Mike Pence

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the wake of the remarks by the President of the United States before the United Nations, words that resonated not only around this Nation but around the world, to respectfully repeat the question the President asked that august and historic body today: Will the United Nations choose to be relevant on the planet Earth? As the President described, Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq, has systematically and continually violated 16 United Nations resolutions over the past decade. The United Nations, for incomprehensible reasons, has chosen to retreat in the face of Hussein's audacity. Mr. Speaker, we must learn the lessons of history. Over 60 years ago, Neville Chamberlain retreated in the face of tyranny in Central Europe when he returned to the people of England and held aloft a sheet of paper, an agreement of peace with the dictator of Germany, and pledged that he had achieved peace in our time. For the past decade, the United Nations has repeated the mistakes of the past. President Bush demonstrated by his speech in the United Nations that he will not play the role of a modern-day Chamberlain, but he has chosen to play the role of Churchill. As the President said today, Saddam has made the case against himself. A dictator who routinely murders his own people, harbors terrorists, develops weapons of mass destruction is a threat to the civilized world. President Bush has made the case for military action against Iraq, and it is now time for the United Nations to fully support regime change in that nation and for that people. Iraq has refused weapons inspections for almost 4 years. Mr. Speaker, 4 years is 4 years too long. Are we to believe that Saddam Hussein stopped developing biological and chemical weapons and his pursuit of nuclear capability at the exact moment he prevented weapons inspections from going forward? As the President said memorably today to the United Nations, logic and common sense scream otherwise. Are we willing to gamble, as the President asked, the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people on the possibility that Saddam Hussein can be trusted, or is it more reasonable to assume that when that dictator attains a nuclear weapon, that he will be prepared to use it? Saddam Hussein has already used weapons of mass destruction. A nuclear capability is simply the next and logical macabre step. As the President said today, this is a gamble that opponents of military action are taking in the world. It is a gamble that I and many in this institution, as the debate ensues in the weeks and months ahead, I pray will not be willing to take. Mr. Speaker, military conflict is a serious business. There is not a night that I do not go into my 11-year-old son's room late, pull up the covers and brush back his hair, that I am not aware of the cost of war. But I must say today, the risk of inaction against this malevolent dictator, who has flaunted the resolutions of the civilized world, is greater than the risks of action. The United Nations, as the President said memorably today, Mr. Speaker, was designed to be able to respond to threats from dangerous dictators who threaten the peace of the world. I say again that question which the President asked today. The United Nations must now choose whether it will be relevant on planet Earth. If they choose against relevance, as the President was clear today, let the world be assured that by this Congress and its war powers authorizing our Commander in Chief, the United States and its courageous allies will not choose irrelevance; we will choose justice. We can seek the safety and security of our people and the people of the civilized world.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, the United States of America is founded on the fundamental principle that all citizens have the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The United States of America stands as a beacon of freedom and opportunity for everyone regardless of race, creed or religious belief. The strength and vitality of the United States of America is in the diversity of its people, the diversity of its ideas, the freedom to express those ideas and the opportunity to achieve one's potential and direct one's destiny. Mr. Speaker, these ideals and principles are absolute and will not be surrendered or weakened by the cowardly acts of terrorists who fear the sunshine of freedom and the responsibility it brings. Let is forever remember that the date September 11 reaffirms the principles for which the United States of America was founded and that on this day each year freedom shall ring from every community in this great land and the Voice of America will be heard around the world.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 384, I was absent due to attending and speaking at 9-11 events. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Hart and Mark Hasten, two brothers born in the small town of Bohorodczany, Poland and currently living in my home state of Indiana. In 1942, acting on horrifying rumors that Nazis were murdering Jews everywhere, their father placed young Hart and Mark in a horse drawn carriage and the family fled town in the middle of night. Shortly after the Hastens left Bohorodczany, twelve hundred Jews were gathered by the Nazis and murdered in a nearby town. Hart and Mark, and their parents, were the only surviving Jews from the area. Recently, the two brothers traveled back to their boyhood town to erect a monument in the memory of the martyrs. Rabbi Kasriel Shemtov from Israel and Rabbi Moseh Kolesnik from Ukraine as well as fifty Jewish people from neighboring villages joined Hart and Mark to observe the dedication. The story of those who perished is etched in Hebrew and English on a granite stone in a small cemetery where they may rest in peace. Mr. Speaker, I praise Hart and Mark Hasten for erecting this monument in the name of their fellow townspeople. This is a special memorial for a deserving community of heroes.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, to state the obvious, tomorrow is September 11 again. Like many Americans, I will be home taking time with family and neighbors for a solemn reflection, remembrance and prayer, and so it should be for all Americans. But my earnest hope, Madam Speaker, is that September 11 of this year not be an anxious time; that in addition to remembering the lost, we actually, Madam Speaker, have much to commemorate. In the past 12 months, our people have responded with selfless actions of courage and generosity, our military has responded with valor, our President with moral clarity and purpose, and this Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, have responded with resources and reform. America is better prepared and safer this September 11 than the last. Let us also be confident in this, that He who sets this pilgrim's dream on this wilderness shore still watches over us. And I say like Americans have said throughout generations, I lift up my eyes to the hills, and where does my help come from, my help comes from the Lord.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening grievously concerned about the direction this House may be going as it considers the bankruptcy conference report. G.K. Chesterton once said, the reformer is always right about what is wrong, and he is generally wrong about what is right. But we in this House may have the opportunity to do the work of reformers and the obligation to do what is right this week. The bankruptcy reform bill has languished in Congress, Mr. Speaker, since before many of us were Members, including me. Many Members of both houses labored tirelessly to reform the old law. I honor them for their outstanding work. I especially respect those from this House who worked so diligently and faithfully as conferees. They did produce a bill that will eliminate many of the abuses in the current system, encourage personal responsibility, reduce bogus filings, and will put spouses and children in a favored position in collecting obligations owed them by those who seek to hide behind our country's bankruptcy laws. Mr. Speaker, I heard from my friends from finance and in retailing. They tell me that the bankruptcy reform accomplishes many good things. I cannot nor do I want to disagree with them. Yet, Mr. Speaker, and I say this advisedly, if this House sends this bankruptcy conference report to the President, without question we will have reformed the system, but we will not have done the right thing. We will have been wrong about what is right. Mr. Speaker, as we all well know, there is language in this conference report that could deny the protection of bankruptcy laws to nonviolent protesters active in the right to life; not violent bomb- throwers or those who physically assault women at abortion clinics, as has been reported. No, as a just and peaceful society, we cannot support private violence for any cause. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the quiet, dignified men and women who do no more than pray, sing hymns, or hold placards outside abortion clinics, men and women who are doing no more than what the first amendment of the Constitution provides, which every single one of us in this House swore an oath to uphold. Mr. Speaker, even if we disagree with every fiber of our being, every one of us should be opposed to those laws and tactics that squelch legitimate speech and scare people from expressing their opinions. The bankruptcy law provides the tools to chill not only our first amendment rights of free speech, but our very soul as a Nation. Using the force of law to squelch dissent is unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, this law, which was crafted so carefully to permit some protests but crush others, will have just that result. The wealthy and powerful will turn their lawyers loose on quiet, peaceful protesters for no reason other than that they dislike the content of the speech. The powerful law firms for abortion rights interests will see to it that peaceful protesters are hauled into the justice system, are forced into settlement that forever forecloses dissent, or into the risk of threats to take their homes, property, and businesses as long as they live. We will have done the right thing in reforming the bankruptcy code if we pass this report, but, Mr. Speaker, we will have injured the first amendment. We will have set the precedent that the powerful can use the force of law to stamp out disagreeable speech, and we will have cruelly laid the foundation for a permanent debtors' class. This is a legacy I am not prepared to leave my country. Mr. Speaker, as I think about the blessing that is America, and as I remember those who sacrificed so that I might exercise the right to disagree with my colleagues this evening, I cannot escape the haunting, simple words of the prophet Micah who says, ``He has shown you what is good, to do justice, to love kindness, to walk humbly with your God.'' With all the respect and honor that is in me to my colleagues, and especially my colleagues who labored so long on this bankruptcy bill, I believe it is incumbent upon us to remove the offending language and send it back to the other body to honor and protect our Constitution, and not miss this calling to do justice to peaceful Americans who would express their dissent in this, the most troubling issue facing our Nation.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, the Good Book tells us that there is a time for every purpose under heaven. There is a time to weep and a time to mourn, and tomorrow I will join some 250 of my colleagues in this body as we travel to Federal Hall in New York City to do just that. We will gather at a place that this Congress met and even adopted the Bill of Rights in the year 1789, and we will mourn with those who mourn, and we will weep with those who weep. The last time I was in New York City, Mr. Speaker, was September 21. I stood in the ashes and on the periphery of the devastation at Ground Zero, and I expect tomorrow, as we all do, to be a deeply moving day emotionally. But as we join to pray, let us ever remember that also we are told that there is a time for peace, but there is a time for war. As we pray for the bereaved, let us also pray for wisdom for our President and our leadership in this institution as we choose the times and the days ahead for war.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to two of my constituents, Malcolm and Carolyn Reger. August 13, 2002 marks their 30th wedding anniversary. Today, it's rare to see this accomplishment, but I submit that there is a reason for their success. You see, Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago, Malcolm and Carolyn, entered into the holy union of marriage with Jesus Christ and God's Word as their foundation. A building is only as good as its foundation. A marriage based on God's Word will withstand the rain, floods, and winds that blow against it. Troubles will come, but a house built upon the rock will stand.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, as the markets struggle under the weight of billowing examples of corporate greed and fraud over the past several months, yesterday there were finally signs of hope. President Bush and law enforcement officials have acted decisively against corporate crooks. It seems as though the markets are responding. A single day rally almost set an all-time record in the Dow Jones industrial average yesterday. Investors are coming back, confidence is rising. Mr. Speaker, now it is our turn to in this body set aside partisan politics and bickering and pass the bipartisan corporate accountability legislation that will bring to this floor tough new standards, tough new criminal measures against corporate crooks. Righteousness exalts a Nation. Let us bring new standards with old values in this new corporate accountability act, and further strengthen the confidence of the American people in the American economy and in the American dream.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Partial-birth abortion is an antiseptic word for a barbaric procedure. Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a supporter of abortion rights, described it accurately as near infanticide. Mr. Speaker, the arguments for this bill are legion, and endeavors by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), they are also arguable, and we will hear those arguments today: the argument that our bill as we believe is superior to the Nebraska bill which has been rejected and struck down and will pass constitutional muster; the argument that will ensue today that this procedure is never medically necessary. The AMA said it is ethically wrong. They said it is never the only appropriate procedure, but we can argue the medicine and the endorsements. What is not arguable is that this practice is inherently and morally wrong. What is not arguable is that the practice of delivering a newborn child alive, feet first, and holding it in the birth canal squirming while the back of its head is stabbed with a suction device is evil. That is not arguable. Today we will render unlawful or at least begin to render unlawful what virtually every American knows in their heart is evil and morally wrong. That is why the overwhelming majority of the American people reject this practice and want it banned in the United States of America. Justice has always been defined by how societies protect the innocent and punish those who do them harm. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is such a bill. Of the innocent and defenseless the Bible admonishes that ``whatsoever you do for the least of these you do for me.'' Banning partial-birth abortion is the least we can do for the least of these.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, the common accusation in Washington, D.C. is that we say one thing and then do another. It was back in the campaign of 2000 and in March of this year that President George W. Bush pledged to the American people that he would not permit taxpayer dollars to be used to fund abortion. Specifically, in March of this year the President said, ``I said we are not going to use taxpayer money to fund abortion. I am going to make sure we are not using taxpayer money to fund abortion.'' Yesterday the President, as has been his wont with the American people, the President once again was a man as good as his word. The State Department announced that UNFPA funding would be denied in its entirety and diverted to other children's services at the United Nations. This institution gave more than $34 million to the United Nations Family Planning Fund, despite overwhelming evidence presented before House committees and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that China was engaged in forced and coercive abortion practices. I rise today to extol the President of the United States for being a man as good as his word, for standing with the American people in their fundamental belief in the dignity and the sanctity of human life.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of the special order of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, in the next few moments this evening, I want to share a story about a remarkable act of providence in American history. By remarkable providence, I mean an example of one of those small twists and turns in history that could have turned out otherwise but did not. And as a function of that, in so many ways, we are gathered here today in a city that bears the name of a man named Washington. It was the year 1755, 20 years before the American Revolution. The British were fighting the French over territory along the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. And I think of a 23-year-old soldier who found himself in the midst of a conflagration. The Americans were sided, Mr. Speaker, with the British, and most of the Indians sided with the French. Tensions grew, diplomatic solutions failed, so Great Britain sent 2,300 soldiers to join the rugged untrained American militias to fight the French. A 23-year-old colonel led the Virginia militia, about 100 buckskins who had volunteered to fight. The British soldiers joined them, and over a thousand men made their way north toward Fort Duquesne, now known as the City of Pittsburgh. It was a long march in the summer, a few hundred miles along wooded paths. The Red Coats and militia could not have been more different; one orderly and disciplined, dressed in red wool and uniforms, another a ragtag bunch of young farmers, driven by passion, adventure, and a love of freedom. The differences would be important in what was about to confront them. Seven miles from the fort on July 9, 1755, the soldiers were ambushed in a wooded ravine. They were trapped on every side. The French and Indians fired shots from behind rocks and deep in the woods from high in the trees and behind the brush. The British tried to line up in traditional military lines, shoulder to shoulder, but the shots came from behind them and above them. They were familiar with open field fighting, not ambushes deep in the woods. Over 700 British and American troops died, compared to only 30 French and Indians. Eighty-six officers fought in the battle, according to historian David Barton, and only one of those officers remained unhurt after the ambush, and still bestride his horse. It was that 23-year-old American leader from the Virginia militia. The colonel assembled what remained of his men and retreated to Fort Cumberland on the western side of Maryland. There he wrote a letter to his family explaining what had happened. He recounted the battle, the death of his men, the British officers, and how he had removed his jacket after the battle and found four bullet holes in it. Four horses had been shot out from underneath George Washington that day. Bullet fragments were in his hair. And he wrote a letter to his family that he was completely unharmed, and said, ``By the all powerful dispensations of Providence I have been protected beyond all human probability or expectation.'' Fifteen years later, in a time of peace, he would return to that same battlefield, and an Indian chief traveled a great distance to see him. That Indian chief had preyed upon those Virginia militiamen that day. He had ordered his men to shoot every officer. But as Washington would recount many times later in life, the Indian chief had sat him down and told him that he had come to meet him to pay homage ``to the man who is a particular favorite of heaven; a man who could never die in battle.'' Mr. Speaker, George Washington's life would lead him from those humble 23-year-old miraculous events in battle to greater things. He always understood throughout his life, with a deep Christian humility, that he was part of a grand design. A grand design for America. A design yet to be fulfilled. That made him humble and grateful to be one such man that would shape the lives of millions to come. Like George Washington, I believe that every one of our lives is guided by that invisible hand, that everything happens for a reason. That in every moment from our greatest trials to our greatest triumphs, from small unanticipated events can come the great unimaginable feats of history, discovering land, freeing slaves, defeating tyranny, and maybe even defeating the mindlessness of terrorism. Behind each great turning point in history, I will always believe, as George Washington did, that there is a providential hand leading willing hearts.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, in the midst of important debates in the last 48 hours over critical spending bills and the creation of our national budget, a very, very important piece of lawmaking has taken place that will find its way onto the blue carpet of this historic place next week. It is the issue of partial-birth abortion, H.R. 4965, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2001, which I am proud to say as a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary we marked up and reported out by an overwhelming vote earlier today. Mr. Speaker, I would offer that societies are rightly judged by how they deal with the most defenseless among their citizenry and how they confront those who exploit the most defenseless. This is best expressed in the proverb that ``Whatsoever you do for the least of these, you do also for me.'' Today, in the House Committee on the Judiciary, we took up what for some, at times, sounded like the debate over abortion and the woman's right to choose that has been settled law in this country since 1973. In fact, Mr. Speaker, what we brought up today was an issue altogether different. It is about a practice in this country described in our legislation that is barbarous, to say the least. In our legislation we describe the procedure that is banned, that the American Medical Association has said is never medically indicated. ``A partial-birth abortion under this law is an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a sharp instrument and sucks the child's brains out before completing delivery of a dead infant.'' I must tell my colleagues that as a Christian and as an American and as a father of three children, it is astonishing to me that this is even remotely legal in America today, but it is. And as we will no doubt hear on this floor next week, it is practiced all too often in this country. We will bring the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002 to the floor again. We have changed the bill, adding findings of fact to overcome constitutional barriers, and I am confident that it will survive judicial review. The American people, Mr. Speaker, want this bill in overwhelming numbers, believing in their hearts that we are better than this. We are a better people. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, it is simply the right thing to do, to stand with newborn children, the most defenseless among us. The Good Book tells us, ``See I set before you today blessings and curses, life and death; now choose life so that you and your children may live.'' It is my hope, and it will be my prayer, in the intervening days as I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do as we have done in bipartisan fashion in the past in this institution, and send a deafening message into the laws of the United States that this heinous, barbarous practice of infanticide, which we call a procedure known as partial-birth abortion, has no place in the great and good Nation of the United States.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment. Point of Order

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to clarify my chart usage. We likely, Mr. Chairman, will see this chart frequently tonight as we have conversation one with another about fiscal responsibility. Let me begin tonight by joining so many others in commending Chairman Skeen, whose integrity, whose career, whose commitment to public service represents a gold standard in the House of Representatives. I am honored to be able to say that I have served here for a time with him. Mr. Chairman, it is not about challenging either the chairman or any member of this committee on either side of the aisle's sincerity in attempting to address the needs of this Nation in this important legislation. It is more, Mr. Chairman, in this amendment and in other amendments that will very likely be offered before the evening is out, before we may well be into the morning hours tomorrow, it is more about trying to live within our means. The administration just recently this week indicated that if we will control spending, read that line within the budget that was adopted by resolution in this House, that we can return to surpluses within the next 2 years. That is a remarkable observation and assertion, Mr. Chairman. To think that we have passed through recession, through an attack on our Nation and through war and yet if we will but tighten our belts in this institution and live up to that which we have committed ourselves to in the budget, that we can return to surpluses within the next 2 years. The analysis indicates, however, that if we continue to increase spending at 5 percent-plus a year, enact a prescription drug bill that I supported and many of us supported as necessary in this time and concurrent receipts for veterans, both of which have passed the House, that we will be in deficit for 9 out of the next 10 years. This is the contemporary analysis of the administration and experts in this community. This amendment simply makes an attempt to reduce the budget for the Bureau of Land Management to the 1996 level, plus inflation. The current projection is a 24 percent increase. I would simply argue that this is not the time for us to respond to the impulse of generosity in the appropriations process. Rather, now is the time for us to recognize the time of national duress that is truly upon us. And so I rise tonight in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I will continue so long as my energy holds out to rise into the evening and to rise into the morning and maybe into the daylight tomorrow to stand for the simple principle that if you owe debts, pay debts, that government ought to live within its means just like every American, like those in Anderson, Indiana, families today who maybe face, some 700 in number, losing their jobs at the Delphi plant in these uncertain economic times. Now is not the time for us to live beyond our means. And so I will apply myself to this process and trust that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will see the sincerity of our purpose and urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. PENCE. Yes.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight finding myself feeling like it is early in the day and not late in the day. I am invigorated by this debate. I am invigorated by the quality and integrity of the debate on both sides of the aisle and that 85-some-odd colleagues of mine still believe in what the gentleman from Wisconsin referred to earlier as baloney. Mr. Chairman, I have often associated many things with Wisconsin, usually cheese; but henceforth I will always associate Wisconsin with baloney as well because it was the distinguished member of the minority, the ranking member, who said on this floor tonight that the problem with this group of conservatives was that we did what his late father, a man active in public life, said one should never do: we believe our own baloney. I would amend the record to say his late and distinguished grandfather, who said that politicians should never believe their own baloney. Let me give a few examples as we try and talk about the issues that we confront tonight. We are not here in some vain exercise to exact a torturous schedule on our colleagues this early in the legislative week. Neither are we ignorant of the long days that are ahead of us before we break and return to be with our families. But the enforcement of the budget resolution that we adopted in this Chamber once and deemed another time is at stake. This bill that we consider today is $775 million over our budget. Treasury-Postal is $538 million. The agriculture approps bill is $550 million. We will have to extract severe cuts in VA-HUD and Commerce-Justice-State. Those two pieces of legislation will have to give off over $2 billion from previous-year levels just to stay within our budget resolution. The truth is when we speak about the vision of a balanced Federal budget, that is not baloney. That I argue, Mr. Chairman, is what most of our constituents sent us here to do. I would even argue that, with very few exceptions, the constituents who voted for my Democrat colleagues to come to this august institution sent them here to advocate some basic American values, believing in the American dream that if our generation works hard and makes sacrifices, we can actually leave our children a better life and a better future than we inherited. Another simple piece of the American dream was the dream of a balanced Federal budget, the dream that governments, like families, just like my wife, Karen, and my children who may well be sitting at home in our living room tonight in Bartholomew County watching, they live within their budget at our home on the Flat Rock River, and Americans looking in tonight, Mr. Chairman, expect us to do no different. We have written a budget. Chairman Jim Nussle led this institution with vigor and with vision and with commitment; and we gave the American people, in the midst of recession and war, the vision for a budget that returns to balance within 24 months. Yet tonight, however inconvenient it might be to some, we are actually laboring over whether or not we will endorse and embrace that budget. Some, and I say this with respect and no small attempt at humor, some may consider that baloney. Some may consider it baloney that people in Congress ought to make the income meet the outgo to the best of their abilities, that we ought to balance the Federal budget. I say rather, Mr. Chairman, that it is what we are all, Republicans and Democrats, sent here to do: to be careful stewards of the public resources that are entrusted to us. The Good Book has this admonishment, and with this I close. It admonishes the shepherd. It says, ``Pay careful attention to your herds, keep careful watch over your sheep, for riches do not endure forever.'' It is precisely because we do not know the future, Mr. Chairman, and the challenges that our Nation may face in even darker days ahead that this skirmish that happens on this floor tonight matters, that we must enforce the budget resolution that we labored to adopt, that we endorsed twice in this institution. It is my hope that even if we are here when the sun is peeking its way through the windows, that we will do just that, living within our means.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the chairman for his extraordinary leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Corporate Fraud and Accountability Act of 2002. It was President Calvin Coolidge, Mr. Speaker, who said simply that ``the business of America is business.'' And many people over the last century have used that term to denounce and deride those of us who believe in the free enterprise system in America. The truth is that President Coolidge was a moralist. And when he said the business of America is business, he was fundamentally suggesting that American business relies on the integrity and the character of the people that occupy the chief executive officerships and the boards of directors rooms of America's corporations. It has always been the case; it will always be the case. But the backstop, Mr. Speaker, is and has ever been the law. Today, in the Corporate Fraud and Accountability Act of 2002, we raise the barrier of criminal law in the area of corporate fraud. Now, some of our friends on the other side of the aisle may say that we are playing politics, that we are less than sincere; but the facts speak for themselves. As the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, on which I serve, just said, those who extol the bill passed in the other body in the last 24 hours apparently are prepared to vote against the bill that has two times the criminal penalties for corporate fraud. This legislation increases the penalties for mail and wire fraud from 5 years to 25 years. There are $25 million fines in this legislation when corporations file false statements. It increases criminal penalties for individuals who file false statements with the SEC to $5 million, just to name a few. Despite the best efforts of some on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, to politicize this issue, the truth is opposition to crime is a bipartisan position in this institution. All of us believe that righteousness exalts a nation. All of us believe in the rule of law. Let us vote in favor of this bill today.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I have always been interested in origins. Even though my training is in the law and in history, it has ever been an avocation of mine to contemplate and to study the origins of man and of life here on Earth. Many theories of origins have been propounded throughout our Nation's history. In 1859, a sincere biologist returned from the Galapagos Islands and wrote a book entitled ``The Origins of Species,'' in which Charles Darwin offered a theory of the origin of species which we have come to know as evolution. Charles Darwin never thought of evolution as anything other than a theory. He hoped that some day it would be proven by the fossil record but did not live to see that, nor have we. In 1925 in the famous Scopes Monkey Trial, this theory made its way through litigation into the classrooms of America, and we have all seen the consequences over the last 77 years: evolution not taught as a sincere theory of a biologist, but rather, Mr. Speaker, taught as fact. Unless anyone listening in would doubt that, we can all see in our mind's eye that grade school classroom that we all grew up in with the linear depiction of evolution just above the chalkboard. There is the monkey crawling on the grass. There is the Neanderthal dragging his knuckles and then there is Mel Gibson standing in all of his glory. It is what we have been taught, that man proceeded and evolved along linear lines. But now comes a new find by paleontologists. In the newspapers all across America, a new study in ``Nature'' magazine, 6- to 7-million-year-old skull has been unearthed, the Toumai skull and it suggests that human evolution was actually, according to a new theory, human evolution was taking place, and I am quoting now, ``all across Africa and the Earth,'' and the Earth was once truly, and I quote, ``a planet of the apes on which nature was experimenting with many human- like creatures.'' Paleontologists are excited about this, Mr. Speaker. But no one is pointing out that the textbooks will need to be changed because the old theory of evolution taught for 77 years in the classrooms of America as fact is suddenly replaced by a new theory, or I hasten to add, I am sure we will be told a new fact. The truth is it always was a theory, Mr. Speaker. And now that we have recognized evolution as a theory, I would simply and humbly ask, can we teach it as such and can we also consider teaching other theories of the origin of species? Like the theory that was believed in by every signer of the Declaration of Independence. Every signer of the Declaration of Independence believed that men and women were created and were endowed by that same Creator with certain unalienable rights. The Bible tells us that God created man in his own imagine, male and female. He created them. And I believe that, Mr. Speaker. I believe that God created the known universe, the Earth and everything in it, including man. And I also believe that someday scientists will come to see that only the theory of intelligent design provides even a remotely rationale explanation for the known universe. But until that day comes, and I have no fear of science, I believe that the more we study the science, the more the truth of faith will become apparent. I would just humbly ask as new theories of evolution find their ways into the newspapers and into the textbooks, let us demand that educators around America teach evolution not as fact, but as theory, and an interesting theory to boot. But let us also bring into the minds of all of our children all of the theories about the unknowable that some bright day in the future through science and perhaps through faith we will find the truth from whence we come.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President of the United States offered a clarion moral call for corporate responsibility and personal accountability, yet we hear our colleagues on the other side of the aisle this morning lamenting that the President has spoken words but he has done little. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) just said, tell me what you do, and it is a fair question. I would respond to the gentleman that what we did in April of this year, with the support of 119 Democrats in this institution, was to pass the Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, and Transparency Act. In so doing, we prohibited firms from providing consulting services that are doing auditing, we created a new oversight board, plain English requirements, criminality for interfering with audits, just to name a few. One hundred nineteen Democrats voted for this measure. This body has acted. As the Democrat leadership yesterday lamented inaction in Washington, D.C., they ask us, as Groucho Marx did, Mr. Speaker, ``Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?''

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, President Calvin Coolidge said the business of America is business. But Coolidge was a moralist, and he meant not that America is dependent on the almighty dollar but that the business of America is dependent on the integrity and the character of the people who lead our enterprise. Today, our President sounded a clarion, moral call for corporate responsibility. Corporate and accounting malfeasance at companies like Enron, WorldCom, Merck, and Arthur Andersen all argue that this need for reform is urgent. As the President said, business leaders who defraud shareholders should go to jail. As the President said, business leaders must accept personal responsibility for financial statements and be barred from serving on corporate boards when they, even unintentionally, fail in that regard. Mr. Speaker, the reality is, the 1990s was not a decade where people in power were held accountable for their self-serving decisions. Let us follow President George W. Bush's clarion call and make this decade a time again when we recognize in the law and in reform and in regulation that righteousness exalts a nation.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, like most Americans I believe in this country, I believe in God, and I believe in the power and importance of allegiance to our flag. As such, like millions of Americans, I was shocked and appalled by the Ninth Circuit's pledge decision. Mr. Speaker, we open this House in prayer to God. The walls of this temple of democracy bear His name, but it is unconstitutional for our children to name God as they acknowledge their fealty to that very same Nation? Sadly, Mr. Speaker, this decision is part of a 35-year effort by radical secularists who would twist the freedom of religion into a freedom from religion. We must reject this course of judiciary decisions. I pledge myself to fight every decision by the judiciary that seeks to drive expressions of faith, the Ten Commandants and voluntary prayer from schools, out of every corner of American life, so help me God.