Mike Pence

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the swift and deliberate manner with which the President of the United States launched a counterstrike this weekend against the al Qaeda and their government patrons. By initiating military action in a timely and overwhelming manner, we are sending a clear message about the price to be paid for attacking the people of the United States of America. The heroes of this conflict will now be fashioned, Mr. Speaker, from among the brave young men and women in uniform who have been called upon to defend our freedom. We in this Congress have given those brave young men and women everything they need to succeed. Their duty now is to serve. Our duty is to pray. Let us pray for victory, but let us also pray for the safe restoration of our soldiers, sailors, and airmen to their families and friends and communities. The Bible tells us that God has not given us the spirit of fear, but a spirit of power and love, and of a sound mind. Those who think America trembles from the East to the West, from the North to the South, will be proven wrong, not just at the sound of our guns, but at the fortitude that will be demonstrated by the American people in the days and months and years ahead as we move toward victory in this worthy cause.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives passed an important measure that was part and parcel my reason for coming to the United States Congress. Today, this Congress passed a farm bill, meeting an obligation that comes upon us in this Chamber every 5 years to pass a measure that will protect farmers while making the right investment and contribution to conservation in America. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to tell the Hoosier farmers that I serve all across eastern Indiana that the Farm Security Act and the passage of that Act in this Chamber today ought to be a source of encouragement and enormous pride to them, not because we in this Chamber wrote a farm bill, but because in every sense, farmers and ranchers across the United States of America, for perhaps the first time, truly wrote farm policy in this country. In the past 2 years the Committee on Agriculture, of which I am a proud member, held field hearings with agricultural interests across the country, 47 hearings in all, in preparation of a farm bill. Hearings were held over a 16-month period of time on H.R. 2646. There were 368 witnesses who testified before our committee during that 16- month period. The vision of the chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), to ask commodity groups and organizations and farm groups across the country to come before our committee and actually offer their own version of a farm bill was, to say the least, visionary. From my own part, we held nearly a dozen town hall meetings across eastern Indiana in barns and in warehouses and in feed stores, asking farmers who know much better than this Hoosier what ought to have happened in this bill, and they gave us that input. So the first thing I would brag about today is the job that the American farmer and the American rancher did in the preparation of the Farm Security Act. Mr. Speaker, let us be candid, the passage today was not altogether certain. It was not altogether ensured, with some opposition from the administration to the timing of this bill, and even some opposition from the leadership in both political parties. Those of us who worked hard on this bill knew we had our work cut out for us. People argued that with USDA projections that net cash farm income in 2001 will achieve record levels that we did not need a farm bill now. I would argue that given the realities of the farm economy and given the circumstances on the international scene now was precisely the time for the House Committee on Agriculture and the leadership of the House of Representatives to rise to the challenge. Even the USDA's economists agree that net farm cash income is not a good tool to base farm policies on, that livestock receipts are the driving force for the increase in net cash farm income in 2001, and that affects very few of the farmers that I serve. The increase in crop production expenses more than offsets the increase in crop cash receipts. Without a new farm bill this year, net cash returns from major field crops would be 5.8 billion lower for 2002 crops than for 2001, and the Farm Security Act that we passed today, of course, does not happen in a vacuum. I know that some in the national media sneered at those of us who suggested that bolstering the farm economy in America was not a matter of national security. The Wall Street Journal's left column that I usually admire suggested as much earlier this week. Let me say as we turn our attention in the weeks ahead to Wall Street and to stimulating our economy with a much-needed economic stimulus package, I believe the House Committee on Agriculture, the Democratic and Republican leadership on that committee and the leadership that voted to pass the Farm Security Act today said, before we turn our attention to Wall Street, let us turn our attention to rural Main Street. We have sent a deafening message of strength to the farm economy in America today. It has been a profound privilege for me as a first term Member of Congress to serve as the only member of the majority from the State of Indiana on the House Committee on Agriculture. It has been a challenging time. I commend, again, the chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), for their outstanding leadership in forging a bipartisan bill long before bipartisanship was the theme of this Chamber, and I commend all of my colleagues today for putting the interests of farmers and ranchers ahead of the politics of the moment and saying and recognizing that a strong rural America means a strong American economy, and now is the time that all of America be strong as we face the difficult challenges of the days ahead.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in respectful opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), and I appreciate very much the comments of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) about getting back to the facts. As the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture reflected earlier today, we have only had 36 hours to review the contents of the Kind amendment, but I have made an effort to do that. In recent weeks there has been a lot of talk about the large backlog of farmers and ranchers who are waiting to participate in the USDA's conservation programs. The proposal today suggests that the answer to that would be to shift nearly $2 billion from commodity support programs to conservation. Before we accept this rhetoric, Mr. Chairman, I invite Members to break down the dollars and look at the facts of the Kind amendment and see how they purport to deal with this conservation backlog. First, the Kind amendment allocates funding for several programs at levels substantially beyond what the Natural Resources Conservation Service has indicated is necessary to address the number of outstanding applications. For example, in the case of the farmland protection program, the NRCS estimates it would take an additional $281 million to meet current demand. Yet, the Kind amendment funds this program at $500 million per year. Another example: The wildlife habitat incentives program. The NRCS has stated it would take $19 million to meet demand, while the Kind amendment allocates $500 million per year. When looking at the funding level for conservation programs, we cannot lose sight of the fact that these programs are voluntary in nature. In other words, the money does no good unless there is an equivalent level of demand from producers to use them. Moreover, we cannot forget that these programs also involve cost share assistance, and if producers do not have an adequate safety net to sustain the bottom line, money available for cost-share arrangements will likewise go unused. Point number two, as we look at the Kind amendment, several hurdles in the amendment will actually prevent these funds from assisting a large portion of America's farmers and ranchers with critical conservation needs. There are significant amounts of targeted and earmarked funding. The Kind amendment is actually riddled with numerous restrictions that target funding towards specific geographic regions and earmark program money for particular issue areas. For example, the legislation would spend over $1 billion for a pilot program available to only five impaired watersheds. Similarly, it would require that over 40 percent of the $14 billion in EQUIP monies be spent on just four specific environmental efforts. Further, the Kind amendment pumps money into programs which have a low producer interest, because this legislation has been written or encouraged by the environmental lobby, rather than by actual farmers. Lastly, this legislation promotes pork barrel spending. Rather than responding to producer requests gathered throughout all of the hearings over the last 2 years, both on Capitol Hill and around the country, the Kind amendment spends large sums of money on projects which do nothing but feed an already thriving government bureaucracy. Mr. Chairman, I do not represent the thriving government bureaucracy. I do not represent an environmental lobby that looks at a 78 percent increase in conservation funding and says, that is not enough. I represent farmers in Indiana. For that reason, I very respectfully oppose the Kind amendment, and urge my colleagues to join me in doing likewise.

Mr. PENCE. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri. (Mr. BLUNT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) for yielding me the time. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), for their aggressive yet prudent approach to writing a bill that Hoosier farmers need, and if I may say so, with clarity, Hoosier farmers need this farm bill now and need this Congress to act now in support of this bill. The House Committee on Agriculture has drafted a bill that is globally competitive, market responsive and environmentally responsible. I want our colleagues to know the Farm Security Act is a product of years of hard work. We listened to farmers and ranchers during field hearings in my District. We met with hundreds of farmers in 10 separate town hall meetings alone. This bill was truly written by America's farmers and ranchers. My colleagues know that I have always called this body to maintain fiscal discipline and this Farm Security Act, as we heard the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) describe, fits into the guidelines of the budget that has been adopted by this Congress and supported by the leadership. Also, the Farm Security Act is environmentally sensitive. It increases conservation funding by 80 percent overall, despite some criticism by certain environmental groups. An 80 percent increase in conservation spending is a hard number to argue with. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to know that United States farm policy is not only about standing up for ranchers and farmers, despite the sneering from some in the national media in the left column of The Wall Street Journal this morning. I believe that farm security is about national security. As we consider ways and diverse means to strengthen America by strengthening our economy, we must not only remember Wall Street, but we must remember rural main street U.S.A. A strong farm economy means a strong American economy, and a strong American economy means a strong America. The Good Book tells us, Mr. Chairman, that without a vision the people perish. I would paraphrase that without a vision for farm policy over the next decade, many farmers and ranchers will lose their economic lives, and I stand in strong support of the Farm Security Act accordingly.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and the chairman of the Committee on Small Business for yielding time to me, and for sponsoring this important bill, which I believe will help small businesses all across America. I am also grateful to all of my colleagues for the support for the amendment which I offered to this legislation in committee. I believe this bill represents a very important change in the way our government assists small business owners, entrepreneurs, and risk-takers in our economy. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Oversight of the Committee on Small Business, I held a roundtable earlier this year to hear from dozens of national trade and industry groups that represent small business in America. These groups raised concerns about a wide variety of regulations. Yet, they all had one overarching concern, Mr. Speaker, that small business owners are being deluged by complex, often arcane Federal regulations that they are unaware of until a representative of the Federal agency walks through the door and hands them a citation. This situation engenders distrust from the Federal regulatory apparatus because businesses perceive that the Federal government is not there to help, but instead, to play the game of ``gotcha.'' That ``gotcha'' mentality is not good government. Small business owners want to comply with Federal regulations. The agencies have even conceded that more than 90 percent of all businesses are doing their level best to comply. However, in order to do so, they must first know that the regulations apply to them. This is a necessary precondition. However, given the complexity and scope of the CFR, it is unlikely that an average small business owner will be an expert on these myriad regulations, or even begin to understand what must be done in compliance. When we pass laws here, we expect them to be followed. When Federal agencies promulgate regulations, they expect them to be followed. However, if the Federal Government does not provide a mechanism for advising small businesses, then Federal regulations will not be followed and the goal we seek will not be met. H.R. 203, Mr. Speaker, provides that mechanism to assist small business owners. Small Business Development Centers already exist to provide assistance to small business owners in the operation of their businesses. Small business owners come to SBDCs to help start or grow a business. At that time, the center could also provide information on regulatory compliance. Since these centers are located at colleges and universities throughout States that will be part of the pilot project, small business owners should have easy access to regulatory compliance and assistance from these centers. Despite what some stereotypes may suggest, Mr. Speaker, small businesses want to obey the law. They want to comply with Federal regulations. H.R. 203, finally and lastly, gives them the means to do just that. That is why I heartily endorse this bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this reform measure. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Manzullo) for his outstanding leadership, as well as the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), for her outstanding leadership, and for the bipartisan efforts on the part of both of these great members in moving this legislation out of the Committee on Small Business. Finally, I would like to thank the author of this legislation, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady) for their work in bringing this important idea into the laws of our land.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to come to the floor today to spend a few minutes providing a very preliminary report on the status of our worldwide coalition against terrorism. Last week, I traveled to Berlin, Germany, to join leaders of our allied nations from around the world for the first international conference on terrorism since the attacks on New York and Washington. The conference included representatives from Great Britain, Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, Korea, Japan, Ireland, Israel, and even Jordan. I was privileged to lead a discussion with His Royal Highness, Prince Hassan of Jordan, and with Nobel Laureate David Trimble of the United Kingdom. During our meetings with America's strongest allies around the world, I arrived at four basic conclusions about our allied response to these terrorist attacks. Number one, my colleagues should be aware that all of our friends and partners, particularly the residents of Berlin, grieve with the people of the United States. From the piles of flowers, cards, and candles stacked waist-high on the barricades just outside the American Embassy to the teary-eyed mayor of a small town who handed a condolence book signed by everyone in his village to our ambassador, the evidence of genuine sorrow for the people of the United States was overwhelming. On Thursday, I met with my friend, Ambassador Dan Coates, formerly of this body and now our man in Berlin, as he showed me the thousands of drawings, cards, and letters sent to the people of the United States at the embassy, some simply were addressed in crayon to our ``Our Dear Friends.'' As the only American official at this conference, I was inundated with heartfelt expressions of condolence, and I felt the awkward gratitude of a citizen of a nation not accustomed to asking for help. Secondly, I am pleased to report that our foreign policy initiatives immediately following the attack have been an unqualified success. President Bush has reversed many previous negative impressions of our country's leadership. In comment after comment, representatives from countries that had once ridiculed the United States foreign policy heaped praise on the patience and the strength of our President. Additionally, Hoosiers can be proud of the great work of our ambassador, Dan Coates. He has been the very personification of grace under pressure. I learned Thursday that he and his wife, Marsha, arrived in Germany only 4 days before the terrorist attacks. Less than 1 week after his arrival, he stood to receive the sympathies of over 200,000 Germans who gathered in a candlelight vigil at the Brandenburg Gate. This is a tribute all Americans should know about. Thirdly, the European political support for military action is firm but not permanent. Most of the participants of the conference openly spoke of the need for a strong retaliatory strike. As one diplomat said, the terrorists must ``learn that there is a steep price to be paid for such action.'' Most also noted, however, that support for military action might not last long. Representatives from Great Britain and Germany spoke of strong antiwar movements in many NATO countries, and predicted that, after recovering from the initial shock of the attacks, left-of-center governments in these countries would, again, face pressure to withdraw support for U.S. action. America must act boldly and rapidly in insisting upon a military response before support from our allies dissipates. Finally, Mr. Speaker, our allies are deeply skeptical about the depth of America's commitment in the Middle East. They must be reassured. Many of our friends in the Middle East told me privately that they believed the United States has been in retreat in the region since the early 1990s. The failure to respond forcefully to terrorist attacks on our North Africa embassies and the USS Cole, combined with the last administration's determination to pressure Israel into trading land for peace, has sent the message that U.S. resolve in the region is weakening. Whatever action we initiate must involve the overwhelming and sustained use of force to demonstrate our unwavering support for stability and democracy in the region. Only this type of response will allay concerns among our friends and provide a clear warning to our enemies that America is in the Middle East to stay. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I told all of the assembled diplomats and parliamentarians at a banquet on Friday evening that it was altogether fitting that we were holding this conference in the city of Berlin. When I first visited Berlin as a college student 25 years ago, the city was divided by a wall separating east from west. It was nearly universally accepted that this devastated city would remain divided, but the United States refused it abandon the dream of a reunified Berlin. From President Kennedy's airlift to President Reagan's challenge that Gorbachev ``tear down this wall,'' America stood for peace and freedom in Berlin. Today our dream of a reunited Germany and a thriving and united Berlin is a reality. If Berlin could rise from the ashes of war and division, surrounded on all sides by hostile powers, perhaps the Middle East, too, can rise from a history of warfare and deep disunity to become a place where peace and freedom prosper.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I would especially associate myself with the complimentary remarks made about the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill), my colleague and friend to the south, for his great leadership on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen from Indiana, Mr. Hill and Mr. Roemer, and the other prominent Members around here from Indiana today, for producing this legislation and permitting me to be part of it. I would also like to thank Senators Bayh and Lugar for introducing the bill in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, as a boy growing up in Columbus, Indiana, when I was the age of the little boy sitting on my office floor right now, my Congressman was Lee Hamilton; and that famous crew cut, that confident stride of a basketball player, was a frequent image on the streets of Columbus, Indiana. I had the honor of following his career and unsuccessfully applying for a job in his office at one point in my early career. For 34 years, I watched as he served both my hometown and all of Indiana with humility and distinction. Upon his retirement from the House of Representatives in 1998, Congressman Hamilton left a blueprint in public service here in the halls of the Capitol. His approach to issues and accessibility to his constituents, already commented on eloquently today, is an inspiration for his role. Congressman Hamilton was most respected and best known for his role as chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. His broad knowledge of foreign policy recently earned him the honor of serving as the director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Congressman Hamilton's influence is ongoing in the world of foreign affairs, as most Americans know, in the wake of the tragic events of 2 weeks ago. The President recently established in this very hall the Office of Homeland Security. What they may not know is that that was a direct result of the vision and the purpose and the leadership which Indiana's own Lee Hamilton provided as a member of the now-famous Commission on Terrorism. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, as I travel to Europe to participate in a conference on terrorism, I will carry with me many things. I will carry with me notes to study on the issues about which I will comment; but I will, more than anything else, carry the image of Lee Hamilton, who presented not only the image of a gentleman Hoosier into the foreign scene, but also what it truly is to be an American of principle in the world. I join my fellow Hoosier delegates in designating the building at 121 West Spring Street as the Lee H. Hamilton Federal building and U.S. courthouse. It is an honor worthy of one of our Nation's foremost experts in foreign policy and one of Indiana's proudest public servants.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, as was written long ago, there is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven; a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to tear down, and a time to build; a time for war, and a time for peace. Tonight, as our American President will again walk the blue carpet of this Chamber to lead our Nation in a time of war, my hope and my prayer, Mr. Speaker, is that this President will reflect the heart of the American people from this Chamber. I know there is a need to plan, to prepare, to deploy. But justice is inherently impatient, and so am I. Mr. Speaker, I pray that the President knows in the defense of our Nation, now is the time to tear down. Now is the time for war.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, at 10 a.m. on September 11, I stood on the east lawn of the Capitol, smoke billowing from the Pentagon behind the Capitol dome, F-16s coursing through the air. The Earth beneath my feet shook with a secondary explosion at the Pentagon. I was filled, Mr. Speaker, with a deep and resolute anger that this would not stand; that America would respond. That is altogether fitting. The butchers who carried out these attacks see themselves as warriors, and it would be wrong of us to deal with them otherwise. What they are about to learn is that America's fighting men are the most powerful warriors in the history of the world. Tonight I will solemnly and with deep humility vote to give our President the power to use all necessary and appropriate force to vanquish the enemies of our peace. May God have mercy on their souls, because the United States of America will not.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time; but more than that, I commend the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) for not only his swift action on behalf of the development of the Victims' Tax Relief Act, but his compassionate action in this matter; and I rise in strong support of the Victims' Tax Relief Act as a proud and humble cosponsor. The President called our present circumstances the first war of the 21st century; and, as the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) has recognized in this proposal, the victims of these tragic events in New York and in our Nation's Capital are casualties of war. Accordingly, we in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, are called to action, action far afield of Washington, D.C.; but we are also called to mourn with those who mourn, as though we ourselves were suffering the same ordeal. Currently the Tax Code provides an estate tax reduction for members of the Armed Forces who are killed while serving in combat. This bill reduces estate tax liability more than half. The proposal before us today would extend the same estate tax treatment to individuals who were killed as a result of Tuesday's terrorist attacks, and well we should. Similarly, Federal military and civilian employees are exempted from paying income taxes in the year of their death in the service of their country, and this measure would extend the same Federal income tax relief to individuals who died at the hands of terrorists. It is imperative that we support the necessary action in this Chamber by our President in deploying our military. But it is also, in my humble opinion, important that we do justice, love, kindness, and adopt this important legislation.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, my heart is heavy as I think of the tragic events that have befallen the United States. As was written long ago and is true today, the groans of the dying rise from the city; the souls of the wounded cry out for help. Yet I stand here today, Mr. Speaker, to say, as is evident in this Chamber, the leadership of both parties of this country are resolute. The people of America should be confident that our national government and our military is on the job. We will prevail. We will respond. My word to the American people is simply this: be encouraged; do not be terrified. Be strong and courageous, for now, as always, throughout our history, the Lord, your God, will be with you wherever you go.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, today the United States is burdened with one of the highest capital gains taxes of any industrial nation. The effect puts our country's companies and workers at a severe disadvantage. On average, the capital of U.S. businesses and farmers is taxed 80 percent higher than our foreign competitors. The economy needs and those who we represent deserve immediate capital gains tax relief. The capital gains tax is an assault on the American dream. For many low- and moderate-income workers, one of the ways of accumulating wealth is through investment in stocks and businesses. When the government puts a high tax on capital gains, people who lose the most from the high rate are the poorest, the youngest, those in the beginning of their careers, those who are further from the sources of capital. Policies that punish success ultimately kill the seeds that promise enterprise and jobs to the poor. Those in our communities are asking for our help, Mr. Speaker. Their message to us, to the President, and all in this Congress could not be clearer: give us the seed capital for inner-city jobs and investments. Turn this economy around, cut capital gains and cut capital gains taxes now.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I join President Bush and my colleagues in welcoming His Excellency Vicente Fox to the U.S. Capitol today. Listening to President Fox's words this morning confirms the special relationship that we enjoy between Mexico and the United States. We all know, as my colleague and friend just mentioned, that immigration policy is crucial and should be the focus of discussions between the United States and Mexico. We should be an America that welcomes again, and I say that from the heart as the grandson of an Irish immigrant to this country. But we must also look, Madam Speaker, beyond immigration. We have a historic opportunity to expand our relationship rooted in free trade, to which President Fox also alluded. President Fox accurately acknowledged that we share the most dynamic border in the world. Let us show the world how neighbors can improve lives through mutual trust and mutual respect. Today more than ever it is time for America and Mexico to prove that adage that we ought to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that proceedings had during the recess be printed in the Record.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment and of Indiana's small business owners. For too long they have lacked access to affordable health care options to offer their employees. The answer, Mr. Chairman, is fairness. Large corporations and labor unions can offer health insurance across State lines under a single uniform code and reap all of the benefits of the economies of scale. Congress today in this amendment must level the playing field for small business. Let us grant small businesses the same rights as Fortune 500 companies. Association health plans are the answer, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, even though I am a new conservative Member of this institution, I came to Congress anxious to support a Patients' Bill of Rights. I became involved in the front end of this debate to preserve our free market health care system and to strengthen patient choice. For too long, Mr. Speaker, I believe Congress has walked by on the other side of the road, leaving patients, doctors and well-meaning employers to fend for themselves in an increasingly complex health care economy. What we have before us today is truly a bipartisan Patient Protection Act that will provide protections for all Americans, and trust doctors with the power to make medical decisions, and so it will also encourage employers to provide quality health insurance for their employees. I urge all of my colleagues, regardless of your stripe or party, let doctors provide timely care, give patients choice, and let this Congress end the decade of walking by on the other side of the road, and speed this timely aid to patients, doctors and well-meaning employers. Support the bipartisan Patient Protection Act.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me time, and I rise in support of the manager's amendment to the Securing America's Future Energy Act. I do so because I am very concerned, Mr. Chairman, with America's growing energy crisis. Fuel economy and fuel efficiency are important, but we cannot afford to tinker with regulations for political purposes when they have no meaningful effect. Some would like to see changes in the CAFE standards, and allege that such a change would actually help improve America's energy economy. I beg to differ, Mr. Chairman. The most likely response to higher CAFE standards is that safer cars will cost more and will be purchased less. Increasing those standards will undermine automobile safety, needlessly risking the lives of families and children who choose light trucks and other vehicles because they offer superior safety. In addition, Mr. Chairman, in my own district in Indiana, we are part of a network of automotive manufacturers who help consumers get these safer cars. Arbitrarily increasing CAFE standards will put families at risk on the road and hardworking automotive families at risk at work, who could well lose their jobs if we damage this vital part of our automotive economy. Say no to higher arbitrary CAFE standards, keep Americans safe on the road, Mr. Chairman, and keep auto workers safely employed.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the anti- cloning bill authored by my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon). The House of Representatives must choose today whom it will serve, whether it will support the Weldon cloning ban and protect nascent human life or whether it will endorse an alternative that will most certainly lead to the creation of a subclass of human life solely for the purpose of experimentation and destruction. Mr. Speaker, no ethical case can be made for cloning a human being. The Weldon bill bans all human cloning. The alternative before us would allow cloning as long as the cloned human is destroyed before it can follow the natural progression of life. Today, Mr. Speaker, this Congress has the ability to settle some of the moral confusion of our time, to say that humanity will master rather than be mastered by science. Humanity is once again on the verge of a great moral decision. I pray we will not fall into the same type of tragic reasoning that has led previous generations into slavery and genocide through the devaluation of human life. Let us reject the notion that exploitation of life is acceptable. This institution must respect life, protect life, and choose life; and I stand in strong support of the rule.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember a man who changed his world, and ours, forever, a man whom historians have called ``the George Washington of humanity.'' Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked the 168th anniversary of the death of William Wilberforce, a member of Parliament in Great Britain who spent his life working to abolish the slave trade in the British empire. William Wilberforce was the son of a wealthy merchant in Hull, England, born in 1759. At the age of 20 after graduating from St. John's College, Cambridge, Wilberforce won a seat in the House of Commons. Mr. Speaker, the young member of Parliament quickly became a rising star in British government. He was a close friend of the Prime Minister, William Pitt, and many thought that young Wilberforce might succeed Pitt as Prime Minister one day. But in 1784, Wilberforce's priorities were dramatically realigned. After meeting the great Christian hymn writer and theologian John Newton, Wilberforce underwent what he described later as the ``great change.'' William Wilberforce's conversion to Christianity was much like that of the Apostle Paul. According to biographers, previously the young parliamentarian had ``ridiculed evangelicals mercilessly.'' Wilberforce himself wrote of his first years in the Parliament saying, ``I did nothing, nothing that is to any purpose. My own distinction was my darling object.'' With his conversion, however, Wilberforce found a greater purpose in life than personal advancement. He joined a group of like-minded Anglican members of the Parliament known as the Clapham Sect. Wilberforce would write that ``God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the slave trade and the reformation of manners.'' Mr. Speaker, Wilberforce spent the rest of his life fighting against all odds to abolish the slave trade in the British empire. Slavery was so ingrained in Great Britain's imperial culture and so integral to the empire's economy that the first time Wilberforce presented a bill to abolish it in 1791, it was crushed 163-88. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that 1 month after Wilberforce's death on July 29, 1833, after fighting unrelentingly for abolition over the previous 42 years, Parliament passed the slavery abolition act, freeing all slaves in the British empire and setting a tone for freedom of humankind across the world. William Wilberforce has served as an example for me, Mr. Speaker, and I commend him to all Members of Congress concerned with changing our times for the better. As biographer Douglas Holladay said, Wilberforce's life was animated by his deeply held personal faith, by a sense of calling, by banding together with like-minded friends, by a fundamental belief in the power of ideas and moral beliefs to change the culture through public persuasion. This week, Mr. Speaker, as we debate in this Chamber the very value and the dignity of human life in the cloning debate, as our President mulls over the very value and dignity of nascent human life in the difficult decision this President faces in funding research of human embryos, let us reflect on this anniversary of the passing of the great abolitionist William Wilberforce, and may we each of us in this Chamber always be inspired by his example and may we always aspire to those words he most assuredly heard 168 years ago: ``Well done, good and faithful servant.''

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I would echo the great respect for my neighbor and colleague from Indiana expressed in the Chamber today. I am more convinced than ever that the gentleman from Indiana is one tough customer, but I will rise as a new member of the NASA Committee on Science to express my opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague. Now, my colleague's amendment seems to be predicated on the assertion that we cannot spend additional money because we cannot afford to make mistakes in the space program. Mr. Chairman, there has certainly been some growing pains associated with the space station over the last year in particular. But original ground-breaking research is, by its very nature, fraught with failure and disappointment. We should expect a project of this magnitude to benefit from an environment defined by academic freedom. Adopting this measure will be ignoring the original intent of the Congress that has always supported full funding of the space station to produce a world-class research facility. Mr. Chairman, if we want great science, we must defend the programs that make it possible. The amendment authored by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), Mr. Chairman, today would not so much kill the Space Station as he has attempted to do before perennially in this Chamber, but it may well wound it and wound it mortally. But I would offer this conclusion, that this debate is not just about dollars and sense, Mr. Chairman; all Americans are descendents of pioneers who journeyed to or prevailed in this wilderness Nation. More than any other people in modern times, we are a Nation of explorers and adventurers. Let us not, in this day, abandon the most compelling aspect of American character. Our ancestors led the world into the unknown with faith and courage. Let us continue to lead the world with that same faith and courage into unimaginable riches of space.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, Tuesday at 1:39 p.m. the Space Shuttle Atlantis and its crew returned to Earth, successfully delivering and installing a new portal for spacewalkers, the International Space Station. On Monday of next week, we just learned, Mr. Speaker, that the debate over the future of NASA will land in this Chamber. I rise today to urge my colleagues to remember that despite the fact that some of our forebears came to this continent in chains, all Americans are descended of pioneers who journeyed to or prevailed in this wilderness nation. More than any other people on the Earth, we are a nation of explorers, and the debate next week will provide an important opportunity to restate this by providing resources for the International Space Station, for return vehicles and urgent repairs for the vehicle assembly building at Kennedy Space Station. Let us not abandon this character of exploration that is one of the most compelling aspects of the American character.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, waiting on the horizon of this legislative week is the debate over the Patients' Bill of Rights. There has been much heat about this subject but very little light. As Dr. Daniel Johnson memorably wrote in the July issue of the Wall Street Journal, ``The debate over the patients' bill of rights is predictable. The Democrats favor more regulation. The Republicans favor less regulation. The insurers are holding on to their wallets, and trial lawyers smell blood.'' Mr. Speaker, Dr. Johnson went on to write, ``Now that the Senate has passed its bill, we can expect another bloody clash in the House, but beyond today's battle lies the possibility of a system that will make life easier for all concerned, not only employers and insurers but patients and physicians.'' It is, Mr. Speaker, seizing on that opportunity that I rise in this Chamber today. I came to Congress earlier this year anxious to support a Patients' Bill of Rights. The one that has captured my imagination and the one that I believe should capture the majority in the House of Representatives is that offered by my friend and colleague, a physician and the gentleman from the State of Kentucky, (Mr. Fletcher). The Fletcher bill offers three key factors that I believe the people of East Central Indiana need in a Patients' Bill of Rights. First, the Fletcher bill expands access to medical savings accounts so that more Americans can save money to pay for health care. This provision, Mr. Speaker, will drastically reduce the ranks of the uninsured in our country and will give patients more control over their health care decisions. Secondly, the Fletcher bill holds the right people responsible when patients are denied care or receive poor care. If an insurer or health plan makes a decision that harms a patient, the plan or the insurer will be held accountable in Federal and in State courts. Finally, the Fletcher bill provides increased access to health insurance through associated health plans, allowing small businesses to join together to purchase health insurance. This will permit them to receive the same benefits of uniform regulation, economies of scale and administrative efficiency that large companies currently enjoy. As I said, Mr. Speaker, there has been and likely this week will continue to be a great deal of heat and just a little bit of light in the debate over a Patients' Bill of Rights. But I rise today to urge my colleagues to strongly support the Fletcher legislation, a Patients' Bill of Rights that will protect not only patients and physicians but also our employer-based health insurance system in America. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, as the debate over using Federal funds to support embryonic stem cell research goes forwards, I would urge my colleagues in this Chamber to consider the clear words of Pope John Paul II spoken to our President today, who said in Rome, ``Experience is already showing how a tragic coarsening of consciences accompanies the assault on innocent life in the womb, leading to the accommodation and acquiescence in the face of other related evils such as euthanasia, infanticide, and, most recently, proposals for the creation for research purposes of human embryos, destined to destruction in the process.'' The Pope went on to say, ``A free and virtuous society which America aspires to be must reject practices that devalue and violate human life at any stage from conception until natural death.'' May we in this Chamber, Madam Speaker, and our President heed the words of this gentle servant of God.