Mike Pence

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 2 minutes.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 1 minute.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished majority leader came to the floor moments ago, and he asked the question that Republicans have been asking since midday today. It's a question that millions of Americans are asking, ``Where are the jobs?'' Now the leader--I know it was unintentional--misstated my record, saying that when I was here in 1993 that I opposed health care reform. In fact, I was elected to Congress in the year 2000. But it was an honest mistake and a misstatement of fact, and I acknowledge it. But can I just suggest, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the millions of Americans that may be looking in, let's stop looking to the errors of the past by Democrats or Republicans and let's come together today to create jobs for the American people. Republicans are here to say that a government takeover of health care, financed by $1 trillion in tax increases is a disaster for this economy. It is unconscionable for this majority and this administration to insist on the adoption of a government takeover of health care financed by $1 trillion of tax increases during the worst recession in 25 years. As the distinguished majority leader just said, Republicans say with one voice, ``Where are the jobs?''

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully ask, as both I and my record were directly challenged by the distinguished majority leader on the floor, and given the fact that I've already utilized my 1 minute extended during the debate at the opening of this session, when a Member's record is challenged on the floor of the Congress, does a Member, under the Rules of the House, have the opportunity to obtain time when the distinguished majority leader refuses to yield time?

Mr. PENCE. Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, is it proper for a Member to direct an entire address to another Member of the body as opposed to the Chair or the Speaker?

Mr. PENCE. Further parliamentary inquiry, if I may.

Mr. PENCE. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, would it have been in order for the distinguished majority leader to raise questions about my record and the positions that I've taken here in the Congress during the course of my career in the context of floor debate under these rules?

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise to state that I was on an official leave of absence from the U.S. House of Representatives on account of the funeral of a close personal friend and unable to vote on rollcall votes Nos. 548 through 572. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on Nos. 548 through 551, 554 through 569, and 572, and ``nay'' on Nos. 552, 553, 570, and 571.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chair, it is morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of hundreds of thousands of Washington, D.C. residents who cherish the right to life and use them to fund abortions. I am deeply disturbed that this Congress is set to vote on a Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act that lacks traditional protections against using tax dollars to fund the destruction of human life. Every year since 1996, this annual funding bill has included language that prevented the use of federal and local funds to pay for abortions in the District of Columbia. Not only was the language prohibiting the use of local funds stripped from the Financial Services Appropriations bill, but a bipartisan amendment to restore this ban on taxpayer-funded abortion offered by Congressman Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) and Congressman Lincoln Davis (D-TN) was blocked by the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee from even receiving an up-or-down vote on the House floor, violating a much older tradition of this storied institution. Earlier this year I joined nearly 180 of my colleagues in writing a letter to Speaker Pelosi to urge the retention of important pro-life provisions that have historically been included in government spending bills. Despite our bipartisan plea, the Democrat leadership has chosen to remove these provisions and deny the people's representatives a vote in this House, shutting out the voices of the millions of pro-life American taxpayers they represent. The District of Columbia now has the unlimited ability to use local taxpayer funds to provide abortions. This is a dark moment for the cause of life in America and I hope that this Congress will rededicate itself not only to protecting the taxpayer, but the unborn.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, the American people love a fair fight; and so do I, especially where the issues of the day are being debated. In a free market, though, fairness should always be determined based upon the equality of opportunity, not equality of results. Everyone should, in effect, have a chance to make their case. That's why it is so disturbing to many of us that some of the leading voices in Congress over the last 2 years have been calling for Congress to enforce an idea of fairness on the airwaves of America in the form of restoring the so-called fairness doctrine. But our Nation should always proceed with caution whenever some would achieve fairness by limiting the fairness of others. The American people cherish their freedom. It is, in effect, a blood- bought right. There is totality of agreement on this floor about that. In fact, I believe that is why President Ronald Reagan repealed the so- called fairness doctrine after it had been in place for almost four decades back in 1987. The fairness doctrine regulated the content of radio for much of the last century, and limited the ability of radio stations to deal with controversial issues without meeting a standard of equal time or balance or record keeping. As a result of that, as many of us old enough to remember will attest, talk radio as we know it today virtually did not exist before 1987. Well, with some of the talk of restoring the fairness doctrine to the law of the land, Congressman Greg Walden of Oregon and I have been working over the last 2 years to ensure broadcast freedom. We have authored the Broadcaster Freedom Act which is cosponsored by every Republican in the House of Representatives. This week we will bring to the floor a broadcaster freedom amendment as part of the Financial Services Appropriations bill. Many who are watching may not know that the Federal Communications Commission receives its entire budget through the Financial Services Appropriations bill, and we believe this is an opportune time, as we were able to do 2 years ago, to use the power of this Congress and the people in this Congress on both sides of the aisle to advocate for the freedom of the airwaves of America by limiting the ability of the Federal Communications Commission to bring back the so-called fairness doctrine. But first, for the uninformed, the fairness doctrine is something of an Orwellian and Depression-era Federal Communications Commission rule that was devised back in 1949. As I mentioned, it required radio broadcasters to present both sides of an opinion when discussing controversial topics. It put unelected bureaucrats at the FCC in charge of enforcement in determining what speech was legal. Because of lack of clarity in the commission's ruling, broadcasters more often than not opted to offer noncontroversial programs in lieu of hours of paperwork, countless legal fees, and a potential threat to their broadcast license. Recognizing the chilling effect the regulation was having on broadcast freedom, the FCC began to overturn its own ruling on the fairness doctrine in 1985. Following that change in policy and President Reagan's veto of attempts to reinstate it, the results have been dramatic. Think about it. Before the fairness doctrine was repealed, there were some 125 talk radio stations in America. Now there are more than 2,000. While names like Limbaugh, Hanity, Laura Ingraham, and other conservative giants are better known to many, the truth is when you look at the totality of the talk radio marketplace, from the local level to the regional level to the national level, there is an extraordinary diversity of opinion. Many progressive, moderate, and liberal programs succeed extraordinarily well at the local level in many markets around the country. Unfortunately, in spite of this recent history and the breakout of broadcast freedom since 1987, there has been talk in the last several years about the need to level the playing field of radio broadcasting by restoring the fairness doctrine. Let me say from my heart, I believe it is dangerous to suggest that a government bureaucracy would be a competent arbiter of free speech. As a former radio talk show host myself, I know personally what the fairness doctrine meant to radio back in the day, and I know it would ultimately muzzle what is the dynamic public discussion that we call talk radio in America today. Let me be clear on this. I believe the broadcaster freedom amendment that we will bring this week gives Members of this body an opportunity to say ``no'' to the fairness doctrine and to say ``no'' to a new iteration of it that takes the formation of regulations under the rubric of localism, I believe will be met by broad and bipartisan support. If memory serves, 2 years ago when I brought the Pence amendment banning the fairness doctrine from being implemented by the FCC, more than 305 Members of Congress voted for it, including 100 Members of the Democrat majority. So I urge support for the broadcaster freedom amendment. Join us in embracing freedom on the airwaves of America.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Will Rogers once said: The opposite of progress is Congress. Watching the debate on the floor today, I start to get a better idea about what he meant. At a time when our country is facing the worst recession in a quarter of a century, the Democrat majority here in Congress just got done passing a national energy tax that will raise the cost of utilities for every American household. And now they're down here on the floor talking about raising taxes for a government takeover of health insurance. All the while, millions of Americans are out of work, hundreds of thousands of Americans continue to lose their jobs every month. Now, when this trillion-dollar stimulus bill was passed in February, we were told that it would create jobs immediately. It would hold unemployment below 8 percent. Well, unemployment is now 9.5 percent. It's the worst in 26 years. Almost 2 million people have lost their jobs since the so-called stimulus bill passed. And yet, the President just said, It's done its job. This weekend, he said the stimulus was ``working exactly as we anticipated.'' With all due respect to the President of the United States and my Democrat colleagues, the stimulus bill is not working. And the American people know it. The American people deserve a recovery plan that will create real jobs and real recovery--and that's fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C., and tax relief for working families, small businesses, and family farms.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. As most Americans know, in February of this year, this Democrat Congress and this administration passed a $1 trillion stimulus bill, with the promise that we would see immediate relief. Even at the Web site for the Recovery Act there is the statement, The Recovery Act is providing immediate fiscal relief, et cetera, et cetera. But the facts tell a different story, Mr. Speaker. The administration said that if the stimulus bill was passed, that unemployment wouldn't pass 8 percent. It's 9.5 today. Almost 2 million Americans have lost their job since the stimulus was passed. Remarkably, this administration continues to argue that the stimulus is working. The President of the United States actually said the stimulus had ``done its job,'' and in fact told CNN over the weekend that the stimulus was ``working exactly as we anticipated.'' His own Treasury Secretary said that the country was ``going through a necessary and healthy adjustment.'' A healthy economy, a stimulus bill that had done it's job? Mr. Speaker, the American people know better. What we need in this Congress is not another big, old giveaway stimulus bill. What we need is fiscal discipline for Washington, D.C., and tax relief for working families, small businesses, and family farms. That's the Republican prescription for a real recovery, and we ought to get on with it.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, at the close of last year, it was obvious: America was sliding into a serious recession. And to this very day, the American people are struggling in this difficult economy. Well, in February, this Democrat Congress passed a $1 trillion stimulus bill, and the results are starting to come in: 1.6 million jobs lost since the stimulus bill was signed. Unemployment was 12.4 million; it is 14.7 million today. The unemployment rate was 7.5 percent; it is 9.5 percent today, the highest in 26 years. And, remarkably, the President last week said that the recovery bill had ``done its job.'' Done its job? Look, the American people are starting to get wise to the Democrat plan here. They understand the Democrat agenda is nothing more than more government, more debt, more spending, a national energy tax, and a government takeover of health care. The Republican plan: fiscal discipline for Washington, D.C. and tax relief for working families, small businesses and family farms. The American people are hurting. They deserve a real plan for a real recovery, not more spending, more taxes, more debt, and more unemployment.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to a friend and to the memory of a great man who will long be remembered across the State of Indiana as a civic leader and a philanthropist whose impact will be felt for generations. For decades, John W. Fisher has been a leader in the business community of eastern Indiana. Remembered by many as a giant of industry, John will be greatly missed, not only by his family and friends, but all those whose lives he touched. A native of Walland, Tennessee, John was known for his athleticism, an all-American. He graduated a Volunteer from the University of Tennessee in 1938, but it was his connection to the Ball family that brought him to Muncie, Indiana. Married to his beloved Janice, John did not plan to live in Muncie; rather, he had always thought he would eventually settle in his native Tennessee. However, he was convinced to take a more active role in the Ball Corporation by his brother-in-law, Edmund, one of the founding members of that company. By then, John had earned an MBA from the Harvard Graduate School of Business, and with a keen business intellect, he quickly became a prominent figure in the Muncie business community and all across our State. While serving in various capacities for Ball Corporation, John W. Fisher distinguished himself as a risk-taker. Richard Ringoen, former Ball Corporation president, noted John's performance once, saying, ``This company has grown because John Fisher was willing to take calculated risks. He has been willing to immerse himself in details that a lot of executives would simply avoid.'' John was elected to serve as corporate vice president in 1963 and by 1970 was named president and CEO of the Ball Corporation. By the time he retired as chairman of the board, Ball Corporation had experienced a period of rapid growth, significant diversification of its products; and thanks to John Fisher's leadership, that year Ball Corporation's annual sales exceeded a billion dollars. Retirement wouldn't mark the end of his civic contributions to the community or his entrepreneurial spirit. Until his death, John W. Fisher served as chairman of the Cardinal Health Care Systems, trustee of DePauw University, director and former president of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, a life director of the National Association of Manufacturers, and a benefactor and booster of Ball State University. Never one to let a good business opportunity pass by, John relied on his experience and remarkable insight to become involved in one project after another. When asked about his approach to business, John said, I take major risks. I don't hesitate to take a very careful look at fresh ideas, especially when capable people are associated with the idea. It was that entrepreneurial spirit that led John to become involved with so many different industries. From furniture companies to fish farms and many things in between, John Fisher simply seized life with both hands. Madam Speaker, John Fisher will also be renowned for his business acumen, but also remembered by friends and colleagues and those close to him as a kind-hearted man with a deep commitment to the community. The Fishers donated millions of dollars to Ball State University, establishing the John and Janice Fisher Chair in Exercise Science and created the Fisher Distinguished Professorship in Wellness and Gerontology. Until his passing, he served on the national campaign committee for Ball State Bold: Investing in the Future--which is the university's fundraising campaign. Upon learning of his passing, the president of Ball State University said that John W. Fisher's commitment to Ball State University had been ``unequaled in the university's 90-year history.'' More recently, to honor his service, Ball Memorial Hospital dedicated the John W. Fisher Heart Center in January 2009. Now, many will remember John W. Fisher for these business undertakings and the rest, but I will remember him as a dear friend and a mentor. I first met John Fisher back in 1988 when I entered public life. Since that time, our relationship has been a continuous source of wisdom and guidance to me. While he had no political ambitions for himself, he had a lifelong interest in public affairs and was keenly aware of the issues facing the country. As an active participant in the Muncie Rotary--and every time I showed up there he always had a good question to ask in public-- but I'll most cherish the privilege of having spent innumerable occasions sitting in John's office and learning from him about the world and business and public life, and drawing on his wisdom, his faith, and his integrity. John Fisher shaped my life and my career in countless ways. John W. Fisher personified everything that's great about the United States of America. He was a strong, principled leader, generous philanthropist, devoted family man, and he was always willing to take a stand for what he believed in. Blessed with a wonderful family, John Fisher is survived by his wife, Janice, their seven children, 19 grandchildren, and 28 great grandchildren. The Bible tells us that ``the Lord is close to the brokenhearted,'' and so is my prayer for his extended family and community of friends today. Madam Speaker, one of my favorite John Fisher quotes is: ``Ride hard, shoot straight, tell the truth, and be good to your fellow man.'' And that's how he spent his 93 years on this Earth. Indiana lost a giant--and in John W. Fisher I lost a cherished friend. And it's been my privilege to pay tribute to him on the floor of the House this evening.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, this is a difficult time in the life of our Nation and the life of our Nation's economy and that of families and small businesses and family farms. Remarkably, today, with an embarrassingly brief amount of debate and discussion and amendment, the Democrat majority is poised to bring to the floor of the Congress what amounts to the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change legislation. Now, there is a lot of debate about what this bill will cost the average American household from hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars, but there actually is no debate over the fact that this legislation will cost millions of American jobs. On that point there is no discussion. The bill, itself, actually includes a fund that would provide resources for Americans who lose their jobs if cap-and-trade becomes law, and there are news reports this morning, although I am yet to confirm them, that there may be new trade restrictions in this legislation, because the expectation, and it is reasonable, is, by raising the cost of energy for every American business, that we will see businesses flee overseas, taking jobs abroad in these difficult economic times. It is extraordinary, to say the least. But the way that this bill is coming to the floor ought to be disturbing to every American, Republican, Democrat and Independent that's looking in. Last night, at 3:09 a.m., House Democrats filed a 309-page amendment and denied Republican and Democrat amendments to the tune of the 224 that were submitted. Three hours of debate, one amendment filed at 3:09 in the morning that's 309 pages. And I would ask the Democrat majority and the Speaker respectfully, what's the hurry? What are we hiding here that we can't afford more time for the American people and their elected representatives to examine what's in this bill? I mean, is there more corporate welfare, more deals for special interests. Were Members that were on the fence placated with special provisions for industries in their districts? We are hurrying to find out, and we have to hurry, because the majority just recently denied us one additional minute of debate. You know, the term ``Congress,'' Madam Speaker, actually is an ancient term. It means interaction. It means the intercourse between men and women in ideas and philosophies. This is not Congress. I don't know what this is; 3 o'clock in the morning, 300 pages, one amendment is a travesty.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. It's hard to know where to start. I've got to think, Madam Speaker, a lot of people who are looking in on this debate and hearing about copies filed, esoteric process really don't care very much about all that because this economy is hurting. American families are struggling under the weight of the worst recession in a generation. Families in my district are losing their jobs, small businesses and family farms are struggling, and all they've seen out of Washington, D.C. so far is a gusher of runaway Federal spending, deficits, debt and bailouts. They didn't think it could get worse, but here we go. In the midst of the worst recession in a generation, this administration and this majority in Congress are prepared to pass a national energy tax that will raise the cost of energy on every American family. Now, my colleague sporting the green lapel button, who I greatly respect, said that there is a lot of dispute about how much the average American household will pay if this national energy tax becomes law, and that's true. There are estimates ranging from a few hundred dollars a year, to the Heritage Foundation's over $4,000 a year. The estimate I prefer was from candidate Barack Obama, who said in January 2008 to the San Francisco Chronicle, and I shall quote with the deepest respect: ``Under my plan of cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. That will cost money. They''--referring to the utility companies--``They will pass that money on to consumers.'' Now-President Barack Obama. Now, I know earlier this week the President of the United States said that polluters are going to pay the cost of this national energy tax. That's not what he said last year. Now, I don't know how you all define ``skyrocket'' when the President said electricity rates would necessarily ``skyrocket under my cap-and-trade plan,'' but I would be prepared to defer to you. I define ``skyrocket'' as a prescription for economic decline. There may be a dispute in the numbers about how much I'll be paying in my electrical bill or how much the costs of goods and services are going to go up. But there is no dispute that this cap-and-trade legislation will cost millions of American jobs. Raising the cost of energy is a bad idea in prosperous times. Raising a national energy tax in the worst recession in a generation is a profoundly bad idea. But for anyone looking in, Madam Speaker, let me say, we are in the minority, as we have been reminded with some firmness on this debate on occasion today. We don't have the votes to stop this bill. But you do. If you oppose the national energy tax, call your Congressman right now. If you think we can do better to serve the interests of the American people and achieve energy independence with an all-of-the- above strategy, call your congressman right now. Alexander Hamilton said it best: ``Here, sir, the people govern.'' We can stop this bill. We can do better. And so we must. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. On behalf of the House Republican Conference I offer birthday wishes to our beloved floor director, Jay Pierson, and I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, the Old Book contains an admonition to lawmakers with these words: Woe to you because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift a finger to help them. In the midst of the worst economy in a generation, remarkably, House Democrats are poised this week to load the American people down with a national energy tax, and the American people deserve to know it. Now there is lots of debate about what this bill will cost the average American, but there is no dispute the Democrat cap-and-trade bill will raise the cost of energy to every household in America, every small business, every family farm; and it will cost millions of American jobs. And the vote is tomorrow. If you oppose a national energy tax, I say call your Congressman. If you think the Democrat cap-and-trade bill will cap growth and trade jobs, call your Congressman. And if you believe the American people deserve an all-of-the-above energy strategy that will create jobs, achieve energy independence and a cleaner environment, endorse the Republican alternative and call your Congressman. A minority in Congress plus the American people equals a majority. We can reject cap-and-trade this week, and so we must.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I rise with a great sense of humility and a great sense of moment before this body but also a great sense of gratitude to the ranking member for her extraordinary leadership in bringing this resolution to the floor, a resolution which, as the chairman of the committee just stated quite eloquently, will give the American people, through their elected representatives, a clear opportunity on this day, after a week of violence and tumult in the nation of Iran, to express the American people's support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties and the rule of law. I am especially grateful for the leadership and the spirit brought to this legislation by Chairman Howard Berman, with whom I don't agree on very much; but I am grateful that he demonstrates today a public mindedness that I think is in keeping with the best traditions of this institution. Ronald Reagan would say in 1964, ``You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down: up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.'' Today the leadership of Chairman Howard Berman demonstrates that on the issue of speaking a word of encouragement to those who would stand with extraordinary valor for their own liberty, there is no left or right in this body. It has been, as has been stated before, an extraordinary week in the life of the nation of Iran. On 12 June, just one week ago, from the very moment that the presidential election results were announced, the international community and the international press called the results into question. Chief among the reasons for that was that even before the extraordinary demonstrations had begun, millions of paper ballots had apparently been tallied and counted within a matter of hours. The official government results of the election were met with public consternation among the people of Iran; and while the defeated candidate launched a legal appeal, as the western media has reported, what has ensued on the streets of Iran has been the biggest demonstration in the Islamic Republic's 30-year history. And most sad, following that election day, the actions by the government and militias that support the government have turned to violence. Pro-government forces have attacked demonstrators over the past week, causing fatalities, resulting in the arrest of dissidents. We have heard of foreign reporters prevented from making their way into the public. We've heard of the jamming of electronic communications. For all the world, we may well be witnessing a Tiananmen in Teheran. It seems to me that in this moment, the people of the United States of America long to be heard; and by dint of House Resolution 560 today through their elected representatives, the American people will have had that opportunity. This resolution simply states that it is resolved that the House of Representatives expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties and rule of law. It also condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cell phones. And lastly, it affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections. I have said many times this week, and it has been echoed by my colleagues, like the Republican Whip Eric Cantor, that the cause of America is freedom; and in this cause, the American people will not be silent. There is no intention here to pick sides in the Iranian election. There is an intention here, in a true spirit of bipartisanship, to allow the American people to be on the side of liberty and to be on the side of freedom. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation because the voice of the American people has before and, I believe in my heart of hearts, will again make a difference in the advancement of human liberty in the world. I urge its support.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and again reiterate my gratitude for her expeditious work in bringing this important resolution to the floor on a timely basis, and commend again Chairman Howard Berman for the spirit and thoughtfulness with which he brought this resolution to the floor. Today, in the wake of a week of extraordinary public demonstrations, violence, and tumult across the nation of Iran, the American people through this Congress will condemn that violence and the suppression of the free and independent press in Iran, and, as the American people have done throughout our history, we will proclaim liberty by supporting all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and the rule of law in this measure. I urge my colleagues to support this measure and join us, and, if reports are correct, our colleagues in the Senate who may well come together and give voice on the world stage of the character and compassion and commitment to freedom that is at the heart of every American. Now, some observers say that America should remain silent in the wake of this violence and the suppression of free speech and the intimidation and suppression of a free and independent press in Iran. But let me say from my heart, the American cause is freedom, and in that cause we must never be silent. The Iranian regime would do well to note the words of President Ronald Reagan from his first inaugural address 20 January, 1981, where he said, No arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. Today this Congress, in a true spirit of bipartisanship, will come together on behalf of the moral courage of the men and women of Iran who have tasted freedom and have been willing to risk their liberty and their lives to advance it. It is my hope and it is my prayer that this word of encouragement from the American people to the Iranian people will be to good effect for that nation and for freedom in the world. I urge support of this resolution.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, for the fifth day in a row, hundreds of thousands of Iranian citizens have taken to the streets on behalf of free elections and democracy. Sadly, the response by the Iranian government has been more oppression and violence against its own people, deaths confirmed, hundreds of citizens beaten, and foreign journalists intimidated and banned from the streets. We are witnessing a Tiananmen in Tehran. While I respect the fact the President of the United States has denounced the violence, that he has said the protestors had a right to be ``heard and respected,'' this administration has not yet expressed the unqualified support of the American people for those who are courageously taking to the streets on behalf of self-government and free elections in Iran. Yesterday, I introduced House Resolution 549, a resolution that would give voice to countless Americans who want our Nation to support the dissidents in Iran who are struggling for their own freedom. The American cause is freedom. In this cause, America must never be silent. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important resolution and bring it to the floor this week.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, Federal spending is out of control, and I rise in strong opposition to this rule. Here are the facts: We are running a $2 trillion Federal deficit. The second tranche of the TARP funding allowed to be spent another $350 billion. The stimulus bill passed earlier this year is over $1 trillion, including the cost of the debt. An omnibus bill of $400 billion and a budget passed by this administration and this Congress will double the national debt in 5 years and will triple it in 10. Now comes the first spending bill to the floor for Commerce-Justice- Science with an 11.7 percent increase in Federal spending. Republicans offered about 100 amendments which were designed to cut Federal spending and to restore fiscal discipline to this very first bill. After 30 minutes of debate on the first amendment that was offered, the majority cut off debate. The Democrats in this Congress apparently believe the Republican amendments to cut runaway Federal spending would take too much time. Apparently, the majority can't spend our money fast enough. The truth is this was an outrageous abuse of the legislative process, but this debate is not about process. This debate is about runaway Federal spending, and the American people have had enough of it. Republicans in Congress believe that Congress has time to get it right. We believe this Congress should take the time necessary to debate and to restore fiscal discipline to our Federal budget. Today, beginning at this very hour, we will stand up for the American people, for their right to have a budget that reflects the same discipline and sacrifice that every American family and that every small business are making during these difficult times. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to take a stand against runaway Federal spending--beginning here, beginning now.