World Magazine on Pence's immigration plan

 

Here is an article by World Magazine on Mike Pence's immigration plan.

Indiana Republican Mike Pence takes issue with critics who call his conservative views on immigration policy insincere. As the grandson of an immigrant from Tubbercurry, Ireland, he says he empathizes with the immigrants' plight.

Coincidentally, so does Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), whose grandfather was Italian. And Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) has them both beat: He is himself Cuban, immigrating to the United States as a child.

The House has passed Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner's border-security-first bill, which makes illegal immigration to the United States a felony; Rep. Tancredo, head of the House Immigration Reform Caucus, supports that legislation. The Senate spent last week debating and finalizing Sen. Martinez's Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA), which Rep. Tancredo calls an "amnesty" plan. Into that mix, Rep. Pence on May 23 unveiled a new reform plan that stakes out a "middle ground" between the Senate and House proposals.

The Martinez plan amounts to "amnesty," according to Mr. Pence, who disagrees on nearly everything except that point with Rep. Tancredo, head of the House Immigration Reform Caucus and a supporter of legislation that makes illegally immigrating to the United States a felony (à la the Sensenbrenner plan).

Mr. Pence's bill, called the Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act, is "tough on border security and tough on employers who hire illegal aliens," he told reporters, "but recognizes the need for a guest-worker program that operates without amnesty and without growing into a huge new bureaucracy." The bill takes the border security plan laid out in the House's only legislation passed on this issue—the Sensenbrenner bill—drops the controversial felony provision, and adds a guest-worker program run by the free market.

Mr. Pence explains that in his bill illegal immigrants must leave the country and, moreover, actually will; the State Department only will issue visas (called "W visas" because of fortuitous bill drafting) to immigrants outside the United States. Private worker-placement agencies called "Ellis Island Centers" will then put guest workers in jobs reported to them by U.S. employers. This leaves little incentive to hire illegals, whose employment would carry a fine, over guest workers.

The Pence bill breaks a six-month dry spell in the House, where disagreement has made most legislators content simply to criticize the efforts of the president and the Senate. Still, it does not ensure any measure of support. The congressman said his bill presents an "attractive alternative" to the current House and Senate bills, and although some House members have praised the proposal, opponents like Rep. Tancredo have not wasted any time attacking it.

This is where the fighting Irish comes out in the white-haired, rosy-cheeked Mr. Pence. "Is all of this pie-in-the-sky? Only if you don't believe in the private market of American business," he says. "The Senate will end up passing some sort of amnesty. The House has a border-security-first bill. Mine harmonizes the two. It asks for compromise."

Forcing illegals to exit the country and creating a market-controlled guest-worker program is how Rep. Pence's plan counters the amnesty that critics say the Senate bill grants. The Senate bill divides immigrants into three tiers based on the number of years they have been in the United States.

Those here at least two years—85 percent of immigrants—would have the eventual right to citizenship. That amnesty, combined with CIRA's proposed increases in legal immigration numbers, would result in "the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years,"according to Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, with as many as 193 million new immigrants in the next 20 years.

Besides President Bush's blessing, backers of the Senate plan say they have the votes to pass the bill. Members of both chambers have to reconcile differences eventually, and Mr. Pence anticipates revisions to his plan if it's not killed.

Mostly, though, Republicans in the Senate are urging the House to get through this impasse; not to do so before the November mid-term elections would be politically disastrous. Because of members whose allegiance is to more than their party, it may be possible to empathize with Congress over the job that lies ahead.

Politics: Lone congressman proposes a way through the immigration impasse

Pence's bill our best hope

 

Here is an article explaning the timely fashion of Pence's immigration proposal and how important it is to pass. Bush will get a bill even if he has to make it more liberal to get all the democrats behind it. Another possibility is that the we do not get a bill demonstrating that Republicans can not govern causing them to lose the majority in November and allowing millions of illegals to cross the border within next two years. Our option is either amnesty, losing our majority and millions more illegals coming to America or to pass Pence's bill. My prayer is that we realize the principled approach to Pence's plan is our best hope of finally shutting down the borders and sending all the illegals home.

Timing is everything in politics. Late next month, just as the conference committee that will decide the fate of an immigration bill gets down to business, a GOP primary for a Utah House seat in the country's most conservative congressional district may set the boundaries for any legislation that has a chance of passing both the House and Senate.

Illegal immigration is the key issue in the race, and should five-term incumbent Rep. Chris Cannon of Provo lose to a restrictionist challenger, look for House Republicans to dig in their heels and block any bill that creates a path to citizenship for illegal aliens.

"House Republicans are already spooked about immigration, and should one of our own lose on the issue, you will see panic break out," one GOP congressman told me. At the same time, several GOP pollsters, led by Whit Ayres, say their surveys show it is vital that Republicans pass some immigration bill this year to prove they can govern.

That's why it's good news that the glimmer of a workable compromise surfaced this week, courtesy of Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, head of the Republican Study Committee, a group of 115 conservative House Republicans. Mr. Pence, proud grandson of an Irish immigrant, says the only bill that can pass in this year's hothouse environment may have to be one that couples stiffer border enforcement with a no-amnesty guest-worker program.

His proposal would have the U.S. government contract with gold-standard private employment agencies such as Kelly Services to establish offices called Ellis Island Centers in countries that supply the most illegal alien labor today. The centers would provide an incentive for illegals to leave the country and apply for guest-worker visas in the U.S. that would be granted within a week by matching workers with jobs employers can't fill with American workers. They would also make criminal and other background checks. Guest workers would be able to apply for citizenship, but they would have to follow current rules with no favoritism over those now waiting legally in line.

"It would encourage illegal aliens to self-deport and come back legally as guest workers," says Mr. Pence. "They would benefit from no longer living in fear or in the shadows of life and they could return home for visits. And since employers who hired anyone without such a visa would face stiff fines, it would make it increasingly difficult over time for those who weren't legal guest workers to get jobs."

His proposal is already building bridges between the warring immigration camps. Tamar Jacoby, a pro-immigration scholar at the Manhattan Institute, says the Pence approach is a middle ground that bypasses the cumbersome federal bureaucracy. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a fierce opponent of President Bush's approach to immigration, is also conciliatory. "A guest worker program I think can be on the table if it does not contain an amnesty," he says.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Pence's approach immediately drew fire from the extremes of the debate. Nativo Lopez, president of the Mexican American Political Association, who helped organize an economic boycott by illegal aliens earlier this month, demands "immediate legalization without conditions." He opposes any guest-worker programs, calling them an infringement on the rights of those who want to come to America.

Just as hostile was Rep. Tom Tancredo, leader of Congress's anti-immigration hard-liners. He posted an appeal to his supporters on the Web site of his political action committee to "call Pence at [his Washington office's number] and let him know that you do not support his 'no amnesty' amnesty," He says the Pence proposal is merely "dressed up amnesty."

Given the virulence of the attacks on him by both sides, perhaps Mr. Pence is on to something. An approach along these lines may be the only thing that can pass Congress this year should Mr. Cannon go down to defeat. Right now, things don't look good for the Utah Republican. His standing among party activists has clearly been weakened by the images of recent mass demonstrations of illegal aliens. In the final round of voting at the GOP state convention two weeks ago, Mr. Cannon was outpolled, 52% to 48%, by political newcomer John Jacob. Because no one won the necessary 60% of the convention vote to avoid a primary, the two will go head to head at the ballot box June 27.

Mr. Jacob, a wealthy businessman, has already spent $335,000 of his own money on the race and pledges to spend close to that from now until the primary. Two years ago, Rep. Cannon faced a similar primary challenge, from former state legislator Matt Throckmorton. Mr. Throckmorton benefited from $80,000 in radio and billboard ads donated by anti-immigration groups upset by Mr. Cannon's strong support of a guest-worker approach. But Mr. Cannon outspent him 8 to 1.

The final Dan Jones & Associates survey in that race gave Mr. Cannon a 58% to 17% lead over the challenger. Mr. Cannon got exactly that--58%--with all the balance going to Mr. Throckmorton. "What the incumbent usually has in polls is what the incumbent gets," says pollster Kellyanne Conway. "They are the known quantity, and they rarely get above their final poll number." Mr. Cannon currently leads Mr. Jacob, 48% to 28%.

"There's clearly some anti-incumbent toxicity out there," Mr. Cannon admitted to Salt Lake City's Deseret Morning News. Indeed, only one of the state's three other GOP congressmen is publicly backing Mr. Cannon. Gov. John Huntsman told reporters he wasn't making an endorsement in the race. "I'll be waiting (until after the primary). That's only fair."

A loss by Mr. Cannon would have profound political consequences. Conservative activist Grover Norquist has called the Utah congressman "the president's strongest ally in maintaining a pro-immigrant GOP." Mr. Cannon has long been one of the few members to point out the genuine need the U.S. economy has for new workers. He has publicly chided some of his colleagues for "demagoguing the immigration issue--some to raise money, some for attention." He has pointed out that some anti-immigration groups have ties to environmental and population-control extremists.

But Mr. Cannon has also had a political tin ear on immigration for some years, and that may prove his undoing. Despite his claim that he has been "working against illegal immigration for ten years," until early May his campaign Web site failed to list immigration among the 11 top campaign issues it touted.

He is also haunted by a speech he made in 2002 while accepting an award from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. Captured by C-Span, the speech included Mr. Cannon's statement that "we love immigrants in Utah. And we don't make the distinction very often between legal and illegal. In fact, I think Utah was the first state in the country to legislate the ability to get a driver's license based on the matricula consular [a Mexican government ID], and of that I'm proud." Mr. Cannon says his remarks were taken out of context, and he sent out a videotape to every delegate to the GOP convention carefully explaining his immigration stance.

His challenger, Mr. Jacob, appears to be a conventional conservative. But he has made ugly statements about immigration. He told the Salt Lake Tribune that hiring undocumented workers is tantamount to slavery, an absurd and offensive comparison. He asks, "Why are we creating this subculture that, like in France, will burn out cars?"--never mind that illegal aliens have been largely peaceful and law-abiding (with the notable exception of the Salvadoran MS-13 crime gang).

That Mr. Cannon is now an underdog in a Congressional district where the new Dan Jones poll still shows President Bush enjoying a 65% approval rating is a sign that the politics of immigration are changing. Here are other signs:

• Rep. Tom Osborne, the legendary University of Nebraska football coach, who lost a GOP primary for governor this month, says he was defeated in part because he backed a bill that made children of illegal immigrants eligible for in-state tuition rates at Nebraska colleges. "I don't think [voters] really understood" his position, he told the Associated Press.

• Rep. Chris Shays, a leading GOP moderate from Connecticut, told me his recent town-hall meetings in his upper-income district have convinced him he must oppose citizenship for illegal aliens.

• Of the 17 House Democrats who face the toughest races this fall, 13 voted for the get-tough bill passed by the House last December. And some of the 17 Republicans who voted against the enforcement-only House bill are having second thoughts. Rep. Mark Souder, who saw his vote percentage drop about 10 points against the same hapless challenger he faced in the 2004 primary, says, "there is a pot boiling out there. We've got to secure the border first."

• Even Sen. John McCain, one of the main backers of a comprehensive immigration solution, made a bow to the passions behind the immigration issue when he addressed the same GOP convention in Utah that rebuffed Rep. Cannon. "The present system is broke. It's a failed federal policy," he told the GOP delegates. "We need a comprehensive approach, but first we have to fix our borders."


When John McCain talks about securing the border first, you know the politics of the debate are shifting. That means supporters of a rational approach that goes beyond mere fence-building and enforcement have to be realistic about what is possible this year--especially should Rep. Cannon lose.
So far, the White House and Republican National Committee are behind the curve. Last Friday, the RNC circulated a memo by Matthew Dowd, a strategist who worked on both of President Bush's two campaigns. "The comprehensive approach that emphasizes both security and compassion is unifying, not polarizing. It is supported by Republicans, independents and Democrats," the memo said. "Voters don't consider granting legal status to those already here amnesty."

That may be true, but the Bush administration frankly has to acknowledge that its weak poll numbers and clumsy post-Katrina image have hurt its standing on the immigration issue with Republicans in Congress. "There is not a lot of credibility right now with the administration on securing the border and enforcing the law," Rep. Ric Keller of Florida told the Washington Post.

So long as that perception holds, look for Speaker Dennis Hastert to hold firm on his position that he won't bring a House-Senate compromise immigration bill to the floor if it doesn't enjoy the support of a majority of GOP lawmakers. Right now, House insiders say about 75% of his troops are adamantly opposed to adopting even a weakened version of the Senate's path-to-citizenship approach.

The longer the stalemate continues, the more both President Bush and the GOP Congress may eventually view what Rep. Pence calls his "rational middle ground" as a useful strategy. The Pence bill is too heavy on discredited enforcement methods for my taste, but the more urgent political priority is to pass something this year. In policy terms, doing nothing would only make the immigration problem worse and push the debate into the overheated environment of a presidential campaign, which could result in even worse legislation. As for the politics, South Carolina's Sen. Lindsey Graham told the Los Angeles Times that if congressional Republicans can't get a bill passed, "we will do to Bush on immigration what Democrats did to him on Social Security. It would be a signal to the country at large that we as Republicans, who own the whole government, can't solve hard problems."

For all its limitations, Rep. Pence's proposal is an innovative idea that can be used as a platform on which to build upon in the future. In the current political storm, it may be a port worth seeking shelter near.

Is Cannon Fodder?
One GOP congressman may lose his seat for his pro-immigration views, while another offers a compromise.

Top 10 actions that Mike Pence's plan will achieve

 

1. Pass HR 4437
HR 4437 is the House Border security bill that was passed last December. It secures our border and issues tough new fines and sanctions against employers hiring illegal aliens. HR 4437 must be passed. The Pence plan is the only way to do that. The Senate simply will not vote on HR 4437 as it stands. Pence’s plan would force them to vote on it totally intact. Sadly, politics, particularly in the Senate, dictates that Pence’s plan is the only viable option. Politically, this is the only play for conservatives who want to solve the problem.

2. The border will be secured
Enough said. HR 4437 will help secure our Southern border and stop the incursion on our Southern border. “A Nation without Borders is not a nation” and that is why HR 4437 must be passed by the Senate.

3. Interior laws will be enforced
Pence’s plan will put strict new fines and penalties against employers hiring illegals as well as enforcing old ones. Offenders will face huge fines, loss of license and even prison if they violate Federal law. Pence envisions that around the third year that NO employer will risk prosecution when it will be so easy and cheap to hire legal Guest Workers.
This will dry up illegal jobs.

4. NO path to citizenship will be granted
A great part of Pence’s plan is that it will not reward any of the 10 to 12 million illegal aliens who broke the law with a path to citizenship. Should an illegal alien return home and then be eligible for a guest worker card then he would have to learn English if he wants a renewal after two years. After six years if he wants to stay in the United States he would have to enter a separate and unrelated process of permanent immigrant status or citizenship. He would have to do so at the end of the line. His Guest Worker status would end after six years after which he would either go home or get in the back of the line for citizenship.

5. Anchor baby citizenship will end
Pence is a co sponsor of a provision to end anchor babies. Under the Pence plan a Guest Worker’s newborn child would have no citizenship rights to the United States. That baby would be a citizen of his\her home country rather than the U.S. where they would simply be a “guest.”

6. Removes all 10 to 12 million illegal aliens for United States
The Pence plan says that all illegal aliens in the United States must go home. Pence’s method is self deportation. Pence says self deportation will work in two ways.
First being the new enforcement standards combined with the old existing enforcement standards. Employers simply will not be able to continue to hire illegal aliens without facing huge fines, loss of license, and\or prison. Jobs for illegals will dry up and they will go home because of that.

Second is the incentive to go home quickly and get right with the law. Pence predicts that the illegals will see that there will only be so many guest worker cards available and that staying here illegally is no longer viable. They will race home to get “right with the law” because no one wants to be late signing up when there are no slots available.
Once we enforce both existing law and the new law, illegal jobs will dry up.
Pence’s plan will end catch and release .Those who do not self deport will be deported immediately once they cause an interior infraction.

7. There will no longer be “undocumented workers”After the three year initial implementation phase there simply will be no such thing as “undocumented workers.” At that point all of our guests will have proper fraud-proof documents (cards) or they will be sent home. Ending undocumented workers is a huge step.

8. Private Sector
The Pence plan uses the private sector without adding government bureaucracy. Pence uses private employment firms and uses private companies to issue the Guest worker cards which will be like your bank and credit cards, fraud proof. The Guest worker cards would be wallet sized like the cards endorsed by the President. Employers will swipe the cards to verify the Guest workers eligible status. Border patrol and Law enforcement will be able to swipe the cards and determine status. If a guest worker is fired or convicted of a crime the card will be cancelled terminating that guests legal status. Pence’s free market ideas will end government bureaucracy at zero cost to taxpayers.

9. Secures the border first.
Pence’s plan is great because it secures the border first. He realizes that this is the first step and all else comes after. We most stop the flow of illegals on our Southern border now. The President called for 6,000 more border patrol agents and the use of the National guard in the interim. Pence welcomes that call, but Pence says it is not enough. HR 4437
adds port of entry inspectors, ends catch and release, puts to use American technology and will build a barrier on at least 700 miles of our Southern border.

10. We will control our border
Pence provides the action plan that will bring a new day to our Southern border. Instead of “coyotes,” drug runners and felons ruling the border, The United States of America will control the border. Seal the border, send the illegals home, then we will get to decide who we let back in the country. We will know who is in our country. National Security, for one, dictates that we must do it now. After the three year mark we will be in a different situation regarding our border in America from where we are now. The border will be secure, the flow of illegals on our Southern border will be stopped. Most illegals will have self deported and either stayed home or come back legally to a temporary job. Those who are still here illegally should be small enough in number that law enforcement can and will pursue. Those illegals here will certainly be jobless because employers at this point wouldn’t be willing to face the risk associated with hiring illegals.


The one thing that is for sure in this tough debate is that the status quo is unacceptable. We simply cannot abide by two years of illegal immigrant flow into our country. We must seal the border now. HR 4437 is the only way to do that. We must pass HR 4437. The paleos say no bill is better than a bad bill. They are right. They say no bill is better than Pence’s bill. They are wrong. They say Pence has compromised. They are right. They say he has compromised law and order and advocated amnesty. They are dead wrong and they know it. The fact is Pence knows he would have to give up something to the Senate and that would have to be a guest worker program. So Pence came up with the most conservative guest worker program imaginable. They all have to go home and none will be on a path to citizenship. Some paleos call this Amnesty which proves they label everything they do not like amnesty. Paleos used to say they want HR 4437 passed, I am now not so sure. These people really want no bill at all and they want disaster in November.

Pence has admitted he has compromised on some points but he did not compromise on amnesty and his conservative principle. Where he did compromise is on the debate of whether we need a guest worker program at all and whether there are “jobs Americans will not do.” He surrendered these points to the guest worker lobby for strategic reasons knowing that a stalemate on the bill was imminent. That was unacceptable. Two more years of the status quo is unacceptable to Pence. Our sovereignty is in jeopardy as is our national Security. Pence also stepped up for reasons of patriotic loyalty to our nation. Pence knows that if our party does not keep its promise and secure our border then the American people simply will not re-elect Republican majorities in November. Pence knows what Democrat power and rule will mean to the War on terror. Pence knows that our party is divided and someone must step up and bridge the gap. Pence has stepped out on a limb by himself for all of us and we should be grateful. These are the selfless actions of a true statesman. Lord knows Pence doesn’t need this kind of slander and could have easily kicked the can down the road.

Pence reveals immigration plan at Heritage Foundation

 

Here is Mike Pence's entire speech at the Heritage Foundation.

I come before you today in the midst of a national debate over immigration reform. While I acknowledge that, as the New York Times stated Sunday, we are near the “end game” on immigration reform in the United States Senate, we are far from reaching the kind of compromise that would make a legislative outcome possible in this session of Congress. I bring these remarks in the hopes of offering a new approach and a real middle ground on immigration reform.

One week ago President Bush set out his views on immigration reform to the American people. He stated: “There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation.”

I agree with the President that a rational middle ground can be found between amnesty and mass deportation, but I disagree with the President that amnesty is the middle ground. Amnesty is not the real rational middle ground. In the coming days I will introduce the Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act, which as I will discuss today sets forth a real rational middle ground between amnesty and mass deportations.

The Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act is a bill that is tough on border security and tough on employers who hire illegal aliens, but recognizes the need for a guest worker program that operates without amnesty and without growing into a huge new government bureaucracy. I believe that it is a strong alternative to the amnesty plan being debated by the Senate and pushed by the President, and I hope that it will serve as an attractive alternative to Members of the House.

As the grandson of an Irish immigrant, I believe in the ideals that are enshrined on the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor. Located on a plaque on Lady Liberty’s pedestal are the words of Emma Lazarus from the “New Colossus”:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

America always has been and always will be a welcoming nation, welcoming under the law any and all with the courage enough to come to this shining city on a hill. But, a nation without borders is not a nation, and across this country Americans are anxious about the security of our border.

Every night Americans see news images of people crossing the border illegally; they hear tales of people paying thousands of dollars to so-called “coyotes” to smuggle them into the country; they worry that drugs will make their way into the hands of their children more readily; and they rightly fear that our porous borders make it more likely that terrorists will cross with deadly intentions against our families.

In 2005, Customs and Border Patrol stopped 1,189,114 people from illegally crossing the border. Of that number, approximately 165,000 were from countries other than Mexico. Over 200 were from Middle Eastern countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and others.

The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that twelve million illegal aliens are currently living in America. Just a few months ago, that estimate was eleven million. In a few more months or years, that estimate will grow to thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, twenty or more million illegal aliens, unless we do something to turn the tide.

And, we must do something because this is a problem of epic proportions. It is a problem that threatens the very fabric of America. Every time I am home in Indiana, I hear about this issue from my constituents. Hoosiers are concerned. Americans are concerned. I am concerned.

We can control our borders. At the same time, we can find a real rational middle ground for dealing with the illegal immigrants currently in America. A lot of people in Washington are talking about what we can do, but the solutions they are offering, up to this point, are not workable and they are not acceptable to millions of hard-working Americans who believe in law and order and the American Dream.

The Senate is debating a bill that will provide amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Amnesty is no solution. It only will worsen the problem because it will cause more people to come here illegally with the hope of someday having their status adjusted.

I see the solution as a four-step process. Securing our border is the first step. The second step is to make the decision, once and for all, to deny amnesty to people whose first act in the United States was a violation of the law. The third step is to put in place a guest worker program, without amnesty, that will efficiently provide American employers with willing guest workers who come to America legally. The final step is tough employer sanctions that ensure a full partnership between American business and the American government in the enforcement of our laws on immigration and guest workers.

On border security, the House of Representatives got off to a great start in December 2005 when we passed H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. The Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee were able to put together a strong bill that will secure our borders.

The House-passed bill was a first step. In fact, my bill begins by including the House bill, with a couple of minor changes. The House got it right, and aside from removing the felony provision for illegal presence and clarifying that no one is trying to put Good Samaritans behind bars, I am keeping this language as-is. We must take a tough approach on securing this nation’s borders. I have said it once today and will say it again, “A nation without borders is not a nation.”

Therefore, we must make America a nation with borders. We must man the door. I believed that in December 2005 when I voted for the House bill, and I believe it now.

The President called for 6,000 more Border Patrol agents and the use of the National Guard in the interim. I welcome that call and support it, but it is not enough. The House-passed bill adds port of entry inspectors, ends catch and release, puts to use American technology such as unmanned aerial vehicles, and requires the building of a security fence across approximately 700 miles of our Southern border.

These are the kind of actions that will bring about a new day on our border. Instead of “coyotes,” drug-runners and criminals ruling the border, American law enforcement will rule the border. Instead of terrorists having the ability to sneak through a porous border, they will find a secure border hardened to prevent their illegal entry.

However, as I have been thinking about securing our border, a thought kept coming back to me. So many of the people crossing the border are not crossing for nefarious or devious reasons. The great majority of illegal border crossers do so in order to find work or to be with family members working in America.

I have come to believe that securing the border would be much easier and allow for a better use of our resources if we could eliminate these people from the ranks of those crossing the border illegally. The House bill will secure our border, but it will do it even better when its provisions can concentrate just on those illegal border crossers who are criminals, drug dealers and possible terrorists. In order to do that, there must be a legal means for the great majority of people seeking temporary work to come to America.

A few months ago a very dedicated and resolute American came to me with an idea. Her name is Helen Krieble, and she is here with us today. Thank you, Helen, for being here.

Helen is the founder and president of The Vernon K. Krieble Foundation, a private foundation dedicated to public policy and America’s Founding principles. She is on the front-lines in this debate, literally. She hires ten guest workers each year for her business, the Colorado Horse Park, which is a major equestrian and events center in Parker, Colorado. She hires them legally, but as she can tell you, it isn’t easy. The bureaucracy is confounding.

So, she came to me with an idea. She asked why we couldn’t have a no amnesty guest worker program run by the private market instead of the government. Helen’s idea represents the core of the Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act, and I readily acknowledge that. Helen is living proof that the best ideas don’t come from Washington, DC, but come from the creative minds of men and women living the American Dream.

Step two is to say no to amnesty in any form. My bill offers a no amnesty solution to the problem of twelve million illegal aliens living in our country. Some argue that there is no amnesty if these twelve million illegal aliens are required to pay a fine or back taxes. The President and many in the Senate seem to believe this to be the proper path.

There is no support back home in my district for amnesty, and this has nothing to do with race or ethnic discrimination. It has everything to do with the fundamental belief of every American in law and order. America is, and always has been, a welcoming society. This sentiment is essentially an expression of a moral principal. The ancient words, “Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him for you were aliens in Egypt,” reflect the sentiment of millions of Americans who share this compassionate view of the illegal aliens in our midst. But, there still is no support back home for amnesty.

Amnesty is allowing people whose first act in America was an illegal act to get right with the law without leaving the country. Allowing twelve million illegal aliens to stay in our country instead of leaving and coming back legally is amnesty, no matter if fines or back taxes are paid, or how it is otherwise dressed-up or spun by its proponents. The only way to deal with these twelve million people is to insist that they leave the country and come back legally if they have a job awaiting them.

But people ask, “Congressman, if you’re not going to provide amnesty, what are you going to do with twelve million illegal aliens”?

They recognize it is not logistically possible to round-up twelve million illegal aliens, put them on buses and conduct a mass deportation. It also is not realistic to think that some American businesses can operate without these workers. And, it is unreasonable to think that people who came to America illegally and found jobs will voluntarily leave those jobs and opportunities without knowing whether they can return legally.

Therefore, the solution is to setup a system that will encourage illegal aliens to self-deport and come back legally as guest workers. This may sound outside of the box, and it is. It may sound far-fetched and unrealistic, but it isn’t. It is based on sound, proven conservative principles. It places reliance on American enterprise and puts government back into its traditional role of protecting its citizens. Let me explain to you how it will work.

Private worker placement agencies that we could call “Ellis Island Centers” will be licensed by the federal government to match willing guest workers with jobs in America that employers cannot fill with American workers. U.S. employers will engage the private agencies and request guest workers. In a matter of days, the private agencies will match guest workers with jobs, perform a health screening, fingerprint them and provide the appropriate information to the FBI and Homeland Security so that a background check can be performed, and provide the guest worker with a visa granted by the State Department. The visa will be issued only outside of the United States.

Outside of the United States. That is a key point because it is the provision that will require the twelve million illegal aliens to leave. Now, some of you are thinking to yourselves that twelve million people aren’t going to pack up and leave just to get a visa to come back legally. But, I believe most will.

The process that I just described to you will only take a matter of one week, or less. That is the beauty of the program. Speed is so important. No employer in America wants to lose employees for an extended amount of time. No worker who is earning money to feed and clothe a family can afford to be off the job for long.

But, an employer faced with a looming requirement to verify the legality of its employees and stiff fines for employing illegal aliens will be willing to use a quick system to obtain legal employees. And, an illegal alien currently employed in America will be willing to take a quick trip across the border to come back outside of the shadows and in a job where he does not fear a raid by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In fact, I envision employers working with placement agencies to make sure that their long-time illegal employees get their paperwork processed, background checks performed, and visas issued so that they will be back on the job quickly.

Imagine for a moment asking millions of people to line up at the U.S. Consulate in Mexico City to obtain a visa to come to America and work as a guest worker. It would be a disaster. Now, imagine private companies competing against each other to process guest worker applicants and match the applicants with open jobs. Imagine the application of American business ingenuity to this process. That, my friends, is why this program will work.

Let me give you a few other details on the guest worker program. The visas will be referred to as “W Visas.” (No kidding.) I think it is obvious whose support we are trying to garner here. Seriously, the W Visa results from a fortuitous instance of bill drafting. The code already has visa categories for letters A through V, so W is the next open letter. The W Visa, without amnesty, would be the real rational middle ground that the President has called our nation to in this debate.

Now, for some less interesting details. First, the number of guest workers will be limited. After the program is up and running, there will be a period of three years when the market and the needs of U.S. employers will set the limit on the number of guest workers. Not letting the market and the needs of employers govern the number of guest workers initially will prevent illegal aliens from being willing to self-deport. No one wants to be one number over the limit, and that person will want to come here or stay here illegally.

But, after three years of this program, we should be in a vastly different situation from where we are now. The great majority of illegal aliens will have self-deported and come back into a confirmed job. The number of those who don’t should be a manageable number for law enforcement to pursue and employers to terminate. Therefore, after three years of the program, a reasonable limit on the number of W Visas will be determined by the Department of Labor based on employment statistics, employer needs and other research. After the three-year window has closed, this limit will be strictly enforced. Thus, the three-year window will provide even greater incentive to those who are currently illegal to enter into and comply with the new guest worker program.

There also will be a limit on the amount of time a guest worker can spend in America. Guest workers will be allowed to renew their W Visas, but only for a period of up to six years. At that point, the guest should decide whether to return home or enter the separate process of seeking citizenship. We cannot have people coming to America as permanent guest workers. That is why having a six-year limit is important. It keeps the meaning of the word “guest” in guest worker.

In order to receive their first renewal, guest workers will be required to study English and pass an English proficiency class. If America is willing to invite you to come and work, I believe that after two years of working here, the guest worker should be willing and able to speak basic English. They also will be required to pass an updated background check. We are not going to allow criminals to come and work in America.

The bill will require employers to treat guest workers fairly and to follow employment laws. Employment taxes will be paid. Workers will be allowed to change jobs within a certain time period without having to leave the country. No worker will be trapped in a job with an abusive employer.

The W Visas themselves will be issued in the form of secure wallet-sized cards, similar to the cards described and endorsed by the President. Employers will swipe them to verify the guest worker’s eligibility. Border patrol agents will swipe the cards to confirm the guest worker is allowed to enter the country. The card will contain information about the job the guest worker is coming to perform, and it will contain personal and biometric information so that the guest worker can be tracked. If a guest worker is fired, convicted of a crime, or just disappears, the card will be cancelled, preventing another employer from hiring the person.

Before going to a placement agency with a job, U.S. employers must try to hire American workers. They will have to attest their efforts to the agency. Believe me, this is a tough requirement that will protect the American worker because people will be watching and checking-out employers. Our society has many watchdogs, and I have no doubt that people will be watching to make sure that if an American could be hired, he or she is hired.

With a guest worker program in place, there is no reason why an employer ever should hire or continue to employ an illegal alien. Employers who choose to operate outside of the system, however, must face tough fines in order to be made to comply. That is what the enforcement system and the new fine structure will do.

The strict employer enforcement contained in the House-passed bill is contained in my bill. It sets forth a nationwide electronic employment verification system through which employers will verify the legality of each prospective and current employee. Right now employers are put in a no-win situation. Under the law, they must accept employees with documents that reasonably appear on their face to be genuine. They cannot challenge such documents without risking a lawsuit.

We all know that the use of counterfeit documents by illegal aliens is widespread. To combat this problem, employers need a system through which they can quickly and accurately verify whether an employee is legal. Under the guest worker program, the W Visa cards will be easy to verify, with each worker’s personal and biometric information. However, some will continue to try to use old, fake documents. We must weed out these people.

Under this enforcement system, each employer will transmit its employees’ names and Social Security or alien identification numbers to a confirmation office that will compare the names and numbers to Social Security and Homeland Security records. Within a few days, the employer will be notified of the results, and if an employee is ineligible there is a period of ten days to perform a secondary verification. If after that, the employee is still ineligible the employer should dismiss the employee. Continuing to employ an unverifiable person will be subject to serious monetary penalties and fines.

As a final incentive, my bill requires that in order to hire a guest worker, the employer must be a participant in the employment verification system. Participation in the system is phased-in over a period of two to six years. However, my bill allows employers to voluntarily join the system before they are required to participate in order to hire guest workers. This puts enforcement at the work site first.

Employer enforcement is the key. Once in place, jobs for illegal aliens will dry up. Why hire an illegal alien when you can hire a legal guest worker and eliminate the possibility of a big fine? Why stay in the country illegally when you can quickly return home and come back as a legal guest worker?

So, is all of this pie-in-the-sky? Only if you do not believe in the private market or American business. Only if you do not believe that Americans are a willing and open-minded people. Only if you do not believe in the desire of those who are here illegally to have the opportunity to get right with the law.

We can do this. I believe the Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act is a solution that conservatives can embrace. I believe this legislation is a solution that those opposing amnesty can embrace. I believe this proposal offers a solution that those calling for humane treatment of the illegal aliens in our midst can embrace. And, I believe that this solution is one the American people can embrace. This is the real rational middle ground.

I mentioned at the outset that I am the grandson of an Irish immigrant. I take my name, Michael Richard from his. Richard Michael Cawley came to this country on a boat from Ireland and stepped onto Ellis Island, in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty, in the early 20th century. Like millions who came before and since, that frightened teenage boy had a simple dream, a dream expressed when his mother handed him the one-way ticket and said, “you have a future there”, a dream we call the American Dream.

My grandfather grew up in a two room house in farm country east of a small village called Tubbercurry, Ireland. When I saw that home the summer after he died, I better understood a moment we shared just a few weeks before he went home to be with the Lord.

It was the fall of 1980 and my father had finally given in to my mother’s wish for a bigger house and the two-story, 4,000 square foot home in Columbus, Indiana seemed like a palace to all of us…especially my grandfather. When I walked into the house, I saw grandpa sitting alone in the family room and I noticed his eyes were moist with emotion. When I asked if he was alright, he quietly replied in a gentle Irish brogue, “I just never thought a child of mine would live in a house like this..”. My grandpa, like my mom and dad, lived the American Dream. He got off that boat an Irish lad, he died an American, and I am an American because of him.

Immigration Reform is about renewing the American Dream. We renew the American Dream by reaffirming our commitment to legal immigration. We renew the American Dream by giving those who have made their way into our country illegally, an opportunity to come out of the shadows. We renew the American Dream by creating a system that recognizes the dignity and worth of every person in this One Nation Under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

The Pence Plan

 

Time Magazine outlined Pence's new immigration plan, which he gave a speech at the Heritage Foundation reviling his proposal. His entire speech will be here tomorrow so please check it out.

With the Senate headed toward a final vote on an immigration bill this week, a leader of House conservatives is asking his colleagues to support a free-market plan aimed at bridging the gulf between the versions in the two chambers. The proposal by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), provided to TIME ahead of an unveiling speech at the Heritage Foundation, is arguably less compassionate than the version being debated in the Senate and supported in principle by President George W. Bush. But it looks to be more palatable to House Republicans, many of whom have opposed creating a guest worker program before new border crackdowns have been given a chance to work.

Pence, a rising star in the House, is suggesting a temporary worker program based on a database run by private industry. And unlike the leading plan in the Senate and the blueprint sketched by Bush, his “Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act” would require all applicants to leave the country first. Pence tweaks a phrase from Bush’s address to the nation by calling the compromise “a REAL rational middle ground.” Even though Bush has said his preferred solution “ain’t amnesty,” Pence appeals to hard-liners by calling the compromise a “no-amnesty solution.”

“The solution is to set up a system that will encourage illegal aliens to self-deport and come back legally as guest workers,” Pence, the grandson of an Irish immigrant, says in prepared remarks. “The visa will be issued only outside of the United States. Outside of the United States. That is a key point because it is the provision that will require the 12 million illegal aliens to leave. Now, some of you are thinking to yourselves that 12 million people aren’t going to pack up and leave just to get a visa to come back legally. But, I believe most will.”

The leading Senate plan would allow workers who have been in the country five years to remain as guest workers, on the theory that they have deep ties to their community. Those in the United States two to five years would have to go to a border crossing to apply, and those here less than two years would have to return to their home countries to be considered. Bush has not endorsed particulars, but said in his address to the nation that it makes sense to differentiate between “an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently, and someone who has worked here for many years, and has a home, a family, and an otherwise clean record.”

Pence, a lawyer and former radio and television host, is chairman of the Republican Study Committee, the caucus of House conservatives, but the group did not offer the plan because it’s split on how to handle immigration overhaul. Pence’s official biography calls him “a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order.”

His plan includes all the security measures of the bill that has already passed the House, and adds a provision for guest worker visas would be good for two years. A limited renewal would be available if the worker studied English and passed an English proficiency class. Federal law already has visa categories A through V. “The visas will be referred to as ‘W Visas,’ ” Pence say in his remarks. “No kidding. I think it is obvious whose support we are trying to garner here.”

Pence’s measure would create private worker placement agencies called Ellis Island Centers, licensed by the federal government to match approved guest workers with jobs that cannot be filled by Americans — a variation on an idea offered by Bush back in January 2004. “U.S. employers will engage the private agencies and request guest workers,” Pence says. “In a matter of days, the private agencies will match guest workers with jobs, perform a health screening, fingerprint them and provide the appropriate information to the FBI and Homeland Security so that a background check can be performed, and provide the guest worker with a visa granted by the State Department.”

Bush said Monday in Chicago that he understands the emotions about immigration, and that it is “a tough issue for members to vote on.” He promised that if he disagrees with someone, he is “not going to debase them in the public arena.” The question is how hard he will lean on them in private. And whether an illegal worker will leave the shadows, if they also have to leave the country.

Leading House Conservative Mike Pence offers a "no amnesty" solution in an effort to get House Republicans on board

Pence to push immigration reform

 

Date: May 23, 2006

Time: 12:00 noon

Speaker): The Honorable Mike Pence (R-IN)
United States House of Representatives and Chairman,
House Republican Study Committee

Host): Kim R. Holmes, Ph.D.
Vice President,
Foreign and Defense Policy Studies,
The Heritage Foundation

Location: The Heritage Foundation's Lehrman Auditorium

President Bush is correct to seek a rational middle ground concerning the various issues involved in reforming immigration policy. Representative Mike Pence has a new proposal to achieve that middle ground, based on a principled approach to addressing three key challenges:

Border Security – secure borders are crucial, especially in a time of terrorist threat, and preventing illegal entry and reducing unlawful presence in the United States is imperative;

Economic Security – incentives for illegal immigration should be replaced with a market-based option for legal tempo­rary labor; and

Citizenship Security – amnesty for illegal immigrants needs to be rejected, and our national commitment to welcoming and assimilating legal immigrants strengthened, with the goal of making them Americans.

Join us as Representative Pence addresses these core principles vital to genuine immigration reform.

Wins in budget bill

 

Here is an article by The Washington Times about Pence and House conservatives on the wins this week with the Budget Bill.


House conservatives say they scored key spending reform victories in the $2.7 trillion budget approved early yesterday, but major changes are needed to achieve the fiscal discipline promised when Republicans took over the chamber more than a decade ago.

"The budget, while not visionary, was an important first step," said Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican and chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC).

"There's a huge way to go," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, Texas Republican. "It takes time. ... It's like turning a battleship."

The House approved the blueprint for 2007 spending by a vote of 218-210 after weeks of negotiations between conservative and more liberal Republican factions. Twelve Republicans and all 197 House Democrats who voted opposed the bill, as did the one independent member. Four Democrats and one Republican did not vote.

Mr. Pence said conservatives' greatest victory was holding the line on President Bush's $873 billion limit for discretionary spending, despite what Mr. Pence said was "overwhelming pressure" from the more liberal wing to spend more.

"We stood firm; our leadership stood firm," he said.

Conservatives also highlighted "significant" victories secured from leaders during negotiations, including the promise of votes on line-item veto authority, inclusion of earmark reform in a recently passed lobbying reform bill, and a hard-fought provision that would define and limit "emergency" spending, making it more difficult to add pet projects to such legislation. For 2007, the budget sets that emergency level at $6.4 billion.

Mr. Bush praised the move in the House, and Majority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, called the budget "a major demonstration of Republicans' commitment to return fiscal discipline."

Conservatives said spending was still too high, that cuts to massive entitlement programs were inadequate and that the plan will raise the national debt.

The bill increases discretionary spending for defense and homeland security while holding other discretionary spending flat. It assumes $228 billion in tax relief and culls $6.8 billion in savings from entitlements programs over five years.

"Even though this budget still spends too much," the reform victories represent "a turning point in the battle over spending," Mr. Hensarling said.

He called the emergency spending item a crucial tool. "There is now at least a stoplight on the road to spending," he said.

Mr. Hensarling this week offered an RSC alternative modeled after the budget House Republicans approved in 1995. Called "Contract With America Renewed," it would have balanced the budget in five years, trimmed $358 billion from entitlement programs, capped annual Medicare growth, eliminated 150 federal programs and restructured three federal agencies. It was approved by 94 Republicans and opposed by 134, including 32 RSC members, even though nearly half of them supported the 1995 budget.

"There's been a shift" in the party since 1995, Mr. Pence said, but he was encouraged that House Republican leaders backed the RSC plan this week.

"This was truly an effort to return to the bold and visionary leadership of the '94 revolution," he said.

Democrats, meanwhile, argued that the budget approved by the House shortchanged key social programs to allow more tax cuts for the rich and increase debt.

"The misplaced priorities demonstrated in this budget are astounding," said Rep. Jim McGovern, Massachusetts Democrat.

House conservatives see wins in budget

Heartbreak and Heroes

 

Here is another journal entry from Mike Pence during his Middle East trip to a hospital in Germany to visit soldiers.

Heartbreak and Heroes: Our Visit to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center
Ramstein Air Base, Germany
May 9, 2006

On all of my five trips to our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I insisted on seeing the heroes before we go home...the injured soldiers at our medical center in Germany. As soon as any soldiers injured or ill can be safely moved, they are transported to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany. It is very common to meet soldiers, many who were manning a gun turret yesterday, resting in a hospital bed at Landstuhl today.

We began our tour in the intensive care unit. We stood aside as a soldier on a ventilator was rushed to a waiting plane and then home. We peered into the room of a Marine Corps Sergeant from Camp LeJuene. His wife is here. He was injured in battle just a few days ago. He was severely burned. The doctor said respectfully, "there isn't much we can do for him....he will not survive." I looked him in the face, wrote down his name and prayed. This moment broke my heart.

Spc. Christopher Rutter of Missouri was with the 101st Airborne in Iraq. He smiled broadly as we entered his room, actually making an effort to sit up until I urged him to be "at ease" with a smile. Chris was driving an up-armored humvee in central Iraq a few days ago when an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) was detonated under his vehicle. Chris told us how he managed to keep the vehicle on the road after the explosion despite severe injuries.

Both of his legs were amputated this weekend. We spoke about his future, his wife Amber and their plans to have kids. He was resolute. He had not an ounce of self pity. I promised to pray for him and Amber, and I thanked him for serving his country. Spc. Christopher Rutter of Missouri is a hero, plain and simple, and I told him so.

Pfc. Christopher Frazier is a Marine from Maine and a man of courage and compassion. Pfc. Frazier was sitting upright when we entered the room. Three days ago, he was serving as the gunner on a military truck in Iraq. They crossed a bridge and an IED ended the lives of the two other men in the vehicle, inflicting third-degree burns on Spc. Frazier's legs. He told us the "trigger man" was standing near the bridge but "I didn't worry about him cause he had two little kids with him." I asked him the names of the men in his unit who had lost their lives.

He hesitated then, dabbing tears away from his eyes, he spoke the names of David Vevrka, a 26 year-old soldier from Pennsylvania, and Dave Kelly, a 49 year-old soldier from Maine. His emotion came to the surface as he told us how Staff Sgt. David Vevrka saved his life. Sgt. Vevrka unbuckled himself to pull Chris out of the gun turret and was throw 60 feet from the vehicle sustaining severe head injuries. Spc. Frazier choked out, "he didn't make it cause he was helpin' me."

There wasn't a dry eye in the room. "No greater love has a man than this, that he should lay down his life for his friends." We assured Chris of our gratitude and prayers. We also promised to pray for the men who had lost their lives and their families. The Bible says, "the prayer offered up in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up." May God lift up and heal Pfc. Christopher Frazier.

There were others soldiers who we saw in other wards. Some were there with combat related injuries and some were there with illness. All of them are men and women far from home in the service of United States, and we repeated our thanks and admiration at every turn.

Before we left, I met Lt. Col. John Pamerleau of Muncie, Indiana. John grew up in a heartland city at the heart of my congressional district and has gone on to a position of great responsibility. He manages all the soldiers inbound from Afghanistan and Iraq, ensuring care and treatment of the highest order. A modest man, John spoke of his youth in Muncie with pride.

His mother, Maryanne Toomey, grew up in Muncie and his aunt Ferrell Toomey and many cousins still call Muncie home. We shared a meal and his insights on the war. He said, "A lot of the troops are really frustrated that the public isn't getting the whole story about the good things happening in Iraq." I thanked Lt. Col. Pamerleau for his service to the country, and he smiled as I told him, "Muncie would be proud!" And we are.

I write this in an Air Force jet somewhere over the northern Atlantic Ocean. The sights and sounds of this journey will stay with me for a lifetime and inform me as a Congressman and an American. We have great challenges ahead in Iraq and in the Arab world, but there is reason for hope. Like the democratic revolution that overtook the nation of Turkey in 1923, many nations in the Arab world are looking for a future of freedom.

In Jordan there are democratic reforms under way and a firm partnership with the United States. In Iraq, with American soldiers at their side, the good people of Iraq and its new Prime Minister are preparing to launch a new government based upon the principles of liberty. And in Turkey and Greece, we have allies determined to stand with the United States and the United Nations in confronting the tyranny and nuclear ambitions of Iran.

But I don't only base my confidence on hope. It is said that "hope that is seen is not hope" and what I have seen in the faces of American soldiers from Iraq to the hospital beds of Landstuhl is the real source of my confidence. I have seen in the eyes of our soldiers in Mosul, Baghdad and Ramstein the fixed gaze of men and women who have answered freedom's call and have not turned back.

So long as our nation continues to produce men and women of such courage and character, I believe with all my heart, no enemy...no where....shall prevail against us.

Rep. Mike Pence
Returning from Iraq
North Atlantic Ocean

Our last, best hope

 

Here is an article by Robert Bluey of Human Events explaining our last great hope for conservatism in Indiana's Mike Pence.

President Bush and Senate Republicans have given conservatives little to cheer about lately, but over in the House of Representatives, a band of conservative Republicans have held firm in conservative principles.

Thanks to the hard work and determination of Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.), chairman of the Republican Study Committee, conservatives still have hope for the future of the GOP.

Pence, the 2005 HUMAN EVENTS Man of the Year and the first member of Congress to start a blog, spoke to a group of 16 conservative bloggers during our weekly bloggers’ briefing today in Washington. Despite the troubles facing his party, Pence offered a positive, can-do message.

If Republicans are to have a chance this November, Pence said the GOP needed to get back to the basics on three issues:

-Limited government
-Fiscal discipline
-Rule of law

“If we fail to do these things,” Pence told us, “I think this fall could bode very ominous for the life of the conservative movement.”

When asked if a GOP loss of Congress might awaken the party, Pence said such an outcome would be disastrous. He cited the Democrats’ willingness to increase the size of government and abandon the U.S. effort in Iraq as reasons frustrated Republicans ought to think twice before pulling the lever for a Democrat this fall.

Pence said he foresaw conservatives’ displeasure early in President Bush’s first term when a group of 25 House Republicans stood firm in opposition to the No Child Left Behind Act. He said it happened again with the Medicare prescription drug bill—the largest entitlement since LBJ.

Other topics on Pence’s mind:

-He opposes the 527 “reforms” supported by House leadership. Pence told us Republicans are headed down a path that will eventually restrict nearly all freedom afforded to Americans when it comes to elections.

-He said Republicans need to stand up for a free-market economy. The GOP’s willingness to go along with price-gauging legislation was a mistake, Pence said.

-It’s inexcusable that Republicans aren’t able to get a bill passed to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration.

-When asked about immigration, he said, “It’s a safe bet the Senate will produce a bad bill on any topic.” He said House Republicans are resigned to the fact that the Senate will pass a bill that includes some form of amnesty.

Coming soon: Pence plans a major speech at the Heritage Foundation next week to make the case for a guest-worker plan. Yes, you read that correctly. Pence will throw his weight behind the Krieble Foundation’s guest-worker plan, which would require illegal immigrants to leave the United States and then apply for re-entry. More on that later.

Rep. Mike Pence: Our Last, Best Hope

Pence in Turkey

 

Here is the journal entry from Pence while visiting Turkey and discussing the seriousness of Iran and their ability to gain nuclear weapons.


Months ago, when we planned to visit Ankara, the capitol city of Turkey, on our way back from Iraq, little did we know that our visit would take place in the midst of swirling international developments regarding Iran.

I did not imagine that our meetings with the Foreign Minister of Turkey, Abdullah Gul, would take place while the UN was debating sanctions against Iran.

And I never imagined that our meeting with the General Secretary of Turkey’s National Security Council would take place in the same building and in the same conference room where the National Security Advisor of Iran had just concluded a meeting ten minutes earlier. But that’s just what happened.

Our day began with a short drive to the palatial residence of the Foreign Minister of Turkey, Abdullah Gul. A pleasant and earnest man, the Foreign Minister ushered us into a large conference room and offered a perfunctory welcome.

After I thanked our host for receiving us, I opened the meeting with reference to the fact that the United States values our relationship with Turkey, despite recent differences over our policy in Iraq. I reiterated the comments expressed by Secretary of State Rice in her visit to this country just two weeks ago and invited his comments on Iraq and Iran. Others expressed our concern over the recent meeting with Hamas in Turkey and urged a just resolution of the question of Armenian genocide.

The Foreign Minister leaned forward on his elbows and went to work explaining the Turkish view of each of the issues in an intense but friendly manner.

On Iraq, he expressed the long-standing position of Turkey that Iraq must remain a single country. He said the new government should “concentrate on Baghdad and should not think of separating the country." He urged a long view of the challenges we face in Iraq saying, “I believe for a long time, Iraq will keep us busy."

On the subject of withdrawal, he was equally blunt:
“We should not give up until we see a stable and democratic Iraq….a sudden or immediate withdrawal from Iraq by the United States would be a catastrophe."

Of the root causes of the insurgency:
“Iran’s influence is deepening.”

On the subject of Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, the Foreign Minister alluded to a meeting later in the day with a delegation from Iran that included Iran’s National Security Advisor Larijani. He said he expected the Iranians to argue that they needed nuclear power to meet their energy needs but added, “They cannot convince us. They have enough energy sources." He assured us that he would deliver a “strong message” that “nuclear program is wrong” and closed saying that on the subject of Iran’s nuclear program, “our policies are the same as United States.”

Later in the day we met with the civilian National Security Council headed by Ambassador Yigit Alpogan. Until very recently, this agency was the center of Turkey’s national security and is still housed in an opulent building of long corridors, red carpets and ceremonial military displays. We entered the conference room and sat at a long table facing our Turkish counterparts and learned, to our surprise, that the Iranian delegation left that room just ten minutes before we arrived. The topic: Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. We got right down to business.

I asked the Ambassador what insights he might share about the situation in Iran since Turkey had shared a border with Iran and had close dealings since about the 15th century.That was the moment that he informed us that the Iranians had just left and that he had been meeting with them for the past four hours.

He said that Iran had made its case: “they have complaints; they say they have been misunderstood…that they would like the right to have peaceful uses of nuclear energy."

Interestingly, he said that the Iranians “are open to inspections and transparency” saying that they assured him “they don’t have nothing to hide."

When we asked how he had responded, flanked by two military generals, the civilian head of Turkey’s national security said, “We are disturbed that they are intending to acquire nuclear weapons technology." Much later in the discussion, he would use this same phrase, “we told them we are disturbed."

When one colleague asked, “What are they really up to?”, the Foreign Minister replied in a nonchalant manner, “They want to develop a nuclear weapon as soon as possible.”

The Iranians apparently didn’t make their case.

Of solutions, the Foreign Minister stated emphatically that “the only way to solve the problem is through diplomatic matters." But he said he had made it clear to Iran that Turkey stand with the UN saying, “Turkey will abide by all means to any Security Council Resolution.” In all, it was an encouraging meeting with a friend who was willing to speak truth to their neighbor.

As we prepared to end the meeting, I told the Foreign Minister how grateful we were to be received on such a momentous day where he met with Iranian and American officials in the same day. To lighten the moment, I said, “I won’t ask you which meeting was more tedious!” Our host burst into laughter adding, “And I will not answer this question anyway!” A meeting among friends should always end in a spirit of friendship.

As we fly across Europe enroute to visit soldiers at our hospital in Germany, I am certain that while we are leaving Turkey behind, the topic of our attention in these high level meetings will be front and center for some time. I leave with a sense of the seriousness of this moment in contemporary world history. I also leave with a sense that, while we may differ from time to time with the government of Turkey, we have in this ancient land a friend of freedom and of the United States. And that will be an asset as the United States responds in Iraq and to Iran in the uncertain days that lie ahead.

Mike Pence
Ankara, Turkey

Back to Iraq

 

The next few days we will be looking at Mike Pence's journal entries of his visit to the Middle East, which today we will be looking at him leading the 1st American delegation to visit the new Iraqi prime minister.

BACK TO IRAQ

Sunday morning our day began at 4:00 am as we mustered our delegation for a 20-hour day in Operation Iraqi Freedom. As we approached the C-130 U.S. military aircraft awaiting us on the tarmac, we were issued flack jackets and helmets. We greeted our crew as we walked up the ramp under the tail of the idling aircraft. Next stop: Iraq.

Mosul, Iraq

Mosul is in the center of the Nineveh Province, which derives its name from the ancient city of Nineveh, the site of the events recorded in the Book of Jonah.

While this region is steeped in the history of the ancient world, our focus was present-day Mosul, which has become, after a difficult period of insurgent violence, a model for the rest of the Iraq.

We arrived at Mosul Air Field and were immediately escorted to an operations and intelligence briefing by the leader of the 101st Airborne Division, Brigadier General Rife, and his senior military and civilian staff. The story we heard was truly encouraging. During our briefing, and confirmed in later meetings with Iraqi civilian and police officials, we learned of a city of 2 million Sunni, Kurds, Shiite and Christians that is beginning to find its way to peace and prosperity after years of tyranny and insurgent violence. It was apparent that much of the success was owed to the lean forward Brigadier General who has transformed this area of operation into a success - but he would only reply, “I’ve got some awfully good men, sir.”

As we spoke of the success that has overtaken Mosul since the initial violence subsided, our military leaders insisted that the real story here is not just American success, but the product of an Iraqi police force determined to take control of this city.

The police chief at the center of that effort is Major General Al Hamdani. Sitting down with the chief we encountered a barrel-chested cop who seemed right off the streets of Chicago. Except for his Iraqi uniform and his dead-on likeness to Saddam Hussein, the chief projects the seriousness of any American law enforcement officer. With the support of his force of 1,500 police officers, Al Hamdani launched Operation Lion’s Hunt. The goal of Operation Lion' s Hunt is to introduce a strong police presence throughout Mosul and to clean out pockets of insurgents hiding among law-abiding citizens. Al Hamdani put it simply and emphatically, “I want to prove to the people of Mosul that the people are stronger than the insurgents." So far his forces have detained dozens of suspected terrorists and the relative quiet on the streets of this ancient city attest to the widening success of his efforts.

We also met with Vice Governor Kashmala, the second ranking official in the Province of Nineveh. This Kurdish leader turned civilian politician spoke candidly, through an interpreter, of the challenges facing their nation and the urgent need for patience by the American government. When I asked the Vice Governor, “Who are the insurgents and why are they fighting?" he offered a lengthy and illuminating explanation.

First, he suggested that many of the insurgents were former members of the Iraqi military who “had it good under Saddam." He went on to explain that when Mosul fell “without a fight” during major combat operations, the former military element abandoned the city, “because they were afraid they would be arrested." He then offered that, after months passed without action being taken to find or prosecute them, “they returned” and a period of significant insurgent violence overtook much of the city. Second, he said that trained terrorists were coming into Iraq from other countries intent on disrupting progress. Lastly, he reminded us that, at the beginning of the war, “Saddam released 100,000 criminals from the prisons” and suggested that many “quickly organized into gangs to loot our cities after the regime fell."

After our meetings with Iraqi officials and a quick tour of the base with General Rife, we headed to the mess hall for some lunch and time with soldiers from home. I must say that this time is, invariably, the most meaningful for me. While I value the word from our military leaders and Iraqi leaders, there is no substitute for lookin' a soldier in the eye, on a far frontier in the war on terror, and askin' him or her, “How’s it goin?"

I first sat down with Sgt. Russell Sanders of Reelville, Indiana. A big, burly soldier, Sanders exuded the quiet confidence of an Indiana farmer coming in from the field after a long day. I asked him, “What do you know now that you didn’t know before you came here?” He replied, “it’s not nearly as bad as I thought it was gonna be," adding matter-of-factly, “it’s goin' pretty good.” Then there was Sgt. Thomas Therron of Bloomington who complained, as many soldiers do, that “there’s a whole lot of good things that happen every day here that never make it on the news." Sgt. Mitchell Gearhart of Carmel smiled warmly as he talked about the friendliness of the people on the street of Mosul, “especially the kids, the kids are great."

One after another Indiana soldier exuded confidence, humility and a generous spirit toward the people of Iraq. As we prepared to leave and gathered the Hoosiers together for a quick group photograph, I noticed one Indiana soldier standing off on his own, so I approached him to offer a word of thanks and encouragement. He hardly needed any.

Lt. John Johanningsmeier is a tall, clear-eyed soldier from a little town called Scottsburg, Indiana. Scottsburg is a typical Indiana hamlet just south of my hometown. To look at him, you would never guess that this young man was in the middle of a war zone…he simply beamed of confidence and pride that would have made any Hoosier proud. I asked about his family and he brightened even further, telling me about the wife and two young kids who were waiting at home for the hero to return.

As we boarded our aircraft for Baghdad, I couldn’t help but wonder at the courage and optimism of every soldier I met, especially the Hoosiers. Morale is high. They are making a difference in Mosul. They are succeeding and they know it.

I will pray for these men and their loving families, and I will thank God all the days of my life that America and Indiana still make men like these.

Just landed in Baghdad…..more later.

Baghdad, Iraq

After a dramatic approach flight filled with roller coaster style twists and turns, our C130 set down in the heart of the U.S. operations in Iraq: Baghdad. Stepping into the 110 degree day, we donned our helmets and bulletproof vests and were spirited to two Blackhawk helicopters, with propellers turning, ready to carry us to the famed Green Zone in the center of Baghdad.

Flying over Baghdad at low altitude is a study in contrasts. Sweeping beneath the aircraft are scenes of concrete homes and poverty, which suddenly give way to bustling streets filled with cars and people. One moment you are looking at the ruins of a building destroyed in some past battle and the next you see playgrounds filled with children wearing school uniforms enjoying recess. Baghdad has a long way to go, but Baghdad is a big city and there is a lot of everyday living going on here.

After touching down in the Green Zone, our waiting security team informed us that our meeting with Prime Minister-designate Al-Maliki had been moved to a new location due to a security threat…a reminder of the risks that this Iraqi leader faces every day and the realities of our present venue.

Simply by virtue of recent events, our delegation was to be the first group of American legislators to meet with the new leader of the Iraqi people. Our embassy team briefed us enroute to the meeting and were very interested in what insights the new Prime Minister might share about the government he was planning to announce in the coming week.

Prime Minister Al-Maliki is a man of some 50 years of age, with a dark complexion and a certain world-weary look about his eyes. He wore business attire and greeted us formally, but not warmly, with the words, “welcome to the new Iraq." The Prime Minister is a Shiite with a past filled with strong sectarian rhetoric, but I found him to be rather soft spoken and modest in this diplomatic setting.

As the leader of the delegation, I spoke first. I expressed our appreciation to the Prime Minister for having the honor of being the first group to meet with him and congratulated him on his election, noting, with a smile, that all of us had faced elections too. He acknowledged the comment without any reaction, so I got down to business.

I told the Prime Minister that we were all anxious for Iraq to succeed but urged him to move as quickly as possible in the formation of the new cabinet. I asked what his plans might be for the first “100 or 1,000 days” of his Administration and, while the interpreter finished, he leaned forward and began to reply.

His agenda flowed clearly and succinctly and made a positive impression on everyone in the room. He spoke of his confidence that the new government would be formed by the deadline he set of May 9th, saying “definitely, God willing” in expressing his confidence in the timeline. He then moved through an aggressive agenda of “internal and external” reforms designed to bring stability to the new government. After promising to form a cabinet of “reconciliation between all the people of Iraq," he said his government would “save no money or blood to break terrorism."

On “the first day” of his new government he also said he would take steps “to deal with corruption." He spoke of his intention to “launch a plan for the protection of Baghdad” and specifically mentioned his intention to confront sabotage of critical energy infrastructure, adding that he had “spoken to President Bush to help me on this."

On the side of foreign policy, he said he would seek “better relations with our neighbors” on the “absolute condition of non-intervention in the affairs of Iraq.” This unspoken reference to nations like Iran and Syria, nations who are aiding the insurgent effort, was punctuated with the observation, “we must show them they have nothing to fear from us." As each of my colleagues spoke about the need for real progress in the formation of the Iraqi government, the Prime Minister closed our hour-long session with a word of thanks and a call for patience.

When asked what he would say to the American people, Prime Minister Al-Maliki said, “I would thank them for assisting the Iraqi people." He spoke respectfully of the “sacrifices” that American families have made on behalf of his people and their freedom. And he pledged to develop “Iraqi forces that can reduce the necessity of multinational forces in Iraq as soon as possible.” He added earnestly that it was his “wish that the period would not be long so the American people can have their children home.”

But he also concluded with a word of caution. He said, “victory is more important than time.” He referred to our shared fortunes in Iraq saying, “we both have to succeed…success is success for both, failure is failure for both."

While the rest of our day was filled with briefings from our military leaders and embassy officials, there would be no more poignant or important moment than our time with this new leader of the “new Iraq."

I found Prime Minister Al-Maliki to be a hard man with a keen intellect who understands the challenges facing his people and the judgment of history that awaited his actions. I write this as our aircraft departs in the darkness through the skies of this war-torn country, but I leave with the anticipation that precedes the dawn.

These are hard times for freedom loving people in Iraq. These are hard times for the American soldier in Iraq. I choose to believe that this hard man, with a past of ethnic division, is the right man at the right time to lead this nation and heal this land. For the sake of the good people of Iraq, our brave soldiers and our future, that will be my prayer.

Mike Pence
Over Northern Iraq
May 7, 2006

Out of step

 

Here is a quote by Congressman Mike Pence on the Senate and their ideas on immigration and spending, which you can read the entire article below.

"The majority in the Senate is out of step with Republican voters on spending and immigration."

-Mike Pence

Boehner Ridicules Senate Republicans as Party Tensions Rise

Conservatives ask for Pence's continued leadership

 

After effectively leading the Republican Study Committee during the 109th Congress, conservatives are asking Pence to break rules and extend his 2-year tenure to chair the RSC next congressional session. Here is an article by The Hill on Pence and the RSC.


Several members of the Republican Study Committee (RSC), the largest conservative caucus in the House, have asked Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) to consider extending his term as chairman beyond this year.

Pence’s term is set to expire at the end of this session of Congress, but colleagues say he has done an excellent job guiding the conservative caucus and don’t know of anyone with ambitions to replace him.

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who has risen to national prominence in the past year because of the political uproar over earmarks, said he is not looking to succeed Pence.

“I think he’s done a whale of a job,” said Flake, who has asked Pence to stay on. “There’s no better communicator in the Congress than Mike Pence. To the extent we need to make an exception, we ought to make it. We’ve done that before; it’s not unprecedented. We have far more influence now than we did in the past.”

Flake said the caucus has 110 dues-paying members, of whom 50-60 show up to its weekly meetings, many more than in recent years.

Another up-and-coming conservative, Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.), a member of the Financial Services and Judiciary committees, said he is focused on his committee work and does not want to cut back on his workload to fill the time-consuming role of RSC chairman.

Conservative lawmakers say Pence can probably stay as chairman if he wants to. Pence told The Hill that, although several RSC members whom he respects have asked him to consider extending his service, he will not decide until after the November election.

The national political climate is so volatile that it is difficult to know the best way to serve the House Republican Conference, he said.

One GOP lawmaker told the Hill on condition of anonymity that if Republicans lose more than 15 seats in the midterm election there could be a shakeup in the conference leadership

Pence also noted, however, that Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) set a precedent by staying on as RSC chairman more than the customary two years, starting in 2000 and then serving a full term in 2001 and 2002.

The RSC has achieved high-profile wins during Pence’s tenure. Perhaps most significant was this month, when House appropriators agreed to include earmark reform in the lobbying reform bill the House passed last week. This requires appropriators to link earmarks — provisions setting aside funds for specific, usually parochial, purposes — in a spending bill with the names of sponsoring lawmakers. House leaders have also promised to give lawmakers knowledge of earmarks contained in a spending bill well before it reaches the floor.

In addition, GOP leaders have promised to extend earmark reform to authorizing committees, such as Ways and Means and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Pence also receives high marks from conservatives for “Operation Offset,” a public campaign House conservatives launched last year advocating spending cuts to pay for hurricane reconstruction. The campaign was a rebellion against the GOP congressional leadership and, although it angered leaders, succeeded in making fiscal discipline one of the top Republican priorities of 2006.

One conservative lawmaker’s aide predicted there might be some opposition to Pence’s continuing as chairman, perhaps from Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), the second-term lawmaker who has headed the conservatives’ budget task force.

Hensarling has been seen as having his sights set on the chairmanship, but he, too, enthusiastically endorses Pence for an extended term.

“If there’s not an official movement, I hope you’re talking to the unofficial leader of the draft Mike Pence movement,” he said. “I think he’s taken the committee to a new level of conservative political activism, and most members find him to be a dynamic communicator and inspiring leader who gets things done — kind of the total package. I hope we could talk Mike into it.”

Shadegg, a popular former chairman of the conservative caucus, is not expected to make a bid for the chairmanship. He stepped down from his post as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee to run for majority leader this year and would likely view the RSC chair as a backward step.

Before Pence’s term began at the start of the 109th Congress, the chairman of the RSC was chosen by a steering group of caucus founders and former chairmen. But last Congress, Pence and other lawmakers advocated for direct elections, calling the former process undemocratic.

The steering committee submitted Pence’s nomination to the RSC membership, said a conservative lawmaker who explained the process. Members then had the opportunity to nominate other candidates, and the final decision was made by a vote of the caucus membership. The steering panel has also been broadened to include younger lawmakers who have not served as chairman, making it more representative of the entire caucus.

RSC members press Pence to stay in chair

Return from Middle East

 

Mike Pence was the first to visit with the new Iraqi prime minister this past week after leading a Congressional delegation to the Middle East. Mike Pence discussed with leaders their thoughts on Iran, which Pence is fighting to limit Iran's power to possess nuclear weapons. Here is an article in the Indianapolis Star talking about Pence's trip.

WASHINGTON -- Middle Eastern countries are eager to have the United Nations confront Iran's nuclear threat but don't want military force used, said U.S. Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., speaking from Germany after a weekend trip to Iraq, Greece, Jordan and Turkey.

The United Nations could vote this month on whether to declare Iran in violation of international law unless it suspends its uranium-enrichment program. That could lead to sanctions or military action, options President Bush has said should be on the table.

Pence said Turkey's foreign minister, Abdullah Gul, told him the situation should be resolved by diplomacy. But, Pence added, Gul also said Turkey has told Iran it would abide by whatever the U.N. Security Council decides.

Pence, a member of the House International Relations Committee who led four other lawmakers to the Middle East, said the topic of Iran dominated the conversations with foreign officials in all the countries they visited except Iraq.

The group arrived in Turkey on Monday, the same day that a delegation from Iran also met with Turkish officials.

The Iranian delegation did not convince the Turks that the purpose of their uranium program is to generate electricity, not bombs, Pence said. Gul said he told the Iranians the Turks are "disturbed" that Iran is intending to acquire nuclear weapons technology.

"That's the right message for the next-door neighbor of Iran," Pence said.

During the 20 hours the congressional delegation spent in Iraq, Pence said, his meeting with Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister designate, gave him his "greatest source of encouragement" that "we're about to turn a corner" there.

Pence said Iraq won't hurt the GOP in this fall's elections if constituents are told that "we're making steady progress."

Pence: Mideast nations want to stop Iran, too

If the Republican Party were conservative...

 

Here is an article by Townhall.com asking the question "What would a conservative Republican Party look like?"

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -- James Madison

Well, that's exactly what Indiana Representative Mike Pence and 100 fellow House Republicans are out to answer -- how to make the Republican Party the home of constitutionality and conservatism once again.

That's not to say there's no conservatism in the GOP. As the titular head of the Republican Party, President George W. Bush has distinguished himself as a conservative when it comes to foreign policy and -- all importantly -- in restoring the judicial branch to its proper constitutional role through the appointment of constructionist-minded judges to federal benches. That said, President Bush has failed dismally when it comes to restoring, or even holding, government to its proper constitutionally limited role.

At present, Republicans control the executive and legislative branches of government, yet the size and regulatory role of the central government has grown unabated since President Bush took office. Of course, our nation's vigorous response to the 9/11 attacks and our pre-emptive military response to Jihadis in the Middle East and elsewhere are responsible for some of that growth, but those necessary -- and we might add, constitutionally mandated -- expenditures have not been offset by spending cuts to domestic programs as Mr. Bush once promised would happen.

Today, the federal government spends $2.47 trillion -- that's 2,470 billions of dollars -- each year. Adjusted for inflation, that's 50 percent larger than the big-government Clinton-era budgets of only a decade ago, about which Republicans constantly complained. Of that, only 21 cents of every taxpayer dollar goes to national defense and homeland security. By contrast, 54 cents goes to entitlements like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and 8 cents goes to servicing the federal debt.

Meanwhile, the federal deficit will grow another $423 billion this year, raising the national debt to $8.28 trillion! While we're not exactly "The sky is falling!" deficit hawks, it's worth noting that big budgets and big deficits tighten the money supply, increasing the costs of investment and slowing economic growth and prosperity.

Enter the Republican Study Committee.

Founded in 1973 by Rep. Phil Crane to reinvigorate the GOP as the party of constitutional constructivism and social conservatism, the RSC became the premier mobilizing agent for House conservatives, dedicated to "a limited and Constitutional role for the federal government, a strong national defense, the protection of individual and property rights, and the preservation of traditional family values."

In 2005, Rep. Mike Pence became the Committee's chairman for the 109th Congress. He and his fellow conservatives have rallied around principles outlined in a speech last fall, "Another Time for Choosing," picking up the central theme of Ronald Reagan's famous 1964 speech "A Time for Choosing".

Today, under Pence's leadership, the RSC is the originator of the Contract with America: Renewed, created by Representatives Pence and Jeb Hensarling, with the aim of reviving the legislative agenda of Newt Gingrich's original 1994 Contract with America. It was that agenda, readers will recall, that catapulted Republicans into control of Congress for the first time in over 40 years.

Under the FY 2007 Contract with America: Renewed budget proposal, overall spending would be reduced by more than $700 billion and a balanced federal budget realized by 2011. The RSC proposal would make real reductions in discretionary spending (without silly and unconstitutional inventions like a "line-item veto"), rein in entitlement spending and undergird the U.S. economy with sound, pro-growth tax policy. Under the RSC plan, more than 150 other federal programs would be eliminated outright. Foreign aid -- which should serve as a tool for U.S. security and interests abroad, but often falls prey to special interests -- would be cut by $31 billion over five years. The ignominious six-year Highway Bill, pork-laden with roads and bridges to nowhere, would be repealed. Medicare, whose trustees this week announced will go broke in 2018, would be limited to a more sustainable growth of 5.4 percent annually -- a necessary first step in getting the federal government out of the entitlement business altogether.

As was the case in 1994, today's Contract isn't just about a return to fiscal conservatism; it includes a strong focus on social conservatism as well. Take, for instance, the Contract's objectives with respect to the three sacred cows of taxpayer-funded social liberalism: The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts -- not reduction, elimination.

And that's just the beginning.

In 1994, when the "Gingrich Revolution" launched the original Contract, Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, and the nation was in the grip of the Clinton presidency. The Contract nationalized the election around its agenda. It proved a monumental success in capturing both Houses for the GOP, promoting increased trade, reforming welfare and containing the advance of big-government entitlement schemes under the Clinton regime.

Now, 12 years later, with Republican control of the Senate and the Presidency, true conservatism is again set for takeoff -- so what's keeping this would-be juggernaut on the launch pad?

Democrats? No, not really. In a word, it's the leadership of the Republican Party.

Indeed, DC scuttlebutt says that Pence was told his Contract: Renewed would be DOA when it hit the House floor. Sadly, the party in control is all too vulnerable to Lord Acton's famous maxim ("Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."), using earmarks, pork-barreling and other budgetary quid pro quos to stay in power. As evidence, the Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) 2006 Congressional Pig Book identifies 9,963 pork projects in 11 appropriation bills, totaling $29 billion for FY 2006 alone. Since 2003, says CAGW, congressional pork has increased by a staggering 29 percent.

Crusading reformers while out of power, the GOP in power seems seduced by Washington's tax-and-spend status quo. To make us feel better about it, it's now called "compassionate conservatism" -- an agenda thoroughly embodied in President Bush's 2005 Nanny State of the Union.

Where's the Republican leadership? It's a mixed bag. In the Senate, Majority Leader Bill Frist has a 92 percent overall approval rating by the American Conservative Union (ACU). Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has a 96 percent ACU rating. Both have 95 percent ratings from Americans for Tax Reform (ATR). In the House, where members are more responsive to their constituents, Speaker Dennis Hastert has a 100 percent ACU rating, as does the new Majority Leader, John Boehner. The ACU gives House Whip Roy Blunt a 96. Their ATR ratings are 100, 100 and 95, respectively. That's the good news.

But when it comes to government waste the story takes a different turn. CAGW gives Frist and McConnell a 66 and 69, respectively, while in the House, Hastert, Boehner and Blunt line up with scores of 50, 75 and 65. That's an average score of 65 -- an "F" -- for the Republican congressional leadership. With government waste out of control even among the otherwise moderate-conservative leadership, and no leadership on fiscal conservatism coming from the White House, the RSC agenda faces a tough, maybe insurmountable, hill to climb.

In Rep. Pence's words during the latest round of budget negotiations, "We must not let this moment pass. The American people long for Congress to reaffirm our commitment to fiscal discipline and reform and House conservatives are ready to stand with our leadership to do just that."

What would a conservative Republican Party look like?