Mike Pence

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the well of the House today to call my colleagues' attention to recent developments in biotechnology research. As I was preparing to return to Washington, D.C. on Sunday morning, I was shocked, along with the overwhelming majority of Members of this body, to learn that a company in Massachusetts was loudly touting its recent decision to clone a human being for medical research. Despite the overwhelming vote in this Chamber on the subject, this rogue company and perhaps others have rushed to get ahead of our deliberations, breaking a heretofore established barrier of scientific ethics. I fear, Mr. Speaker, that this action may be the beginning of the end for medical ethics in our country. No matter what one's position on the issue of human life or abortion or a woman's right to choose, 88 percent of the public today is opposed to the cloning of human beings. We should all be troubled by the fact that scientists are attempting to thwart the political will of the country and the consensus of the medical community in advancing this research ahead of legislation. When faced with a similar claim of the benefits of what was known as eugenics in his time, the great moralist G.K. Chesterton remarked, ``Eugenicists have discovered how to combine the hardening of the heart with the softening of the head.'' There is no doubt that we have entered a new area of the debate over this issue, Mr. Speaker. Rather than speaking hypothetically about using some human beings to serve the needs of others, for-profit entities are actively defending this as science on the evening news. This Faustian bargain is the same sort of dilemma that has faced humanity, and particularly civilized societies, for some time. We in the western tradition have consistently embraced the principle, and no matter how attractive the benefits, it is impermissible to experiment on the helpless. We must guard this important principle. It is hard for us to grapple with the moral implications of a human life that is only seconds from conception. We cannot look at a cloned embryo in the face to confront this moral chasm. It takes a particularly keen sense of moral seriousness to grasp the implications of these recent developments. One person who does understand this is my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), who authored the legislation, along with my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), who I joined today at a press conference where we stepped in to say that the will of the people of the United States, informed by conscience, ought to lead American ethics in research, and not these amoral biotechnical firms. Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to urge immediate action to stop the slide towards reductionist thinking on medical technology and the research that makes it possible. Yes, we want to heal the sick and prevent crippling disease. Therapies to make life longer and better are affecting every family. Who would not want more time with their parents and fewer trips to the pediatrician? It is truly amazing what God has allowed our scientific community to reap in this area. However, it is clear from the debate that these events have triggered across the country that Americans understand the moral implications of the experimentation that I have described here this evening. Cloning human embryos is a step too far. I urge my colleagues to move quickly to place these practices where they belong: beyond the pale of the law. Ever since witnessing the disaster that was the eugenics movement, civilized societies have recognized that involuntary experimentation on human beings is utterly indefensible. Let us as elected leaders of the foremost civilized society in the world today reconfirm our commitment to this principle. Today, Mr. Speaker, the House Chaplain began our proceedings with a prayer in which he mentioned the fabled tower of Babel. This was a tower rising to the skies, the pride of its time, a testament to the human technology of the day, but it eventually destroyed its builders and their very civilization. I submit tonight that the creation of human life for research or for vanity is such a tower of Babel. It threatens to tear the fabric of our society, our law, and indeed, our very civilization, and it must be stopped.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, today this Chamber will take up the difficult question of airport security. As a conservative, you can imagine I was loath to support any wanton expansion of the Federal Government. Accordingly, I opposed the version of airport security that emerged from the other Chamber, believing it to be simply a large bureaucratic explosion of government. I am proud to have passed and supported the House version of the bill, and I am proud today to rise in support of the compromise on the Aviation Security Act. In the compromise bill, like the House bill, Americans do not have to wait a year for airport security. There is immediate remedy, using public and private blended and flexible sources. Five airports will participate in a pilot project studying public and private solutions. And there is a third year opt-out. We are giving the President the flexible program he has requested. Exempting these Federal employees from Civil Service Act requirements and creating a system that on the eve of one of our most important and most traveled family holidays will send a strong message of confidence to the American people. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report for the Aviation Security Act.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, as the smoke rises from Rockaway in Queens, New York, we grieve with those who grieve and mourn with those who mourn. Questions remain about the cause, and yet Congressional action on airport security languishes, mired as it is in the politics of the moment. As the gentlewoman from New York City who has lost friends in the last week said so eloquently, it is time, Mr. Speaker, to get serious. To get serious about airport security we need only do one thing, and that is listen to the President of the United States and his National Security team and give them the airport security measures and protocols that they have requested, which happen to be the version that passed in the United States House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members of the conference committee to be strong and courageous and do the work; that before we go home to give thanks, we would give the American people an airport security bill that will work and that they so richly deserve.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time. I rise in strong support of the religious liberty resolution, H. Con. Res. 254, celebrating the 300th anniversary of William Penn's Charter of Privileges and other historic items. Mr. Speaker, three centuries ago, the Pennsylvania Charter of Privileges was enacted. You may be wondering why a son of Indiana is standing before you to recognize an event that took place in Pennsylvania. Very simply, the liberties we enjoy in the Hoosier State, I believe, were cultivated by this document, the Charter of Privileges from the Keystone State; and I rise in proud support of them. Called the most famous of all colonial constitutions, the Charter of Privileges proved to be a major breakthrough in the history of government. This is because the charter had at its very core a liberty- of-conscience clause that granted religious liberty to the inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. What is more, the charter's author, William Penn, ensured that this liberty clause, quote, ``shall be kept and remain without alteration, inviolable forever.'' Other provisions of the charter could be changed by the will of the people, but not the liberty-of-conscience clause. Mr. Speaker, this marked an enormously important advance in American liberties, one which should be celebrated as we do so today. As a result of this commitment to religious liberty, Pennsylvania, and especially the city of Philadelphia, became a haven for all religions. Historian Paul Johnson noted that Philadelphia in the 18th century was a bustling center of activity for people of every religious faith. Not coincidentally, Philadelphia also became the home to our Nation's very first independent African American denomination, the African Methodist Episcopal Church. Mr. Speaker, today in any number of cities and towns across this great land of liberty, you will find dozens of religious denominations represented, even many sharing a street corner or even a building. I would offer that in 1701, such a scene would not likely have been repeated anywhere in the world except in colonial America, perhaps outside of Philadelphia, which was aptly named the City of Brotherly Love. And it was all a result of Pennsylvania's visionary Charter of Liberties. For it is religious liberty, the freedom to worship the Creator after the dictates of one's own conscience, that provides the firm foundation for all liberties. Thus Thomas Jefferson wrote that all men were created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable and inviolable rights. Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that it is religious liberty which gave birth to this Nation, to our unquenchable thirst for freedom, our unparalleled pursuit of innovation, our unyielding love for representative government, our unabashed sense of a higher national purpose, and our unprecedented tolerance of our fellow man. Each of these symbols that we celebrate today stands in broad opposition to the trends in the world that move in the opposite direction of tolerance. Mr. Speaker, I simply could not let this moment pass without connecting the dots between this great event in American history and those we also celebrate, the commemoration of the Liberty Bell, the public reading of the Declaration, without reflecting on what we see in tragedies unfolding when religious liberties are forsaken around the globe. In Sudan, slavery and brutality arise out of religious persecution. Tens upon hundreds of thousands are on the brink of death because the Sudanese Government fails to recognize the liberty of conscience that was established in Pennsylvania on our shores 300 years ago. And in Afghanistan, a great religion has been twisted by some into one that supports persecution and violence and murder rather than freedom and transcendence, one that uses terrorism to stifle the voices of religious liberty. The very shaving of the beards that is happening in the capital of Kabul today is in many ways driven by the same sentiment that emerged in the Charter of Privileges some 300 years ago. I urge all of my colleagues to support the religious liberty resolution. I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), for his visionary commitment to religious liberty and for his own testimony of faith. Let us today reaffirm our commitment three centuries strong on this continent to the freedom of religion and continue to be that shining city on a hill that gives hope to all of the nations.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I had two countervailing experiences today. One was to travel to the botanical gardens here on the Capitol Mall and meet with the extraordinary personnel of the Environmental Protection Agency that are overseeing the decontamination at the Hart Senate Office Building and in the offices of the three Members of Congress who have been affected by anthrax contamination. I witnessed then, as I have witnessed in days past, extraordinary professionalism and a deep commitment to creating an environment that is safe for us and for our staff. The EPA has earned a special place in my heart in the last week. But then I traveled just moments later, Mr. Speaker, across the street where I chaired the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Oversight where I serve as chairman on the Committee on Small Business. It was there that we took a hard look at the inadequacy of regulatory analyses that agencies use to support rule-making. And the special emphasis regrettably, Mr. Speaker, was on one agency in particular that was singled out by witness after witness for its poor regulatory analyses, and that agency was the Environmental Protection Agency. The hearing that we convened today was all about the way that the EPA goes about evaluating the cost and benefit of regulations on small businesses. Small business owners are very familiar with the burdens that Federal regulations place on them. Many studies including those sponsored by the Office of Advocacy of the United States Small Business Administration have shown that small businesses face disproportionately higher costs to comply with Federal regulations, including those issued by the EPA than their larger business counterparts. Thus, accurate estimates of costs, if derived from the experiences of large businesses often, Mr. Speaker, paint a false picture of the impact of regulations or the impact of an EPA regulation on a small business. And if the EPA misjudges the economic impact, it often produces an irrational rule that wages war on the vitality of small business America. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the polestar of the rule-making process is that regulations should be rational. When Congress passed the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, it believed that the process of notice, comment, and agency response to the public comment would be sufficient conditions to ensure rational outcome. After the regulatory onslaught in the 1970's which saw the creation of the EPA, and the enactment of many statutes that EPA implements by rule-making, Congress and the executive branch determined that further refinements were necessary. Congress imposed new analytical requirements to assess the impacts on small business and other entities. Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton produced executive orders all in different ways mandating the analysis of cost and benefits. And even my own predecessor, Congressman David McIntosh, led the charge here on Capitol Hill to create a rational process whereby the regulatory state would analyze the cost of the regulations versus the benefit to the environment or the health and safety of employees. In 1980 Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act as well. The RFA represents another tool in the decisional calculus designed to develop rational rules. The Reg Flex Act, as it is affectionately known by many in small business circles, requires Federal agencies to consider whether their proposal for final regulations will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. Despite this legacy since 1946 of demanding a rational foundation for government regulations, Mr. Speaker, sadly, today at our hearing we heard of a very very different tale, indeed. What I heard from one witness after another is that not only the EPA but many Federal and administrative agencies pay very little regard to the difference between the size of businesses when they impose paperwork requirements. And their estimates of the cost of compliance are often far afield of the reality of many small businesses like the one that I started in my basement or like the one my late father ran throughout his lifetime in Columbus, Indiana. There is a great Biblical tale of the pharisee, Mr. Speaker, who heaps burden upon burden on the traveler but never lifts a finger to help them carry that burden. At our hearing today for the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Oversight of the Committee on Small Business, we heard the need for the EPA and other elements of the administration in the regulatory state to cease adding burdens to travelers but now to begin to think about the size and scope of those enterprises, to lift that burden and let us begin an era of unburdening American small business of Federal and regulatory red tape.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, after decades of Christian education and religious study, there are two things that I know for sure: number one, there is a God; and number two, I am not Him. The entire debate over human cloning flies in the face of these two great truths. Many Americans learned, after this institution banned human cloning earlier this year, that we are truly close to this moral horror, a horror that uses bad science, science that went through 277 deeply mutilated animals before Dolly the sheep was conceived and birthed successfully. It is unthinkable that we would not act on this House's call to ban human cloning; that we would not respond to the President's thoughtful message to the world in August that we must think deeply, we must legislate thoughtfully along the fault lines of religion, morality, and technology. I urge our colleagues in the other body to move and to move now on banning human cloning in the United States of America.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I rise in opposition to the Democrat substitute to the Young-Mica bill. Mr. Chairman, I respect and appreciate the motivations of my colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle; but the truth is, Mr. Chairman, that their bill looks good on the outside, but on the inside is full of a history of failure and cost lives. Now, much has been made that this substitute passed the Senate by a 100 to zero vote, and that is true. Despite widespread and vocal reservations about the ineffectiveness of addressing airport security with a vast new Federal bureaucracy, the Senate voted and, to borrow a phrase, headed for the hills. So the task, Mr. Chairman, has fallen to us to craft a bill that achieves airport security. President Bush's vision creates standards, the oversight, and the flexibility that builds on history to make our airports safe. Say ``no'' to a hollow political victory tonight; say ``yes'' to real airport security for our families and our constituents.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Secure Transportation for America Act. The Good Book tells us if we owe debts, pay debts; if honor, then honor; if respect, then respect. I rise today to honor the President of the United States of America and his vision for airport security. As the gentleman from Florida indicated, it is a vision supported by his Transportation Secretary, who chaired the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure as a Democrat in this very institution, and the President's vision is the right vision. As Robert Poole of the Public Policy Institute wrote recently, while all parts of airports need improving, the biggest hole is to secure areas. The truth is that the Senate bill does absolutely nothing, Mr. Speaker, to control access to secure areas of airport. Caterers, cleaners, refuelers and others who lack security background checks at the Nation's airports are not addressed in the substitute bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to honor the President of the United States, respect his vision for airport security and vote yes on H.R. 3150.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I am new to this body, having spent all 42 years of my life in the State of Indiana, where common sense and common values are the order of the day. So as I approach the debate over airport security, I find myself a little befuddled, Mr. Speaker. Other than policy wonks at think tanks around Washington, D.C., I think there are very few people that I serve who care how we make airports safer. They just want us to do it, and they want us to do it now. For my part, I believe the light we should follow at this point is the experience of nations who have dealt with terrorism in the recent past, and we should follow a President who has earned the right to be followed, and earned our trust. I support President Bush's vision for a flexible, versatile system for airport security. That is what the Republican bill in the House is all about. It builds on the experience of European countries and even of Israel, who have wrestled with this menace of terrorism for decades. When it comes to airport security, let us give the President and the people we serve what we know works.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues are aware, trace elements of the anthrax bacillus were discovered in my office in the Longworth Office Building, along with the offices of two of my distinguished colleagues, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). Mr. Speaker, all of us have been busy, to say the least, since we received the call from leadership and security on Friday night, not only meeting with health officials, but security officials, and contacting constituents who came into contact with our office. It has been a busy time. But I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to announce proudly that another attack on our national government has failed. As a Christian believer, I begin my remarks today by giving thanks to God, who I believe protected my family and my staff from this unseen menace. In our family, we often say that the safest place in the world is to be in the center of God's will, and we believe that we had his protection. As the Bible says, ``It is good for me to be near God, I have made the sovereign Lord my refuge, I will tell of all your deeds,'' and thus I do so humbly today. To the people we serve in Indiana, our message today is simple. They should be confident. My family and my staff are well and show no signs of infection. We have all been treated, as has virtually every individual that came into contact with our office. This incident should not, Mr. Speaker, be cause for alarm but of encouragement. The system worked, thanks to the outstanding work of the Capitol Hill security, the CDC, and the Office of the Attending Physician, who I rise to commend today. We are requesting in all of our offices that anyone who visited our office from October 12 to October 17 see their physician and begin a prophylactic treatment of antibiotics over the next 60 days. To the people who did this, whoever you are, you have failed again. You have failed to reach your target, and you have failed in a much more profound way, because by your actions you have steeled the resolve of every member of this national government whose duty it is to bring you to justice or to seal your fate. Finally, Mr. Speaker, a word on behalf of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader, whose decision to close the House offices and commence this environmental sweep was so deeply maligned by many in the national media and even by some of our own colleagues in the U.S. Senate. On behalf of my wife, my children, Michael, Charlotte and Audrey, the nine full-time staffers in my office, from my heart to the bipartisan leadership I say thank you. Thank you for putting my family and my staff's well-being ahead of any concern about public relations or image. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, these times have fallen on broad shoulders, men and women willing and able to make the tough choices and stand by them. So I say to the troops in the field, our investigators at home, the postal workers who find themselves on the frontline of this domestic terrorism, and to the public at large, be encouraged. God has indeed put strong men and women in leadership of this national government for such a time as this. As it is written, fear is usless. What is needed is trust. Mr. Speaker, over this last weekend my family again learned that our national leadership and the leadership in both parties in this Congress is worthy of our trust in these difficult days, and I am grateful.

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, it is said that without a vision, the people perish. President Bush's vision for curing what ails the American economy is very simple. It is a vision of tax relief and expanded trade. Yesterday Republicans and many Democrats in this House came together to give the President the beginning of the first half of that vision as we passed nearly $100 billion in urgent tax relief in this year alone out of this Chamber and sending it to the Senate. But there is more work to be done, and that is the President's vision for expanded trade. Mr. Speaker, it is time that this Chamber gave the President the authority to negotiate trade agreements. We must give the President trade promotion authority. Over 100 international trade agreements in the last decade, the United States of America is a party to two. Pro- growth tax policies, expanded markets for foreign exchange, this is the President's vision. This should be America's vision. It should be the House's vision.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, in these uncertain days, it is important that we cling to the permanent things and the ancient truths. Among them is the principle that fear is useless, what is needed is trust. As we prepare in the next hour to vote on H.R. 2975, the PATRIOT Act of 2001, I rise as a proud member of the Committee on the Judiciary to say this legislation is about trust. It is not about fear. It is about trusting the law enforcement authorities of this country with the powers, some temporary, some permanent, to stop those who would wage war on our citizens before they level the attacks. We do not bring this legislation to this floor in fear. We bring this legislation to the floor in trust. We trust in God. We trust in the governing authorities that our God has placed for such a time as this. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in strongly supporting the PATRIOT Act of 2001.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 395. I was unavoidably detained at the hospital with my son who suffered a fractured collarbone on the playground at school. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, it is such a privilege to be among the very first to rise in this Chamber after some uncertain days, to rise recognizing that timeless truth, that fear is useless, what is needed is trust. We in this Chamber day in and day out do not only trust the American people but we trust in the God whose name is ascribed above the Speaker's chair. By reconvening here today, we make an important statement to the world, to our friends and our foes alike, that the American Government stands ready and willing and able to do the people's business even in these challenging days. Mr. Speaker, along those lines, I rise today specifically to speak about a relationship that the United States of America enjoys. It is not difficult for Americans since September 11 to imagine living in a country made the subject of repeated attacks against our citizens and even now against our leaders. It is also easy for every American to understand why a country whose innocent citizens have been murdered and whose leaders have been attacked would take temporary and necessary military action against the government and against the perpetrators of these acts to establish a just government in the land from which these attacks were launched and also to bring to justice those who harmed those citizens and harmed those leaders. Well, even though it is so easy to imagine and identify with that as Americans, nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the first-ever assassination of a cabinet official in Israel, as our partners and friends since 1948 took the necessary military action to move not only against the perpetrators of this dastardly attack but also against the authorities that have harbored them and refused to bring them to justice, what did the State Department of the United States of America say, Mr. Speaker? Permit me to quote. Philip T. Reeker, State Department spokesman, spoke to the world media yesterday and accused Israel, the Nation in question, of killing ``numerous innocent citizens,'' in its ``unacceptable military action in six West Bank towns.'' We have seen the tanks on the news, Mr. Speaker. We know, as foreign minister Shimon Peres said from our Nation's capital this morning, they have not the slightest intention of remaining in any of these West Bank towns. They are about the business of requiring that the Palestinian Authority bring to justice those who not only killed a cabinet official, have organized the death of innocent citizens in Israel, but also, Mr. Speaker, have boasted about it on television, just like Osama bin Laden has done. The United States said we, quote, ``deeply regret and deplore Israel's actions.'' What have they said of the Palestinian Authority or of Yasser Arafat or those who committed these crimes? Well, Mr. Speaker, we wrote a letter. The State Department of the United States deplores what Israel does, but we did write a letter to Yasser Arafat; not a public letter, but a very clear letter, we are told in the media, telling Arafat to make absolutely certain that the assassins were arrested. Mr. Speaker, there is a great verse in the Bible that we have inherited from the great people of Israel. It is: ``There is a friend who sticks closer than a brother, and now is a time for such friends.'' But why do we capitulate about Israel? I submit, Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. The reason we capitulate about Israel is because we are afraid. We are afraid, Mr. Speaker, to offend, to offend moderate Arab states that are assisting us in our own quest against a morally bankrupt government and against terrorists who attack our leaders and our innocent citizens. But we need not be afraid. We need to recognize that fear is useless. What is needed is trust. The most powerful message we can send to our new friends in the Arab world is that we are good friends. What is a more powerful or compelling message to send to King Abdullah in Jordan or King Fahd in Saudi Arabia than to say, ``When the going gets tough, when your Nation does what is necessary to be done, we will stand with you.'' America will always stand for justice and restraint. But America must stand with Israel. America will stand with its friends, for fear is useless. What is needed is trust.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join this debate over airline security today on the floor of the House, and set aside the remarks that I came to make. My friends on the other side of the aisle would have us believe that this is a choice between one party that is interested in airline security and another party that is not. But Mr. Speaker, that is simply and plainly and baldly not the case. The reality is that the proposal that has been passed in the other Chamber, the proposal that my Democrat friends support, would create 28,000 new Federal employees. Our proposal is to do what the President, Mr. Speaker, has called for from the very beginning; that is, new and higher standards, new Federal resources. But let us not create a new class of Federal employees. Let us not have the people who run the post office or who run our immigration and naturalization and border services providing the security at our airports. It has been tried in Europe. It was rejected and failed. What we need is to strengthen our private security system, create accountability, provide resources. This Republican will fight to give President Bush the airline security program that he so richly deserves.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, the Bible tells us that if you owe debts, pay debts; if honor, then honor; if respect, then respect; and with a little girl at home tonight sick, I am unable to join a Special Order this evening that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) will be holding on behalf of an American who has greatly impacted my professional life, and, to the frustration of many, has greatly impacted the life of the Nation, and that would be Rush Hudson Limbaugh, III, a man born in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, on January 12, 1951. He will be extolled on this floor tonight by many of my colleagues, as we come together during a time of great difficulty for the Limbaugh family to remember his contribution to the country. So I rise briefly tonight. There are many of my colleagues, particularly those that were elected, Mr. Speaker, in 1994, who will look to this pioneer in talk radio and will credit him in part for their election to the Congress of the United States, and that would be true. In many ways, the Republican majority owes much of its continued success to the talk radio that Rush Limbaugh reinvented in the mid-1980s as a format for conversation among millions of Americans on a daily basis. But it is a literal truth, Mr. Speaker, to say that I am in Congress today because of Rush Limbaugh, and not because of some tangential impact on my career or his effect on the national debate; but because in fact after my first run for Congress in 1988, it was the new national voice emerging in 1989 across the heartland of Indiana of one Rush Hudson Limbaugh, III, that captured my imagination. And while I would run for Congress again and lose, I was inspired by those dulcet tones to seek a career in radio and television. I began my career in radio in Rushville, Indiana, in Rush County, in 1989, trying to do my level best impersonation of Rush Limbaugh in those early days; and it was, I am here to tell you, bad radio when I started. By 1992, I began hosting a regular radio show in Indianapolis. It was a weekend conversation that became the most popular program on WNDE in the weekend lineup; and it was there that I became emboldened, listening oftentimes to the entrepreneurial spirit that emanated out of the Rush Limbaugh program to start my own syndicated radio program that grew over a 7-year period of time to a daily audience of over a quarter of a million people, 18 radio stations across Indiana. I was, in every sense, Rush Limbaugh's warm-up act in Indiana, airing every time from 9 a.m. to noon as his lead-in on many Hoosier stations. It was from that platform of popularity and distinction that I was able to accept the call in the year 2000 to try again, for the third time, to run to stand in this Chamber. So I rise today in recognition of that fact. I rise today in appreciation of the example that Rush Limbaugh has been to me, both as an entrepreneur and as an American. The truth is, he has been an inspiration to many millions of Americans. After Ronald Reagan left the national stage in 1988 and many of us conservatives were searching for a voice and for over 20 million Americans, that voice was and is Rush Limbaugh. Now, I know something as a former radio professional about the formatics and my colleague (Mr. Lewis) in the Chamber knows that in radio we learned pacing and how to hook the audience. We know the techniques, and no one is better in that than Rush Limbaugh, in my judgment. But it was not the formatics that drew the audience to Rush Limbaugh; it was not the gimmicks. It was information, verifiable fact and an undaunting willingness to speak the truth boldly. Rush Limbaugh was not one of those in the media who, in effect, cowered behind that image of objectivity, hiding the fact that he had opinions, biases, beliefs, convictions; but, rather, he never feared being discovered to be an American of strong opinions. In fact, Rush Limbaugh never feared anything. I trust as he faces one of the great challenges of his life in a debilitating impact on his hearing, that that same courage, that same determination is being applied by Rush Limbaugh in the same way that his family is bathing his circumstances in prayer. I close today, Mr. Speaker, simply by saying that Rush Limbaugh has made a difference in my life, and I say without apology that I believe he has made a difference in the life of the Nation. He has given us an example of a life that is about ideas larger than personal advancement, a life that tries to bring the reality of God's grace in each of our lives and in the history of this Nation before the citizenry every day. My word to Rush is stay the course, encourage, tear down the strongholds, only be strong and courageous, do not be discouraged, for the Lord your God will go with you wherever you go.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today having just come from a memorable luncheon where I and my colleagues, including the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, welcomed the Honorable David Trimble, a member of Parliament, in Washington, D.C. David Trimble has served as leader of Northern Ireland's Ulster Unionist Party. It is one of the strongest of the parties that want continued ties to Great Britain, but it was David Trimble who led the charge for peace and was rightly recognized by the Nobel Committee with a Nobel Peace Prize in 1998. Madam Speaker, he came today to give us sage advice that the boundaries of the world of terrorism have reached for 30 years from Northern Ireland and the Middle East into the very heart of America. I will reflect later today on this floor about the advice that he gave my colleagues, but let me just reiterate the comments of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), who today looked the Right Honorable David Trimble in the eye and said in a momentous tone, ``Stay engaged, David Trimble. It is men such as you that times such as these so richly require.''

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the wake of disturbing reports. First, the Associated Press reported in newspapers around America yesterday that the State Department is preparing to pressure our friends in Israel to make territorial concessions including yielding part of Jerusalem to the establishment of a Palestinian state. This morning in Israel there are reports that 2 weeks prior to the attacks on the United States of America there was an agreement signed by the State Department and the administration of Saudi Arabia to do just that, pressing Israel back to its pre-1967 borders. Mr. Speaker, I stand today to urge the administration and the State Department to clarify the unqualified support of the United States of America for Jerusalem as the inviolate and eternal capital of Israel; and that the United States of America, Christians and Jews and all of Americans stand for the territorial integrity of Israel and so should this Congress.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the PATRIOT Act of 2001. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, I was honored to participate in the creation of a historic bipartisan compromise bill that emerged unanimously from the Committee on the Judiciary by a vote of 36 to 0. I would like to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for his extraordinary leadership on what is typically one of the most divisive committees on Capitol Hill. I also would commend the chairman for his collective wisdom in negotiating a compromise that we could bring to the floor today to enable the authorities of the United States of America to do the job that the American people expect them and count on them to do. Mr. Speaker, because of the attacks of September 11, and with the events that are scrolling across television screens in America at this very hour, Congress should act now, today, to empower our law enforcement authorities to protect our citizens. Compromises have to be made. Increased safety and security will require sacrifices for the American public. Airline customers are subjected to more intrusive questioning. Aliens suspected of terrorism will be detained for longer periods of time. But these compromises, Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize, do not represent an infringement on the constitutional rights of American citizens. Many of the expanded powers here, as we know, are sunsetted 3 years and extended 5 years to be reviewed that they might not be permanent once this time of trial passes. As we proceed into this debate and ultimately a vote today on this anti-terrorism package, it is absolutely necessary that the American people know that the updated wiretapping laws, the enhanced information-sharing laws are not the real threat to the American public or to the Constitution. Terrorists are. It is the terrorist criminals, who respect no law and no constitution, who threaten our way of life. I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of this bill to give our law enforcement authorities the ability to protect our freedoms and preserve our way of life. May America arise and its enemies be scattered.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), my friend and colleague; but I would begin my brief remarks on this bill by commending the chairman and the ranking member for their very sincere commitment to abstinence education and acknowledging the increases in the current bill, $20 million over last year, as the chairman said, and $10 million even over the President's request. But I, nevertheless, rise today in support of that noble, right, pure, and true belief that we as a people should reconsider our approach to family planning and to sex education and treatment in America today. The truth is that we have a problem. Mr. Chairman, 3 million teenagers a year are catching sexually transmitted disease. The United States has, Mr. Chairman, the highest teenage pregnancy rate of all developed countries in the world, despite billions of dollars spent over decades in traditional methods of birth control. Mr. Chairman, 1 million teenagers become pregnant each year, and one-third of those pregnancies end tragically in abortion. Not only do we have a problem, Mr. Chairman, but we have a solution. Abstinence education, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the subcommittee, just reflected passionately works. We know that it works. From the district that I serve in Indiana, we have seen church organizations and civic organizations come together to promote abstinence as an alternative. Here in Washington, D.C. where 15 percent of girls become sexually active in the eighth grade, according to statistics, there is a program known as the Best Friends Foundation, which has reduced that number to 5 percent in real terms. In the District of Columbia, 27 percent of girls age 15 to 19 become pregnant each year, but among the Best Friends girls in that age range, only 2.5 percent have ever become pregnant. Abstinence, as the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) says and as the chairman and the ranking member reflect, abstinence works and we ought to be making a serious and concerted commitment. Another example: in Rochester, New York, the Not Me Not Now program achieved remarkable results over a 4-year period. First intercourse incidents among 15-year-olds dropped from 47 percent to 32 percent, and among 17-year-olds it dropped from 54 percent to 40 percent. Mr. Chairman, these are real gains; these are real improvements. But we have a real need, despite the outstanding work of the committee on this important piece of legislation. I, along with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), believe that we can and should do more; that, in fact, by adding $33 million to the annual title V SPRANS Community Abstinence Education program, we will do much to meet what is a real need in America today. The title V program received 359 applications last year in its first year of operation in funding abstinence programs around America. That was the largest number of applications for a single new grant program that anyone at HHS can even remember. It would have required $165 million in authorization to fund all of the applicants. This modest increase of $73 million still will not meet the need; but it will move us closer to a new vision, a balanced vision when it comes to sex education in America today. So again, with great respect to the chairman and to the ranking member for their commitment to abstinence education, which I acknowledge today, Mr. Chairman, is real and is heartfelt and is genuine; and with appreciation for the increased commitment to abstinence education in this bill I, nevertheless, very respectfully stand with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and others to say that we can and should do more.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer a few brief comments about the continuing impact of the events that happened on the calendar 1 month ago today. As we, each of us in our own right, dwell on the devastation of the Pentagon and at ground zero, the World Trade Center, I think it is altogether fitting that we think about the impact that the events of September 11 have had on that part of the American economy where most of Americans get up and go to work every day, and that is small business America. The largely rural and medium-sized city district that I serve across eastern Indiana is driven by businesses large and small, but truly by businesses that fall in the category of small business. Today I held a hearing in the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Oversight of the Committee on Small Business, where I have the privilege of serving as chairman, where we took a hard look at the impact of September 11 on small businesses. What we found out from witnesses who gathered from as far away as Iowa and Maine was truly disturbing. The shutdown of aviation facilities known as general aviation facilities and businesses is the first place we looked for impact, and it was not a pretty picture. A small charter flight that leaves St. Thomas in the United States Virgin Islands for Tortola in the British Virgin Islands, some 40 miles away, and then flies to the Bahamas to return to the Virgin Islands is just one example of the regulatory burdens that are being placed on charter businesses upon which many of the businesses that I serve depend, and many smaller communities around America rely. Due to restrictions on general aviation in what is known as Class B air space, pilots cannot get their planes to avionic maintenance facilities, flight schools cannot provide flight instruction, and other aviation businesses are simply withering on the vine as we speak. According to one witness, after the immediate grounding was lifted for general aviation facilities, while business has come back, business remains at 40 percent from levels of a year ago. Even if the FAA removes restrictions from general aviation, the costs that they face may make it more difficult to continue. One proprietor of a general aviation business was quoted a war-risk insurance annual policy increase from $2,300 a year to $57,000 in a single year. In the airline bailout legislation, as the media has described it, wherein we rendered some $15 billion in assistance to major commercial airlines, we dealt with the issue of insurance for commercial airlines; but general aviation struggles similarly as well. Of course the problems are not just among general aviation and small charter facilities, but they extend to small businesses that are affected by business travel all over America. A travel agent from Lewiston, Maine, spoke with great emotion that despite all of the benefits that her creditors have allowed, her landlord giving her free rent for the next 3 months, she was in 3 weeks, according to her estimate, losing $4,000 a week; she was on track to lose her travel agency of 33 years' business. When I asked her how far in the future are people canceling their travel plans, she simply responded under oath, ``I cannot see that far in the future.'' Here in Washington, D.C., hotels are facing major losses of business due to the perception that National Airport and the Capital of the United States is not open for business. One small hotel lost $100,000 due to the cancellation of World Bank events. A hotel operator was one of 25 in the D.C. area that suffered similar losses. The question remains, what will Congress do? Airport concessionaires also spoke of the fixed rent that they pay these small business operators, most of which come from the minority community, small business operators who have fixed rent payments at arenas and airports; and two of the over 400 airports in the United States have allowed some accommodation in the fixed rent payments of concessionaires. Mr. Speaker, we are about to lose a plethora of small businesses in America. As we approach an economic stimulus package, let us keep in our hearts and minds small business America, and let us remember that 50 percent of those that file in the top marginal rate are actually small businesses filing as individuals under subchapter S. Let us bring relief to small business as well.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Republic of China on its 90th National Day and to commend her people on this occasion for their remarkable efforts to make Taiwan a leader in the world through peace and economic prosperity. Taiwan's people have reason to be proud, as they have achieved a high level of freedom in their lives due to their commitment to democracy, economic liberalization, and the rule of law. This commitment will undoubtedly lead to an even greater role for Taiwan in the 21st century. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank President Chen Shui-bian and his people for the support they have shown the United States afler the terrorist attacks of September 11. President Chen and other leaders in Taiwan have strongly condemned terrorism and have expressed their willingness to assist the U.S. government in combating worldwide terrorism. The people of Taiwan have embraced the notion that terrorism is the enemy of all the people of the world. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me today in congratulating the people of Taiwan and I wish them goodwill and fortune for their bright and prosperous future.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the well of the House to welcome Pastor Ralph Hoyt Davis of the Bethel United Baptist Church located in Muncie, Indiana. Pastor Davis, at 73 years young, has tirelessly served his Lord since 1960. Throughout his career, the residents of Muncie and east central Indiana have come to know Pastor Davis as a man of compassion, conviction and action. In his ministry, Pastor Davis reaches out to the downtrodden with true interest and concern for their welfare. His service to the Lord is evident in the thousands of baptisms, weddings, funerals at which he has officiated, the hours of hospital visits, nursing home calls and counseling sections he has provided to his congregation. Pastor Davis has served in churches in Indiana and Ohio, and has been involved in the South Concord Association of United Baptist Churches, acting as a moderator for 19 years. I would also like to thank Pastor Davis' wife of 53 years, Christine, for her service alongside her husband as a worthy helpmate and companion. I am certain little of his success would have been possible without her constant support. On behalf of my colleagues, I welcome Pastor Davis to the United States House of Representatives with great pride and great gratitude for the prayers that I am confident reached the throne of grace today.