Mike Pence

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, the other day the Washington Times ran an excellent article on an attack on a church outside Mysore, India by the Bajrang Dal, a branch of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), which is the parent organization of the ruling party, the BJP. The attack seriously wounded about 20 people, according to the article. Approximately 70 attackers wore the saffron headbands that symbolize the militant Hindu nationalists. They attacked while worship was going on. This attack is part of what the Times called a ``new spate of attacks.'' It also reports that in February, two church workers and a teen-age boy were shot while praying and the boy was injured; two Christian missionaries were beaten with rods while bicycling home; and a Christian cemetery in Port Blair was vandalized. Those are just incidents that have occurred this month. Unfortunately, they are part of a pattern that church leaders described as a ``reign of terror.'' Since Christmas 1998, a number of priests have been murdered in India, several nuns have been raped (with the enthusiastic endorsement of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), another branch of the RSS), churches have been burned, missionary Graham Staines and his two young sons have been burned to death while sleeping in their jeep, Christian schools and prayer halls have been attacked, and numerous other acts of violence and/or hatred have taken place. In 1997, police opened fire on a Christian religious festival, putting an end to it. Last year, a member of the Indian cabinet said that everyone who lives in India must either be a Hindu or be subservient to Hindus. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that India intends to ram its Hindutva policy down the throats of everyone in the subcontinent. Christians are not the only ones being oppressed by the militant Hindu regime in Delhi. Sikhs, Kashmiris, Dalits, and others have also been tyrannized in the name of Hindu nationalism. Just recently more Kashmiris have been made to disappear by the Indian government. A report by the Movement Against State Repression shows that India holds over 52,000 Sikh political prisoners and Amnesty International reports that there are tens of thousands of others. The government's forces have murdered more than a quarter of a million Sikhs, over 200,000 Christians in Nagaland, over 75,000 Kashmiri Muslims, and thousands upon thousands of people from the Dalit caste, as well as minorities such as Tamils, Assamese, Manipuris, Bodos, and others. How can India call itself a democracy when things like this go on with the support of the government? These are not the acts of a democracy. It is important for America to speak out. I am speaking out today because religious and political freedoms are essential democratic values. America must bring its power to bear peacefully in support of true democracy and freedom in South Asia, and if our influence does not move the region toward real freedom, then we should be willing to use whatever other peaceful means we have at our disposal to end the violence and bring peace, freedom, and stability to all the peoples and nations there. Mr. Speaker, I would like to place the Times article in the Record at this time. [From the Washington Times, Feb. 25, 2002] New Spate of Attacks Targets Christians (By Julian West) New Delhi.--Violence against India's Christian minority has surged this year, with reports of at least one attack each week in what church leaders are calling a ``reign of terror'' spreading throughout the country. In the most recent incident, about 70 men wearing saffron headbands--an emblem of the Hindu nationalist--attacked a church near Mysore, in South India, where children were attending a catechism class. The attack last week seriously wounded about 20 people. In other incidents this month: Two church workers and a teen-age boy were shot at while praying, and the boy was injured. Two Christian missionaries were beaten with iron rods while bicycling home. A Christian cemetery in Port Blair on the Andaman Islands was vandalized. Four of the attacks were in Uttar Pradesh, the North Indian state where counting in local government elections ends today and where the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) fared poorly. Much of the violence against Christians has taken place in states ruled by the BJP, but church leaders say that last year the number of incidents in states like Karnataka, which has a Congress party government, has risen alarmingly. In the latest and most violent incident in the state, an angry mob wearing saffron headbands, carrying placards and shouting anti-Christian slogans descended on the Holy Family church in Hinkal, a suburb of Mysore, just after Mass last Sunday. ``The children were crying,'' said Father William, who was protected by his parishioners. ``They could see their parents being beaten up, from the windows.'' About 20 people were later taken to the hospital. Describing the incident as unprecedented in a city whose roughly 30,000 Christians have previously had good relations with their Hindu neighbours. Father Nerona, a member of the Diocesan Council, said that he thought the attack had been provoked by a misunderstanding over a round of Christmas carols. ``They said the carols were converting people, but actually the carol singers only went to Catholic homes,'' he said. ``We were terribly shocked. This has always been such a peaceful city.'' The recent attacks follow what church leaders call ``a false lull,'' occurring after the international outrage last year over the burning alive of Graham Staines, an Australian missionary, and his two small sons last year. ``Physically, many of the incidents are now less obvious,'' said John Dayal, secretary general of the All India Christian Council. ``But there is a 24-hour reign of terror, which occasionally bursts into violence.'' Last year the Indian government reported 240 incidents-- including about 22 murders--in the year leading up to 2000, and almost every week newspapers carry an account of a ransacked church, an assaulted or murdered priest or a vandalized cemetery. Many of the assailants are member of the Bajrang Dal, a militant Hindu nationalist organization linked to the BJP, which has carried out many of the most violent attacks on Christians in India. Church leaders maintain, however, that all the attacks-- whether they are carried out by the Bajrang Dal or its fellow Hindu nationalist organizations--have the tacit approval of the BJP government. ``The Bajrang Dal are ruffians, but someone must have told them what to do the previous night,'' said Mr. Dayal.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and of the underlying economic security and worker assistance act. It is Valentine's Day, Mr. Speaker; but there is obviously not a lot of love in this room. And there should be. One million Americans have fallen into unemployment this year. While Congress focuses on issues that 1 or 2 percent of the American people think are urgent, a million American families are struggling under the weight of this recession. It is our hope on this side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, that the third time is the charm. But I want to speak specifically to several comments made by the gentleman from Texas in a passionate and typically eloquent way. He accused this measure offered by the majority of being cynical. And I do not know, Mr. Speaker, I am new to this town, but it seems to me that what is more cynical: Trying to help people that are unemployed by helping not only the wage earner but also the wage payer, or is it more cynical to offer a stimulus bill that does nothing for the people that you want folks to be hired back by? And we have been accused of blocking today, Mr. Speaker. Again, I am new to Washington and I am from south of Highway 40, but it seems to me this is the third time we have passed a stimulus bill with benefits for the unemployed in it and it has been blocked, Mr. Speaker, somewhere else. And only in Washington, D.C. would you be accused of having tried thrice to accomplish something and now you are blocking it. Should we do more? We have been accused by the gentleman from Texas. Well, we are. We are offering not just 13 weeks but we are triggering additional unemployment benefits and vouchers to pay 60 percent of the cost of health insurance coverage. And this business of using laid-off workers as pawns, who uses the hurting family as a pawn, the one who labors to meet their need for assistance today and a job tomorrow, or the person content with accepting uncompromising obstruction that does nothing to help the plight of the unemployed today? I urge passage of the rule and this measure.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the Hyde amendment to this legislation. I consider it a privilege to debate men of such eloquence as the gentleman from Maryland in this Chamber, but, if I may say so, I take issue with the assertion that the determination of constitutionality is outside of our purview. I will grant the point to the gentleman from Maryland that it is not our purview under this Constitution to determine what is and is not constitutional, but I would offer that while it is not our power, it is most assuredly our duty expressed in the oath of office that every man and woman who has served in this institution takes, an oath of office to defend and uphold and support the Constitution of the United States of America. It presupposes that we make a judgment in our own hearts, in our own minds, and express it with our own vote about that which we consider to be constitutional and that which we do not. I must tell my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that this bill's prohibition of political speech in the last 2 months by individuals or organizations other than political action committees is even to my 10- year-old son a clear violation of those words that ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.'' Only by adopting the Hyde amendment will we as an institution say that whatever the courts may do, and, if I may say so, they have occasionally made some bone- headed decisions, whatever the courts may do at whatever level, that it was never the intention of this institution to trample on that first amendment. If I may say, Mr. Chairman, I think many of the advocates of this bill suspect the provisions might be unconstitutional. It is perhaps the reason why they oppose the nonseverability provisions that have attempted to be added to this bill. I believe it is the reason why they do not want to stand with those of us that say, if there is a part of this found unconstitutional, then all of it must be rejected. Let us say yes to the blood-bought freedoms of the Bill of Rights and yes to the Hyde amendment.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong opposition to Shays-Meehan today, principally because of the oath of office that I took, flanked by my three small children a little over a year ago, right over there. That oath of office charged me with upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States of America. Now, the gentleman from Massachusetts quoted James Madison. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, wrote very simple words: The Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Now, last night I was involved in the debate on the rule, and I went back to our home in the Washington area, and my 10-year-old son, who had just finished his first unit on the Constitution of the United States, said, undoubtedly biased, Dad, you were right, because I just read that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Now, as much as that meant to me as a dad for my 10-year-old son to say that I was right, I truly believe I am right. The Supreme Court agrees with me and my 10-year-old son, saying recently that first amendment activity applies no less to independent expression by individuals or political committees than it does to political parties, and the truth is that Shays-Meehan bars individuals and organizations from their first amendment rights during 2 months prior to an election. I suspect that my friends on my side and on the other side of the aisle know this may be found to be true, and that is why there has been strong opposition in this Chamber and the other to allowing a nonseverability provision to this measure. Even though I will oppose this bill, Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that we can change it, that we can fix it, we can close those soft money loopholes. I will support an amendment to ban all soft money from the process, which Shays-Meehan does not do, and I will also vote to ban the use of soft money for building political party buildings or paying off debt this fall. The truth is this bill is good for incumbents, bad for democracy; good for bureaucracy, bad for liberty. Vote ``no'' on Shays-Meehan.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, as I voted in favor of bringing this bill and a rule to the floor for debate and deposition last year, I urge my colleagues to support this rule tonight. It is time to yield to the processes of this institution and bring this measure to the floor. But I also rise, Mr. Speaker, today in strong opposition to the underlying legislation for the single and exclusive reason that I believe in my heart that this legislation is, in fact, despite what the author of the bill just offered into the record, I believe it is, in fact, unconstitutional. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) said on the floor of this Chamber moments ago that the Supreme Court has upheld spending limits, and in that measure he is right, but also in 1996 the Supreme Court ruled that ``independent expression of a political party's views is core first amendment activity no less than is the independent expression of individuals, candidates or other political committees.'' It is precisely those individuals and other political committees that the Shays-Meehan bill bars, Mr. Speaker, from any political communication that mentions one of us incumbent Federal officeholders in the 2 months prior to an election. One of the great ironies of the debate this week is that many of the supporters of the Shays-Meehan legislation are using the very issue ads that they would ban, financed by the very type of groups that they would ban, to sell this legislation to the American people. Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress and I had the privilege a little over a year ago to take an oath of office where we promised to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. My promise to uphold the Constitution and those blood-bought freedoms constrains me from supporting this legislation. By barring any groups of Americans other than political action committees from criticizing Members of Congress by name in the 2 months before an election is unconstitutional. It is good for incumbents, bad for democracy; good for bureaucracy, bad for liberty. Let us support the rule but oppose or amend this underlying legislation to discharge each of our oaths of office.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, it is February 12, 2002, and on this calendar date 193 years ago today, just scarcely two lifetimes ago, came into the world the 16th President of the United States of America, the father of the Republican Party, the leader who ended slavery and at the same time saved the Union. I speak, of course, of President Abraham Lincoln, born humbly in Kentucky, raised proudly in Indiana, who then moved and pursued a public and adult career in Illinois. The Bible tells us, ``If you owe debts, pay debts. If honor, then honor. If respect, then respect. I thought today, in the midst of all our debates about other pressing national issues, as now having the privilege of being able to call Abraham Lincoln, the Congressman Abraham Lincoln from 1848, a colleague, that it would be all together fitting to rise today and remember the occasion of his birth, and to do so, Mr. Speaker, with his own words. Abraham Lincoln spoke of many issues, but of course freedom and the abolition of the evil of human slavery were chief among them. April 1859: ``Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, cannot long retain it.'' August 1858: ``As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy.'' July 1858: ``I leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created equal.'' And in June of 1858: ``A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the union to be dissolved, I do not expect the House to fall, but I do expect it to cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.'' Abraham Lincoln was also a man of very profound faith, which inspires many millions to this day, writing: ``I have been driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go. My own wisdom and that of all about me seemed insufficient for the day.'' In September of 1864, he wrote: ``In regard to this Great Book, I have but to say, it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Savior gave to the world was communicated through this book.'' And in the creation of the very first proclamation of Thanksgiving and a national day of prayer in October of 1863, the President wrote: ``I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe this last day of Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly do to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners, or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and restore it as soon as it may be consistent with Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility and union.'' President Abraham Lincoln was lastly a man who understood and cherished liberty and knew where its threats would be presented. As he said in January of 1838: ``At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth in their military chest, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a thousand years of trial. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer: If it ever reach us, it must spring up from among us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a Nation of free men, we must live through all time or die by suicide.'' February 12, 1809, a day the world and America became richer.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, my wife, Karen, and I just returned from celebrating, along with 3,800 other citizens of both political parties, the 50th National Prayer Breakfast here in Washington, D.C. It was truly an inspiring morning. I offer congratulations to the organizers, in both political parties, with the National Prayer Breakfast for this inspiring event. We gathered, Mr. Speaker, because it is a chance to honor heroes, like Lisa Beamer and the New York firefighters whom we heard from today. We gather because it is obviously a tradition begun with President Dwight David Eisenhower. But as we were reminded so poignantly today by leaders of both parties and eloquently by our President and the Chief of Naval Operations, we gather as Americans because we believe that if His people who are called by His name will humble themselves and pray and seek His face, He will today, as He always has, hear from heaven, forgive our sins and heal our land.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, mark your calendar. It is official. I have, in fact, as of this date and this hour heard everything: President Ronald Wilson Reagan on the occasion of his 91st birthday used as an example in the House of Representatives as a tax increaser in America and as an example of someone who believed in the virtue of tax increases. It is a privilege to rise on the 91st birthday of President Ronald Wilson Reagan. I had the privilege of meeting him in person. I did not know then what we would all come to know, how he would bestride history as few men who have occupied the Presidency would do; how he would rebuild our economy through tax cuts, believing in American entrepreneurism and ingenuity; how he would rebuild the military after years of reckless cutbacks and bring the godless Soviet Union to its knees. Mr. Speaker, though he cannot hear these words today or even yet remember what he did for America, I believe that soon, with eyes again young, Ronald Reagan will see what his courage has wrought and will hear those words, ``Well done, good and faithful servant.''

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, a woman 4 months pregnant flees to her mother's village to avoid a forced abortion in China. Her brother, two sisters and three other relatives are arrested as bargaining chips to enforce China's brutal one-child-per-family policy. Three of her families' homes are destroyed. A second woman, 19 years of age, is told that she is too young to have a baby. She does not meet the government's age requirements for pregnancy. Her friends who accompanied her to the local clinic for her mandatory abortion all nod vigorously when asked by an undercover investigator if the young lady would like to keep the baby. ``But the law forbids it,'' they add. Sound barbaric? There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, on this week where millions of Americans on either side of the debate over abortion gathered in our Nation's capital, those of us who endorse what we call the right to life and many thousands that endorse a woman's right to choose debated the question of choice. But let us all understand on this week when we foment this debate in Washington, Mr. Speaker, that there is no choice in China. China's indefensible population control programs, though, do not just have their detractors in the world. They actually have their promoters, some of whom are sponsored by the United States Government. The United Nations Population Fund, also known as the UNFPA, Mr. Speaker, has described China's forced abortion policy as a, quote, remarkable achievement. Proving their moral bankruptcy, Sven Burmester, the representative for the U.N. Population Fund in Beijing, said, ``China has the most successful family planning policy in the history of mankind in terms of quantity, and with that,'' he added, ``China has done mankind a favor.'' Also proving the moral bankruptcy of the UNFPA, Mr. Burmester of the Fund said, in effect, my own view is that there is a generation of Chinese who have sacrificed themselves to benefit society, and that generation, presumably the generation expensed in China's policy of forced abortion, is to be recognized. But the U.N. Population Fund, Mr. Speaker, recently received a significant increase in its funding from the U.S. Government. There will be those who will say at the UNFPA that they only work in regions where the Chinese government has suspended its oppressive one-child policy. However, testimony in a recent House International Relations Committee hearing revealed photographs of a UNFPA office located within the China Office of Family Planning. The testimony also uncovered evidence that the UNFPA is active in Sihui County in China in which family planning is decidedly not voluntary. Officials have imposed age requirements there for pregnancy and require birth permits, mandatory sterilization and forced abortion. Those who refuse to comply with these standards face fines, imprisonment and often the destruction of their homes and property. There is no choice in China, Mr. Speaker. But, sadly, in the waning days of the first session of the 107th Congress, the UNFPA in the foreign operations bill recently received a 58 percent increase in its funding, $34 million, U.S. taxpayer paid. The Mexico City Policy prohibits Federal funding of groups that perform or even promote abortion services overseas. So I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to urge the administration, as I did before over 100,000 pro-life citizens on the National Mall on Tuesday, I rise today to urge the administration to enforce the Mexico City Policy, to seize the Kemp Kasten language in the foreign operations bill and do what President Ronald Reagan did and do what President George Herbert Walker Bush did, and that is render the amount the foreign operations bill has provided to the UNFPA to zero. The people of the United States of America deserve better than to have their taxpayer dollars used to foment and to promote an organization that praises China's forced abortion policy.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, in this past year and future year of war and politics and recession, I rise today to urge my colleagues to respond to that higher calling of Members of the United States House of Representatives under the Constitution of the United States and commit ourselves on this first day of this second session of the 107th Congress to be a Congress that balances the Federal budget. The headlines, Mr. Speaker, are filled with an American corporation which through either mismanagement or criminality has done a disservice to millions of middle-class shareholders and to thousands of its employees, even some from my own family who live in Texas. It is fundamentally a failure of that corporation to manage its budget. Let us not likewise fail in this Congress to give the American people, even in these recessionary times, a balanced Federal budget. Let us begin this day to live out that proverb that if you owe debts, pay debts. And let us live out our commitment in this Republican- dominated Congress to provide a balanced Federal budget for the American people.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the same day rule and the underlying economic recovery bill. The familiar sounds of the season, Mr. Speaker, silk stockings hanging by the chimney, Republicans as Grinch. The demagoguery of the day. But, Mr. Speaker, I offer that this rhetoric does nothing for the 1 million families facing this holiday with the uncertainty, the embarrassment and the despair of being out of work at Christmas. I know whereof I speak, Mr. Speaker. In 1993, with my wife expecting our third, with Michael, my son, age 2, and Charlotte, my daughter, age 1, I was out of work. I endured going to the family parties with the uncertainty of where the next paycheck would be from. I can tell, Mr. Speaker, it is a grievous time. Yet some even on the floor tonight complaining of the lateness of the hour say we should not act on this economic recovery bill, they say we should only help the wage earner, but not the wage payer. But the truth is always somewhere in between, as it is in this compromise bill, a bill that provides 6 times the unemployment relief of the original legislation that passed out of the House, and also recognizes that the best welfare program is a good job, and we help to create and stimulate the wage earner by bringing those loyal employees back into the fold. Let us not think about the demagoguery and the political advantage of the day, let us think of the moms and dads stretching to make this Christmas special, and trusting us in this Congress in both parties to pursue policies that will lead them and our Nation out of this present recession.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, while Congress fiddles with the details of an economic stimulus package, the dreams of many American families burn. I rise today to urge my colleagues to move an economic stimulus package through the Congress this week. I believe serving an agricultural and industrial district of eastern Indiana, that Americans and Hoosiers are hurting at this especially poignant time of the year. Since arriving in Congress in March, I have maintained that for my district and citizens we have been in a recession since the first of the year. Before summer of this year, nearly 3,000 Hoosiers lost their jobs in my district alone, and the events of September 11 have only exacerbated the problem. I submit today, as someone who has in fact lost a job over the Christmas holidays myself, that it is especially burdensome on families to do so, and it is an especially grevious state of affairs. Jim and Eileen Decker of Goehring's Mens Shop in Anderson, Indiana, are closing the door of their Main Street store after 55 years of business due to downturns in the local Anderson economy. Delco Remy America, which is located in Anderson, has announced over 200 layoffs. J.J and Jodi Leever and their sons, Noah and Hunter, are part of the many families who will be gathered around the tree one week from today, not just filled with the joy of the moment, but filled with the uncertainty these economic times bring. Yet we in Congress today continue to languish, continue to debate one with another, sometimes in demagogic tones and sometimes in legitimate ways, about whether or not we can pass an economic stimulus package this week. On behalf of J.J. and Jodi Leever, and the many families of eastern Indiana, I urge my colleagues to act, but not as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) just spoke moments ago, not simply in a way that is focused on the wage earner who finds themselves in dire circumstances. Mr. Speaker, we must have, if it is to be an economic stimulus package, it must benefit not just the wage earner but the wage payer; and we must no longer tolerate the anti-capitalistic rhetoric that says that it is appropriate for leaders in this institution only to assist the wage earner once he finds himself out of gainful employment, and never to come alongside the wage payer, never to provide assistance to businesses small and large, and permit them to bring those families back to work. Mr. Speaker, it is accurate to say the best welfare program in the world is a good job. The Republican leadership here in the Congress passed an economic stimulus package that, yes, reinforces the safety net to assist Americans through rebates and low- income benefits, assist Americans who are struggling. But we also passed tax relief to working families, small businesses, and even large corporations to say we want to reinvigorate Americans in these difficult and uncertain economic times, to bring those Hoosiers and bring those Americans back to work and back to gainful employment. There is talk on the editorial pages and in the hallways of this institution that we are about to give birth to an economic stimulus package that has very little stimulus to it at all. It seems to be developing into a potpourri of giveaways to moderate- and low-income and unemployed Americans while turning a deaf ear and a stiff arm to the wage payer in America. I submit today that thanks to President Bush's foresight in arguing through this institution a tax relief this summer, this economy is already improving. We will find our way out with or without an economic stimulus package from our present malaise. But the reality is that this institution should heed the advice of many who have gone before, pro- growth conservatives like Jack Kemp and others; and we should go big or go home. We should either pass an economic stimulus package that truly speeds relief and invigorates the American economy at every level, for the wage earner and the wage payer, or we should just go home and enjoy our families over Christmas and be confident that this economic ship will right itself. I urge my colleagues to move on a real bill with real substance and real stimulative effect. Let us go big, Mr. Speaker, or let us go home.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, the Bible tells us that the testing of our faith develops perseverance, and perseverance must finish its work that we might be mature, complete, not lacking in anything. At this hour, Mr. Speaker, as every day since the emergency adjournment of the Congress on October 17, my Washington staff labors on card tables and folding chairs in the relative obscurity of a Rayburn office building banquet hall. These dedicated young people have been exiled from our Washington office ever since we learned that trace elements of anthrax were discovered there; and they have been laboring, Mr. Speaker, with astonishing integrity and astonishing commitment and dedication to the thousands of people we serve across east central Indiana. Bill Smith, Ron Arnold, Jennifer Marsh, Patrick Wilson, Stephen Piepgrass, Ryan Fisher, Andrew Kincaid, Chris Kiefer, and Mary Breeding all deserve recognition for their patient endurance in the trial of serving and especially for their patience in putting up with me. When I asked each one of them whether or not they might talk with their parents about a better place to work after 9-11 and even after the anthrax scare, I told them there was only one family that had to be in Washington, D.C. to serve the people in this district and that was mine; and to their undying credit, every one of them stayed. They labor at this very hour on behalf of the people of the second district, and they deserve our respect and appreciation.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Help America Vote Act and would like to commend Chairman Ney and Ranking Member Hoyer for their unyielding and bipartisan work on this important legislation. I also want to commend my colleagues who have taken to the floor today to talk about an issue that many of us 12 months ago would have found much more contentious than we have heard today. Long before there were wars and long before threats of anthrax on this Hill, we found ourselves locked as a Nation in a battle over the very integrity of the electoral process in America. In a bipartisan way, Chairman Ney and Ranking Member Hoyer and the members of the relevant committee have come together and said, here is how we can come together to improve the very integrity of the electoral system, leaving past controversies over elections in the past, where they belong. The Help America Vote Act will allow us to strengthen voter list management, voting standards, overseas military votes and even encourage the Nation's youth to participate more in our elections. And without encroaching upon States' rights in elections, we will also provide much needed resources for new machines. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bipartisan measure and strengthen the American voting system.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for his leadership and for yielding me time, and rise in strong support of the rule and of the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act today. Mr. Speaker, I believe the question before this House, and, in many ways, before America today, is who do you trust? Do you trust the shuttered version of America that says that we will keep our own rules and we will keep to ourselves and we will maintain our place in the world, or do you trust the American worker and do you trust the American President at such a time as this? Well, I stand today to say that I trust the American worker. The great American companies, large and small, when given an opportunity to compete in the world, not only, Mr. Speaker, do we compete, but we win, and we win consistently. We know in Indiana that trade means jobs, $1.5 billion from this relatively small midwestern State in agricultural goods alone last year, supporting 24,000 jobs on and off the farm. And it is not only good for big business, as some on the other side might say. Ninety percent of exports in this country come from companies with less than 500 employees, and for every $1 billion in increased exports, Mr. Speaker, we create 20,000 new jobs here in America that pay an average of 17 percent more than similar jobs in the domestic economy. I trust the American worker to compete and to win. But I also rise today to say that I trust the President. Along with more than 80 percent of the American people today, I trust President George W. Bush to put America's interests first in the world, to put American jobs, to put America's security, to put American agriculture, manufacturing, steel, all of the rest on the international negotiating table first. I believe this President, particularly this fall, has earned our trust and earned our respect, and I urge all of my colleagues, trust the American worker, trust the American President; vote yes on the rule and the bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I commend him and the ranking member for their outstanding leadership on this very timely resolution. Twenty-six innocent people in Israel murdered in cold blood, 175 wounded by Palestinian terrorists all within 14 hours. On a proportional basis, as our resolution provides, this would represent 1,200 American deaths and 8,000 wounded. Today, I rise as a proud and humbled cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 280 expressing solidarity with Israel in its fight against terrorism. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that we should do no less than we will do in this Chamber today: condemn the vicious terrorist attacks that have resulted in the deprivation of sons and daughters, husbands and wives, and grandparents of the families in Israel; expressing outrage today, as we do, of the ongoing Palestinian terrorist campaign, which is not, as some in the media say, a cycle of violence; but it is violence against the people of Israel and the self-defense of Israel. And we also demand today that the Palestinian Authority destroy the infrastructure of Palestinian terrorist groups, pursue and arrest terrorists, and bring them to justice; and our efforts both commend the President and urge all necessary steps be taken to ensure such actions by the Palestinian Authority are timely indeed. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, as a Christian American from the heartland of this country, the great State of Indiana. And I am here to say that I represent hundreds of thousands of Americans who still believe that He will bless those who bless Israel. It is from this tender regard of the American people that this nation sprang back into existence in its historic homeland in 1948, and the enemies of Israel should know that that regard remains to this day. I pray for the peace of Jerusalem. May there be peace within her walls and security within her citadels. May the grieving families hear from this Congress today the voice of sympathy and the voice of solidarity, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in strong support of the bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority that this House will take up tomorrow. Just like a labor union designates one person to negotiate its contract with management, America needs one voice empowered to put our interest first at the world trade negotiating table. As my colleague from Georgia just expressed so well, Trade Promotion Authority is in the interest of small business. Ninety percent of exports come from companies with less than 500 employees. For every $1 billion in increased exports, we create 20,000 new jobs that pay an average of 17 percent more than the domestic economy. Mr. Speaker, the only question for my colleagues is simply this: Do Members trust this President to put America's interests first at the trade negotiating table? I say proudly, along with some 80 percent of the American people, I trust this President. President Bush deserves a vote of confidence from this House. He deserves Trade Promotion Authority, and I urge a ``yes'' vote tomorrow.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today after a harrowing set of days, explosions, fire, innocent civilians running in panic through the streets; and I do not refer to life in America, New York City, or in the environs of the Pentagon on September 11; but I speak of Jerusalem and Israel. I speak of a nation that in the last week and past several days has grievously lost husbands and fathers, wives and mothers, sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters to the scourge of political terror. I rise today humbly to speak of Israel and of the precious relationship that does and must continue to exist between the Government of the United States and the government of that great and historic people. As an American, a Christian, and a Hoosier, it is my firm belief now more than ever that it is my duty to insist that the United States of America never waver in protecting and defending the interests of the State of Israel in its battle for survival in this dangerous part of the world, and in its efforts now to open up, as the President's press secretary spoke yesterday, of the second front of the war on terrorism. Mr. Speaker, many of these things may seem obvious, but many in the media are having a hard time figuring out who is right in the current conflict and how to best stop, we are told, the cycle of violence in order to help the parties get back to the negotiating table so they can iron out differences and misunderstandings. While I will say I am the first to admit that I know less than most of my colleagues do about Israel and its importance to America, let me say what I think this conflict is about and see whether my colleagues might agree. Mr. Speaker, first I want to assert that I do not think that there is anything current about this conflict. I believe it is part of a continuing struggle being waged by many in the Arab world of extremists' views to do nothing other than to destroy the State of Israel, period. It is the historic aim of many in the terrorist organizations of Palestine and elsewhere, and the conflict today is simply an extension of that. As to the question of who is right, that is simple. Mr. Speaker, it has ever been the policy of the United States of America and the people of this country since 1948 that Israel is right, believing as I do, as millions of Americans do, that He will still bless those who bless Israel, and so we stand with her. A cycle of violence, I reject the term. When terrorists blow up a school bus or explode bombs in a mall killing children and innocent men and women, this is their aim. When Israel defense forces strike back, as they are at this hour and have in the last 24 hours, killing known terrorists and neutralizing terrorist assets, Mr. Speaker, this is not a cycle of violence; it is Israel performing her own self-defense. As to returning to negotiations, one might ask what is there left to negotiate. Last summer at Camp David former Prime Minister Barak offered Yasser Arafat virtually everything. And how did Arafat respond? By launching a 9-month guerrilla war culminating this weekend, targeting women and children, some of whom were born in this country, and even in my State of Indiana. No, Yasser Arafat is not an effective negotiating partner. He is a terrorist, and it is time America stood strongly by Israel and said to Yasser Arafat, it is time that the terrorists and their capabilities are secured within the Palestinian Authority or else.N O T I C E Effective January 1, 2002, the subscription price of the Congressional Record will be $422 per year or $211 for six months. Individual issues may be purchased for $5.00 per copy. The cost for the microfiche edition will remain $141 per year with single copies remaining $1.50 per issue. This price increase is necessary based upon the cost of printing and distribution. Michael F. DiMario, Public Printer Mr. Speaker, the Bible tells us of another time when a man of God stood alone with his servant and hostile forces were arrayed against him. His servant was frightened, and so he prayed that God might open the eyes of his servant, that he would see more of those who are with us than those that are with them. It is my prayer, Mr. Speaker, that Israel's eyes would be opened, to know that though her enemies are ruthless, her friends in this country and this government are many, many more.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding to me and for bringing this forum together for the discussion of an issue truly vital to Indian farmers, and congratulate the gentleman from Virginia for his leadership on behalf of agriculture and trade. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of America's farmers and ranchers, particularly those serving eastern Indiana. Every evening they leave their sweat in the fields to ensure the good health and well-being of their fellow Hoosiers. They do so much for Indiana, and this Congress can do so much for them by simply granting the President desperately needed trade negotiating power. Mr. Speaker, trade already benefits Indiana. Hoosiers exported an estimated $1.5 billion in agricultural goods in the year 2000. These exports helped boost farm prices and income while supporting 24,000 jobs on and off the farm in food processing, storage, and transportation. The numbers are truly staggering in Indiana alone: Soybeans and products, $543 million; feed grains and products, $470 million; live animals and red meats, $107 million; wheat and products, $69 million; and poultry and products, $55 million. An estimated $1.5 billion just from the 92 counties of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, world demand for these products is increasing, but so is competition among our various and diverse trading partners. The reality is if Indiana's farmers and food processors are to compete successfully for opportunities ushered in by the 21st century, they need free trade and open access to growing global markets. Let us quickly examine previous trade agreements and how they have assisted my home State. As the Nation's sixth largest corn producer, Indiana benefited directly under the North American Free Trade Agreement when Mexico converted its import licensing system for corn to a transitional tariff rate quota. Under this system, the volume of U.S. corn exports to Mexico has nearly tripled since 1994, reaching 197 bushels valued at $486 million in the year 2000. Additionally, under NAFTA, Mexico eliminated import licensing and is phasing out tariffs for wheat all together. Wheat exports to Mexico have doubled from Indiana since 1994. Mr. Speaker, the Uruguay Round agreement has also benefited Indiana in its capacity as America's fourth largest soybean producer. South Korea continues to reduce its tariffs on soybean oil, a process that has already supported a threefold increase in our export volume. The Philippines is doing the same for soybean meal. So, Mr. Speaker, you can see that our existing trade agreements have truly benefited Indiana and the entire United States. So why do we need additional trade agreements in the form of TPA to help our Nation's farmers and ranchers? Let me offer a few reasons. Number one, exports are the lifeblood of American agriculture. Without Presidential Trade Promotion Authority, we risk losing our existing share of foreign markets to other competitors. Second, with TPA, we can begin in earnest with a round of WTO talks where the greatest gains will be made in agricultural trade. Third, the only way to fix the problems that have emerged under existing agreements is to use the credibility of Trade Promotion Authority with the President of the United States at the negotiating table. Additionally, growth in purchases of U.S. food and agricultural products is most likely to come from the 5.9 billion people who live outside of the United States of America. If we do not supply their needs, Mr. Speaker, someone else will. Fifth, economic studies show that the most significant growth in demand for agricultural products is in societies with emerging middle classes. Middle-class families spend an increasing portion of discretionary income on food. The next decade is expected to usher in 250 million Indians and 200 million Chinese to the level of middle class. These markets will be the strongest for growth in commercial food demand. Also, some of the highest growth in food demand is occurring in Asia. Only with Presidential Trade Promotion Authority can we tear down the barriers and eliminate tariffs in that region to maximize our economic opportunities. Additionally, other countries are moving forward without us. The European Union, Mexico, Canada, and Latin America are negotiating new free trade agreements that do not include the United States. There are 130 agreements that exist today, and only two of them include the United States of America. Allow me to repeat that again, Mr. Speaker. There have been, over the last decade, been negotiated worldwide with our competitors in agriculture and elsewhere, 130 trade agreements, of which the United States is party to 2. Also, world agriculture tariffs today average about 62 percent, while U.S. tariffs average 12 percent. Trade Promotion Authority and other trade agreements can only eliminate foreign barriers such as this. Ninth, other countries are more likely to agree to WTO negotiations pertaining to strengthening world prices if the President is armed with Presidential Trade Promotion Authority. And last, Mr. Speaker, this Congress can no longer afford to stand idly by while other nations' governments improve trading opportunities for their citizens and their industries and their agricultural sector. Leadership and action by Congress must no longer be delayed. Congressional passage of Presidential Trade Promotion Authority is absolutely essential, and I hope that Congress will do so this week. And let me say I support Trade Promotion Authority to assist Hoosier farmers. I urge my colleagues to help their farmers as well. But also, Mr. Speaker, and I say this somewhat in jest but in a great deal of seriousness, I believe that this President has earned the confidence of the American people in the days of the fall of 2001. Trade Promotion Authority for the President of the United States asks one simple question: Do you trust the President of the United States at the trade negotiating table to put American agriculture, to put American interests, to put American jobs first? Well, I, Mr. Speaker, today do not believe I am in the minority when I say that I trust the President of the United States of America to put American jobs, American interests, and American agriculture first. I trust President George W. Bush, and I hope that all of my colleagues will join those many millions of Americans who have found this President truly trustworthy and give him the authority he needs to advance our interest in agriculture and for our entire economy by adopting Trade Promotion Authority.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, on September 11 our Nation was mercilessly attacked in New York and in the Pentagon, and we may well have been made subject to biological attacks through the mail since, even some of which arrived at my own congressional office. The impact of these attacks on our country is incalculable. It has been emotional. It has resulted in spiritual renewal in our country. It has resulted in military activity overseas and activity by the Justice Department in criminal investigations of a historic scope here in America. And, yes, the consequences of September 11 have been economic as well. The reality is that what we found out this week, Mr. Speaker, is that beginning in March of this year and manifested in newspapers around America on Tuesday, we are in fact in a recession. All people around America know is recession is defined as when there are two consecutive quarters of net negative growth in the GDP, and that sad news arrived on the door steps of Americans this week. Well, the reality is that the events of September 11, Mr. Speaker, contributed to a weak economy spiraling even further into recession, the recession in which we find ourselves today. Now, these facts may seem obvious. They may not even seem worthy of taking the time of this august Chamber today; but they are not apparently obvious to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who we are told in newspapers around America today including the front page of USA Today that political attack ads will be launched beginning this weekend in markets all across America deriding the George Bush recession. Let me say again, labeling the economic downturn as the George Bush recession, a key Democrat announced plans Thursday for her party's first political ad campaign since the attacks on America on September 11. So I rise today to simply ask the question, Mr. Speaker, whose recession is this? Is it in fact the George Bush recession? Well, let us begin with the facts. As I mentioned earlier a recession is two consecutive quarters of net negative growth in the GDP. That means that the recession in which we find ourselves began on March 1. I seem to remember that the Presidential campaign was quite divisive. That in fact George W. Bush was not able to form his government until into January and, therefore, he had been President of the United States for approximately 5 weeks, Mr. Speaker, when this recession arrived. Now that to me is an extraordinary judo throw for any human being or any administration. In 5 weeks we are to believe that George W. Bush was such a repellent on the American economy that he drove us into a recession. That is obviously absurd. But some might be quick on my side of the aisle to say this is not a George Bush recession we are in. It is a Bill Clinton recession we are in and there is certainly evidence to suggest that. Manufacturers in the automotive industry and the diesel industry in the east central Indiana district that I serve have said that their orders were off beginning in the fourth quarter of the year 2000. The National Association of Manufacturers estimated that without an energy policy in America, fuel prices soared in 1999 and 2000, costing the economy more than $115 billion, dragging down manufacturers and sending us into a recession. But I am not here today, Mr. Speaker, to exploit national tragedy for political gain. So I do not stand in this Chamber even to say this is a Bill Clinton recession. So whose recession is it, Mr. Speaker? Is it George W. Bush's? Is it Bill Clinton's? Is it the terrorists' who attacked our country on September 11? The truth of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, it is none of the above. It is simply America's recession. The people of the United States of America learned a powerful lesson on September 11, and that is we are all in this together, that united we stand. The American people have rightly had much less patience for small-minded partisan bickering and finger pointing since September 11, and I suspect that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who would seize this moment for political advantage, to lay this multi-year recession driven even farther down by the terrorist attacks may well pay a penalty at the ballot box for their exploitation. Let us work together to pass an economic stimulus package in a bipartisan way. Let us get this economy moving together.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and also as a former trial attorney, I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, in the antiterrorism measures recently passed by Congress, legal reforms were an integral part of shaping bills that provide the President with the necessary means to combat evil. Legal reform is equally important to the measure before us today in this Chamber, terrorism risk protection. Mr. Speaker, the existing legal system is simply not designed to rectify attempts by international terrorists to murder thousands of innocent Americans or obstruct our economy. We need look no further than the 1993 bombing at the World Trade Center for proof. In that heinous crime 6 Americans were killed, but 500 lawsuits were filed claiming more than $500 million in damages. These cases are only coming to trial today, over 7 years later, and many plaintiffs have yet to receive a dime in compensation. Mr. Speaker, our current legal system is inadequate to deal with this very present threat against our people. The current legal system pits victim against victim and encourages overreaching by the colleagues in my former profession and, even worse, could result in putting hundreds of millions of dollars into the deep pockets of attorneys' fees instead of addressing real losses by Americans. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues can understand the urgent need for legal reform in the matter of risk protection. I applaud the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and his colleagues for their hard work in creating a pro-consumer, pro-taxpayer solution as read in H.R. 3210, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the bill.

Mr. PENCE

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

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

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, 88 percent of the American people think that human cloning is immoral. Accordingly, this representative body overwhelmingly outlawed human cloning this July. Many of us are outraged to learn that a bio-technical firm has gone forward and made significant gains in the area of cellular-level human cloning. Mr. Speaker, I must say today that amoral bio-technical firms ought not to lead America as America leads the world in medical ethics. Rather, America ought to be informed by history, by conscience, by history and by our laws and by this institution. Our Chaplain spoke today about the Tower of Babel that was built on pride, of technology rising to the skies that destroyed their people. I submit that the creation of nascent human life, for research or vanity, is such a tower that threats to tear at the fabric of our society and our laws and our very civilization. It must be banned.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise today in support of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, and commend the chairman and the ranking member for crafting a very fair rule. Mr. Speaker, at this very moment, American troops are on the battlefields risking their lives to defend our freedom and our very way of life. And while they are fighting to defend everything that we hold dear, we gather in this hallowed Chamber and quarrel over the details of a very small portion of this bill, the $20 billion supplemental, which, in contrast to the core of this legislation, is quite small. So I rise today to support the core of the legislation, Mr. Speaker, $317 billion at the core of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act today, which is well crafted and which will provide the resources for personnel, operations, maintenance, research into the types of weapons systems that are making our troops safe at this very hour, and, most importantly, funding the counterterrorism efforts. American troops are engaged in a long war. This bill will ensure their safety and preparedness now and for years to come. I urge my colleagues to set aside regional and parochial arguments and interests for a day. Help us strengthen the American military. Pass this bill and support this rule.