Mike Pence

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman and my other colleagues who were able to make the trip over the weekend to Israel. I am very moved, as I am sure anyone is that is watching, to hear that the pronouncements of this institution were a comfort to people who are suffering the loss of family members. I share the gentleman's frustration with what we can only describe as the moral equivalency that many in this country and some in this institution ascribe to this conflict, to either side in this conflict. It is born, in fairness to our colleague who posted the pictures, that juxtaposition first appeared to me on the cover of a prominent American magazine. Who would ever have conceived that a sympathetic display of the photograph of a murderer and the girl she murdered would be presented on the cover of an American magazine as two victims of the conflict in the Middle East? It was an outrage to me. I have no doubt that our colleague who used that display was prompted by that same national magazine. But it does, it seems to me, belie some of the moral confusion in the national media which has infected some in this institution. But I must tell the Members, as a friend and colleague, I was deeply heartened by what I heard in that debate, taking it in here and over the television air waves as I did in my office that day, by the way that so many of our colleagues seemed, against an avalanche of seemingly one-sided international media, to be still understanding how the hearts of the American people resonate for Israel; and, as the gentleman has said many times on this floor, about the one-to-one comparison between what Israel is doing in the West bank and what the United States is doing in the mountains of southeastern Afghanistan, and perhaps, as we speak, in northern Pakistan, that it is a one-to-one comparison. We are doing the same thing. As our President stood at this podium days after September 11 and pronounced, ``You are either with the terrorists or you are with us,'' Israel is the one Nation on Earth, it seems to me, that has taken up the mantle and joined us in the battle against terrorism. So I share the gentleman's frustration with many of our colleagues. I hope those that are with us listening in in their offices on this late afternoon who have a different view will join us for a colloquy of sorts. I also want to extol the Members in both parties in this institution who were willing to rise against media criticism and distortions and stand and add their names to that resolution that the gentleman so movingly says was a comfort to families.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I am very humbled by his words; and I am confident that they are overly generous. If anyone that might be looking in, Mr. Speaker, is paying attention at all, one would observe that Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, as we did in the resolution last week, are truly united in this institution in our belief in the preservation of the dream of Israel and our prayer for peace in the region. I pray, Mr. Speaker, for the peace of Jerusalem almost every day. I pray for the peace not just of the Jewish people of Jerusalem, but for the Christians and the Muslims and the people who profess no particular religious beliefs. It is against that backdrop that I grieve with my colleagues today over the most recent loss of human life. I think of the time of hope out of which we come to this place, Mr. Speaker. We come from several weeks where suicide bombings had come to an end, the efforts on the part of the Israeli military to rend asunder those who would use terrorist violence, who would use teenagers with bombs strapped around their chests as walking human weapons, targeting young families on the streets of Israel. We had seen them on the run, Mr. Speaker. We had seen evidence of the success of the Israeli military in their war on terrorism in the region. Then we moved, with some U.S. pressure and encouragement, into a posture where the head of the Palestinian Authority was allowed to leave his compound in Ramallah just a matter of days ago, the Prime Minister of Israel comes to the United States, and against this backdrop of hope, virtually as Prime Minister Sharon sits in the Oval Office, more innocent lives are lost. Over a dozen dead, dozens injured in two separate terrorist attacks. Appropriately, the Prime Minister of Israel ended all discussions of the peace plan that he brought to our shores and has returned to see to it that his people might not be made the subject of blackmail. So we rise today in the latest of a series of Special Orders on this floor, Mr. Speaker, to state facts for what they truly are. Let us bring a few facts, if we can, into the record. First and foremost, with regard to the role of the United Nations, let us understand, as Americans, as people who are committed since the inception of Israel's return to her historic homeland in 1948, that we are a nation committed to the territorial integrity and preservation of the Jewish State of Israel, that the United Nations is not similarly motivated, Mr. Speaker. That in fact, there is extraordinary evidence of a double standard by the United Nations. Why, Mr. Speaker, I would ask rhetorically do we have no fact-finding missions investigating massacres performed by Palestinian extremists? Yet, there is talk in the United Nations of an investigation into the so-called Jenin massacre, which, according to the Boston Globe, has already been determined to have virtually been a hoax. According to the Boston Globe, the Palestinian Authority's allegations are crumbling under the weight of eye witness accounts from Palestinian fighters who participated in the battle and camp residents who remained in their homes until the final hours of fighting, all told journalists that they were allowed to surrender and evacuate. Mr. Speaker, there has been no massacre in Jenin, and yet the United Nations continues to pursue its one-sided policies. Fact number one: The solution lies not in the United States. Fact number two: Let us make no mistake about it, as there are those even in our own country who would call on concessions with regard to the 13 Palestinian militants currently held within the Church of the Nativity, let us have a fact on the table, Mr. Speaker. No other country will accept these 13 Palestinian militants. Yet many in our own State Department would have Israel sit down at the table of negotiating and trust with them. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that the recent attacks demonstrate that Israel's efforts in the war on terrorism are incomplete; that, sadly, because of pressure from the United States of America, it appears as though, based on the two suicide attacks of recent days, that we have asked our ally to stop a war before it was over. So I rise today with my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), and others who we will hear from to say that America must allow Israel to complete this operation. We must allow Israel to remove the terrorist elements from their proximity. We are in the same position. We are taking our war against terrorism to the terrorists, and Israel must be allowed to pursue the terrorists in her midst. As I said in the beginning, Mr. Speaker, I pray for the peace of Jerusalem. I ask, as did the Psalmist, that those who love God would be secure, that there would be peace within her walls, security within her citadels. As the Psalmist goes on to write, ``For the sake of my brothers and friends, I will say, peace be within you.'' I rise today as a Christian conservative Member of this institution. I rise to speak humbly on behalf of, Mr. Speaker, millions of my brothers in the Christian faith, and sisters, who share the passion that my colleague associated with me does. They are people who on Sunday morning and Sunday night and Wednesday night fill the pews of little buckboard churches that dot the landscape of districts just like mine in the heartland of America, and they are people who have a passion for the dream that is Israel. So let there be no mistake to those who would observe among our colleagues and to the wider world that this is a Congress that is united across the lines of geography, across the lines of partisanship, and even across the lines of faith to come alongside our partner, our ally, and our friend in her darkest hour.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, it has been a hallmark of the Republican majority in Congress to practice fiscal restraint and to stand by a strong national defense. Today here on Capitol Hill we will be about the business of responding to the President's supplemental defense request, and there are some reports and some discussion on Capitol Hill that we may in this majority bring to the floor later this week a bill that could exceed the President's request by nearly 10 percent, adding in spending on election reform and interior agencies; nothing much to do with national defense. I urge my colleagues to hew to their roots, Mr. Speaker. Spend not one penny more than the President has requested when we pass the defense supplemental this week. By demonstrating fiscal discipline, our majority will renew our commitment to fiscal responsibility and to national defense without compromising either.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the chairman, and the ranking member, for the outstanding work that they have done in producing the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act. Despite, Mr. Speaker, what my colleagues may have read in the newspapers around the country this morning, those of us that represent farm districts in America know this is the right farm bill for America today. We know that American farmers are facing their fifth straight year of record low prices, record high costs of production. We know that real net farm income is at its lowest since the Great Depression, and we know that American agriculture is competing in a global economy where our trading partners are subsidizing their farmers at considerably more than our country does before this bill. We are simply equipping our farmers in America with the ability to compete and survive while we set the table, if I may add, Mr. Speaker, for presidential trade promotion authority, negotiating down trade barriers, negotiating down subsidies, to move toward that vision of a free market global agricultural economy. Let the fields rejoice and all that is in them. We have a farm bill that will make American agriculture and America's food supply safe and secure.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman with a gentle heart from Colorado for yielding and giving me the honor of coming alongside and joining him in his effort to bring a forgotten part of the world before the American people. Without flattering the gentleman, it would be important to state for the record that his efforts and the efforts of our colleague and friend Senator Sam Brownback have almost singularly awakened the conscience of the people of the United States of America about the plight and the humanitarian crisis and the moral bankruptcy of the government of Sudan. A few points before I yield back to my better in this. Those that are with us, Mr. Speaker, should understand there is simply a humanitarian crisis in Sudan that requires a response by the United States. There is a government of Sudan that simply cannot in demonstrable ways be trusted in these efforts and should not be coddled even in the name of advancing our interest in the war on terrorism. On the humanitarian crisis, as the gentleman from Colorado said, Mr. Speaker, 2 million Sudanese people have died of war-related injuries in recent years, including disease and starvation. We Americans still grieve the mindless loss of some 6,000 lives on September 11, yet 2 million people have been lost both to the violence of war and the devastation of its aftermath, with another 4 million Sudanese being displaced. The government of Sudan uses a divide-and-destroy strategy to pit southern ethnic groups one against another. They actually have attacked civilian food production and supplies using starvation as a weapon of destruction in their war. And the government of Sudan conducts regular slave raids on villages in the south, preying most especially on the Christian population in south Sudan. It is also well documented that the government of Sudan uses oil revenues to support its oppression of the southern Sudanese, this according to the Committee on Conscience at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. In an alarming scenario, Sudanese government helicopter gunships recently bombed a world food program site in the western Upper Nile, killing 17 civilians. A government that bombs food production facilities is a morally bankrupt government with which the United States cannot deal. And if we needed more evidence, Mr. Speaker, a mid-level al Qaeda official was recently captured in Sudan and, of course, Osama bin Laden has in recent years taken refuge there. A clear connection exists between Sudan and extremist elements in our war on terrorism. The commander of Sudan's popular defense force called on the Sudanese people to join a holy war with the Palestinian people and rid Jerusalem of its, in his words, Zionist filth. These are the words of the commander of Sudan's defense forces. The president of Sudan has called for training camps to be set up for this purpose as well. And following this announcement, hundreds of thousands of Sudanese marched in the streets of Khartoum chanting anti-Israel, anti-U.S. slogans and singing the praises of Osama bin Laden. After a cease-fire was agreed upon, the government of Sudan still denied humanitarian access to 43 locations in southern Sudan. Prior to this, the government of Sudan banned flights to, on average, 25 locations. In other words, they have announced they will continue bombing but just prevent international observation by kicking out all NGOs. While he has asked me not to mention his name, Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to serve a district where a church in a small rural town of my heartland Indiana district raised the funds and sent a mission group to Sudan to do nothing more than deliver an ultralight aircraft so the Christians in southern Sudan would be able to surveil approaching armaments preparing to bombard cities, as they do with longer-range weapons. The Bible tells us, on this national day of prayer, Mr. Speaker, that ``From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded. From the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.'' The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) has responded to that call from his heart in leading the way in this institution for the development and the passage in this Congress of the Sudan Peace Act. I have been privileged to join the gentleman from Colorado in drafting a letter urging action on the Sudan Peace Act and would urge all of my colleagues to join us and many other prominent Members of this institution who have already added their names to this correspondence, including the majority leader, the conference chairman, and the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). Let me say the United States, Mr. Speaker, has been blessed with an abundance of material goods, authority, and moral conscience. We can no longer tolerate the government-funded and subsidized massacre of human life, nor can we, as a Nation that is pluralistic in its faith but dominated by both a heritage and a contemporary Christian population, neither can we as a government of so great a people, turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the suffering of the magnitude in Sudan that, again I hasten to add, is not a humanitarian crisis, Mr. Speaker, that is borne of environmental collapse or of drought, but it is a humanitarian crisis that is the result of the oppression and the murder of hundreds of thousands and millions of innocent civilians by the government of Sudan. It is almost difficult to speak those words and imagine a place that would be so correctly described as a hell on earth. Yet there are people there whose faith puts mine to shame. There are people there every day tending to the sick and caring for the homeless. So let us simply today urge our colleagues to join us in this effort to call for action. Again, I am very humbled to be able to stand with the gentleman from Colorado in this cause and simply cannot help but feel, as we have said one to another, that of all the things that we debate on this blue and gold carpet, of all the things that we will have the privilege of being a part of in the year or years that we each of us have left in this place, perhaps there will be nothing of greater significance in eternity than what we do for the least of these in the world. The way we can in our own modest way in this institution steer the policy of the United States of America to a bright and moral compass that believes in human dignity and believes in human freedom and actually sets international policy in a way that expresses that belief, which I maintain is in the heart of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) for yielding and for calling this Special Order, and look forward to laboring with the gentleman as he continues his important work pressing for the passage of the Sudan Peace Act, and bringing the plight of these extraordinary people of the Sudan to the attention of this body.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I pray for the peace of Jerusalem almost every day. As I listen to the gentleman from California speak about the tragic loss of life on both sides of this conflict, I know of his sincerity and greatly appreciate it. But I rise today as an original cosponsor of the resolution; and more than that, I rise in support of the dream that is Israel. It is a dream that I would say with great respect to the Members of this institution of Jewish descent and ethnicity, that it is a dream shared by the overwhelming majority of all Americans, the dream that is Israel that languished for 1,800 years in the heart of the people known as the apple of God's eye. It was a dream that in the wake of the brutality and the horror of the Holocaust, this Nation responded to, returning the people of Israel to their historic homeland in 1948, and there did we become a partner with this nation, as no other nation partnered in the history of the world. Yes, we should stand with Israel because she is the lone democracy in this part of the world. Yes, we should stand with Israel because she is a liberal democracy to boot. But mostly, Mr. Speaker, I believe we should stand with Israel today because this Congress is simply a megaphone for the heart of the American people. This well should resonate with the hearts of our countrymen who believe in so many small buckboard churches that dot the landscape of districts like mine, that those who bless her, He will still bless, and those who cures her, He will cures. Let us this day by this resolution send a deafening message from the heart of the American people to the world, that America stands with Israel in this, her darkest hour.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, we heard about the Bush recession on this floor months ago, even though the recession in which we found ourselves had begun a matter of weeks after George Bush became President of the United States. So I am waiting, Mr. Speaker, to begin to hear about the Bush recovery on this floor from our friends on the other side of aisle. The Department of Commerce announced the economy grew by 5.8 percent in the first quarter of 2002, and even The Washington Post credited tax cuts in part for fueling this recovery. There is more that needs to be done. There is not yet good news in the area of unemployment, so we must practice fiscal discipline and additional tax relief to certify the Bush recovery. We must make last year's tax cuts permanent, Mr. Speaker, and we must not spend one penny more than the President's request in the upcoming defense supplemental. Tax relief, fiscal discipline, the cornerstone of the Bush recovery.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I come today to this Chamber having had an extraordinary morning in east central Indiana. At my side was the conference chairman for the Republican majority of the Congress, J.C. Watts, who is, among other accolades including Orange Bowl hall of famer, a football player and one of the best known members of this institution nationally. He is a man, as I learned today, deeply committed to the least of these and to coming alongside those in community, not sadly, Mr. Speaker, often associated with the Republican Party in this day and age, but a community that is nonetheless deeply in need of attention and, specifically, legislative attention by this Congress. Today J.C. Watts and I traveled to the west side of Anderson into, Mr. Speaker, a ramshackle house, dilapidated, the floors creaking beneath us, an old refrigerator humming in the back room full of Cokes and snacks. We stood before some 30 people, teenagers, largely minority young men and women, all of them from disadvantaged families, each of them from one degree or another in trouble with the law, in trouble at school. And all of these students gathered as this football player- turned-Congressman and as this talk show-host-turned-Congressman stood in front of them extolling the virtues of the leader of that organization, Youth Need Prime Time, Thomas Jackson; the work that he had done in that place and in lesser places, Mr. Speaker, over the last 16 years, touching the lives of some 3,000 young people in one of the most disadvantaged areas of the Sixth Congressional District of Indiana. I heard J.C. Watts as he spoke about the lies on the street, having grown up in a disadvantaged black family himself. His father, Buddy, having not ever gone to school beyond the second grade, J.C. Watts was able to speak with authority to these young people about the lies of believing that it will never happen to me, believing that the rules of law and the rules of nature will never catch up with them and least of all the long arm of the law. I saw those young people, Mr. Speaker, with rapt attention as they listened. But my heart nevertheless went out to the leaders of that organization who make it, Mr. Speaker, hand to mouth, barely paying the rent, barely having the resources to run the organization as it has impacted so many lives since 1986. And my mind wandered to the legislation that we passed in this House almost now a year ago, legislation known as the Community Solutions Act. It was legislation commonly described as the faith-based initiative that would encourage charitable giving, expanding charitable choice to include faith-based organizations just like Youth Need Prime Time; and saying to these organizations that they would be allowed to compete for Federal grants in the areas of housing, job training, child welfare, child care services, crime prevention programs and the like. As I looked this morning into the eyes of Shorika, a 14-year-old girl who had made a decision, Mr. Speaker, to say yes to life, bringing a small child into the world even at that tender age, I thought of the frustration of a system that discriminates against ministries like Youth Need Prime Time simply because on occasion they mention God, on occasion they have a Bible study or have a cross on the wall. So I simply rise today to speak of an extraordinary experience with J.C. Watts, a man of extraordinary voice in our party. But I also think, Mr. Speaker, of the critical need for this Congress and this government to amend the laws of this Nation, to come alongside organizations like Youth Need Prime Time, to courageous men like Thomas Jackson and his family and the volunteers that are there every day of the week, day in and day out, coming alongside some of the most troubled and disadvantaged young people in the district that I serve and saying that not only is the American dream alive, but it is alive for them if they will but have the faith and the self-sacrifice and the determination to reach it. Let us in this Congress extend the faith- based initiative and come alongside the least of these.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and rise in support of the rule. Mr. Speaker and in support of the underlying bill, the tax relief guarantee act. Mr. Speaker, we all realized, many on both sides of the aisle last year, that it was simply morally wrong to tax married couples more than unmarried couples living together in America. Mr. Speaker, we realized it was morally wrong to tax small business owners and family farmers over 50 percent of everything they had earned and kept after paying taxes all of their lives, just because of their deaths. And last year Congress repealed, with much support on the Democrat side of the aisle, the marriage penalty and repealed estate taxes. But because of an arcane rule in the Senate, these taxes will be thrust back into the pockets of American taxpayers in the year 2011. Just as it was morally wrong to have these taxes on the books, I offer to you it is morally wrong, Mr. Speaker, to bait and switch the American people. So many of my constituents have thanked me on the street for ending death taxes, thanked me for ending the onerous marriage penalty, and I have to stop them and say, well, almost. Because in Congress-speak, while we got all the publicity, all of us, for doing just that, the reality is we did less than that, and today we try to make that right. If we do not pass the Tax Relief Guarantee Act, we will have the largest single year tax increase in American history in the year 2011, and it will most hit low income Americans and married couples. Low income Americans will see their tax rate rise from 10 percent to 15 percent. That is a 50 percent tax increase on those least able to pay. Three million American families now off the tax rolls will be thrust back on the tax rolls, and married couples with children, like me, will suddenly find their tax burden rising by thousands of dollars. Mr. Speaker, those who say we cannot afford to pass this bill today, we cannot afford not to.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) for putting this Special Order together. As the gentleman from Georgia shared, I am a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order. My faith trumps my philosophy, and my philosophy trumps my partisanship, and it is from my faith and from my philosophy, as it is I believe for many Christian Americans, that I believe a passion to this issue. Not just during the present impasse have I been an advocate for Israel, but for many, many years in and out of public life in central Indiana, I have, Mr. Speaker, been an advocate of the dream that is Israel. And it is a dream. I scarcely let a day go by that I do not pray for the peace of Jerusalem. I pray for security within her citadels, not just for the Jewish people there, but for the people of every race and every creed who convene there. But when I say that Israel is a dream, I do not say that lightly, Mr. Speaker. Today, if I am pronouncing it right, we celebrate Israel's Independence Day, Yom HaAtzmaut. It is the 54th anniversary of an extraordinary occasion in human history. It was an occasion when, while it was done under the rubric of the United Nations and under the color of international understandings, let there be no mistaking it, the people of the United States of America, by their beneficence and good will toward a people, 6 million of whom had been slaughtered by the Nazis in Central Europe, chose to use their power in the world to replace this displaced people in their historic homeland. Never before, Mr. Speaker, does history record an occasion where a nation was born in a day until, in 1948, Israel, largely through the generosity of the people of the United States of America, was born. And it was in every sense a dream. It was a dream, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), just shared, a dream of some 1,800 years of a people that never gave up on a vision, that never gave up on the idea of returning home. So as we think of the reasons why the United States of America should stand with Israel, Mr. Speaker, it begins with the fact that America established Israel in 1948 in her homeland. More than any other Nation, she is our ally. She is our friend in so many ways. We are the mentor, she is the mentee. We entered into a partnership with Israel in 1948 which, Mr. Speaker, at the risk of becoming passionate and emotional, a partnership that could never be described as America becoming an honest broker, sliding to the middle of the table. From 1948 forward, America had one place at the table, and it was standing like a protector and a provider over the right shoulder of Israel. So we stand with her because we were there in the beginning. We stand with her because she is our ally. But we also stand with Israel today because she is in trouble. She is beleaguered. Eighteen months of random violence since the Intifada began in the year 2000, and 400 citizens killed, thousands injured, millions distressed. Israel is ground zero in the war on terrorism. What better time to define the metes and bounds of our relationship and our alliance than when our friend is in her darkest hour? I have been grieved, Mr. Speaker, by the ambiguity of U.S. policy, particularly during recent days. It seems to me America should stand, as we do, astride the world as the lone superpower, with our arms quietly folded, with a tear in our eye for the suffering of all of the people of the region, but we should stand quietly while our friend does what needs to be done to end the murdering in their own streets. So America should stand with Israel because she is our ally from her beginning, and because she is distressed; also, because she is the only democracy in the Middle East. I have this idea, Mr. Speaker, that the people of the Middle East, as Prince Hassan of Jordan describes it, the people who live in the arc of crisis from India to the West Coast of Africa, are a people capable of democracy and self-government and civil liberties. I believe in that dream. And Israel, as she did in 1948, rose out of the dust of the Middle East and established that the dream of democracy born on our shores in 1776 is not an American dream, it is a dream of all peoples of the world. With this, I close and yield back to more eloquent colleagues. As I said in the beginning, Mr. Speaker, I come from a Christian and a conservative perspective, and I believe that our administration and the leaders of our government would do well to reflect, yes, on the passion of elected leaders from the Jewish community at all levels of government in America, but let them also reflect on the people of Christian faith in America who cherish the dream of Israel, as the Bible says, as the apple of God's eye. Because I believe it was from the hearts of people in the heartland of America, places like the little buckboard churches that dot the landscape of my eastern Indiana district, it is the people that fill up those churches on Sunday morning and Sunday night and Wednesday night who give me, as I travel my district, time after time standing ovations when I say America must have one position, and that is to stand with Israel, unambiguously. And it is those people who believe in that simple principle, that part of our prosperity, part of our own destiny, is tied up in the belief that whoever blesses Israel will be blessed, whoever curses Israel will be cursed. Let it ever be that our government expresses the love that believing Christian Americans have for Israel, that believing Jewish Americans have for Israel. Let this American government always stand for that dream and that passion.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, it should be obvious on the floor of the House today that the denouncement of yesterday's decision by the United States Supreme Court is truly bipartisan. As a father of three small children, I do rise to denounce this deplorable decision where the court struck down a 1996 Federal ban on computer-generated child pornography. The court actually wrote that the law was not sufficiently precise and that the law does not make reference to any crime or the creation of any victims. The promotion and the creation of child pornography by definition creates victims, Mr. Speaker. I call on my colleagues to move forward expeditiously to right this wrong in the law. While the court has given solace to child pornographers, some protection from the law of man, I would close with reflecting on the law of God to those out there who create this material. The Good Book says that if anyone causes one of these little ones to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and that he would be drowned.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time and commend his leadership and that of the gentlewoman from Florida for her visionary leadership on this legislation. I do rise today in support of the Child Custody Protection Act. Today, Mr. Speaker, the House will determine who it serves. I am a pro-life Member of this institution, but I would offer respectfully today that this is not a debate about the right to have an abortion. It is about the right to be a parent. And we will decide today in the Congress whether or not we will serve the beleaguered parents of the United States of America, of whom I am proudly one, or whether we will serve the interests of the abortion lobby. As a father of two daughters I can tell you, we live in a society today where parents are expected to be actively involved in the lives of our children. When a child commits a crime, the first question we hear is, why were the parents not aware? We are bombarded with antidrug advertisements commanding parents to ask their children questions, no matter how intrusive, to know where they were and when they were there. But for some inexplicable reason today we are debating whether parents should have the right to know if their daughter is considering an abortion, a decision that even pro-life and pro-abortion opponents agree will have lifelong consequences. Mr. Speaker, this is even more outrageous when you consider that my children cannot even attend a field trip at school or even take an aspirin without my or my wife's consent. Are we willing to stand here today and say that the life and death decision that we debate pales in comparison to taking an aspirin? Last week, Mr. Speaker, I took my children, two of them, one daughter and one son, to get braces. In addition to the extraordinary ordeal and the wires and the pain and the anxiety, we spent about an hour filling out consent forms for this 5- and 6-year procedure. Why in the world would we not have parental consent for even a more extraordinary procedure, invasive, that is an abortion? Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to choose life, cast a vote in favor of parental rights, and support the Child Custody Protection Act.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, in the 1830s, the French observer Alexis de Tocqueville took a road trip through America. We were a very young Nation, less than 60 years old, progressing, as Thomas Jefferson said, ``beyond the reach of the mortal eye.'' De Tocqueville came to find out for himself whether the great democratic revolution he had been told about was really true. Believing that this young nation would ``sway the destinies of half the globe'', de Tocqueville wrote, ``I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers, and it was not there; in her fertile fields and boundless prairies, and it was not there; in her rich mines and her vast world commerce, and it was not there. Not until I went to the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and her power.'' After all he saw and heard in this young republic, Mr. Speaker, de Tocqueville came to believe that the church was the source of America's nascent greatness. And it should really come as no surprise that from the high steeples and the rows of pews have come some of America's greatest figures and most defining moments. Chief among them was on March 23, 1775. It was a full year before the Declaration of Independence would be signed in Philadelphia. The seeds of revolution were sewn in Virginia. The midnight hour of British tyranny was approaching, forcing the leaders of that Commonwealth to choose their course. The debates were fierce and divided. Some argued for revolution; others for a more diplomatic outcome. In St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia, the leaders met again to decide the people's fate, and a fiery orator named Patrick Henry rose from his chair. Murmurs and whispers greeted him. He was known for his lively speeches, entertaining visitors and leaders alike. But the opposition was growing increasingly uncomfortable with his claims and his call for liberty at any cost. Patrick Henry's speech began like an approaching storm. His words grew with intensity and power. ``Besides, sir, he said, we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone, it is to the vigilant, the active, and the brave.'' And then, with growing momentum, he concluded, ``Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.'' This was, in fact, the rhetorical shot heard around the world. For Patrick Henry, the church was the natural place to say such words. He grew up listening to the passionate teachings of traveling preachers. He studied their movements and tone. He watched as they swayed audiences towards belief. But religion for Henry was not a sideshow or politics, or something to be left to the pulpit. He knew true belief transformed lives, inspiring the heart and steeling the will. He said, ``It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians.'' Patrick Henry would go on to be Governor of Virginia five times, and was instrumental in drafting its first constitution. But in all his experience, he grew more and more to believe in the importance and the centrality of the Christian faith. Let us close with the words of Alexis de Tocqueville, who would write some 50 years later of the experiences of the Revolution that, as was the case with Patrick Henry, ``Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts, the cradle of its infancy and the divine source of its claims.'' Mr. Speaker, may we ever remember that from the fire of faith comes the future of freedom.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, it is written that ``I set before you blessings and curses, life and death. Now choose life that you and your children might live.'' Today, 40 Nobel laureates will come to Capitol Hill to express their support for human cloning for research. Apparently Professor John Nash, the Nobel laureate portrayed in the movie ``A Beautiful Mind,'' is not the only Nobel winner who is crazy. Human cloning is morally wrong. It is without a doubt in the overwhelming view of the American people and of our President and of medical ethics for thousands of years that research on human beings for medical advance is wrong. It is a dark path leading to the nightmare of eugenics, and it is a path upon which those in the 20th century embarked too often. Congress should reject the intellectuals again. We should heed the majority of the American people, listen to our President, choose life and ban human cloning now.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart, for like millions of Americans, I pray for the peace of Jerusalem almost every day, for the peace and security of the Jews and the Christians and the Muslims who call this ancient city their home. And, of course, we now know that after 18 months of suicide bombings and relentless terrorist attacks, Israel has begun to defend itself, rolling armaments and military personnel into the West Bank, and not without results, uncovering 15 explosive labs, arresting 600 fugitives from crime, and of course, there have been no recent suicide bombings since the incursion. Nevertheless, the President of the United States yesterday encouraged Israel to withdraw from the West Bank without delay. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of hundreds of thousands of believing Christians and Jews across Indiana, and even many Muslims who pray for the peace of Jerusalem, and say let us stand with Israel without delay. Let the word go forth from this Chamber, to this administration and to the world, that the citizens of this country and the overwhelming majority of this Congress says America stands with Israel.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the budget resolution. I wish to commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the House Committee on the Budget. Just think of it: as a conservative, I believe we must keep careful watch of the public resources that we are given. Balancing the Federal budget must be a priority. Because of the work of the House Committee on the Budget and Chairman Nussle, but for our recent effort to help hurting families with an unemployment benefits package, this is a balanced budget. During war and recession, that is an astonishing accomplishment. We do fund our national defense and our homeland security as America's priorities. And this budget demonstrates fiscal discipline. We just heard from the gentlewoman from Oregon some of what our friends on the other side of the aisle would like us to be spending more in this budget. The truth is, of the 17 amendments that the Democrats offered, it totaled $205 billion in new spending and $175 billion in tax increases to pay for it. Funding national defense, helping hurting families, cutting spending rather than raising taxes, are all good reasons to support this budget.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, it was a sunny day on Monday on the south lawn of the White House where I had the privilege of gathering with several thousand Americans to hear the President speak words to a troubled world. He said, ``There can be no peace in a world where differences and grievances become an excuse to target the innocent for murder.'' These words, Mr. Speaker, were no doubt a balm for our friends and allies in Israel, who have been suffering under the weight of an all-new escalation of mindless violence, suicide bombers killing even women and infant children returning from worship services. So why, Mr. Speaker, did the State Department, through its spokesman, Richard Boucher, call for Israel to ``exercise utmost restraint to avoid further harm to civilians''? Why did even the President yesterday say that Israel's recent military actions in self-defense were ``not helpful''? I am confused, Mr. Speaker. We should pray for the peace of Jerusalem, for those who love her of every race, but we must stand with Israel.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time and for her masterful handling of this rule and the underlying debate. I do rise as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary in strong support of the rule and of the underlying legislation, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2002. I believe as a new Member of this institution that whatever laws that we pass, they ought to ever and always be judged by how they impact not the most prosperous or the most affluent in our country, but by how they impact the least of these; how the laws in this place impact the average, working, struggling American family. And in that, I agree with the sentiment expressed by the gentlewoman from California that this institution should be focused on the least of these and on struggling Americans. I just simply would offer that, today, the least of these ought not to include doctors, lawyers, and corporate executives, but rather it ought to include aggrieved families and hurting Americans like the employees of Enron or other litigants and plaintiffs in class action lawsuits who have been made the subject of a system that the Washington Post called bad and called corrupt in a recent March 9 editorial. Mr. Speaker, the father of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) says the definition of a contingency fee is, if you lose, your lawyer does not get paid, but if you win, you do not get paid. And regrettably, as we learned in recent examples debated on this House Floor, $2.5 million in a class action lawsuit goes to the attorneys and the litigants get a coupon for a box of Cheerios. Another example: $4 million in legal fees and 33-cent checks distributed to hurting families, not even covering the postage for turning in their application to be members of the class. The benefits of the legislation on the floor today are truly targeted to benefiting working and aggrieved Americans. Requiring that all class notices and settlement notices be in plain English is one of the requirements of this bill, and ensuring that attorneys' fees in class actions are based on a reasonable percentage and provide protection against loss by class members. I rise today as a strong conservative Member of this institution, and I must say to my colleagues that it is a rare day that I ever thought that I would be quoting the Washington Post on the floor of this chamber, but I will do so today. The Washington Post wrote in supporting the work of the Committee on the Judiciary, that is on the floor today, that under the current system, ``At settlement time, the lawyers cash in while the clients get coupons for product upgrades. It is a bad system.'' They went on to write, ``This corrupt system is made possible to some degree because of how difficult it is to yank cases from State court and move them into the Federal system where judges tend to examine them more skeptically.'' They point out the positives in the provisions of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the rule, to support the Class Action Fairness Act, and say ``yes'' to hurting American families and litigants taking their stand in our best courts against the most powerful.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, it is said that the Almighty sets before us blessings and curses, life and death, and that we are to choose life so that we and our children might live. This week on this floor, in this Chamber, in this country, our Congress will have the opportunity to say ``yes'' to life by supporting the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. In this act, we essentially firmly state that a child that is extracted from the womb and is alive is a person under the law entitled to all of the due process protections of our Constitution. Many may believe that this legislation is unnecessarily divisive and not required. But according to testimony before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, two nurses testified, Mrs. Stanek and Mrs. Baker from the Christ Hospital in Illinois, that in their hospital there are abortion practices that include inducing labor and allowing a born-alive child simply to die. It is important this week on this occasion that Congress and America choose life. Let us today support the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act and the transcendent value of human life that is encompassed therein.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in deep humility to join in the shock and the grief of the citizens of Shelby County, Indiana, to pay tribute to the passing of a leader, a wife, a mother, and a distinguished local citizen, Cathy Laird, who passed away at the age of 37 yesterday following the complications from an automobile accident. Cathy Laird was not only a distinguished public servant who would have, without term limits, been permitted to run for her third consecutive term as county clerk, she was also the devoted wife of Roger, the devoted mother of Mary, 9, and Emily, 5. Emily was in the car when the accident occurred; and characteristic of Cathy, she looked after Emily making sure Emily got to her appointment while she was taken to the hospital. Mr. Speaker, I encourage Roger and all family and friends to not grieve like the rest of men who have no hope. Cathy had the hope that is now realized, and we will pray for her husband, her children, her family, her friends, and a grieving community who take comfort in the faith, hope and love of Cathy Laird.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, it is written that, ``If you owe debts, pay debts; if honor, then honor; if respect, then respect.'' I can think of no more fitting time to apply this verse than today, 1 day after we as Americans watched the flag-draped caskets of seven U.S. servicemen being off-loaded from a C-130 transport plane at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany. We owe these men of the United States Special Forces and the 101st Airborne a great debt of honor, a debt that words on this floor cannot even begin to repay. A century and a half ago, Abraham Lincoln spoke on another battlefield where American soldiers had spilled their blood to preserve our liberty. In his address, Lincoln charges the survivors of the conflict as follows: ``It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us, that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion.'' Mr. Speaker, the soldiers who died in the mountains of Afghanistan laid down their lives for the same great task as the soldiers at Gettysburg, the preservation of our liberty and our very way of life. Throughout our history, Mr. Speaker, America has faced enemies of her peace and her freedom. Two decades ago, President Ronald Reagan encouraged a country beset by terrorism. The words of his first inaugural address should steel the resolve of Americans today who face a similar intractable enemy. President Reagan said, ``As for the enemies of our freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, but we will not surrender for it now or ever. And, above all else, we must realize no arsenal, no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. It is a weapon that we as Americans do have.'' Mr. Speaker, it is especially poignant to me, as I see the sacrifices in the 101st Airborne, to reflect that twice in the last 6 months I traveled, at the invitation of Major General Richard Cody, to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, the home of the Screaming Eagles. There I met with officers and enlisted men of that fabled division, perhaps maybe even some of the very same soldiers that are coming home in the silence of death to their families, men who we can say without a doubt did not lack the will or moral courage to preserve our way of life. I opened with a scripture verse. Allow me to close with one, Mr. Speaker. As we consider the lives of those who have had paid the ultimate price to secure our freedom, I am reminded of the verse that, ``Greater love hath no man than this, that he should lay down his life for his friends.'' And allow me to add these modest words on behalf of the people of eastern Indiana and a grateful Nation. To the grieving spouses, parents, children, and friends that these heroes have left behind, we commend them humbly for their sacrifice as families and for having in their midst those who have shown no greater love to that dream which is the United States of America.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, not only for yielding to me, but for his leadership on the issue of Social Security reform in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has a responsibility to inform the American people that Social Security faces serious financial problems in the not-too-distant future. We cannot afford to sit idly by while our Social Security system continues to mirror corporations that have become insolvent, like ones that have made their way onto the front pages of America's newspapers. At present today, there are four workers supporting every one beneficiary on Social Security. By the year 2020, that ratio will dwindle to two workers for every one beneficiary. Americans will either have to endure enormous payroll tax increases or support systemic reform. I am here today, along with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) and other colleagues, to stand in support of systemic and visionary reform that even includes the idea of personal retirement accounts. Mr. Speaker, the personal accounts proposals that are being debated in Congress today are completely voluntary, and, I would offer and emphasize, completely safe. Investments would be made in highly diversified companies plus government and corporate bonds, a popular pension plan among many Members of Congress. If it is an option for those of us in this Chamber, it should certainly be an option for American taxpayers. Let us give workers real ownership of their Social Security by making it free from the influence and political control of Congress. But Mr. Speaker, let us move on to some of the myths from the left that are hovering above our Social Security system today, and it makes this Special Order and this time on the House floor so urgent and so important as a beginning in this debate. Myth number one: the President's budget raids Social Security. I offer that this is absolutely false. The President has proposed a budget well suited to this unique moment in American history when our country is at war, our homeland and our citizens have been attacked, and our economy is weak. This budget is an appropriate blueprint to craft our response to the challenges before us. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Social Security trust fund continues to grow under the President's budget. It provides for every penny of current law benefits and full cost-of-living adjustments. Myth number two: last year's tax cuts in some way threatened Social Security. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is entirely false. Last year's tax cuts have not affected the Federal Government's ability to pay benefits, and the trust fund remains unchanged. Some of those in this debate can and will continue to point to tax cuts as a threat to Social Security, but the truth lies in the simple demographics of an aging population. Eliminating tax cuts will not improve worker-retiree ratios. It will not encourage seniors to delay retirement. It will not encourage workers to save more for their own retirement. Myth number three: Social Security reform will somehow erode the trust fund. In fact, that, again, Mr. Speaker, is false. Research indicates that the creation of the proposals for personal retirement accounts actually increase benefits for retirees well above what the current Social Security system could ever imagine to pay. Without these accounts, today's workers could face as much as a 30 percent cut in benefits when they retire. The research is accurate, and the myths have been dispelled. We as a body must now move in the direction of offering a plan; and the Republicans, Mr. Speaker, have a plan. We will save Social Security from its bankruptcy and the course upon which it is headed in the next 20 years while guaranteeing that current retirees receive their promised benefits. Let me say again, Mr. Speaker, I think it is absolutely imperative, and I extol the leadership of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) and others in this Chamber who have said we as leaders in this country in both political parties should make an affirmative statement to the American people that we will meet our obligations in the Social Security system; that what people expect to receive from Social Security in income and in benefits they will receive, and no less. I believe the time has come for us to make this imperative statement clear to the American people, and perhaps this Congress will do so this year. This leadership and this majority will ensure that workers are allowed to earn higher benefits than under current law, as we have before. We will give workers ultimately real ownership of Social Security when reform finally arrives. We will enable younger workers to build wealth through voluntary participation in their own personally owned accounts that they can pass along to their heirs. We will preserve the important disability and survivors components of the program. We will reduce the financial burden on children and grandchildren. We will improve the rate of return for all beneficiaries. Mr. Speaker, the Good Book tells us that if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. I submit today that we must, in this country, make it more possible for more Americans to not only provide for themselves but to provide for their families. We do that through strengthening Social Security today. We do that through strengthening the people's confidence in the commitments that this government has made to Social Security, that we will meet those commitments, that income and benefits from Social Security will remain firm, and we will also keep the promise of Social Security alive, Mr. Speaker, by being a reform Congress; by recognizing that if we simply allow Social Security to continue along its way, that it is headed for the shoals. But if we will step in with the leadership that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) has provided in this Congress, that our majority leader continues to provide, and that other visionary leaders in this Congress have offered in this area, I am altogether confident that there will be one bright, shining day when we will have a Social Security system in America that builds wealth rather than dependency; a Social Security system in America that engenders confidence about those retirement years for all Americans; a bright, shining future when some day, Mr. Speaker, perhaps Americans would not look longingly to the Capitol dome hoping that their retirement security would be in place, but rather, they could look to themselves. They could look to their own retirement accounts. They could look to a system, and they could look to statements with their own resources, and be confident on their future because of the resources that they have placed in that trust. It is a vision, it is a long-term vision; but it begins, I submit today, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) has laid out so eloquently, it begins with a promise. It begins with strengthening the commitment that this Congress has to maintaining the income and benefits of Social Security at the level of expectation that Americans have today. Once we reiterate this Congress's and this government's commitment to Social Security, once we have laid the foundation of confidence with the American people, then we will lead with reform that will ensure not only Social Security for our parents but also for our peers and for their children and for our grandchildren for years to come through much-needed reforms.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I am a strong advocate of free trade. As an original co-sponsor of Presidential Trade Promotion Authority, I fought on the floor of this very Chamber to give this President the ability to negotiate down trade barriers because I simply believe, as a Hoosier Member of this institution, that trade means jobs from automotive and manufactured exports to agricultural exports that we grow in such abundance in the heartland of Indiana. But the reality is that, in the arena of worldwide steel, unfair trade practices and steel dumping have actually destroyed jobs in this country and impaired our national security. Today we learned that President Bush has decided to impose selective tariffs of up to 30 percent on foreign steel imports using section 201 of the Trade Act. I rise today to commend the President on his decision to protect the American steel industry and, more than that, to lay the foundation to protect America's national security for generations to come. The reality is America is recovering from a mild recession, and we must ensure that our Nation and our economy continues on a full path of recovery. A thriving steel industry will significantly aid in this task. However, the steel industry has been under increased pressure from unfairly subsidized imports of foreign steel. Foreign companies and governments have undermined our domestic industry through dumping practices and eroded our own ability to manufacture steel in this country. In response to this problem, the International Trade Commission conducted an investigation and held hearings at which I had the privilege of testifying. The ITC unanimously found that low-priced imports have seriously injured domestic steel production in the United States. Every American should understand the steel industry has been facing years of unfair competition. These unfair trade practices have already caused over 30 bankruptcies in the steel industry and cost thousands of American jobs. Steel production is the bedrock of a viable manufacturing base, but I also would add today that it is absolutely imperative to our national security. America must not become dependent on foreign steel, as we have become dependent on foreign oil. The reality is, as the caskets are slowly lowered off the transport aircraft at Andrews Air Force Base today, the Chinooks, the Black Hawk helicopters, the rifles, the artillery that are being fired at this hour in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan are made of steel, Mr. Speaker; and the ability of the United States of America to manufacture steel, merchantable steel, is at the very essence of our ability to provide for the common defense. It also strengthens our economy. In Indiana, 30,000 families make their livelihood in the steel industry. Increased efficiency and technological innovation combined with our hard-working employees have made the steel industry the envy of the world. Yet our policies have been rewarding uncompetitive and destructive behavior. Domestic steel production is vital to the national interest; it is vital to strengthening our economy. I commend the President of the United States today as we anticipate his decision, selective tariffs, using section 201 of the Trade Act. It is important that we support the steel industry in America long term and preserve our ability to produce the arsenal of democracy which gives the enemies of freedom pause and gives the friends of freedom hope all across the world.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, we are told that ``there is a time for everything and a season for every activity under heaven.'' At this time in our Nation's history, it is undeniable that citizens have found a newfound interest in spiritual things. And until 2 days ago, the Supreme Court was poised to hear a case from my home State of Indiana that was driven by, I believe, this newfound interest in the permanent things in our lives. Indiana Governor Frank O'Bannan had asked to have the Ten Commandments posted on the lawn of the Indiana State House. It was the governor's purpose to replace a plaque that had been there for decades, Mr. Speaker. It had been desecrated and destroyed by vandals. But on Tuesday of this week, the Supreme Court of the United States of America refused to take the case. In a similar case in the city of Richmond, Indiana, in my own district, the county government has been sued by the local civil liberties union. The plaintiff in the case has requested that Wayne County, Indiana, remove the Ten Commandments from the courthouse lawn, commandments that have stood, Mr. Speaker, on the lawn of the Wayne County courthouse for over 4 decades. Lawsuits like this are being brought before courts across the country. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, these cases come at a unique time in our Nation's history. I am greatly disappointed that the Supreme Court has refused to hear this case at such a time as this. Not only are these lawsuits to remove the Ten Commandments from our Nation's public buildings based on a flawed reading of the U.S. Constitution, but I assert it also reveals a profound misunderstanding of the foundations of our national government. The first amendment to the Constitution reads, as we all know, that ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' As scholars and average citizens know, until the 1960s, most Americans understood this to be the Establishment Clause. It was intended to allow Americans to worship freely and prevented the Federal Government from creating any official religion. The Establishment Clause was interpreted again and again by the Supreme Court to be a requirement that we as Americans accommodate in the public square the fact that we are, as one court wrote a ``deeply religious peoples whose institutions presuppose a supreme being.'' In fact, on the very walls of this Chamber that read, in my presence, the phrase, ``In God We Trust,'' on the very walls of the United States Supreme Court hang the Ten Commandments themselves, this is proven out. Beginning with the Supreme Court's decision in Everson v. Board of Education, our courts have reinterpreted the meaning of the Establishment Clause, and now many Americans believe the phrase, ``wall of separation of church and State'' actually appears in our Constitution. Chief Justice William Rehnquist said, and I am quoting now, ``There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build a `wall of separation' '' as expressed in the Everson case. ``The 'wall of separation' between church and State is a metaphor based,'' the Chief Justice said, ``on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging.'' With the phrase ``bad history,'' the Chief Justice points out, perhaps the greatest problems with those like the civil liberty lawyers who would remove all vestiges of religion from public life, a lack of understanding about the foundations of our Nation and our national laws. As I said, Mr. Speaker, the reality is that as evidenced on these walls, as evidenced as I look up in this Chamber and am looked down upon by the very gaze and likeness of Moses himself, the reality is that the Ten Commandments represent not just the cornerstone of the three great religions of planet Earth, but also they are the inconvenient cornerstone of western civilization. They are, however inconvenient to the modernists and the liberals of our day, they are the cornerstone of our moral and legal and governmental institutions in Western Civilization. So for the court to have missed an opportunity this week to reframe our constitutional law to once again accommodate the religious expression of good people, the good people of Indiana, the good people of Wayne County, Indiana, is deeply saddening to me and to many millions of Americans. Therefore, next week, Mr. Speaker, I will do what I can in this Chamber to reset the legal dial to join this national debate. I will introduce legislation known as the Ten Commandments Defense Act that will allow States to determine the appropriate display of this inconvenient cornerstone of Western Civilization.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President of the United States outlined the principles for the reauthorization of welfare in America. Many years ago, Ronald Reagan spoke of the purpose of welfare, saying, it is not simply to provide for the needy but more than that, to salvage these, our fellow citizens, to make them self-sustaining and as quickly as possible independent of welfare. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to extol my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the previous administration for enacting the welfare reform laws of 1996. They have been an unqualified success. Half of all welfare recipients got real jobs since that day and age. Welfare reform has lifted 2.3 million children out of poverty; and, since 1996, we have actually reversed a decades-old explosion of out- of-wedlock births, recognizing that a marriage is the best environment for escaping poverty and building strong and healthy and well-balanced children. Let us stay the course. Let us keep the purpose of welfare, so adequately described by President Reagan, and measure welfare success not by how many people arrive on welfare but by how many people leave it.