Sound economics, not increase of minimum wage

 

The House passed a bill that would increase the minimum wage to $7.25 harming our poorest folks in America who will lose their jobs due to employers not able to afford this hike. This is a sad day for Republicans who for some reason proposed this bill and passed it. Mike Pence on the other hand understands economics and knows the danger of this devastating legislation. That is why Mike Pence stood strong and voted against it. Mike Pence has the courage and the will to do the right thing everytime. Here is his speech on the House floor in opposition to the minimum wage increase.


"I come to this floor wishing for a different choice than the one before me. The bill under debate provides permanent estate and gift tax relief – something I have long supported. That is why the choice before us tonight is so difficult. While this bill will provide relief to American farmers and small business owners, it also will do much harm to those very same people and the people they employ because of the irresponsible 41% increase in the minimum wage that it also contains. This increase in the minimum wage is excessive and will hurt the poor and those entering the workforce by reducing the number of entry-level positions in our economy.

"Minimum wage increases raise unemployment among teenagers, minorities and part-time workers. The minimum wage violates fundamental free market economics. It costs jobs, and I cannot support policies that will take jobs from those who need a paycheck the most.

"Any proposal containing a minimum wage increase should be jobs-neutral. If the federal government increases costs for businesses with one hand, it is only right that it reduce costs for businesses with the other. And while this legislation does contain good tax extensions, in totality, it is not jobs-neutral. This increase in the minimum wage will cost American jobs, and I cannot support it.

"Additionally, this bill contains unrelated elements added during the eleventh hour. A budget-busting provision is included that converts the Abandoned Mine Land program from discretionary to mandatory spending. The result is an increase in the deficit of $3.9 billion over the next ten years.

"I would like to stand before you tonight and say that I could support this bill because more than anyone, I want permanent death tax relief. But, I cannot in good conscience vote for a bill that also contains an excessive minimum wage increase that will hurt small businesses and cost American jobs. And, I cannot vote for a bill that busts the budget by nearly $4 billion over ten years. Regretfully, for those reasons, I stand tonight in opposition to this bill."

Mike Pence and the Club for Growth: The Future of our Party

 

Americans who have been a part of and followed the conservative movement over the years have recently recognized two new distinct forces that have been very influential in advancing our conservative agenda of limited government and fiscal discipline: Indiana Congressman Mike Pence and the Club for Growth.

Mike Pence was first elected to Congress in 2000 and was immediately lifted up into leadership. In 2002, he became Deputy Majority Whip and was responsible for ensuring votes for the agenda of the administration and the House GOP leadership. After leading the charge with 33 other House Conservatives against No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, the administration and House Leadership continued advancing their agenda of Big Government Republicanism with the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Bill.

Mike Pence stood up for our conservative principles by leading the revolt against the Medicare Bill alongside 24 other conservative heroes, including the current President of Club for Growth Pat Toomey. After the fierce battle and the longest vote in Congressional history, Mike Pence was soon recognized by all of his conservative colleagues as the leader of the conservative movement. He was then elected unanimously as Chair of the Republican Study Committee by over 100 House Conservatives. Leading the RSC, the largest, most conservative caucus in Congress, Mike Pence has become the most influential conservative and has begun to put our conservative agenda on the offensive.

Mike Pence’s effective leadership has been responsible for such victories as “Operation Offset” and has inspired several within his band of rebels to continue to advance the agenda of limited government and fiscal discipline. One such effort has recently been seen by Jeff Flake, RSC member and Pence’s “Right hand man.” Jeff Flake, R-AZ, has begun to fight the battle of pork barrel projects by offering amendments to bills to eliminate irresponsible earmarks. Jeff Flake is forcing House Republicans to prove their commitment to fiscal discipline and giving the American people the opportunity to see which Republicans are truly on our side. Of the 19 amendments to cut pork offered by Flake, Mike Pence voted for all 19. In addition, Mike Pence and Jeff Flake were two of only 21 Republicans to recently vote against an increase in the minimum wage.

Club for Growth, seeing the shift in our Party from our conservative principles of limited government and fiscal discipline to Big Government Republicanism, has taken it upon themselves to expose liberal Republicans and organize campaign efforts to elect true conservatives in primary elections. Their work has been truly astounding in defeating liberal and establishment candidates, and putting in pro-growth Reagan Republicans.

The Club for Growth has become a major force in elected politics for the Republican Party. They have sent the message from the American people to the politicians inside the beltway: the American people want principled leaders who will preserve, promote and defend the historical principles of freedom and liberty.

The Club for Growth and Mike Pence are undoubtedly the future of the conservative movement and the Republican Party. They both now have the greatest opportunity to take our agenda and our message of limited government, fiscal discipline and freedom to the American people on a national level. With 2008 being pursued by so many self-seeking politicians who have only advanced Big Government Republicanism for the sake of their career, the door is wide open for the American people to elect a true Reagan conservative to our nation’s highest office. There is no doubt that America’s choice for President is a true conservative who can effectively lead and who has been tested in battle. Will the Club for Growth once again send the message from the American people to the establishment? Will the Club for Growth give Americans what they want by getting behind Mike Pence and turning our course of conservative governance back on the right path, once again restoring America as that “shining city on a hill?”

Our prayers are with Mike Pence and the Club for Growth, that they would take the bold stand for the future of our party and this great nation.

Pence: most effective border hawk

 

Mike Pence recently revealed his plan to secure our borders, build a fence, and send the 12 million illegals home to get right with the law. Unfortunately Bush, the leadership, and Ted Kennedy want amnesty for illegals so they can stay in America while a clear majority of Americans want immigration reform that is tough on border security. Mike Pence is very concerned about our immigration problem and the future of our sovereign nation, so this is why he stepped out to propose a comprehensive plan that will guarantee a secured border and no more undocumented aliens.

If Pence did not propose this plan, then we would once again have Republican legislation that would harm America worse, take away more of our freedoms and destroy the fabric of our society (with a smiling Ted Kennedy alongside). This is not going to happen due to Mike Pence's bold stand and ability to influence America and the leadership to have common sense on this issue and do what's right. Thank you Mike Pence!

Below is an article about Americans thoughts on the immigration issue.

A majority of California voters considers illegal immigration a very serious issue, and 70 percent want Congress to pass an immigration overhaul bill this year, according to a Field Poll released today.

The statewide survey of 494 registered voters reached findings very similar to those in a national poll released Tuesday by the Tarrance Group and Lake Research Partners. That poll found that 71 percent of likely U.S. voters favor a comprehensive plan similar to a bill passed by the Senate in May.

"This is a very hot issue, a very emotional issue," said Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo. "What has emerged is a consensus that this should be dealt with in a comprehensive way. Congress should attempt to not only address border security but guest workers and a path to citizenship. ... I was expecting more division, especially among Republicans and conservatives."

Today's poll also found that 70 percent of California voters want Congress to strengthen border security and provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants currently in the country.

And it revealed that 80 percent of California voters would like to allow the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants to stay in the country and apply for citizenship if they have a job and have learned English and paid back taxes.

By contrast, just 34 percent of those polled want Congress to require all illegal immigrants to leave the country and reapply for admission and legal work status, a tactic that is part of a new plan touted by two conservative Republicans, Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Indian Rep. Mike Pence.

"In California, there are so many (illegal immigrants) here, it just doesn't arouse the same kind of fear and apprehension," said DiCamillo. "Most people don't feel they're a threat. Californians feel they're generally good people and deserve an opportunity to stay. That's a much more compassionate view than you see in other parts of the country."

Illegal immigration has as much urgency for Californians now as it did in 1994, when Gov. Pete Wilson rode an anti-immigration platform to re-election, said Jack Citrin, associate director of the Institute for Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley and an authority on immigration and politics.

But economic insecurity is less acute today, and Californians have even more familiarity with the issue, he said.

"California has more immigrants, and we've got border problems which North Dakota doesn't have," said Citrin. "But I do think people who have personal knowledge and contact, personal interaction, that tends to breed a more tolerant and positive attitude."

President Bush fared poorly in the poll, receiving bad marks from both conservatives and liberals on his handling of illegal immigration. Citrin said Bush may be getting slammed by immigration restrictionists for his more liberal immigration reform proposal and at the same time tarred by those who support his comprehensive approach because he hasn't managed to get it enacted.

"Among Republicans, maybe Bush is too soft," he said. "Among Democrats, they'll never say Bush did anything good."

The poll, a random sample of registered voters, was conducted by telephone in English and Spanish July 10-23 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

Poll says 70% of Californians want immigration reform

It is morally wrong

 

Here is a question from Human Events to Mike Pence on the Bush's recent veto on the stem cell research.


How exactly did we end up at this juncture where the U.S. federal government is poised to compel taxpayers to fund the killing of embryos, and two, can you be consistently pro-life and support the kind of action that’s happening in the Senate?

Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.): It is simply morally wrong, as millions of pro-lifers agree as we do that life begins at conception, to fund this research that involves the destruction of a human embryo. I believe that historically, while Americans appear in most surveys to be evenly divided on the subject of abortion, 80% of Americans oppose the use of federal tax dollars to pay for abortion, and I believe that rightly understood that this debate when it properly focuses the attention of the American people on the facts that we are not asking, we’re not asking whether or not there should be stem cell research, we’re not even asking whether or not there should be embryonic stem-cell research. We’re simply asking who pays for it, and it is our belief that the American people understand asking billions of dollars from Americans who believe that life begins at conception to pay for the destruction of human embryos for research is morally wrong and the politics will take care of itself.

Bravo to Bush for Stem-Cell Veto

In God we trust

 

Here is a clip of Mike Pence's speech on the House floor encouraging the Pledge Protection Act.

"And we say here today to say those words which appear above you, Mr. Speaker, in the phrase 'In God We Trust' in our national motto, words that were reflected in our founding documents that speak of a nation that believes our rights are endowed by our Creator, and words that President Abraham Lincoln spoke at Gettysburg, that this is one nation under God, to be protected and vouch-safed in our Pledge. Let's take this jurisdiction away, which is our Constitutional power to do, and leave this power with the people of the United States, and the states separately."

Bush stands for life, first veto

 

Here is the cover piece to the New York Times talking about Bush's first veto. Thank God for president Bush's stand for Life!

WASHINGTON, July 19 — President Bush on Wednesday rejected legislation to expand federally supported embryonic stem cell research, exercising his first veto while putting himself at odds with many members of his own party and what polls say is a majority of the public.

By defying the Republican-controlled Congress, which had sent him legislation that would have overturned research restrictions he imposed five years ago, Mr. Bush re-inserted himself forcefully into a moral, scientific and political debate in which Republicans are increasingly finding common ground with Democrats.

The president laid out his reasoning in a written message to the House of Representatives, then announced his decision in the East Room of the White House, surrounded by babies born through in vitro fertilization using so-called “adopted embryos.’’

As the infants gurgled and fidgeted in their parents’ arms, Mr. Bush said the bill violated his principles on the sanctity of human life by encouraging the destruction of embryos left over from fertilization procedures. Proponents of the measure have argued that such embryos would be destroyed anyway.

“I felt like crossing this line would be a mistake, and once crossed we would find it almost impossible to turn back,’’ Mr. Bush said. “Crossing the line would needlessly encourage a conflict between science and ethics that can only do damage to both, and to our nation as a whole.’’

Until Wednesday, Mr. Bush was among just seven presidents — all of whom served before 1881 — who had never vetoed a piece of legislation. Four served only partial terms; the other three were John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams.

Within hours of the East Room ceremony, the House hurriedly took up a measure to override the veto, but the vote, 235 to 193, fell 51 short of the two-thirds majority required. Fifty-one Republicans, 183 Democrats and 1 independent voted to override, while 4 Democrats joined 179 Republicans in voting to keep the veto intact.

The vote put an end to the bill’s prospects for the year, but not to the stem cell debate, which has escalated into a major issue on Capitol Hill, with Democrats and Republicans alike predicting electoral repercussions in November.

“This is not some wedge issue; this is the soul of America,’’ said Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, who sponsored the bill Mr. Bush vetoed. “And this is a colossal mistake on the part of the president.’’

But beyond the principles involved, the White House had clearly calculated that it would have been more of a political mistake to sign the bill. Social conservatives, the heart of Mr. Bush’s base, had demanded the president keep his promise to veto any measure that altered the careful compromise he articulated in 2001. With Mr. Bush’s approval ratings hovering at about 40 percent, conservatives are more critical than ever to the president, and he cannot afford to arouse their ire.

“This is a profound moral issue,’’ said Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, after the White House ceremony. “The issue is whether or not it is morally right to use the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans who find this research morally objectionable.’’

Yet the ground is shifting in the debate, and even Mr. Pence conceded that opponents of the research were ‘’losing the argument with the American people.’’ Republicans, even those like Mr. Bush who oppose abortion, are wrestling with whether embryos that are no bigger than a typographical period but regarded by some as human beings should be destroyed to save lives.

The issue reflects the complex nature of the politics of abortion and medical research in the United States today and is in some ways the flip side of the Democrats’ quandary over abortion. Just as medical advances like ultrasound imaging have spurred greater opposition to abortion, leading some Democrats to recalibrate their views, the promise of embryonic stem cell research has pushed some Republicans toward positions in which black-and-white beliefs about the sanctity of life have given way to more nuanced and ethically complex stances.

As baby boomers have aged, demanding the best medical treatments for themselves and their elderly parents, the public clamor for stem cell research has grown more intense. According to the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan polling organization that tracks the issue, roughly two-thirds of all Democrats and independents favor embryonic stem cell research, while nearly half of all Republicans do.

That leaves Mr. Bush — who has not used his veto partly because Republicans have controlled both houses of Congress for nearly all of his presidency — at odds with many leaders of his own party. They include staunch abortion opponents like Senators Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, Gordon H. Smith of Oregon and the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee. Already, some Republicans who opposed Mr. Bush on the stem cell issue are looking to the presidential elections of 2008.

“When there’s another election, another chapter of democracy opens,’’ Mr. Smith said in an interview. “Most of the candidates who have a shot at winning are in favor of stem cell research. This represents a delay en route, but I know where we’re going, and it’s where the American people want to go.’’

As the White House prepared for the East Room ceremony, advocates for patients who support stem cell research flooded the switchboard with calls urging Mr. Bush not to veto the bill.

“We were really hoping, because so many of the American people supported this research, that the president would take this opportunity to take a really big deep breath and reconsider,” said Kathy Lewis, president of the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, named for the late actor who was an outspoken advocate for the science.

In a sense, the issue has come full circle for Mr. Bush. The president devoted his first prime-time television address to the issue, becoming the first president to open the door to federal financing for the science.

Under the policy, which Mr. Bush announced on Aug. 9, 2001, the federal government pays for studies on stem cell colonies, or lines, created before that date, so that the government does not encourage the destruction of additional embryos. Mr. Bush said Wednesday that his administration had made more than $90 million available for such work.

The bill Mr. Bush vetoed would have allowed taxpayer-financed research on lines derived from embryos slated for destruction by fertility clinics. Mr. Bush also signed a “fetal farming” measure, barring trafficking in embryos and fetuses with the intent of harvesting body parts.

“These boys and girls are not spare parts,” the president said in a speech that was interrupted repeatedly by hoots of applause, and twice by standing ovations. “They remind us of what is lost when embryos are destroyed in the name of research.’’

In one respect, the veto plays to Mr. Bush’s personal strengths, reinforcing the perception that he is someone who makes up his mind and sticks to it, ignoring the polls. But Democrats are determined to make the veto a central theme of their fall election campaigns, hooking it in with another hugely divisive medical issue — the Terri Schiavo right-to-die case — to argue that Republicans are beholden to the religious right.

Within hours of the veto, the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, sent out a fund-raising letter asserting that Mr. Bush had decided that curing diseases “was not as important as catering to his right-wing base.” Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, put it this way: “This will be remembered as a Luddite moment in American history.”

Even Republicans concede the president’s action could hurt their candidates, particularly moderates like Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut, who face tough re-election contests.

“It paints us in a corner as more and more single issue, and more and more unreasonable,” said Ed Rollins, a Republican strategist. “This is the line that the president certainly doesn’t want Republicans to cross, but I think an awful lot of Republicans say this goes across common sense, this research has the potential of saving my father, my mother, or a friend, or curing cancer.”

First Bush Veto Maintains Limits on Stem Cell Use

Pence Sense

 

Here is a piece from the Washington Post on the marriage debate. Pence believes this was a step closer to victory for the pro-family movement.

WASHINGTON -- The House rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on Tuesday, a setback that conservatives hope to turn to their advantage in the fall elections.

"Be assured that this issue is not over," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.

The vote was 236-187 with one member voting "present," a slight improvement over the last House vote just before the 2004 election but still 46 short of the two-thirds majority needed to advance a constitutional amendment.

Supporters argued that Congress must trump the actions of judges around the country who have ruled in favor of gay marriages. "We must not allow an institution of such great importance to be arbitrarily redefined for the entire nation by a small number of unelected judges," said Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa.

Opponents, including 27 Republicans, argued that the measure was meaningless _ the Senate rejected the amendment last month, effectively killing it for this session of Congress _ as well as unneeded and mean-spirited.

"This is a partisan effort by Republicans to divide the American people rather than forge consensus to solve our urgent problems," said Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California.

Democrats argued that the House's focus on the GOP's "American values agenda," which includes votes this week on a pledge protection bill and a vote on President Bush's expected veto of an embryonic stem cell bill, was a distraction at a time the nation faced serious domestic and international problems.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., one of just a few openly gay members of Congress, said he took the proposal personally. "I think this is motivated, frankly, by a dislike of those of us who are gay and lesbian," he said, and he objected to "people taking batting practice with my life."

The defeat in the House followed a series of victories at the state level where courts, legislatures and voters have come out for gay marriage bans.

Forty-five states have either constitutional amendments banning gay marriage or statutes outlawing same-sex weddings. Even in Massachusetts, the only state that allows gay marriage, the state's high court recently ruled that a proposed constitutional amendment to ban future gay marriages can be placed on the ballot.

Bush has advocated, and the Republican Party's conservative base has demanded, that the ban be extended to the federal level. "The administration believes that the future of marriage in America should be decided through the democratic constitutional amendment process, rather than by the court orders of a few," the White House said in a statement.

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., the leader of House conservatives, argued that the vote was a "successful failure."

"We poured a little more concrete in the footings of a building that will be built," Pence said.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a leading supporter of the amendment, said his group will put out a voter scorecard that will go to millions of Americans before this November's election. "This will be a very prominent issue," he said.

"The overwhelming majority of the American people support traditional marriage," said Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., sponsor of the amendment. "And the people have a right to know whether their elected representatives agree with them."

The proposed amendment says that "marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither the Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

The House vote in 2004 was 227-186 in favor of the amendment, 49 short of the needed majority.

"They have now failed twice in their shameful election-year ploys, using gay and lesbian families as punching bags," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights group. "We didn't see any traction" in Tuesday's vote, he said.

The Constitution has been amended only 27 times, including the 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights. In addition to two-thirds congressional approval, a proposed amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states.

GOP Sees Advantage in Gay Marriage Debate

Mr. President: Veto this bill

 

Here is the speech given by Mike Pence on the House floor demanding that the president veto the Castle-DeGette bill allowing embroyonic stem cell research using American's tax dollars.

“We gather today in respectful opposition to the Castle-DeGette bill: A bill that authorizes the use of federal tax dollars to fund the destruction of human embryos for scientific research.

“Assuming H.R. 810 passes the Senate today, on behalf of millions of pro-life Americans, we say, Mr. President, veto this bill.

“As we begin this debate, I am confident that we will hear the supporters of this bill argue in the name of Ronald Reagan that this research is consistent with his long-held views about the sanctity of life. But it was Ronald Reagan who wrote, ‘we cannot diminish the value of one category of human life-the unborn-without diminishing the value of all human life.’

“The supporters will also argue that this is a debate between science and ideology…that destroying human embryos for research is necessary to cure a whole host of maladies from spinal cord injuries to Parkinson’s.

“But the facts suggest otherwise. To date, embryonic stem cell research has not produced a single medical treatment, where ethical, adult stem cell research has produced some 67 medical miracles. Physicians on our side will make the case for the ethical alternative of adult stem cell research and Congress today will greatly expand funding in this area.

“But the debate over the legitimacy or potential of embryonic stem cells is actually not the point of this debate.

“We are here simply to decide whether Congress should take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them to fund the destruction of human embryos for research.

“This debate is really not about whether embryonic stem cell research should be legal. Sadly, embryonic stem cell research is completely legal in this country and has been going on at universities and research facilities for years.

“The proponents of this legislation don’t just want to be able to do embryonic research. They want me to pay for it and like 43 percent of the American people in a survey out today, I have a problem with that.

“You see, I believe that life begins at conception and that a human embryo is human life. I believe it is morally wrong to create human life to destroy it for research. And I believe it is morally wrong to take the tax dollars of millions of pro-life Americans, who believe that human life is sacred, and use it to fund the destruction of human embryos for research.

“This debate, then, is not really about what an embryo is. This debate is about who we are as a nation. Not, will we respect the sanctity of human life but will we respect the deeply held moral beliefs of nearly half of the people of this nation who find the destruction of human embryos for scientific research to be morally wrong?

“Despite what may be uttered in this debate today, I say again: This debate is not about whether we should allow research that involves the destruction of human embryos. This debate is about who pays for it.

“And it is my fervent hope and prayer, as we stand at the crossroads between science and the sanctity of life, that we will choose life.

“This morning on Capitol Hill I am surrounded by dozens of ‘snowflake babies,’ children born from frozen embryos…the ‘throwaway’ material we will hear about today. As I speak over the cries and cooing of those little fragile lives, I can’t help but think of the ancient text about the choice we face today: ‘I have set before you life and earth, blessings and curses, now choose life so that you and your children may live’ (Dueteronomy 30:19).

“Let us do as Americans have always done in the face of the frail and vulnerable. Let us choose life, reject federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, that we and these precious children may live.”

Stem cell research is morally wrong

 

Here is a quote from Mike Pence defending life in the upcoming stem cell research debate.


"It is morally wrong to create human life to destroy it for research." "Also, it is morally wrong to take the tax dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them to finance research that they find morally objectionable."

1st Bush veto likely on stem cell research

Chuck Colson on the Pence plan

 

Here is an article by Chuck Colson on immigration and the Pence plan.

By the looks of things, it seems that compromise on the contentious issue of immigration is unlikely, if not impossible. The House's position has been hard-line: We have to stop illegal immigration before we even consider ways we could process illegal immigrants into America properly. Some members have even demanded the wholesale deportation of all illegal immigrants, which would virtually stop the American economy in its tracks.

The Senate has taken what's regarded as a more moderate approach: securing the borders and establishing a guest-worker program so that people who have been here for a while can establish their residence. President Bush's position on the debate has been, in my opinion, comprehensive and responsible.

Yet here we are in July, and instead of ironing out their differences, the House and the Senate are holding dueling hearings across the country.

While getting agreement is hard to imagine, the basis for a good compromise exists. It addresses the important issue of border security while also offering a humane way of dealing with illegal immigrants already living in the United States. It even has a role for Christians who, after all, are commanded to care for the strangers in our midst.

The author of this compromise is Representative Mike Pence (R) of Indiana. I have known Pence for several years and regard him as one of the brightest young stars in the House. He is a serious Christian who is committed to integrating faith and public service.

What Pence is proposing is a two-step process. The first step is to secure the borders. His proposal would include the enforcement measures passed by the House last December.

Once the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that the borders have been secured, illegal aliens will become eligible to apply for guest-worker visas. Pence's proposal requires them to leave the country and apply for these visas at what he calls "Ellis Island Centers."

These visas entitle them to work in the United States for six years. After the six years, the worker "must decide whether to return home or seek citizenship. But he will do so under the normal rules and regulations of our naturalization laws."

Pence wants Christians involved in the process and is proposing some faith-based programs so the churches can help people with their paperwork, can teach them English, and integrate them into the communities.

I think that his plan, which has gained interest in the White House and support on both sides of the Capitol, provides the basis of a good compromise. I would modify his requirement that people leave the country to apply for guest-worker visas -I think that could be done in federal facilities around the country and save money and time. And the criteria for certifying border security must be objective and reasonable. But these things can be accomplished.

The point is that this is a good proposal that gets us out of the deadlock and promotes security and respect for the law in a humane and workable fashion. And it addresses the issues of workers without demonizing them.

I hope you will get behind Pence's proposal and call your senators and congressman. Given the contentious quality of the immigration debate, what is needed is support for people like Mike Pence, for whom faith and public service go hand-in-hand.

Showing Compassion, Upholding the Law

Amnesty is not the answer!

 

Here is Mike Pence explaining his "Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act" to the USA Today.

By Mike Pence

My four-part plan is tough on border security and tough on employers who hire illegal aliens, but it recognizes the need for a guest-worker program that operates without amnesty and without growing into a huge new government bureaucracy.

• Border security. Before any new guest-worker program can begin, the Pence plan requires the secretary of Homeland Security to certify that all border security measures are substantially completed. The Pence plan embraces the House-passed bill, which adds port-of-entry inspectors, ends catch and release, uses American technology such as unmanned aerial vehicles and requires the building of a security fence across approximately 700 miles of our southern border.

• Reject amnesty. The Senate passed a bill that would provide amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Allowing people to get right with the law without leaving the United States, when their first act here was a violation of the law, is amnesty. The Pence plan offers a no-amnesty solution to the problem of 12 million illegal aliens living in our country by insisting that they leave the country and come back legally if they have a job opportunity in the United States.

• Enact a no-amnesty guest-worker program using American private sector firms. The Pence plan would set up a system of private worker placement agencies, licensed by the federal government, to match willing guest workers with jobs in America that employers cannot fill with American workers. The private agencies also would perform a health screening, fingerprint the guest workers and provide that information for a federal background check. The process would take a week or less. After six years, the guest must decide whether to return home or enter the separate process of seeking citizenship.

• Strict employer enforcement. All the employer enforcement contained in the House-passed bill is contained in the Pence plan. It sets forth a nationwide electronic employment verification system through which employers confirm the legality of each employee. Employers who operate outside of the system would face tough fines.

Some argue that putting border security first and asking millions of illegal immigrants to leave the country is unrealistic. I submit that it is unrealistic to assume that another round of amnesty will not result in another wave of illegal immigration in the years ahead. We must address illegal immigration, but we must do so in a way that reasserts the principle that the only way to enter the United States is under the law.

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., is chairman of the Republican Study Committee.

Amnesty isn't the answer

God Bless America!

 

The 4th of July represents every year the day when America broke free from England and declared our Independece. Independence Day was represented in Pence's district with an American flag with bold colors and a national hero speaking on the freedoms that America stands for.


Yesterday Congressman Pence spoke at First Christian Church’s "A First Fourth" program at Mill Race Park in Columbus.

According to an article in The Republic, "First Christian Church’s 'A First Fourth' celebration honored the men and women who serve in the armed forces while celebrating America’s independence.

"Several hundred people attended the patriotic service and enjoyed a picnic and old-time games afterward.