Mike Pence

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the distinguished majority leader for yielding me time. I rise today as a conservative Member of this institution, Mr. Speaker. I did not come here to increase the government's debt. I came here believing, as so many people I represent believe, that if you owe debts, pay debts. I spoke to an elderly woman on a radio program in Richmond, Indiana, today in the heart of the heartland district that I represent. Mr. Speaker, she said with fear in her voice that she was worried that a conservative like me would not support raising the debt ceiling and would put at risk her Social Security check. She assumed that my loathing of red ink would cause me to vote in such a way or fail to act in such a way that it would jeopardize her benefits and the benefits of people that she loves. Well, I assured her then and I rise today to assure all of those that are listening, Mr. Speaker, that I will not do that. I truly believe if you owe debts, pay debts. I am a member of a majority in this institution that has repaid the national debt nearly a half of a trillion dollars. We have balanced the budget last year, adopted a plan to actually redeem all of the public debt over the next decade. We were on track, Mr. Speaker, to meet that goal, even after the President's tax cut was adopted. And then, though it is convenient tonight to forget it on the other side of the aisle, that a recession struck America; and then, of course, as we all experienced here, the devastation in New York City and at the Pentagon. 9-11 struck and hundreds of billions of dollars that the CBO and the OMB and every independent organization in America predicted would be there was no longer there. The result is that our government now needs to keep its promise to the American people, to all of various entitlement programs, but maybe most especially the program that that elderly woman asked about this morning. We must raise the statutory debt limit. The truth is they have no budget. They have no credibility on debt reduction. They have no plan to guarantee the full faith and credit. They have no plan for that little old lady in Richmond, Indiana.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Like most Americans, Mr. Speaker, I believe in this country, I believe in God, and I believe in the power and importance of allegiance to our flag. So I rise today in strong support of the resolution. Like millions of Americans, I was shocked and appalled by the Ninth Circuit's ruling that references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance are unconstitutional. Mr. Speaker, we opened this House in prayer to God today. The walls of this temple of democracy bear His name. But we are told that it is unconstitutional for our children to name God as they acknowledge their fealty to that very same Nation. Sadly, this decision is part of a 35-year history by radical secularists who would twist the freedom of religion into freedom from religion. We must reject this course of judiciary decisions. We must pass the resolution and reaffirm a right understanding. I pledge myself to fight every decision by the judiciary, including this one, that seeks to drive expressions of faith, the Ten Commandments, and voluntary prayer out of schools and out of every corner of American life, so help me God.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for his extraordinary remarks about not only unnecessary, but unethical therapeutic cloning. I am very humbled, Mr. Speaker, not only to be joined by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), the author of what we were able to do in the House in the area of banning reproductive cloning, but also to have been joined by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), one of the leading members of the Pro-Family Alliance. But perhaps more than anyone in this institution, with the possible exception of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is and has been for many, many years the leading voice for the sanctity of human life in the United States Congress. He holds the powerful chairmanship of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, but he speaks with enormous moral authority on issues related to life. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the gentleman is familiar with the famous Nuremberg Code that was developed and emerged following the doctors' trial at Nuremberg in the late 1940s.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I and several of my colleagues, including the distinguished physician and Congressman from Florida by the name of David Weldon, wanted to rise in this Chamber to discuss an issue that, while it has fallen to some extent, to use a colloquialism, below the radar screen here in our Nation's Capital, it is without a doubt the most significant moral question that the institution of the Congress will contend with in this session of Congress and perhaps, Mr. Speaker, for many sessions of Congress to come. As we debate the restructuring of agencies of the Federal Government, the new Department of Homeland Security, as we debate in memorable terms, as my colleagues just did, the extension of benefits under Medicare, all of these issues pale in comparison to the potential cultural impact and the impact on our system of legal ethics that the legalization of human cloning would represent to our society and even to our civilization. Yet even though this body has acted and awaits action in the balance of the Congress, I believe it is incumbent upon the Members of this institution who cherish the dignity of human life to rise and to remind our colleagues, as I will do so in the moments ahead, and any of those that are looking in about the profound moral questions that we wrestle with when we argue in favor of a ban of human cloning. It is my hope that as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) joins us later, he will speak to the medical questions and myths that surround the promise of embryonic stem cell research. The gentleman from Florida will no doubt point out, as many of us did during the debates, that every single breakthrough in the area of stem cell research has taken place using adult stem cells, Mr. Speaker. Not a single breakthrough in medical science has ever occurred using embryonic stem cell research. Yet we are being sold a bill of goods by a technical medical industry that would have us move the line of thousands of years of medical ethics to permit what they, in almost Orwellian terms, refer to as therapeutic cloning, the cloning of human beings, of nascent human life, for the express purpose of testing that tissue. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to say we must prevent human life from becoming a wholesale commodity that is created and consumed. Let me say again, my theme today, my purpose for rising in this Chamber with the colleagues that will join me, is very simple. We must prevent in this Congress, before the close of this year, this session of Congress, we must prevent, by law, human life from becoming a commodity that is created and consumed in a marketplace of science. I say that knowing that there will be those listening in in offices here on Capitol Hill, there will be those listening in around the United States, who think that this is something of a strange science fiction assertion. But let me suggest to you as a family man, as the father of three small children, a husband of 17 years, let me say that it is precisely about that that I believe this debate over human cloning emanates. I come to the floor this afternoon to speak about really the failure of the Congress to adopt a ban on human cloning. It is, Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, human cloning, perhaps the most anticipated and even feared development in the history of science. The promise that opening up this Pandora's box seems to hold for some pales in comparison to the backdrop of that great Biblical adage that reads in the book of Isaiah that, I am God, and there is no other. Human cloning is about the creation of human life for utilitarian ends. It is anticipated, and it is rightly feared. For decades, truthfully, humans have been probing the darkest regions of their imagination to craft stories in science fiction where the duplication of human life is acceptable, but we always run in, it seems, to the old prophet, and he says, I am God, and there is no other. Over the last several years, advances in the understanding of cellular biology have made it apparent that this brave new world described by science fiction writers was not actually that far off. We have since learned that cloning is, in fact, a possibility and could be, or may, Mr. Speaker, I say with hesitation, may already be, a reality. Somewhere in the world today, somewhere in America today, while Congress fails to act on a ban of human cloning, amoral scientists may be in the process of duplicating human life and thereby, perhaps, laying the foundation for duplicating a human being, created always, up until that point, Mr. Speaker, in the image of God, the first human being in history created in the image of another human being. Several of my colleagues tonight and I want to examine precisely these questions, these large moral and ethical questions, that seem to get left in the dust behind the promise of somatic cell nuclear transfer and embryonic stem cell research. We hear about the promise. We see people rising out of wheelchairs, we see quadriplegics able to walk, and we want to reach for that, Mr. Speaker, but we, to do so, must reach across a line that mankind has never and should never cross. Cloning involves the making of an exact genetic copy of a human being through a process called somatic cell nuclear transfer. In the process, the DNA is removed from the cell of a human, and it is transferred to an egg cell. The result is the formation of a human embryo, the beginning of human life. Theoretically, if this embryo were implanted in a womb, it would have the ability to follow the normal stages of development until a human being is born. I say to you today that while most of us recognize the problems of using cloning for procreation and are prepared to outlaw the practice of it, Mr. Speaker, there are some who would have us talk about somatic cell nuclear transfer as though what was created was not human life, and there is great confusion on this point. I say, not in an effort to crowd the upcoming remarks of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), but I say, Mr. Speaker, with deep humility, that there are many in this debate who want to refer in cavalier ways to that embryonic tissue and say it is something other than human life. Mr. Speaker, if it is not nascent human life, what is it? I was provoked to come to the floor of this Congress by the words of some of the advocates of so-called therapeutic cloning, who are now about the business of sharing a new slogan with America, and it is a slogan that in effect says a single cell can feel no pain. A single cell can feel no pain, as though the moral and ethical line would not be crossed in the absence of pain. It is an absurd anti-intellectual and antihistorical assertion, and I call it as such, regardless of who may use it. Many in the scientific community, Mr. Speaker, believe that nascent embryonic life should be used for medical research through this procedure known as therapeutic cloning. They have come up with this innocuous term. It is very misleading. In this procedure the cloned embryo is created solely for the use of its parts. The human is given life, only to be destroyed a few days later for specialized stem cells. I go back to the thesis of my remarks today. We must prevent human life from becoming a wholesale commodity that is created and consumed and destroyed, which is precisely what therapeutic cloning is, Mr. Speaker. It is the creation of embryonic human life to be destroyed for its parts. Despite the fact that research on embryonic stem cells has yet to produce any treatment for any medical condition, as I said before, researchers are calling the cloning and harvesting of embryonic stem cells ``therapeutic.'' Humanity is contemplating the creation of a subclass of human life that is created and killed for the benefit of other humans. Mr. Speaker, I come from south of Highway 40 in Indiana. I am not the brightest bulb in the box. But, for crying out loud, how can we suggest that this is anything other than the creation of a form of human life that we have never recognized before, the creation of a class of human life that exists to benefit other humans who are farther along in their physiological development? I often say to my children, it is not sufficient to think once about hard issues, you have to think twice. Mr. Speaker, this is one of those issues where you have to think twice, and the moral and ethical issues raised even by experimental and so-called therapeutic cloning become obvious. I fear we are turning life literally into a wholesale commodity to be created and destroyed. Make no mistake, if we proceed down this course, millions of human embryos, nascent human life, will be created and then destroyed, and even then we may not attain the scientific achievements that have been promised to us. Now, some may be willing to say that, well, there will not be that much destruction of nascent human life, but, Mr. Speaker, less than 3 percent of cloned embryos in animal studies are successfully implanted to go to term. Birth defects occur in legion numbers. Literally, Dolly the Sheep was the product of thousands of failed aberrations in the attempt to clone a single mammal. And to think of this kind of experimentation, as we go not just from the therapeutic cloning, the cellular level, stem cell research, but we know in our hearts there will be those media-hound scientists who will want to show up with the first cloned baby. Think of the children who will go before the first baby. Think of the birth defects. Think of the spontaneous abortions. If Dolly the Sheep is to be the instructor, if the experience of cloning experimentation on mammals teaches us anything, it teaches us that there will be a nightmare of destruction leading to that one fully cloned human being. I do not know about the rest of my colleagues, but it is my firm conviction that scientific advancement is not worth the price of human embryo factories. It is also not worth the price of one innocent unborn human life that attempts to make it to term, but, because the scientific technology is not sufficiently advanced, it dies in utero or after delivery. Human cloning must be stopped in every form. Unfortunately, those who support cloning are attempting, I would argue, in some cases to twist the facts to fit their agenda. Recent statements by supporters of cloning suggest that cloning actually is not cloning, that it is medical research on a cluster of cells stripped of their humanity. Mr. Speaker, I fear that this utilitarian logic has caused us to overlook deep ethical and moral implications involved in cloning. But also I would say humbly, as I prepare to recognize my colleague and friend from Florida, that not only are they wrong on the ethics and the morality, but, Mr. Speaker, I say with real humility, they are wrong on the science. They are wrong on the medicine. They are wrong on the potential advances that this research affords. As this Congress moves forward in this debate, it is absolutely essential that we do not let the weird science and the unsubstantiated promises dominate this debate, but that we look with the cold eye of science as we evaluate the promise here. I would add, Mr. Speaker, it would be sufficient for this Congressman, even if the science held all the promise in the world, it would be sufficient for me to oppose human cloning, even cellular human cloning and research, on moral and ethical grounds. And yet, inasmuch as it is helpful to our argument, I have called upon my colleague and friend, the author of the House bill of banning human cloning, to join me in this Special Order today to talk about the science. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), before he came to this institution, was an established physician with a background in microbiology. He is a man who speaks with unique authority on these issues in this institution. It was the reason why we were able to develop legislation here and develop strong bipartisan support behind a human cloning ban. Part of the argument that the gentleman from Florida made, and I trust will make again today, is that while certainly morality and medical ethics for thousands of years are on the side of banning human cloning in all its forms, for all of its purposes, happily, the science is on our side as well. With that, I yield to the author of the ban on human cloning in the House, the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I wondered if it might be a good opportunity to take just 2 minutes to recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), because I am very interested, Mr. Speaker, in eliciting more information about the promise of adult stem cell research from the gentleman from Florida, which seems to me is the most deafening, in addition to the moral and ethical arguments against somatic cell transfer, therapeutic cloning for research, the most deafening argument beyond the morality is the promise of adult stem cell research. So with that, with the gentleman's permission, I will yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), the leader of the Values Action Team in the United States House of Representatives for the majority. He is without a doubt the strongest pro-family voice in the United States Congress.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his profound moral clarity and for his continued leadership on issues related to the sanctity of human life. With that I would like to yield back to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon). Specifically, if I may ask my colleague, as I said earlier in this hour that we have, it would be sufficient for me if we simply were arguing on the history and morality of Western civilization. The truth that rings out of our best traditions that he is God, and we are not, would be sufficient for me. But, Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) began to address, and I would ask him to elaborate on, the promise of adult stem cell research in itself argues against the expansion of or extension of science into the so-called embryonic or therapeutic cloning research. I would be grateful to have the gentleman elaborate on that.

Mr. PENCE. Most physicians are. One of the principal tenets of the Nuremberg Code was that human subjects must consent to experiments; death or injury must not be anticipated results of the experiment; and the researcher must obtain the information they need by any other means possible before humans, including adequate animal experimentation. There are other pieces of the Nuremberg Code that require that the researcher is admonished to test his disease first and foremost on animals, and no experiment should be undertaken after all of those have been followed and unless it can be foreseen to ``yield fruitful results for the good of society unprocurable by other methods.'' Now, it seems to me that the lessons of Nuremberg, and I would ask the gentleman to speak to that, the lessons of Nuremberg encapsulated in the Nuremberg Code are violated in several significant ways from the standpoint of medical ethics with regard to human experimentation, and most profoundly with regard to the fact that, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) has said here today, that these advances are procurable by other means than experimentation on human beings. I wondered, I would ask the gentleman, am I right in my interpretation of the Nuremberg Code and its relevance to this?

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) for his thoughtful comments today and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts). Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for these men of colossal stature in this institution and in this country to join us. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, as I close, we must decide whether we will master science or be mastered by it. It is the fundamental moral and ethical question of our time. As the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) said, we must prevent human life from becoming a wholesale commodity that is created and consumed. In closing, Mr. Speaker, we must be about the values of the American people, people like Mike and Denice Dora, farmers in Rush County, Indiana, of 15 years, our friends; but they are people who look and open up that ancient book upon which our founders placed so much trust that says, ``Remember this and consider, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.'' This debate must center around that conviction, those values; and if it does, we will prevent this moral horror of human cloning at any level, for any purpose, from becoming a reality in American civilization.

Mr. PENCE. Certainly.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his passion and extraordinary complement of his participation in this and would yield for a moment before we close this Special Order to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, as much of America continues to focus sadly on 9-11, I rise to urge my colleagues and the administration to focus on ``five eleven,'' five dead Americans, eleven infected with the anthrax virus, dozens of offices affected here on Capitol Hill, including mine, that was closed for 4 months during decontamination. As I learned earlier this week, despite media accounts, Mr. Speaker, the FBI investigation is ongoing and employing hundreds of investigators and dozens of laboratories. Our domestic investigation is moving forward; but it seems, Mr. Speaker, that our investigation of an international connection is being hampered by a lack of cooperation by the supposed partners in our coalition. There are some nations who profess to stand with us who are not, Mr. Speaker, cooperating with this anthrax investigation. I call on the administration to bring all diplomatic pressure available to bear to insist on the assistance of all of our coalition partners to fully cooperate in the anthrax investigation. It is totally unacceptable to profess a partnership in the war on terrorism and not provide the information necessary to investigate and protect our citizenry.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, throughout the history of Western civilization, we have evaluated the justice of societies by how they treat the most vulnerable and the weakest among them. This is a biblical principle best expressed in the verse, ``Whatsoever you do for the least of these, you do to me.'' Several thousand times a year in the United States, mostly on healthy babies and healthy mothers in the fifth and sixth month of pregnancy, a procedure known as partial-birth abortion takes place, forcibly turning the child to a breach position, pulling the living child out of the mother by the leg, stabbing the child in the base of the skull, removing its brains with a vacuum, and pulling the dead child out of the mother. We will introduce today the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002. It should break the heart of America. I know, Mr. Speaker, that it breaks the heart of God. Let us bring an end to this devious and evil practice in the United States of America.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act. Mr. Speaker, I serve as chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Oversight of the Committee on Small Business, and I have spent countless hours listening to small businesses of America plead with Congress to restrain the egregious rulemaking and paperwork requirements of Federal agencies. Small businesses, as we all know, Mr. Speaker, are on the front lines every day dealing with the real-world implications of overzealous bureaucrats that seldom take into consideration the impact of their rules on the small business sector. Despite the fact that small businesses account for 50 percent of America's employers and two-thirds to three-quarters of net new jobs in the United States, few people inside the Federal Government are listening on an average day. Federal regulation continues to balloon, costing small businesses with fewer than 20 employees $6,975 per employee to comply. The Small Business Paperwork Relief Act will, Mr. Speaker, help small businesses face the regulatory burden placed upon them by requiring that compliance assistance resources be made available on the Internet. It will require that agencies have a single paperwork point of contact for small businesses, and that agencies make greater strides to reduce paperwork burdens on small businesses. H.R. 327 will also require the establishment of a task force to study streamlining reporting requirements for small businesses. Mr. Speaker, nowhere is that paperwork burden more evident than in the Environmental Protection Agency. My subcommittee recently held a hearing on the EPA's TRI Lead rule. This was a classic case of an executive agency subverting the regulatory reform measures that have been put in place over the years. For example, the EPA failed to do a proper analysis of its impact on small businesses, they failed to do an independent peer review of the science behind the rule, and they failed to do proper small business outreach. All of this will result in a cost of over $80 million per year to small businesses, and the paperwork regulation that will follow will not in any way reduce the lead released into our environment. This simply cannot continued. America's small business owners are suffering death by 1,000 paper cuts. They go into work every day armed with the entrepreneurial spirit, with the goal of building a business that will be successful, and what they have found is one of their largest obstacles to success is not a faulty business plan or a poor economy, but the paperwork and reporting requirements that the Federal Government imposes. I urge all of my colleagues today to stand by those who make their daily trek into work, to stand by the small business owner, and make it today just a little bit less burdensome. Pass the Paperwork Relief Act.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, press accounts beginning in The Washington Post yesterday and on cable television networks over the past 24 hours have been resplendent with discussions about possible covert operations, the authorization of Special Forces by the President of the United States to confront the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. While it might not surprise some Americans that Iraq may in some way have been involved in the events of 9-11, Mr. Speaker, as I would like to elaborate, as I did so in a letter to the Attorney General last week, there is a growing list of facts that suggest Iraqi involvement not just in the events of 9-11, but perhaps, Mr. Speaker, even in the events and circumstances that led to the anthrax bacillus finding its way to Capitol Hill, costing the lives of five Americans, grinding much of the institutions of our Federal Government to a halt. As Members may recall, Mr. Speaker, my office was one of three offices on the House of Representatives side of the Capitol building that tested positive for the anthrax bacillus in October. In addition to myself and my family and my staff and many constituent visitors to our office having to take a 3-month regimen of doxycycline and ciprofloxacin, also, as was the case in Senator Daschle's office and the Senate Hart Office Building, we were expelled from our offices for decontamination for a period of 4 months. It was, in addition to the loss of human life, an extraordinary disruption of our Federal Government as well as an occasion that truly terrorized the American people. Since the time of the attacks, virtually within a week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation offered a theory of the case, Mr. Speaker, that could be described loosely as an American mad scientist, a version of the Unibomber, who had simply preyed upon this season of uncertainty following the 9-11 attacks and used anthrax materials that had been absconded from a U.S. weapons facility to further terrorize Americans. It seemed like a very plausible case, to say the least; but there is a growing list of facts that seem to suggest the possibility of an international connection to the anthrax attacks and even possibly, Mr. Speaker, to a connection to Bagdad. Let me give some of those facts, which are uncontroverted allegations that have appeared in various arms of the national press. These are 10 different facts that I articulated in a letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft asking, as I did last week, for some explanation as to why the FBI seems to have ruled out an international source for the terrorist attacks. First and foremost, the letter to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle was actually dated September 11 and mailed, we believe, around that time, included phrases like ``Death to America,'' ``Death to Israel,'' and ``Allah is great.'' The evidence also suggests in media reports that one or more of the 9-11 terrorists visited physicians to be treated for skin lesions and infections that would be consistent with cutaneous exposure to anthrax. Also the material found in my office and elsewhere on Capitol Hill was a finely milled weapons grade anthrax that had been genetically modified to increase its virulence. These are highly technical methods that can be employed by governments with the resources to do them. This anthrax was also so powerful that not only had five people been killed, including two postal workers and two elderly women, but these deaths we believe occurred just through cross-contamination. This was a virulent strain developed to kill human beings. Now, DNA evidence, which has been reported in the press, suggests that the anthrax that was found here in the Capitol was part of the Ames strain of anthrax, which we had developed at Fort Detrick, Maryland. But what you may not be aware of, Mr. Speaker, was that the Ames strain was actually sent to England's Porton Down research facility, and in that facility in 1988, according to many intelligence agency reports, Iraqi germ warfare scientists sought to obtain that very same Ames virus, and many believe that they did obtain the Ames virus. So the anthrax bacillus with the genetic coding of the Ames strain could have been and may well have been obtained by Iraqi germ warfare scientists. We also know that European government and CIA officials reported meetings between al Qaeda members and Iraqi intelligence officials before September 11, and the 9-11 terrorists also we know from confirmed accounts in the press, attempted to rent crop dusters, presumably as delivery vehicles, for chemical weapons. Lastly, according to U.N. weapons inspector Richard Spertzel, Iraq has conducted military exercises to explore the possibility of disbursing anthrax using crop dusters. These are all facts that suggest an international connection, perhaps even an Iraqi connection. This week I will urge the Justice Department and the administration to follow the facts wherever they lead.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his outstanding leadership on the Tax Limitation Amendment. Mr. Speaker, I am new to this institution; but with regard to the notion that taxes are not yet high enough, it is going to be ever my ambition, whether I serve here for 5 more years, 5 more days, or 5 more decades, to always be a slow learner on that issue. The truth is that the people of Indiana that I represent overwhelmingly believe two things: taxes are too high, and government spends too much. I believe that the argument for the Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment is drawn from the remarks of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost). He alluded to two issues that Congress will take up this year, one of which is already accounted for in the budget that we adopted, a prescription drug benefit for which there is a Republican plan that will be brought to this floor this month. But also the gentleman alluded to the President's call for the establishment of the first Cabinet agency since the 1970s, the Department of Homeland Security. The day it opens, it will be the third largest Cabinet agency in the executive branch, $39 billion as the President has outlined it. Now, there are those of us on this side of the aisle who see the President as calling for us to reorganize the government. But one can infer from the implications of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) that there may well be an intention to grow government in the wake of this national emergency, as has been the practice that history teaches in the wake of many crises in our Nation. It is precisely at a time like this when America is reeling from a national emergency and preparing to grow the executive branch, when this Congress is preparing to respond to the needs of hurting seniors, that there needs to be a break on the system, Mr. Speaker. A break on the system that says that we demand what the American people demand, and that is that we go to our pocketbooks first, that we tighten our belts in this institution before we go to the American people. Tax increases must be a last resort, and a supermajority is designed to make it be just that. Does that, as the gentleman suggests, undermine our democratic system? If that is the case, then our rules for a supermajority about amending the Constitution apparently undermines our democratic system. Or the requirement of a supermajority to impeach a President undermines our system. Or ratifying international treaties by a supermajority. The practice is a part of our democratic system and it is a much needful part as these days of emergency beckon us perhaps to an era of larger government beyond what our children could possibly imagine. States that have passed tax limitation amendments, those laboratories of democracy, Mr. Speaker, they ought to be teachers to us today. The States that have passed amendments like the TLA have shown greater economic growth, better job creation and have raised taxes less than half the time than States without tax limitation amendments. Chief Justice John Marshall said in the landmark McCulloch v. Maryland Supreme Court case, ``The power to tax involves the power to destroy.'' The American people believe in their hearts, an overwhelming majority, in that simple principle, if you owe taxes, pay taxes, but they only want this Congress to ask them to pay more taxes as an absolute last resort. That is a last resort accommodated by the tax limitation constitutional amendment.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for those kind words and, more to the point, for her original sponsorship of this important resolution tonight and to its author, one of the newest Members of this institution, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), who has already begun to make a tremendous impression on all of his colleagues on issues important to the family. And to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), my thanks to him for his leadership on this issue as well. My father was Ed Pence, who raised a family of four boys and two girls that were the passion of his life until he passed away in 1988 at the young age of 58, leaving all of us to this day heartbroken. And let me say that my father was tough as a father with a drill instructor background. He was at times completely unfair. His punishments were unjustifiable and without appeal, but my father was there, and that privilege for me is one of the greatest evidences of God's grace in my life. And my father's presence in my life and the lives of my brothers and sisters I have tried to emulate and replicate in the lives of Michael and Charlotte and Audrey who sit at our home at this hour watching this important conversation. It is one of the sublime privileges of my life to be their daddy and to try to live up to the high standards of my father. But it was a standard that was set simply by the idea that we really celebrate tonight in the gentleman from Oklahoma's resolution, and that is it is about being there for dads. Sometimes I wonder in my heart if in the sitcom culture that we have invented today we have not raised the bar too high for fathers, creating some standard where if dad is not there at the end of the day at school talking through every single problem conversation that their child had that somehow that father is not living up to the modern standard of a touchy-feely dad. Today in this resolution we simply call on fathers to reconnect; to be promise-keepers, to live out the commitment that is not just biological but begins there and remains spiritual and relational through their lives. Fatherlessness, as the gentleman from Nebraska said, is an epidemic in America. Forty percent of children who live in fatherless households in the United States have not seen their fathers in a year. Fifty percent of such children have never visited their father's homes. Nearly four out of 10 children born in America today are born in homes where their father will never live. It breaks my heart. But I think that the leadership that the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson) is providing on this issue tonight is even more important, because if fatherlessness is an epidemic in America as a whole, it breaks my heart to say that in the last 25 years, fatherlessness has become a crisis in black America; that, for whatever reasons, whether they are a consequence of social welfare policies or trends or urbanization, black America, and particularly black American young men, have been growing up increasingly in a generation without their fathers at home. Six out of 10 black Americans today will be born and raised in a home where their fathers are not present, and it breaks my heart. When we look at the statistics of what happens when dad is not around, children are five times more likely to end their lives in poverty, multiple times to become involved in crime and drugs and premarital sex and gang violence. We must today come together, Christians and Jews, people of every race and every creed and every background and every party in this country, and declare war on fatherlessness, because it is, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) said with great passion and eloquence a moment ago, it is something about which the survival of our Nation is tied up. With this I close. The Bible talks of a time of renewal in the world, when the hearts of the fathers would be turned back to their children. It seems to me that the resolution offered tonight by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), by the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson), and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), is all about doing just that, in whatever small way we can in this institution to do our part to turn the hearts of the fathers of America back to their children; to sear their consciences as this Father's Day approaches, and maybe even begin the process in this place of turning Father's Day not into a day where you get a new pair of slippers, a new subscription to Sports Illustrated, some new homemade chiseled gifts and nailed boards, but maybe it is a day when fathers do not receive but they decide to give. Those of us who have the privilege to call ourselves fathers or to be called daddy by somebody special in the world will recognize this holiday as a day when we can renew, as the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan) suggests, renew and reconnect and rededicate ourselves to our children's lives. Again, I commend the gentlewoman from Indiana for her passion, her leadership, her testimony, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I learned last week of the President's intention to create for the first time since the 1970s a Cabinet-level Department of the executive branch; and like most Americans, I support the idea of a Department of Homeland Security, bringing together various and diverse elements of our investigative branches, of our counterterrorism branches and, more importantly, border security, to create a leaner, more efficient means of protecting our citizens than we have under current and, in many ways, antiquated structures in the executive branch. While I support the reorganization of government, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against big government and the growth in government, Mr. Speaker, that has been the natural antecedent to emergencies and crises throughout American history. The Bible tells us that there is nothing new under the sun; what has been before will be again, in the book of ``Ecclesiastes.'' And as I see these events unfold and I see our President beginning to call for the largest potential expansion in the executive branch in my lifetime, I cannot help but feel that what has been before is about to come again if we, who believe in limited government and personal responsibility, do not exercise the franchise of our vote and our conviction in this institution. The idea that the unrestrained growth of government is a natural antecedent to emergencies was, to be perfectly honest, first posited in a book titled ``Crisis and Leviathan,'' by a little-known professor named Robert Higgs, 1987, first published. Very simple thesis in this book. Professor Higgs argues that the growth of the Federal Government has been relatively constant through our national history except for spikes in the growth of government immediately following national crises and emergencies such as the Civil War, the Great Depression, World War II, the Kennedy assassination and social unrest of the 1960s and now potentially 9-11. He offers what he calls the ``crisis hypothesis'' of the growth of Federal Government, and it is a powerful one; and he maintains that under certain conditions national emergencies call forth extensions of governmental control over or outright replacement of the market economy. In a time of economic crisis, ``When critical extensions of government power are likely to occur there is little opportunity for meaningful vote on whether or not as a matter of principle the powers of the State should be extended.'' Even Herbert Hoover, attempting to stem the enormous tide of the call of growth of government during the Great Depression, said, ``Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of emergency. It was the tactic of Lenin, Hitler and Mussolini in the collectivist sweep over a dozen minor countries in Europe. It was the cry of men striving to get on horseback.'' It has also been practiced many times throughout our history, not for a second to refer to President Truman and the likes of that litany; but it was not long after the Truman administration took office, the United States found itself in a fight with Korea and the government greatly expanded. On December 16, 1950, as just one of many examples, Mr. Speaker, President Truman proclaimed a national emergency, calling in familiar words to this day, on all citizens to make a united effort for the security and well-being of our beloved country, to place its needs foremost in thought and action to our farmers, our workers in industry. So the President established the Office of Defense Mobilization, the Defense Protection Agency, and government grew in permanent ways. Even in his book, in its closing chapters, Robert Higgs perhaps even wrote in 1987 about our own times saying that, ``We know that other great crises will come in America, whether they will be occasioned by foreign wars, economic collapse or rampant terrorism. No one can predict with assurance that in one form or another great crises will surely come again as they have from time to time, and when they do, governments, almost certainly,'' Professor Higgs wrote, ``will gain new powers over economic and social affairs, unless,'' he offers, and I argue, ``the American people rediscover the worth of individual rights, limited government and a free society under the true rule of law.'' Mr. Speaker, let us recognize the times that we are in. Let us recognize that the gale force wind of big government is upon us, and as we reorganize a Department of Homeland Security, let us not make it an excuse to simply organize big government in a permanent way.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, it is June 6, 2002, and 58 years ago on this day, as President Reagan said nearly 20 years ago, we mark a day in history when allied peoples joined in battle to reclaim a continent to liberty. As President Reagan said, for 4 long years much of Europe had been caught up under a terrible shadow. Free nations had fallen, Jews cried out in the camps, millions cried for liberation, and America and her allies responded. 225 Rangers came ashore at Pointe de Hoc, Normandy, along with thousands of others. As President Reagan would say, that day in 1984, the men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or the next. It was the deep knowledge, and I pray God we have not lost it, of the profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. Let us, on this 58th anniversary, never forget the courage, the inspiration, and the faith of the boys and the men of Pointe du Hoc, Normandy.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the substitute. Mr. Speaker, there is really no substitute for the truth. A year ago with overwhelming support among the American people, this Congress sent to the President's desk a tax cut. We will celebrate the anniversary of the signing tomorrow. In that tax cut we advertised to the American people that we repealed death taxes; and when virtually every Member of this institution went home, some constituent thanked them for ending death taxes. But hopefully, many, as I did, were honest with their constituents and said, Well, not entirely. We actually only repealed it until some magic day in the year 2011 when it springs back to life because of an arcane rule in the Senate. We must reject the substitute today on behalf of small businesses and family farms. We ought to do no less today than what we told the American people we were doing, repealing and ending death taxes once and for all.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the war supplemental. Some do not remember history, but we do. The gentlewoman from California, for instance, Mr. Chairman, just stood up and said that Memorial Day began during the Civil War. It certainly did not. It actually was the product of an order issued by General John Logan on May 5, 1868. A minor mistake. One of the Democrat Members who spoke today actually came to the floor and said that Memorial Day was a day established in 1916 where we remember veterans in service of our country. An honest mistake, Mr. Chairman. I would not deign to embarrass a colleague by saying who made the error between Memorial Day and Veterans Day. The truth is that in life, some remember history and others do not. I think that frames very well the arguments that we have heard on this blue carpet today, Mr. Chairman, because while some on the other side do not remember history, we do. And it is my conviction that the overwhelming majority of the American people who join us today do as well. They argue, for instance, of great anxiety, even using terms like desecration of this war supplemental bill, suggesting that our efforts to meet all of the obligations of the United States of America with full faith and credit by allowing a discussion in the conference committee about debt limit is a desecration of this bill. The gentlewoman again from California says she has no idea where this approach came from. It used to be called the Gephardt rule, and I know the distinguished minority leader is on the floor at this moment. It was in September of 1979 that the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) developed a rule which allowed the Democrats to increase the debt limit virtually automatically whenever they went into red ink overspending the taxpayers' money. And we are to be denounced and accused of desecration by those who created a rule to do surreptitiously what we choose to do in the light of day? Some do not remember history, Mr. Chairman, but we do. They argue that we are about the business of overspending in this bill. We hear laments on the floor from Democrat colleagues who are worried that conservatives like me have lost our commitment to fiscal restraint. Mr. Chairman, I am astonished by that comment, because I spent a lot of time on the floor in March of 2002 as one Democrat colleague after another came to the floor to explain how much more money needed to be added to our budget resolution. And our effort to deem that budget, to live within the confines of that budget during this time of war, is now being ridiculed as excessive spending by those who wanted to make that budget much, much larger. Some do not remember history, but we do. And they argue, of course, as I just heard from the gentleman from Florida and my colleague, they argue that by fulfilling our commitments to the veterans that are in the field, the soldiers in the field that are fighting this war on terrorism, both abroad and at home, that we raid Social Security, when we remember, Mr. Chairman, that it was in the 1960s when a Democrat administration decided to borrow from the Social Security trust fund to finance a war. The only distinction there, Mr. Chairman, is they did not stop for 40 years. Long after the Vietnam War was history, the practice of raiding the Social Security trust fund was the practice of a Democrat Congress. Some do not remember history, but we do. Mr. Chairman, I would offer to you as we continue this debate and its vitriol that I am a guy that believes it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable, but I believe that it is our obligation to speak honestly and candidly on this floor about the issues that we face. The truth is, Mr. Chairman, that they have no budget, they simply have criticisms of our effort to meet the needs of our soldiers, to meet the needs of homeland security and to move legislation forward that will make our country distinctly safer and bolster the confidence of the American people as we go forward in these uncertain days. It is of them that I close, Mr. Chairman. You see, I know that the majority of the American people know what Memorial Day is about. They also know what a big tax-and-spend liberal Democrat Congress would be all about if they were in charge. They may not remember history, but the American people do.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in a long war on terror. There has been much discussion on Capitol Hill this week and around America about blame and about how it is that we ought to inquire and investigate institutional failures. So I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to remind us that our experience with terror in America did not begin on September 11 in Washington and in New York. Rather, it began on February 26, 1993, with the first World Trade Center bombing. Terrorists blew a hole 6 stories deep in an attempt to topple the north tower; Mogadishu, Somalia, 18 American soldiers killed; the Khobar Towers in 1996, a barracks housing U.S. soldiers, 19 servicemen killed; U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, 245 killed; the USS Cole in October of 2000, 17 servicemen killed. We are in a prolonged engagement with terror centered in a single terrorist organization. Let us stand with our intelligence committees as they rightly inquire into the institutional failures that have occurred.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for his strong leadership on this rule which will bring before the Congress today a critical piece of legislation, a supplemental appropriations bill for a Nation that is at war. The President of the United States comes to this Congress and asks for supplemental assistance, and this Congress provides it today: $15.7 billion in national defense, $5.8 billion in homeland security. And, Mr. Speaker, we commit ourselves in this rule and in this measure to live within our means as a Congress. In the months ahead as we consider appropriations, we commit ourselves to the budget resolution that has been passed by the so-named deeming elements of this rule. These are the priorities of the Nation, Mr. Speaker: a national defense and prosecuting the war, homeland defense as we hear recriminations and discussions of what was done and what not done prior to September 11. The American people want us to respond in this Congress to these needs, and they want us to live within our means and to practice the fiscal discipline for which this majority is so rightly celebrated. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, there has been talk about the $200 million for Israel. I, being one of the Members who have called upon the leadership and urged the leadership despite the lack of the call for the administration to add to these funds, I see them as perfectly appropriate to a defense supplemental bill: 493 Israelis have been killed since September of 2000; 3,955 wounded. Israel has spent $255 million in their front in this war on terrorism in the third and fourth week of Operation Defensive Shield alone. America must stand by Israel in her darkest hour. Let us do no less than those we remember on this Memorial Day. Let us do our duty.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I am cursed with a memory full of useless information, some of which were the comments made by Democrats in 1996 when we passed welfare reform. Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children's Defense Fund, said the bill was an outrage that would hurt and impoverish millions. The Urban Institute predicted welfare reform would push 2.6 million more people into poverty. And the National Organization for Women said 12.8 million people on welfare would risk sinking deeper into poverty. We have heard this morning on this floor, Mr. Speaker, the same. There they go again. The truth is that the vicious cycle of poverty has been broken. There are 2.3 million fewer children living in poverty today than before the 1996 welfare reform bill and 4.2 million fewer living in poverty across the board. The reality is the 1996 welfare reform bill worked. Let us be sure in Congress today to deal and to assist the neediest among us by continuing this important reform with the welfare bill before the Congress this week.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, the Internet can be a force for good or a force for evil. At its best the Web is used to disseminate information and provide educational materials to children. Teachers and parents often encourage children to turn to the Internet for research on school projects; but certain Web sites, Mr. Speaker, intentionally use misleading names to lead children into exposure to pornography. Last week I sought to address this problem on the Internet with H.R. 4658, the Truth in Domain Names Act. The bill would punish those who use misleading domain names to attract children to pornographic Internet sites, who can be fined up to $250,000 or face 2 years in prison. The Good Book tells us that whoever causes one of the least of these little ones to sin ought to have a millstone tied around his neck. While we cannot legislate that retribution, Mr. Speaker, surely we can pass the Truth in Domain Names Act. It penalizes those who would lead children to view this prurient material. I urge my colleagues in this institution to join many of us on both sides of the aisle to support the Truth in Domain Names Act.