deliberation, but as one of my Democrat colleagues said, with dispatch, in considering and enacting many, if not all, of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The people of this country believe that they have sent us here, men and women in Congress, to consider the changes that are necessary to advance the security and liberty of the American people; not to write a blank check to independent commissions, but to deliberate, because, God forbid, should a day strike America like that day in September again, or like the days that have struck the people of Russia or of Spain in recent days, there will be a lack of deliberation, and the opportunity to thoughtfully consider these proposals will have gone by.