Mike Pence

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this important statement of the people's House, congratulating the interim government of Iraq for its forthcoming assumption of sovereign authority and congratulating the United States Armed Forces and coalition forces for their sacrifice. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), for their usual and extraordinary and timely leadership on this issue. When I sat in Baghdad in the coalition provisional headquarters on March 1, we sat with Ambassador Bremer across from the hall where was debated the interim Constitution of Iraq. Within 24 hours, these words would enter into the history forever of a free Iraqi people in the preamble of Iraq's transitional administrative law: ``The people of Iraq, striving to reclaim their freedom, which was usurped by the previous tyrannical regime, rejecting violence and coercion in all its forms, and particularly when used as instruments of governance, have determined that they shall hereafter remain a free people governed under the rule of law.'' The preamble of a new Constitution for a free and democratic Iraq. When just 2 years ago we think of the Iraq that existed on the world scene, Saddam Hussein was still imprisoning, torturing, and killing tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis; financially supporting and encouraging terrorism; illegally profiting from the U.N.'s Oil-For-Food program, denying millions of Iraqis needed medicines and food; and flouting and ignoring 16 different U.N. Security Council resolutions. Thanks to the leadership of President George W. Bush and the sacrifice of U.S. and coalition forces, those days are over. And on this June 30 that we commemorate in this resolution, the United States will disengage and those words of that preamble will begin to become the reality of a new free and democratic Iraq. And know this, Mr. Speaker. The people of Iraq are grateful. As we stood in the midst of 30 or 40 men and women in Basra the day before we were in Baghdad, I will never forget as people approached me one after the other, tears in their eyes, taking me by the hand and saying, please, when you go home to America, tell the people you serve that we will never forget what the United States has done for our people in Iraq. The people I met in Iraq have an undying gratitude that will begin to express itself most eloquently in the advance of freedom and democracy for themselves and their posterity. I support this resolution. I embrace all that it celebrates, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership in bringing it forward at this time.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the leadership of this Congress for tonight's debate of this budget resolution that will be tough and real and a discussion of meaningful reforms. And they are timely, and they are timeless. In the year 55 B.C., Cicero wrote, ``The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced, if the Nation does not want to go bankrupt.'' Real Federal spending today is at its highest level per person since World War II. And despite the conservative instincts of many of our appropriators in this Congress, the current budget process adopted by a liberal Democratic Congress in 1974 was designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to guarantee the growth of the Federal Government. And that Big Government Democratic spending scheme has worked like a charm for 30 years. In a word, Mr. Chairman, it is not the appropriators; it is the appropriation process. So let us gather tonight in that spirit, to focus on the changes that will give our spending committee the tools that they need to do what Republicans came to Washington to do, to practice fiscal responsibility, to put our fiscal house in order and achieve a balanced Federal budget. And the stakes could not possibly be higher. Abraham Lincoln said, and I quote, ``If we do not make common cause to save the good old ship of the Union on this voyage, nobody will have a chance to pilot her on another.'' Let us get behind these resolutions, these changes in this budget process; let us engage in the debate and serve the public's interest in the best way that a Republican Congress knows how, through fiscal discipline, through real reform.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I thank her for her extraordinary leadership on the Middle East and Central Asia Subcommittee. She is a great champion for that about which this resolution attends today, that strong and historic alliance between the United States of America and Israel. I also speak in commendation of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), majority leader; and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), minority whip, who have brought forward this House concurrent resolution regarding the security of Israel and the principles of Middle East peace. And I also congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), my friend and mentor on these issues, a great leader on the world stage on behalf of human rights and Israel. When I met Prime Minister Sharon during January of this year during my first journey to Israel, he asked me if I had ever been to that historic land, and I replied reflexively ``Only in my dreams.'' And the truth is that for many millions of American Christians, Israel is just that. It is a dream. And it is a dream, make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, that American Christians cherish with a fervor and the fire of American members of the Jewish community. It was a dream that was made real by the leadership of the United States of America in 1948, and it is a dream the reality of which the American people, even the people across the heartland district that I serve, are dedicated to. It was my passion for Israel that led me, after my return from Israel this year, to draft a resolution, along with the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), who just spoke. We authored the Pence-Berkley resolution that was able to endorse Israel's right of self-defense openly as this resolution does and condemn the adjudication of Israel before the civil court of justice at the Hague. We were both, I think, pleasantly surprised to see over 160 Democrats and Republicans support that resolution. So it was with special pride that I learned that the leadership of this Congress and the leadership of the House Committee on International Relations have come together in a bipartisan way to make an affirmative statement about Israel's right of self-defense. The relationship between the United States and Israel is truly unique and precious. It is forged in the best values and hopes of the peoples of both nations, and it is forged in the uniqueness that at no other time in human history has one people so committed themselves to the reestablishment of another people in their historic homeland. I see our relationship with Israel as one of stewardship. Until such a time that Israel has developed both the economic and military capability to stand on its own, the United States, as we are doing today, must stand with Israel as a protector, a friend, and a partner. As a protector, this commitment begins with defending the territorial integrity of Israel through military aid and means if necessary. As a friend, this commitment includes foreign aid by the United States of America. And as partner, it means partnering in a process for peace in the Middle East, but recognizes that the role of the United States of America in that Middle East process is not one of an honest broker, but it is one of a partner on one side of the table, honestly dealing on behalf of peace. I am specifically pleased to see this resolution endorsing Israel's right of self-defense. During my tour of Israel, we, along with Israeli defense forces, toured a large section of the security fence. Mr. Speaker, during the 2 hours that my wife and I toured that fence with military personnel, they received three separate calls for attempted terrorist incursions along the fence line. When we arrived at their post, I asked the commander who had accompanied us, Havi, I said, ``Is this a pretty busy day?'' And he smiled the way that Israelis tend to do in the face of unthinkable threats and terror, and said, ``Pretty typical day, Congressman.'' Three attempted terrorist incursions along the fence line. It is that reality that sent me home to go to work here in Congress on behalf of the statement that we will make today in deafening and bipartisan terms. It is the firsthand reality of daily terror that the people of Israel face that makes it imperative that the United States of America, in bipartisan and deafening terms, be heard in this place and on this day. I pray for the peace of Jerusalem, Mr. Speaker; and I close by saying that like millions of Americans, Republican and Democrat, as we see witness here today, liberal and conservative, as we see here today, I stand for the dream that is Israel. But I stand even more firmly for making that dream a reality; not just past, not just present, but a permanent and truly eternal reality of the Nation of Israel, with Jerusalem as her capital. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time, I thank our leadership for their extraordinary effort on behalf of our great partner and ally.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, the question on the hearts and minds of millions of Americans was expressed last week on the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. Will Republicans step up to control spending? In an age where we have seen an extraordinary increase in non-defense discretionary spending, as a conservative member of this institution, it is my honest hope that we will answer in the affirmative to that question. And thanks to the leadership of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola) with the American Family Budget Act Congress is poised to do just that. Tomorrow we will consider the first major budget process reform in 3 decades on Capitol Hill. And their initiatives will be a part of the amendments. But some now are considering not even bringing budget process reform to the floor. And I rise today to say, Mr. Speaker, that we must today answer the question in the affirmative. Will Republicans step up and control spending? To answer yes, Republicans must bring spending reform to the floor tomorrow. Debate it, amend it, and say yes to the American people that fiscal discipline is alive and well in the House of Representatives and in this Republican majority.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, Indiana has lost more manufacturing jobs than any State in the Union. So today I rise to enthusiastically support congressional action on the American Jobs Creation Act. Thanks to impending sanctions by the WTO, Congress will today cut the corporate tax rate from 35 to 33 percent, provide $4 billion in relief for AMT, also known as the antimanufacturing tax, and reform the Tax Code to reduce double taxation on U.S. manufacturers that export and do business overseas like so many Indiana companies do. 1.4 million new jobs since last fall is a good start, but let us rev up the engine of the American economy, especially American manufacturers, and create good-paying American jobs by passing today the American Jobs Creation Act.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, as the debate begins over the proper way to pay tribute the 40th President of the United States, some argue that the best way to honor the memory of Ronald Reagan would be to permit the destruction of human embryos for scientific research on diseases like that which claimed his life, and while I would never criticize grieving family members who advocate this, anyone else who would use the memory of Ronald Reagan to erode the sanctity of human life would do more to desecrate his legacy than by any other means. Reaffirming his pro-life views on the 10th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, President Reagan said, ``There is no cause more important for preserving freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life to all human beings.'' He said, ``We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life, the unborn, without diminishing the value of all human life.'' Let us choose life. Let us honor Reagan. Let us honor his pro- life values by continuing to say no to embryonic stem cell research.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, in the midst of our national loss, gain. In the progress of freedom in Iraq, after months of sacrifice by U.S. and coalition forces, yesterday the United Nations Security Council agreed unanimously to a resolution outlining a free and democratic future for the people of Iraq. By a 15 to 0 vote, which included France, Germany and Russia, the United Nations agreed to declare a formal end to occupation on June 30 and set into motion the process of an interim and permanent democracy in Iraq. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, international approval of the progress of freedom in Iraq is a victory for this President and, I would add, a fitting tribute to the President in whose memory we will gather later today.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, my favorite Reagan protege in the Congress, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan will be remembered as a great man and a great American leader, who personified the highest ideals of the American people at home and abroad. After 8 years of his Presidency, the communism of Soviet Russia was collapsing, the American military was rebuilt, the Nation's economy restored, and its moral fabric renewed. Many remember him as the ``Great Communicator,'' but as the President said many times, he was not a great communicator, he communicated great things. Those were the traditional American values of this Midwesterner turned national leader. They came from the profound Christian faith inculcated in a young Dutch Reagan by his beloved mother Nelle and from his heart. And, as the President said, ``They came from the heart of a great Nation.'' Those ideas were simple, straightforward, and distinctly American. President Reagan believed that freedom depended on limited government. He fiercely advanced the principles of less government, less taxes, a strong military, and a commitment to traditional moral values. And President Reagan changed the course of my life. While youthful ambition led me to politics, it was the voice and the values of Ronald Reagan that made me a Republican. The Bible says, ``If the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle?'' Ronald Reagan's great gift was to sound a clear call to return our Nation to the ideals of its Founders, and it was said that when he spoke, people just did not just agree. From coffee shops to tractor seats to high offices in tall buildings, when the American people heard Reagan speak, they said, ``Darn right.'' I had the privilege in 1988 as a candidate for Congress to sit with the President in the Blue Room of the White House and speak to him personally, and on that occasion, that great privilege of my life, I was able to look the President in the eye as he asked me how my campaign was going. I said, ``Mr. President, it is going fine, but I just want to thank you for everything you have done for our country and to encourage my generation of Americans to believe in this country again.'' I said then, and I say again, thank you, Mr. President. May God bless you, as, through you, God most certainly blessed the United States of America.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, Memorial Day is a day set aside to remember all of the brave men and women that have died serving the United States in the name of freedom. I rise on this day to express my fervent prayers and sympathy to the families and friends of all the American heroes who unselfishly fought for a cause greater than them. I want to specifically highlight those who served in Iraq, recently bringing hope and freedom to a people who have never known it before. Indiana's Sixth Congressional District lost three brave men during the War in Iraq in 2003, and I want to recognize and honor them. Lance Corporal Matthew R. Smith, of Anderson, died in a Humvee accident on May 10 while serving in Kuwait. Staff Sgt. Frederick L. Miller Jr., of Hagerstown, was killed on a security patrol when terrorists struck his vehicle with an improvised explosive device on September 20 in Ar Ramadi, Iraq. Chief Warrant Officer Brian D. Hazelgrove died January 23 in an OH-58 helicopter that crashed on its way back from a combat mission near Mosul, Iraq. Mr. Speaker, these men deserve to be remembered for their great service and sacrifice for the United States, and for the welfare of humanity. My thoughts and prayers are with them and their families each day. Mr. Speaker, their job was to serve their country. Our job this Memorial Day is to remember them. I hope that their service and sacrifice may be an encouragement to many, as they have been for me.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, as many know, for deeply held philosophical reasons, I opposed the creation of a prescription drug entitlement in Medicare. But I never opposed helping low-income seniors or using the private sector to give seniors more buying power to save money on their prescription drugs, which is exactly what became available this week with the new Medicare drug discount card and the $600 credit for low- income seniors. In fact, I hosted five Medicare discount drug fairs across my district, speaking to more than 1,000 of my constituents. While many have made speeches on this floor and across the country creating anxiety about this new bill, I found it instructive to spend time with seniors. Despite my opposition to a drug entitlement, I felt I had a moral obligation to explain to seniors, particularly low-income seniors, what is available as of this week in the new Medicare drug discount card benefit. I urge all of my colleagues, regardless of your view of this legislation, to view what is available in this law and to discharge your duty to your constituents to make knowledge available of the new drug discount card and the low-income assistance for seniors.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I rise to relish this debate. It is precisely the type of issue that, as I was a boy first falling in love with the Constitution of the United States, as no doubt the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) did as well, I hoped some day to be a part of here. I congratulate the distinguished gentleman from Washington State for his passion on this issue, and I believe in his well-intentioned efforts to address what is, unfortunately, an issue that this Congress must continue to confront in the years ahead. But with regard to House Joint Resolution 83, however well- intentioned, Mr. Speaker, I would offer that it is nonetheless bad policy. When terrorists attacked America on September 11, I was here in the Congress, and that very next day, I witnessed that it was an elected Congress that responded in the wake of those attacks. Had the 107th Congress been comprised of appointed officials, the legislation we passed would not by definition have carried the same validity. The truth is, it would hardly have been reassuring to the American people immediately following a terrorist attack to see the faces of hundreds of strangers running their government; and, gladly, it did not occur. The Constitution could not be clearer on this point. Article I states, ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen by the people of the several States,'' and that ``when vacancies happen in the representation of any State, the executive authority shall issue writs of elections to fill such vacancies.'' Of this point James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 52, ``As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the House should have an immediate dependence on and an intimate sympathy with the people.'' Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which a dependence and sympathy for the people can be equally secured. In fact, it would be Madison himself who in a speech years later would suggest ``a gradual abridgement of the right to suffrage or to elected representation has been the mode in which aristocracies have been built on the ruins of popular forms.'' That is not what we are about here today, nor would I imply it or suggest it to my friends and colleagues. But I am here to say that this business of the People's House being the exclusive province of the national government where one must be elected by the people to serve is a principle worth defending. For that reason, despite my admiration for the gentleman from Washington, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution inasmuch as it does undermine the core principle that this place on this floor should ever be the People's House.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, amidst the violence and struggle that always attends the transition between tyranny and liberty, we have progress in Iraq. Yesterday, a Shiite Muslim, part of a population that suffered for 30 years under the iron fist of Saddam Hussein, a Shiite Muslim, Iyad Allawi, was named prime minister along with Ghazi al Yawar, a Sunni Muslim, and those two men will lead a free and democratic Iraq. Mr. Allawi said memorably, in this country that was torn by tyranny for three decades, that he was pledged to establishing a democratic and federal system under which people enjoy free citizenship in a state of laws and freedom. A quagmire, hardly. Difficult, yes. But an ethnically diverse country coming together under the rule of law and democracy is genuine progress in Iraq and worthy of celebrating in this Congress.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, despite the national media's best efforts to minimize the news, I am here to report, as the United States military confirmed in Iraq on Monday, weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq in the form of two separate artillery shells containing sarin and mustard gas, shells that had been used by insurgents to create roadside bombs. A 155 millimeter shell found last week included nearly a gallon of a deadly gas, a drop of which would kill a human being. Not that we should be surprised. Saddam Hussein killed or injured over 70,000 Iraqi Kurds using sarin gas munitions in 1988. Where are the WMDs? We have been asked again and again. Mr. Speaker, they are where they have always been, hidden in Iraq, within the reach of terrorists, a threat to the Iraqi people, U.S. soldiers, and the world.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. To provide for the common defense is the first object of the Federal Government. I rise today in strong support of the National Defense Authorization Act because it meets that objective. This legislation with its principal focus on the American soldier earns the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) the well-deserved title Soldier's Chairman, which I believe will stick. American soldiers with the help of coalition forces have accomplished extraordinary things in recent days, liberated 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan, captured and imprisoned a brutal dictator, deposed an evil regime, and American soldiers have carried out hundreds of raids, seizing caches of enemy weapons and munitions, including ominously this week, weapons of mass destruction that were found in Iraq in the form of munitions containing mustard gas and sarin gas. It is precisely this discovery, as the chairman attests, that concerns me and most Members of Congress most deeply, for the well- being of our men and women in uniform in the theater of operation in Iraq. I am pleased to say that H.R. 4200 provides an extraordinary amount of resources in the form of force protection: $1.5 billion for chemical and biological defense programs, individual protection, decontamination equipment, chemical and biological protective shelters, just to name a few. We have most certainly now found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the nature of the munitions we have found suggest there are more stockpiles yet to be uncovered. And putting a primacy on achieving our objective of securing the peace in Iraq must remain our fervent goal; but beyond that, protecting our forces in that theater of operation from exposure to these weapons of mass destruction is key, and the new National Defense Authorization Act achieves that goal. I am grateful for the chairman; I am grateful for every member of the committee on both sides of the aisle for creating this extraordinary legislation.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, it really is a very good question posed frequently on the House floor today, Are we better off today than we were 4 years ago? Let us think. Four years ago, we had a morally disgraced President in the United States of America in the Oval Office. Today we have a man of integrity, of virtue, of principle, of purpose. Four years ago, the terrorists planned their attacks against America and our allies. Today, America attacks the terrorists while they cower in the mountains of Pakistan. Four years ago, Saddam Hussein amassed weapons of mass destruction, the Taliban was in power, and Libya had a WMD program. Today, the Taliban is gone. Saddam Hussein is in a cell. We have found pieces of his WMDs, and Libya has ended its program. Four years ago, the Clinton recession took hold. Today, last month, 300,000 new jobs. Four years ago, partial birth abortion was legal in America. Today, that moral horror has ended. We are better off today than we were 4 years ago.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great enthusiasm for the work of my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), in not only the legislation before us this hour, H.R. 2730, but also the companion legislation, which I truly believe will develop, in sum total, better cooperation between OSHA and employers. I also believe that these reforms and the predictability that they will encourage will improve workplace safety as they enhance business competitiveness and, at the end of the day, more jobs. In east central Indiana, small business America has one thing on their mind, and that is looking after employees, but doing that in such a way that we can create jobs and opportunities for Hoosiers. This legislation authored by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and passed by the Committee on Education and the Workforce, companion to the other three bills, will be about that. First, a word on the Occupational Safety and Health Independent Review of OSHA Citations Act; I know it is a long name, but a simple concept. Mr. Speaker, by simply reasserting the proper role of the courts and the proper role of the independent review panel, what we will do today on the floor of the Congress is, we will affirm that the original intent expressed in the act is renewed and encouraged, and this, in and of itself, will result in greater predictability for businesses, small and large. Beyond that, I come to the floor today with a great passion for this issue. During the 107th Congress, Mr. Speaker, I served as the chairman of the Committee on Small Business Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Oversight; and in hearing after hearing that I chaired I heard of the extraordinary burden that regulatory red tape places on small businesses across America. A couple of statistics that are informative: For every dollar of direct budget spending devoted to regulatory activity, according to the Office of Management and Budget, the private sector spends $45 in compliance, and these regulatory burdens are, of course, most harmful for small businesses. According to the Small Business Administration, firms employing fewer than 20 employees had a regulatory burden in the year 2000 of $6,975 per employee which is nearly 60 percent higher than the $4,400 estimated for firms of more than 500 employees. Considering that the U.S. Census Bureau says that small businesses have accounted for 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs in the United States economy over the past decade, this should obviously be a subject of enormous urgency in this Congress, and I commend my colleague for bringing these measures forward to address it. There has been talk today about an erosion of safety in the workplace. The truth is, though, that under the present administration, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there has actually been a 1 percent reduction in workplace injuries between 1999 and 2002, and even more happy news, worker fatalities have been reduced by over 500 annually during the present administration. This administration and this Congress and this majority are committed to workplace safety, to renewing that pact between American business and the American worker and common-sense regulation in Washington, DC, but as H.R. 2730 proposes to do today, along with the companion legislation, we must do that in a way that is consistent with a free market economy, that understands the proper role of the courts and the Congress and of regulatory agencies, as H.R. 2730 confirms. So this bill is about reaffirming the original intent of Congress, which well we should do. It is about improving worker safety and reducing Federal red tape; but at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, it is about jobs, and let us make no mistake about that. As my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), has said on several occasions in the last several days in various venues on Capitol Hill, maybe you are not for this legislation, maybe you do not have small businesses in your district. Well, we do in eastern Indiana, and cutting Federal regulatory red tape is as urgent a business of this Congress as cutting the onerous burden of taxes on small business owners for revitalizing that small-town, small-business economy that makes my district great and makes America great. I thank the Speaker and I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, for months we have heard opponents of the war in Iraq come to the floor of this Congress and ask the question again and again, where are the weapons of mass destruction? And yesterday the answer came in part, and the silence on the left is deafening. Yesterday the Coalition Provisional Authority announced the discovery of two separate Iraqi munitions wired by terrorists to serve as IEDs in Baghdad which date to the regime of Saddam Hussein and contain weapons of mass destruction, sarin and mustard gas. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Mr. Speaker, the answer is becoming more clear by the hour. The weapons of mass destruction are where they have always been, hidden in Baghdad, within the reach of terrorists, a threat to U.S. troops, the region, and the wider world, and more than enough justification for our deeds and the courage of our troops in that region.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, despite the horrendous acts of a few American soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison, we are winning the war in Iraq. We are investigating and punishing those among our own engaged in wrongdoing. And as the brutality and desperation of yesterday's beheading of an American attest, our enemies know they are losing. While I support freedom for the good people of Iraq, I support President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld, I respectfully encourage the administration to bring an end to the lurid parade of photographs leaking their way into the national media by immediately releasing all photographic records of abuse of prisoners by American personnel. Abraham Lincoln said it best: ``Give the people the facts, and the Republic will be saved.'' In this case, Mr. Speaker, the republic that we save may be that free and democratic republic of Iraq in the 21st century.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, what happened at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad was a disgrace, and it grieved the heart of every American who saw it, grief for the families of the Iraqis incarcerated who had endured the indignities and grief for the American soldiers, not those involved. Those involved must and will be held to the strictest account. It grieved me to hear, as someone who has traveled to Operation Iraqi Freedom twice, I have been at Camp Victory in Baghdad. I have been at Talil Air Base in southern Iraq. I have walked among our soldiers on aircraft carriers and on the ground. They are honorable men and women who each and every day put their lives on the line in a dignified and respectful way as American soldiers ever and always have. It is for their reputation that I grieve today and why I call on this administration and our own military to put our house in order, hold those to account, uphold the great reputation of the American fighting man.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, April 21, I inadvertently failed to give proper attribution to World Magazine during my Case for Life Special Order. I read the following quote and would like to credit World Magazine as its source: ``A native of India, he just does not meet the stereotype, not just the head wrap, the neat beard, the Rollie Fingers-style mustache, but he views abortion as an unalienable right for women in America.''

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, a millennia ago the question was asked that rings through history and through governance, and that is, can a corrupt throne be allied with you? Today in just a few moments the Committee on International Relations will gather to examine the United Nations Oil for Food Program. We will begin to call for transparency and accountability in a program that the United Nations oversaw but that the evidence suggests allowed Saddam Hussein to amass and divert through kickbacks and various forms of graft in excess of $4 billion. As we consider moving forward as a partner in Iraq with the United Nations, now is the time and the Committee on International Relations is the place where we must begin to get to the bottom of the administration of the Oil for Food Program, find the truth, have transparency and accountability and go forward with the United Nations with our eyes open.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for his wonderful leadership on this profoundly important legislation. I would also commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for his work on this bill, and to no lesser extent the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), who has, I think, singularly brought this issue to the attention of our colleagues in the days immediately following September 11. I want to rise in strong support of the Continuity in Representation Act. Thinking of that ancient text that says, Teach us to number our days aright, that we might gain a heart of wisdom. I think it is about that, as the majority whip said, it is about that in that spirit that we gather here today. I must tell you, Mr. Chairman, this topic is not theoretical to me or my family or to anyone who was here on September 11. I stood on the Capitol lawn that morning and saw the smoke rising from the Pentagon, and scarcely 1 month later I was informed by security officials that the anthrax bacillus was on my desk, exposed to my staff and my family. While I pray that our Nation and this Congress will never experience any similar events with greater catastrophic effect on this institution, we must prepare for the eventuality. This legislation does that. By ensuring the continuity of this Congress, we will ensure that the people's House will be available to meet the people's needs in their most troubled hour. The House of Representatives is truly a unique facet of the American Government. It has been called the people's House. In fact, in the Federalist Papers' James Madison said that elections, as this legislation dictates, elections would be ``unquestionably the only policy'' by which the House can have ``intimate sympathy with the people.'' Madison also wrote that ``the definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government . . . to have it left open for the occasional regulation of the Congress would have been improper.'' Our Founders knew it. This legislation contemplates it. We must preserve the right and the obligation to be elected to serve in the House while we prepare necessarily for that dark day that we hope and pray shall never come.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the discharge of an idea that began for me in September of 2003; and now today it has its fourth manifestation, a series of remarks on the floor of this Congress that I simply call ``The Case for Life.'' My inspiration for today's discussion, which is entitled ``The Case for Life: Abortion and the Problem of Pain,'' was inspired not by a contemporary in this Congress, though I just came from a meeting with really the intellectual and moral father of the pro-life movement in this Congress, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of the Committee on International Relations, who simply referred to my humble efforts on the floor and those of colleagues who will join me as, in his words, ``a great idea.'' But it was not from the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) that I drew my inspiration for these series, but rather from another distinguished gentleman who served in this body from the years 1827 to his death on the House floor in the year 1848. That was the late Congressman and the former President, John Quincy Adams, who history recorded after he served as President of the United States for a term in the early 1820s, he actually felt compelled to return to Washington, D.C. from his home State of Massachusetts as a member of the House of Representatives, truly an extraordinary exercise in public service. One can scarcely imagine a former President in the modern era becoming a Member of Congress after he served in the Oval Office. But John Quincy Adams was not an ordinary man. His father before him, John Adams, was our second President. John Quincy Adams was considered one of the great moral and intellectual minds of the 19th century and is considered so to this day. But he came to Capitol Hill, Mr. Speaker, not simply, as some get wrongly accused, to occupy a chair. He came here on a mission, a mission encapsulated in a book I am reading now entitled ``Arguing About Slavery.'' Because when John Quincy Adams came to the Congress of the United States he did so as a Northerner, a former President himself, the son of one of the founders of this country, and a man who believed that the scourge of slavery was a blight on this Nation and threatened its greatness and threatened its destiny. So as history records, Congressman John Quincy Adams came often not to this floor, but to the floor of the Congress just down the hallway, every few weeks for the nearly 20 years he served in this body to speak about one issue, and that was the issue of the abolition of slavery. Now, one would argue that having died in 1848, John Quincy Adams could scarcely point to any accomplishment in his life ending slavery; but there, Mr. Speaker, you would be wrong. Because it would be none other than a lanky, gangly freshman member of Congress that arrived on Capitol Hill the year that John Quincy Adams would die who would be sitting on the back row in what is now Statuary Hall in the House of Representatives and would listen to the great man speak, make his powerful moral orations against slavery. And that young Congressman, known to his friends as Abe Lincoln, would be deeply moved. History would record that young Congressman would go back to Illinois and run for the United States Senate and eventually become our President and eventually sign the Emancipation Proclamation. I am confident that once we reach the other side of heaven, as opposed to this side of heaven, we will know to a certainty that that Abe Lincoln was inspired by the words and the example of that humble former President and Congressman. After I learned that story, I thought of my own time. I thought of the short period of time that I would have here to serve, and I thought about my passion about the sanctity of human life, and I thought about the enormity of this issue and the fact that apart from a few important legislative advances, despite the fact that this Chamber could be considered the heart of the most powerful Nation on Earth, that actually the subject of abortion comes up here very infrequently, even though the statistics are startling about the impact that abortion has and has had on our society over the last 30 years. Think of it, Mr. Speaker. Each year more than 1 million U.S. teenagers become pregnant, and the teen pregnancy rate in the last 30 years has become truly alarming. With regard to those who elect to end that pregnancy out of wedlock in abortion, 80 percent are single, 60 percent are white, 35 percent are black. Eighty-two percent of women having abortions are among that single or separated category, but the most startling statistic to me, and I think the reason why, Mr. Speaker, it begs that we grapple with this issue on this floor from time to time, in the same way that John Quincy Adams, however inconveniently, grappled publicly on the floor of the Congress about slavery, is that according to Planned Parenthood's National Center for Health Statistics, nearly half of American women, 43 percent of American women, will have an abortion sometime during their life. Let me say again. This procedure, validated in the case of Roe v. Wade in 1973, has now given rise to a procedure that literally impacts the lives not only of the unborn, but of nearly half of childbearing women in the United States of America. So it is in that spirit that back in September I launched this series on the case for life and today come to the floor on the subject of abortion and the problem of pain. I mentioned earlier that there have been some recent and important legislative achievements. This Republican majority in Congress has advanced not one, but two historic pieces of legislation that advance the principles of the sanctity of human life. To a lesser degree is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I helped to draft that bill as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and while it is not a prolife piece of legislation, it does, on the Federal level, certify what two-thirds of the States of this Nation have certified long ago is that when there is violence against a pregnant mother that results in the loss of the unborn child's life, that there are two victims, and while I would say that it is not a prolife piece of legislation, the principle about the sanctity of unborn human life is nonetheless there, and it is important. I commend my colleague, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), who almost single-handedly muscled this legislation to the floor of the Congress and saw to its passage and signature earlier this year. Obviously, the most significant piece of legislation and, in fact, the very first restriction on the abortion procedure since Roe v. Wade also passed in this Congress and is now the subject of not one, but three separate pieces of litigation in the Federal courts, and it is in that context that abortion and the problem of pain, I think, justifiably comes before us today. Congress, as I am sure my colleagues are aware, Mr. Speaker, actually managed earlier this year in overwhelming numbers to pass the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. For those not aware of this procedure, partial birth abortion essentially involves, as hard as it is to say, the breach delivery of a child post-20 weeks. Virtually in every case of a partial birth abortion, the child could be delivered whole and could survive. It is certainly at the stage of viability. But in the partial birth abortion, the child is delivered partially, and then a suction tube is, I will say it gently, inserted in the back of the skull. The contents of the skull are removed, and the remains of the child are taken from the mother's womb. It is a horrific procedure. It was one of the joys of my life on November 5, 2003, to sit on about the third row as the President of the United States over near the White House in the Reagan Building signed that ban of that horrific procedure. As the President said, Our Nation owes its children a different and better welcome. He went on to say, The bill I am about to sign protecting the innocent, new life from this practice reflects the passion and humanity of America. And so it did. It affirmed our basic standard of humanity which can be summarized in the duty that the strong have to protect the weak. The American people obviously overwhelmingly support this legislation. One survey after another has shown enormous support. A recent Gallup poll showed 68 percent of Americans believe that partial birth abortion should be illegal. The same poll showed that even 50 percent of those who considered themselves to be prochoice on abortion supported the ban of this horrific procedure, and here is a compelling number for my colleagues. Fifty-seven percent of obstetricians and gynecologists want partial birth abortion banned as well, according to a survey in Medical Economics Magazine. It seems, as we like to say back in Indiana, Mr. Speaker, to be a no- brainer procedure like this has no place in a civilized society, and Congress, in bipartisan fashion, agreed. Members from across the political spectrum after literally 8 years of wrangling on Capitol Hill, 8 years of expert testimony, 8 years of public debate, finally came to broad agreement. Members across the aisle, as I mentioned, many colleagues in the Democrat minority in the House and the Senate, strongly supported this legislation. Senators, from conservative Republican Rick Santorum to Senator Tom Daschle, approved this measure in a 64-to-34 vote, and House Members in this Chamber, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and my friend the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), joined conservatives like me in approving the ban 281 to 142. Congress made specific findings in this legislation as well, that partial birth abortion was essentially an inhumane procedure that is, and this was a finding of the Congress that is important in this moment, Mr. Speaker, because it is being litigated in Federal courts around the country at this very moment, that the Congress found that one expert after another, and even in agreement with the American Medical Association that supports abortion rights in America, found that this procedure is never medically necessary. Let me say again. That after nearly 8 years of debate, after examination of experts, including the concerted opinion of the American Medical Association, it was concluded that this procedure, known as partial birth abortion by the AMA, as well as, of course, by the overwhelming majorities of this Congress, was found to never be medically necessary, and that is a critical, critical conclusion by this Congress. Partial birth abortion, it was concluded almost unilaterally or uniformly by medical and legal and ethical experts to be inconsistent with the obligations of the law. So we find ourselves nevertheless in litigation in America, and as a former trial attorney, I can tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I would never stand between any American and the courthouse door. We all have the right to seek redress in the courts, and some are doing just that. In fact, this law, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, signed into law last November is being challenged not in one, but in three separate cases in Federal courts around the country: in New York City before Judge Richard C. Casey; in Lincoln, Nebraska, before Judge Richard Kopf; and in San Francisco, California, before the honorable Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. In two out of three of those cases, though, interestingly, Mr. Speaker, the judges on the bench have ruled that an issue that we did consider in this Congress, but an issue that has not gotten a great deal of public discussion, was relevant to the deliberations on the constitutionality of the ban, and that is, as I have said in the title of this discussion today, the problem of pain. It is the problem of pain that is literally being considered in two out of three of the Federal cases, and it may ultimately cause some pain in the hearts of Americans who may be looking in on our deliberations or may be reading accounts of this, but it seems to me, as we try and come to terms with the cost of abortion in America, we do well to listen to the experts about this issue of pain, and I want to speak gently and respectfully about it today. The truth is, in the New York City case, the National Abortion Federation never wanted Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand to testify in the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act trials, but he did, and no wonder. This Oxford- and Harvard- trained neonatal pediatrician had some jarring testimony about the subject of fetal pain, and it is truly made more astonishing when one considers the fact that Dr. Anand is not a stereotypic Bible-thumping prolifer. In fact, interestingly, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Anand is not prolife at all. He is, in fact, a strong advocate of the right to an abortion. A native of India, he just does not meet the stereotype, not just the head wrap, the neat beard, the Rollie Fingers-style mustache, but he views abortion as an unalienable right for women in America. He gave his testimony in the New York court, even more credibility as one of the leading experts on fetal pain in America, if not the world. Dr. Anand took the stand in the morning recently and testified for hours, excerpts of which I will read into the Record today. He testified for hours on a simple principle that unborn children can, according to his research, actually feel pain more vividly than recently born children or adults. It is an astonishing and truly chilling assertion that this expert came to. Let me go back, as my old trial lawyer days taught me to do, and let me establish the credibility of the witness, if I can. Dr. Kanwaljeet S. Anand is a pediatrician specializing in the care of critically ill newborns and children. For more than 20 years, according to trial testimony, he has conducted intensive research on the study and the development of pain and stress in human newborns and fetuses. I said before once again, and I repeat it for the sake of its significance and its addition to the credibility of his testimony, that Dr. Anand personally believes that a woman has an unalienable right to an abortion, which makes him solidly and unqualifiedly prochoice. He received his medical degree from Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College in Indore, India. After postdoctoral training in pediatrics, he was awarded a Rhodes scholarship to study at the University of Oxford. He received a Ph.D. from the Faculty of Medicine for research he performed on surgical pain and stress in premature and full-term newborns. Following additional postdoctoral training at Oxford, Dr. Anand completed a fellowship in pediatric critical care at Massachusetts General Hospital. He has numerous academic appointments, University of Oxford, Harvard Medical School, Emory University School of Medicine. He has authored or coauthored more than 200 articles and is currently professor of pediatrics at Arkansas University for Medical Science. Not a lightweight, and, virtually as we used to say in the law business, an unimpeachable witness on the subject of fetal stress and fetal pain. Now, before I go into precisely what Dr. Anand had to say, it is important to point out that the damaging nature of this information coming in not only to the courtroom in New York, and not only has been ruled in order in Nebraska, Mr. Speaker, but also into the public domain was certainly not lost on the abortion rights activists who brought the challenge to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in both of those cases. Literally, attorneys for the National Abortion Federation used virtually every legal tactic at their disposal to prevent Dr. Anand's testimony from being permitted in the court. NAF attorneys attempted time and time again to block Dr. Anand's testimony. And then once he was allowed on the stand, the plaintiffs' attorneys cross-examined him redundantly, in a style that actually drew the judge's rebuke. The judge actually asked one of the National Abortion Federation lawyers, he was being so pedantic and repetitive, and in some ways abusive of Dr. Anand on the stand, Judge Casey asked: ``Is this a new school of cross-examination, where you make a statement and finish every statement with, is that correct?'' Later, the judge actually drilled a plaintiff's lawyer for attempting to make one of their witnesses testify about events before they were hired. It just was extraordinary the efforts to which the opponents of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act went to prevent Dr. Anand's testimony from being allowed in. And for all the world, I do not think, Mr. Speaker, it was so much about what was happening in that courtroom as it was what was happening out here in the debate, the debate for winning the hearts and minds of 270, 280 million Americans who wrestle with this issue and are deeply divided. And not only are we divided just as a country, but most of even my very best friends and family members, who profess to be pro-choice, do so with a great deal of ambiguity about it, seeing abortion as a necessary evil in society, but an evil nonetheless. I really believe, as I denominated this ``case for life'' installment, I believe that pain is a problem for the advocates of abortion in America, not just those who would oppose partial-birth abortion. Abortion and the problem of pain can be summarized in this idea, and forgive me if I have too high an opinion of people and particularly the American people, but I cannot help but feel that if most Americans became persuaded about the truth of what Dr. Anand has said, about the capacity of unborn children to experience pain, that we would, as a Nation, rethink this business of abortion. And so I thought it all together fitting that we talk about the problem of pain in the little bit of time I have left. And I may be joined, Mr. Speaker, by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), who was actually in Nebraska, in the courtroom, where much of this testimony took place and was facilitated just in the last 2 weeks. Here is what Dr. Anand had to say, and I want to read this into the Record, if I can, Mr. Speaker, although I will submit the entire testimony for the Record. When he was brought to the stand in New York City in the partial- birth abortion ban challenge case, Dr. Anand was asked a series of questions beginning with this: ``Are there differences between fetuses and infants born at full term?'' The answer: ``There are certainly huge differences between a fetus at different stages of maturity and a full- term infant, yes.'' Next question: ``What effect, if any, does that have on your opinion in this case about a fetus's ability to feel pain?'' This was the response of this Rhodes Scholar, Harvard-trained Ph.D. who supports the right to an abortion. Dr. Anand responded: ``What we have noted from these multiple lines of evidence is that the pain system has a very low threshold, meaning that the fetus has a much greater sensitivity to pain during the early development of the pain system, and later on that threshold rises or the sensitivity decreases to pain. This is seen throughout development. So in a premature fetus, those 23, 24 weeks of gestation, they have a much lower threshold of pain compared to a full- term infant. A full-term infant has a lower threshold of pain as compared to, say, a 1- or 2-year-old child. And during childhood as well there is a progressive increase in the threshold of pain. So,'' Dr. Anand testified, ``my opinion is that between 20 and 30 weeks of gestation there is the greatest sensitivity to pain.'' The attorney went on to ask the question: ``Doctor, can you explain the scientific reasons why that is so?'' Dr. Anand responded: ``There are many reasons to explain this increased sensitivity to pain. Firstly, there is the early development of the receptors and the density of these receptors is much greater in the fetal skin as compared to an older child or adult. These receptors have connections to the spinal cord,'' et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. ``So it is that early period,'' he concluded, ``there is the greatest sensitivity to pain.'' Then it gets a bit more chilling, and this is where I would ask the forbearance of the Chair and any who are looking in; so that if there are little ears nearby, I, as the father of three small children, have no desire to offend, but this is offensive. Because here we will hear where Dr. Anand actually used the word ``excruciating'' to describe the experience of pain of an unborn child in a partial-birth abortion. Question: ``Do you have any opinion as to whether the partial-birth abortion procedure will cause pain to a fetus?'' Answer: ``Yes, it would, if the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation.'' And I would add parenthetically here, not as part of the testimony, that virtually all partial-birth abortions take place after 20 weeks, according to medical statistics. Back to the testimony. Question: ``And could you describe, in your opinion, Doctor, what kind of pain you would anticipate the fetus would feel?'' Dr. Anand responded as follows: ``Given the increased sensitivity to pain at that period of gestation, the parts of the procedure associated with grasping the lower extremity of the fetus, of manipulating or rotating the fetus within the confines of the uterus, of delivering the fetus through an incompletely dilated cervix as well as the surgical incision made at the back of the head, the puncturing of the intracranial cavity through the occipital bone and through the membranes that cover the brain, all of those parts of the procedure would be associated with prolonged and excruciating pain to the fetus.'' So said Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand, a Rhodes Scholar and one of the leading experts on fetal pain in the Western World. As you heard, Mr. Speaker, going literally step by step through each element, the doctor described of the procedure of a partial-birth abortion, and I cited here his reference to the grasping of lower extremities, the turning of the fetus in the uterus, the delivery of the fetus through an insufficiently dilated cervix, Dr. Anand concludes that these would all result in, and these are his words now, ``prolonged and excruciating pain to the fetus.'' There is more here; and as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, I will submit this testimony at this point in the Record, in its entirety, for any who might examine our work at some point in the future, because it is truly extraordinary to consider. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful now to yield to a colleague and a friend who, while a freshman from the great State of Iowa, has arrived here with a vengeance and with convictions and with passion. And as I presented the issues that are being litigated at this very hour in New York and in Nebraska and in San Francisco, I was delighted to note that over the April recess, my colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), was not content to stay in Iowa while these weighty matters were being debated. As was reported to me, the gentleman from Iowa drove 470 miles one way to sit in the courtroom in Nebraska in the company of the Honorable Judge Richard G. Kopf, and reassert the principle of Congress' ability to make findings of fact and the deliberation that Congress used in concluding, as I asserted earlier, Mr. Speaker, that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary. And, as I am sure the gentleman from Iowa will elaborate, that was a broad conclusion by this body. Also, Mr. Speaker, I would be anxious to hear my colleague's reflections on the issue of fetal pain and how that may or may not play into this debate, both in and out of the courtroom. My purpose today in this ``case for life'' entitled ``Abortion and the Problem of Pain,'' is simply to do our part on this blue and gold carpet to bring these issues more into the public domain, not just to our colleagues here on the floor, but also to those that might be looking in, Mr. Speaker, to be aware that this business of banning partial-birth abortions, so overwhelmingly supported by the American people, is an unfinished work. The work goes on. Mr. Speaker, again I yield to my colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) for his statements, and again want to express my gratitude for the gentleman's tenacity in defending life and the processes of an institution. Our colleague, literally at a time when many Members of Congress with their families were stealing away to someplace warm, our colleague was headed to a courthouse to defend the integrity of an institution and the processes of this institution which the American people, many of whom may be looking into our conversation today, have a right to know that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act signed 5 November, 2003, by this President was thoughtfully considered and carefully prepared and based upon findings of fact that are demonstrable. I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) for his leadership and for his courage on behalf of the unborn and as truly a remarkable contributor to this institution in a very short period of time. By way of closing this installment of the case for life, abortion and the problem of pain, I would reflect on those words from the ancient text that say whatsoever you do to the least of these, you do to me, and that for millions of Christians, me included, those were the words of God Himself. They express a principle that has been manifested throughout the 2,000-year history of Western civilization that societies and their justice and their definition of justice is defined on the manner in which the strong deal with the weak. That is the essence of justice. At its very core, in my judgment, whether it is partial-birth abortion or abortion in any of its permutations, justice demands that we reconsider this practice. As the evidence that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) defended in Lincoln, Nebraska, overwhelmingly attested in the case of partial-birth abortion, this is a procedure that is never medically necessary. In fact, we, from south of Highway 40 in Indiana, like to use common sense on things. It hardly seems like it could ever be in the interest of the health of a woman to deliver a child and to brutalize it in the birth canal, and that would somehow be safer for the mother than a simple caesarean section that is done countless times in America and has been done since Caesar, after whom it was named. It is never medically necessary. Beyond that, it is my hope and my ambition, and I may even say my prayer, that the problem of pain becomes more widely known in this country. Just judging the intensity that abortion rights activists use to keep Dr. Anand's testimony about fetal pain out of the courtroom in these proceedings suggests to me that our opponents in this debate understand the political vulnerability because at our core I believe, as the President says so often, the American people are a deeply compassionate and caring people. That is why I said at the beginning of this discussion today that in the case for life, the problem of pain is a problem for advocates of abortion rights. To the extent that these court cases and the attempts to challenge and pull down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act ultimately result, whatever their outcome, in the American people having a broader understanding of the reality of what Dr. Anand called so chillingly that prolonged and excruciating pain to the fetus in a partial-birth abortion, then we may be making progress. So I conclude this case for life, Mr. Speaker, with gratitude for your forbearance and those of my colleagues, with renewed appreciation to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), who, along with his lovely bride, are stalwarts on the case for life. I close this case for life with gratitude.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, it is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. And yesterday this photograph was taken by a UPI photographer, remarkably, on the streets of Fallujah in Iraq. It depicts the gratitude of an ordinary Iraqi to a United States Marine who, along with many Marines and constituents of mine from Indiana, are patrolling the streets of that war-torn city at this very hour. I bring this photograph because in the midst of the heartbreak of the loss of American soldiers over the past several weeks, some say this means that the Iraqi people do not want us there, that they fail to appreciate the sacrifices that we have made in the blood of our countrymen. But, Mr. Speaker, that is not what I saw when I was in Iraq a month ago, in Basra and in Baghdad. The Iraqis with whom I met spoke with passion and emotion the same message depicted in this picture: a message of gratitude to the American soldier, gratitude to the American people, not only for ending the reign of Saddam Hussein but for staying the course and seeing them through to freedom. And as the President said, in the interest of these good people, these soldiers and this country will not waver.