Mike Pence

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the military supplemental bill that is before Congress today. I was pleased to join many of my Democratic colleagues in supporting the bipartisan military supplemental bill that passed this House earlier in this Congress. It seems to me, when it comes to providing our soldiers with the resources they need to get the job done and to come home safe, it's the right time to set aside politics as usual--the partisan divide--and go forward to the best of our abilities in a united front. We did that, but I cannot support this military supplemental bill today. I see it as a disservice to the taxpayers of this country and as a disservice to those brave men and women who defend us every day. You know, in the midst of difficult economic times, it's easy for some people to forget that we are a Nation at war, and it's easy to go back to politics as usual and to spending as usual; but with American soldiers in harm's way, we must never falter in our effort to make sure those soldiers have everything they need to get the job done and to come home to us and to their families safely. Emergency war funding bills should be about emergency war funding. This legislation, which includes $108 billion in loan authorizations for a global bailout for the International Monetary Fund at a time when this government has run up a $2 trillion annual deficit I believe does a disservice to taxpayers and to those who defend us. Passing a $108 billion global bailout on the backs of our soldiers is just not right. I urge my colleagues to oppose this conference report. Stand with our troops. Stand with the American taxpayer. Stand against one more bailout. Let's reject this bill tonight, and let's come right back to this floor here tomorrow and bring a clean emergency war funding bill, in a bipartisan fashion, back into the legislative process. It is time for us to reject this legislation, to reject the changes that were made in the United States Senate, to get our soldiers the resources they need, and to do it in a way that serves the broadest possible interests of the American taxpayer.

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. Madam Speaker, I come to this floor at a time of extraordinary moment on the global stage. According to the Islamic Republic News Agency, the official news agency of Iran, President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, supposedly won the election over his primary opponent on 12 June 2009. But from the very moment that that election result was announced, the international community and the international press called it into question, and the bases for that, even before the extraordinary demonstrations had begun to take place, is the fact that these were paper ballots, but the official government results of the election were announced literally within hours of the polls being closed. Various media outlets around the world have questioned the authenticity of the results. Mr. Mousavi, the defeated candidate, has launched a legal appeal against the election results. On the day of the election, mobile phone communications were interrupted. Western media has reported ``heavy electronic jamming'' disturbing broadcasts. News Web sites were reportedly blocked by Iranian authorities, and the Iranian Government has allegedly arrested opposition political figures and journalists. The Iranian Government has outlawed any protests following 2 days of extraordinary unrest. The BBC recently reported that recent rallies in the streets of Tehran were the biggest demonstrations in the Islamic Republic's 30-year history. The protests, according to news reports, became violent, and according to media reports, pro-government forces attacked demonstrators in the last 24 hours, causing at least one fatality. We are witnessing a Tiananmen in Tehran, and the United States of America must stand in the gap on behalf of those brave Iranian citizens who are standing for free and fair elections, democracy, and basic rights. Freedom, in fact, may be flowering in Iran, as hundreds of thousands rally for democracy and free elections. And while I appreciate President Obama's comments yesterday at the White House that he was ``troubled by the violence,'' and his belief that the voices of the Iranian people should be ``heard and respected,'' it seems by my likes that this administration has yet to express the unqualified support of the American people for those who are courageously taking to the streets for free elections and for democracy in Iran. Let me say from my heart, the American cause is freedom, and in this cause, the American people will not be silent, here or abroad. If the President of the United States won't express the unqualified support of our Nation for the dissidents in the streets of Tehran, this Congress must. Today, I am introducing a resolution that will do just that. It will express its concern regarding the reported irregularities of the presidential elections of 12 June 2009; condemn the violence against demonstrators by pro-government militias in Tehran in the wake of the election; it will affirm our belief in the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections; and lastly and most importantly, Madam Speaker, it will express the support of the American people for all Iranian citizens who struggle for freedom, civil liberties, and the protection of the rule of law. Believe it or not, in my small town of Columbus, Indiana, I grew up next door to a Hungarian immigrant who fled Hungary in the wake of the Soviet repression of the Hungarian Revolution in 1956. I sat often with Julius Perr, now passed away, and heard of the way the Hungarian people, inspired by our calls for freedom, stood up for their own freedom. And as Bret Stephens recounts in today's Wall Street Journal, We stood by idly, we didn't want to interfere, and the Soviet tanks rolled. We cannot stand idly by, speak of Iran sovereignty, speak of their own right to choose their own leadership at a time when hundreds of thousands of Iranians are risking their liberty, and even their lives, to stand for free elections and democracy. Ronald Reagan said, There is no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. All of us desire a fresh start with Iran, and it seems from news reports and the extraordinary images coming from the streets of Iran that millions of Iranians long for a new start in their government. There is a reformist movement afoot in Iran. Today, I will introduce a resolution. I urge all of my colleagues in both parties to join me in expressing support for these brave and courageous men and women.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 529, condemning the violent attack on the Holocaust Memorial Museum that occurred in shocking dimensions yesterday here in our Nation's Capital. I want to single out my colleague in the majority, Ron Klein of Florida, for his swift and thoughtful legislative work in bringing this resolution to the floor and for allowing me to coauthor this bipartisan resolution before the House today. It has been my distinct pleasure to serve together with Mr. Klein as the cochairman of the Bipartisan Congressional Task Force Against Anti-Semitism that was founded, I say with deep admiration, by the late Tom Lantos of California, who understood the importance of this body and this Nation speaking with one voice against the venom of anti-Semitism. Today, we mourn the loss of Special Police Officer Steven Tyrone Johns, and I offer my personal condolences to his family. He lost his life while defending civilians, visitors and staff of the Holocaust Memorial Museum. Officer Johns died upon arrival at the George Washington Hospital after being shot by an assailant with strong ties to white supremacist organizations. Officer Johns died while bravely defending museum visitors from around the world, and I honor his service and courage and the sacrifice that he exemplified. He will be remembered. We rise today to condemn the violent attacks of yesterday that ravaged Washington, D.C.'s, permanent living memorial to the victims of the Holocaust. For those who have visited, we know the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum serves as one of the world's leading authorities on the Holocaust. And let me say with no small measure of American pride, it has become an essential stop for every American visiting our Nation's Capital, with few exceptions. It was dedicated on April 22, 1993, and has since welcomed nearly 30 million children, including 8 million schoolchildren and 85 heads of state. The museum's mission is simply this: to ``advance and disseminate knowledge about this unprecedented tragedy; to preserve the memory of those who suffered; and to encourage its visitors to reflect upon the moral and spiritual questions raised by the events of the Holocaust as well as their own responsibilities as citizens of a democracy.'' Anyone who has wandered those solemn hallways knows that the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum accomplishes that mission. This attack at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum is a horrific reminder of the violence that can stem from unchecked hatred, intolerance, anti-Semitism, as well as the denial of history that is often manifested in that sentiment. Let me be clear. No act of violence will ever diminish our determination to honor those who lost their lives in the Holocaust, and neither will yesterday. And as we condemn intolerance and racism in our Capital City, we should ponder today, Mr. Speaker, what anti-Semitic hatred and rage could mean on the international stage. I say with a heavy heart today, with the deepest respect for the families affected by yesterday's tragic events, we would do well, as a Nation, to reflect, if one man can walk in the Holocaust museum with a rifle, motivated by anti- Semitic rage and bring about violence and death, what could a nation, armed with the same anti-Semitic rage, do with a nuclear weapon? The American people deserve to know that the same hatred that drove this one, lonely and deranged man to open fire at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, I believe, resides in the hearts of some of the most powerful leaders in an ancient nation of the world. And I am confident that when the time comes, this Congress, this government, this Nation, and our cherished ally, will do what is necessary to prevent a global manifestation of anti-Semitic violence. The best way to honor the lives of victims of hatred is to stand in the path of those who would continue the violence. Let Officer Johns' sacrifice be an example for each of us in our personal lives, and an example for this Nation in the exercise of courage and determination in the defense of liberty on the world stage. Let us stand in the path of hatred, come together as a Congress and a Nation.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. The American economy is hurting. Gasoline prices are on the rise. Utility rates threaten to go higher, imposing even greater hardship on working families. The American people are looking for answers in these times to the challenges we face in energy. The Democrat answer you have just heard is a national energy tax that will lead to higher energy prices and massive job losses for the American people. The President said it best a year ago when he said, if the cap-and- trade plan were to pass, utility rates--his words now--would, quote, necessarily skyrocket. Some estimates suggest job losses between 1.8 and 7 million. Well, Republicans have a better plan, the American Energy Act. It's an all- of-the-above plan that offers energy independence, more jobs and a cleaner environment without imposing a national energy tax. Our energy solution focuses on more domestic exploration for oil and natural gas, a renewed commitment to build 100 nuclear power plants in the next 20 years, investments in renewables, alternative energy technologies and creating incentives for conservation. You can read all about it on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal today. The American people want energy independence and a cleaner environment without a national energy tax. The American Energy Act offered by House Republicans is the answer the American people are looking for.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. The American people deserve a foreign relations bill that respects our Nation's budget and our Nation's values. Sadly, H.R. 2410 does neither. At a time when ordinary Americans are struggling to make ends meet, this legislation would add billions of dollars in new funding to our foreign and State Department operations. Expanding taxpayer funding of Peace Corps and the U.N. regular budget by one-third in a single year without any U.N. reform is extraordinarily frustrating to many of us who have been fighting to use the power of the purse here in Washington, D.C., to drive fundamental reform in that body. But beyond these extraordinary increases--a single-year increase of 35 percent in the State Department's basic salary and operations--this legislation does a disservice to the values of millions of Americans who cherish the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage. This legislation creates a new office and ambassador for global women's issues for women's empowerment internationally. Secretary Clinton testified before our committee that it would be the policy of this administration to protect the rights of women, including rights to reproductive health. Democrats on the committee actually rejected an amendment to clarify that it would not be U.S. policy to lobby countries to legalize, fund or promote abortion. I even offered an amendment in the committee to change language that would require State Department training, reporting, and overseas advocacy of foreign laws regarding homosexual activity. I sought to change that, to make it clear that State Department employees ought to promote universally recognized human rights, those upon which Americans agree; and that was rejected in the committee. This legislation, in embracing abortion rights overseas, in embracing the advocacy of changes in laws regarding homosexuality around the world, advocates a set of values that are at odds with the majority of the American people. We deserve a foreign relations budget that respects our pocketbooks and our values. This does neither, and I urge its rejection.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, later today President Barack Obama will push Democrat lawmakers to follow pay-as-you-go budget rules. PAYGO rules, as they are known, in theory would require new Federal spending or tax cuts be offset by spending cuts or even tax increases elsewhere. Now, this may sound reasonable to some Americans, but the devil is always in the details, and the American people have reason to be skeptical about newfound calls for fiscal responsibility from this majority. Under Democrat control, the Federal budget deficit is projected to approach nearly $2 trillion. In the last several years, non-defense spending has increased by 85 percent. The President and the Democrat's budget just passed will double the national debt in 5 years and triple it in 10. And now calls for new budget rules? With Democrat plans for more borrowing, more spending, more bailouts, and more debt, the Democrat definition of PAYGO is all too clear to the American people: you pay, and they go on spending.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 295 on passage of H. Res. 490. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I come before this Chamber today at a time when millions of American families are hurting. I just spent time home in Indiana, heard from small business owners and family farmers that are struggling to make it through these difficult times. And they know, and I heard not only in Indiana but in Pennsylvania and in California as House Republicans traveled this Nation to take our case against the Democrats cap-and-trade proposal. I heard from those Americans one simple message, and that is: The last thing we should do during a difficult recession is pass a national energy tax on every working family, small business owner, and family farm in this country. But, Mr. Speaker, that's precisely what the House Democrats are preparing to do. Just before the break, virtually along party lines, House Democrats reported out of their committee the so-called cap-and-trade legislation, which is better understood as a cap-and-tax legislation. My colleague, Fred Upton from Michigan, says it will cap growth and trade jobs. And the truth is it will have just that effect. According to a study done by MIT, divided by the number of households in this country, if the Democrats' cap-and-trade legislation becomes law, the energy costs of the average American household would rise by more than $3,000 per year. According to some independent estimates as well, if their legislation became law, various studies suggest 1.8 million to 7 million jobs could be lost in this country. Why on Earth, at a time when this Congress ought to be coming together with bipartisan solutions to bring relief to small business owners, to American manufacturing, a time when we see the government reaching deeper and deeper into our financial sector, offering one bailout after another to one business after another, why on Earth would we heap more weight on the backs of Americans and on the back of this American economy in the form of a national energy tax? But I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to say with authority that's precisely what Democrats are planning to do. I pull out a device that helps me keep up with the news here. And I will quote, for the sake of attribution, a story published this afternoon at about 5 o'clock in Roll Call, because as we returned to Washington, D.C., there was a great deal of talk, Mr. Speaker, that we were moving on to health care reform for the summer. The majority in Congress wasn't talking any more about a national energy tax. They weren't talking any more about cap-and-trade. The focus was health care. The President of the United States gave a speech saying that it's a time for health care reform, and that should be the focus. But I have got to tell you, I used to play a little bit of basketball back in Indiana. There was something called a head fake. You know, when you got the ball and you want to go this way, you put your head that way and you make the guy follow, and then you go this way. I had this feeling it was a bit of a head fake, that in fact liberals here in Washington, D.C., were not going to relent in their drive to pass a national energy tax and the cap-and-trade legislation. And it turns out, according to Roll Call, I might just be right. An article filed by Steven Dennis of the Roll Call staff reports that, ``Speaker Nancy Pelosi is kick-starting the movement on the controversial climate change bill, setting a deadline of June 19 for committee action in the Ways and Means Committee.'' The Speaker of the United States House of Representatives has told the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee that they have until 2 weeks from this Friday, according to Roll Call, to have that bill out of committee. And it could very well be on the floor of this Congress before we break for the 4th of July. So I think the American people have a right to know what's in this bill. They have a right to understand how this national energy tax, under the guise of climate change legislation, is going to result in an increase in their home utility costs, an increase in the costs of gasoline at the pump, an increase in the cost of virtually every good we buy, because of course energy is an input cost on virtually all the goods and services that we use in our daily lives. It's going to increase the cost of businesses. And I rise, of course, with a particular interest in this. As we heard from the Governor of the State of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, last week, that because the cap-and-trade legislation essentially puts the heaviest burden on those States that draw the majority of their electricity from coal-burning power plants, the truth is that, rightly understood, this cap-and-trade legislation amounts to an economic declaration of war on the Midwest by liberals here in Washington, D.C., and it must be opposed. I mean, in the State of Indiana, our households, when we flip the light switch, we draw about more than 90 percent of our electrical energy from coal-burning power plants. Very similar in Michigan, very similar in Ohio. That may well be why the Heritage Foundation recently estimated that States like Indiana and Ohio and Michigan will be the hardest hit States. We had testimony last week from representatives of Richmond Power and Light in Richmond, Indiana. They testified at a public hearing that we held in my home State capital of Indianapolis, and they said that their utility rates in Richmond, Indiana, a city that I represent, their home utility rates would go up by 25 to 40 percent if cap-and-trade legislation became law. We have got to come clean with the American people about the reality of this national energy tax. The American people have a right to know that this Democratic majority is preparing to pass legislation that will increase the cost of doing business, increase the cost of their household budget, and they're preparing to do that in name of environmental priority and climate change legislation at precisely the time that American working families, small business owners, and family farmers can least afford it. So I commend the gentleman from Utah. I commend him for his extraordinary and visionary leadership on issues involving energy. But I pledge this: That as chairman of the House Republican Conference, as one of those tasked with the American Energy Solutions Group on which my colleagues have the privilege of serving, we are going to make the fight in the weeks ahead against this national energy tax and, to the gentleman's point, we're going to offer a Republican alternative in the American Energy Act that will lessen our dependence on foreign oil, make a commitment to wind and solar and nuclear energy, make a commitment to new, cleaner technologies, more fuel efficiency. But it will not include a national energy tax that will drive this economy further down during these difficult days. I yield back.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. On his second day in office, the President announced his plans to close Guantanamo Bay in an effort to improve America's image around the world. But Republicans went to the floor of this House and we went to the airwaves. We even went to the Internet at GOP.gov to inform the American people that Guantanamo Bay holds some of the most dangerous terrorists on the planet; men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the September 11th attacks, and Abu Zubaydah, a key facilitator of the 9/11 attacks. Because of the strong Republican leadership in the House and the Senate--even our Democratic colleagues in the last week joined us-- denying any and all funding for closing Guantanamo Bay in the war supplemental bill. But now we read that the President is renewing his effort to close Guantanamo Bay, despite a recent Pentagon report that nearly one out of every seven terrorist detainees previously released from Guantanamo Bay may have returned to their terrorist activity. Yesterday, the director of the FBI raised concerns about transferring these men to our local communities. Despite these warnings, the President continues to bow to world opinion. Let me say emphatically: Mr. President, public safety comes before public relations. The American people don't want to know how closing Guantanamo Bay will make us more popular; they want to know how closing Guantanamo Bay will make us safer.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. As we stand in Congress this evening, legislation on climate change continues to move through this body. As more Americans are realizing every day, the cap-and-trade legislation is nothing more than a national energy tax that will raise the energy costs on every American household by thousands of dollars a year. It will hit the Midwest, low- income Americans and Americans on fixed incomes the hardest. The President, himself, said more than a year ago that, if his cap- and-trade proposal became law, utility rates would, in his words now, ``necessarily skyrocket.'' Millions of Americans are catching on. Next week, House Republicans will go from coast to coast in this country with energy summits, taking our case against this national energy tax to the four corners of this Nation. I look forward to engaging the American people. During these tough economic times, the last thing we should do is raise the burden and the cost of energy on every working family in this Nation. Let's say ``no'' to a national energy tax and say ``no'' to cap-and- trade.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding. I rise today in support of the military funding in H.R. 2346, the fiscal year 2009 war supplemental appropriations bill, which will provide nearly $85 billion to support our men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, those that every day make the sacrifices necessary to ensure our freedom and that of our posterity. Overall this legislation does reflect a bipartisan effort to provide necessary war funding and essential support for our men and women in uniform. I am particularly pleased that it does so without arbitrary benchmarks and timetables for withdrawal that had been so much the debate of war supplementals in recent years in this Congress. I'm also pleased that none of the funding requested by the administration related to Guantanamo Bay has been included. And I take this opportunity to commend the distinguished chairman of this committee for his judgment and discretion in leaving out any funding for the purpose of closing Guantanamo Bay. President Obama was simply wrong to announce plans to close Guantanamo Bay without any plan for what to do with the dangerous terrorist detainees who remain there to this day. The American people deserve to know that this Congress and this government are putting their safety and their interests above world opinion in decisions about terrorist detainees. And this legislation, in failing to provide any funding for closing Guantanamo Bay, puts the interests and the security of the American people first. I do regret that the amendment authored by the gentleman from Virginia who just spoke, Mr. Wolf, was not included in this legislation, an amendment that would have prohibited the transfer of any terrorist detainee within the next calendar year. And I hope for additional language in the conference report. Now, while I support this war funding bill, let me say on the floor of this Congress, I believe a war supplemental bill ought to be about war funding and war funding alone. It should not include the literally billions of dollars in nondefense-related spending. Mr. Speaker, I don't have any particular objection to Congress considering and debating spending money on international food assistance or the State Department or the staff at the NSC or wildfire or avian flu or police radios. But what are they doing in a war supplemental bill? At a time when Washington D.C. appears to most Americans to be a gusher of red ink, runaway Federal spending, stimulus bills, omnibus bills, and this Congress passed a budget that will double our national debt in 5 years and triple it in 10, we can't even seem to bring a war supplemental bill that just funds the needs of our soldiers in harm's way. I believe we can do better. I will support this bill because I support our troops. But I will continue to call for this Congress to do a service to those heroes and future generations by practicing fiscal discipline.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, the Father of our Country, George Washington, said on the occasion of the 9th of July 1776: ``The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary, but especially so in times of public distress and danger.'' Today is the 58th celebration of our National Day of Prayer. It is the day that Americans from coast to coast will set aside time to pray for this Nation, our soldiers, public safety officials and public servants, from the President of the United States to the city council. Since first called to prayer in 1775 when the Continental Congress asked the Colonies to pray for wisdom forming the Nation, prayer has been at the center of our national life, including President Lincoln's famous proclamation for humility, fasting and prayer in 1863, through when in 1952 President Truman signed a joint resolution of Congress creating this day. It is said in the Old Book that the effective and fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. What is true of man, I would say, is also true of nations. During this National Day of Prayer, during these challenging times, let it be said again, we are a Nation of prayer.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor to come to the floor in support of House Resolution 401, honoring the life and recognizing the far-reaching accomplishments of the Honorable Jack Kemp, Jr. Mr. Speaker, I have a real fancy speech here, and I would like to have it included in the Record in its entirety because I am just going to wing it. Jack Kemp was my hero who became my friend. I had the great privilege of serving as House Republican Conference chairman in the role he held when he left this body to run for President of the United States of America. Some people have accused me from time to time of actually dying my hair to look more like Jack Kemp, and he liked that line. He was a great man. He stood for all the things that I believe in. In keeping with Congressman Artur Davis's sentiments expressed, I just thought I might rise and tell you a story about Jack, about who he really was. He came to Indianapolis for me about a year and a half ago, Mr. Speaker. And I knew that when you bring Jack in for an event, you don't just meet with the local political people, you have got to go into the inner city, you have got to meet with the underserved community. So I took him down to a place called The Lord's Pantry, a soup kitchen in inner-city Indianapolis run by a now-deceased black pastor by the name of Lucius Newson. And there we were, we walked into this little food pantry, and there was Jack Kemp, former quarterback, former candidate for President, former Secretary of HUD, whips off his jacket, rolls his sleeves up, and he regaled the poorest of the poor with his vision for entrepreneurial capitalism and the American Dream. And they loved him. And then at the very end of that, Pastor Newson looks at him--this wonderful, inner-city black pastor, and he said, Mr. Kemp, I know you're a wealthy man, so I am not going to let you leave without asking you for money for a women's shelter we are trying to build down the street. I didn't know how Jack would respond to that because I didn't know him as well as people like Dan Lungren. Not only did Jack pledge help right there on the spot, got a check out--they have a copy of it now up on the wall--Jack Kemp said to him, not only am I going to give money to that cause, but I am going to grab my friend, Mike Pence here, and I am going to grab Tony Dungy and Peyton Manning and Archie Manning, and we are going to come back here next summer and we are going to have a fundraiser and raise all the money you need to build that women's shelter. And doggone it if Jack Kemp didn't call me every 2 weeks for the next 3 months to make sure we set up that banquet. And that black pastor would die a month after that banquet took place, but it raised every penny they needed to build that shelter and Jack Kemp was there and Tony Dungy was there and hundreds of Hoosiers gathered and saw this good and decent man stand with people at the point of a need, which is where his heart was. He called himself a ``bleeding heart'' conservative, and that is that to which I aspire as well. You know, I told Jack one time I could never imagine a future in America where Jack Kemp wasn't eventually President of the United States. And he looked at me and smiled and said he appreciated it. But you know, Mr. Speaker, I think maybe I was aiming too low. You know, sometimes there are giants among us, names like Benjamin Franklin; Booker T. Washington; in England, William Wilberforce. They are men who never held the highest office in the land, but they shaped their times by moral persuasion and political activism. Jack Kemp was such a man. Our hearts are broken, but our gratitude is boundless. Our prayers go out to Joanne and his entire family--which really extends to the millions if you knew the man. The depth this Nation owes Jack Kemp can only be repaid by imitation of his example. I will always be proud to have known this good and great man. And I will always, first and foremost, refer to myself as a ``Jack Kemp Republican.'' Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 401, honoring the life and recognizing the farreaching accomplishments of the Honorable Jack Kemp, Jr. Along with millions of Americans, my family and I were deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Jack Kemp. Jack Kemp was a hero who became my friend and I will miss him dearly. Jack Kemp was a great man whose character, optimism and compassion will shape his party and his nation for generations. As a legislator and a thought leader, Jack Kemp shaped a rising generation of leaders in both parties with his ideas about entrepreneurial capitalism, enterprise zones and equality. Those ideals were the driving force behind the economies policies of President Ronald Reagan and the welfare reform of the Republican Congress. His optimistic belief in American dream--in the power of free markets and entrepreneurial capitalism--was a lodestar to millions of Americans. His devotion to ensuring equality of opportunity for every American regardless of race, creed or color helped ground the Republican Party in the true ideals of Lincoln. His integrity and personal Christian faith showed his colleagues how to build a career in public service without compromising the people and the values that matter most. Speaking to the Concerned Women for America in 1993--a time when Republicans were running scared and some spoke of deserting the ``social issues'' platform--Jack Kemp said: ``Every single year, there is a tragic silence of a million newborn cries that will never be heard. Talents that will never be developed. Potential that we will never see. Books never authorized. Inventions never made . . . The right to life is a gift of God, not a gift of the state. Abortion must never rest easy on the conscience of our nation.'' And Jack Kemp stood for the sanctity of life. Jack was a passionate advocate for life and the unborn of all races. His life and work had an enormous impact on U.S. foreign aid policy. The Kemp-Kasten provision, which was in effect for more than two decades (first enacted in 1984 for the 1985 fiscal year), prohibits U.S. funding of any organization that ``supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntarily sterilization.'' Under this law, the United States cut off funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) starting in 2002 because, in the words of Colin Powell, ``UNFPA's support of, and involvement in, China's population-planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion. Therefore, it is not permissible to continue funding UNFPA at this time.'' In 2008, the State Department again determined that UNFPA continued to support the Chinese population control program through financial support for the very Chinese agencies that enforce the policy. Tragically, Kemp-Kasten was gutted in the recently passed Omnibus to allow funding to again flow to the UNFPA which can resume using taxpayer dollars to assist the Chinese government with their coercive population control program. On occasion, there are giants among us--men like Benjamin Franklin and Booker T. Washinton--who never held the highest elective office in the land but shaped their times by strong moral persuasion and political activism. Jack Kemp was such a man. Our hearts are broken but our gratitude is boundless. Our prayers go out to his beloved Joanne and his entire family. The debt this nation owes Jack Kemp can only be repaid by imitation of his example. I will always be proud to have known this good and great man and I will always say that I am, first and foremost, a `Jack Kemp Republican.'

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, on Thursday, April 29, 2009, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 228 on final passage of the Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights Act of 2009. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today in support of World Press Freedom Day, celebrated on the 3rd day of May each year. I do so with a profound sense of humility and with a sense of privilege about being able to come to the floor to speak in support of freedom of the press around the world. World Press Freedom Day has been observed for 16 years now and serves as a reminder to us all of the vital importance of this core freedom. It is a day in which we celebrate the indispensable role played by journalists in exposing abuses of power, while at the same time we sound the alarm about the growing number of journalists that are still being silenced by death or jailed as they attempt to report on important issues of the day and bring to light information in the public interest. Since this day was first celebrated, 692 journalists have been killed. The majority of victims were local reporters covering topics such as crime, corruption, and national security in their home countries. Adding to this tragic figure are the hundreds more each year who face intimidation, censorship, and arbitrary arrest--guilty of nothing more than a passion for truth and a tenacious belief that a free society depends on an informed citizenry. In every corner of the globe--from Iran to Zimbabwe, Burma to Pakistan, Cuba and Venezuela-- there are journalists being actively harassed and exercising self- censorship because of threats and intimidation from repressive regimes. As part of combating this intimidation and censorship, Mr. Adam Schiff of California and I recently introduced the Daniel Pearl Freedom of Press Act. As many will remember, Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by terrorists in Pakistan, just 4 months after the September 11th attacks. At the time of his kidnapping, Pearl served as the South Asia Bureau Chief of the Wall Street Journal, and was based in Mumbai, India. He went to Pakistan as part of an investigation into the alleged links between Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, Al Qaeda and Pakistan's Inter- Services Intelligence, ISI. He was subsequently beheaded by his captors. This legislation is dedicated to Daniel Pearl, the many that have gone before him, and those that still face such dangers today. The legislation seeks to highlight and promote freedom of the press by establishing an annual State Department report on the status of press freedom in every country in the world and create a grant program aimed at broadening and strengthening the independence of journalists and media organizations. Now, more than ever, the defense of the freedom of the press must continue. Here at home, the Constitution of the United States provides: ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.'' Not since those words were adopted has this body passed a law to ensure the freedom of the press. Last month, the House passed the Free Flow of Information Act of 2009, legislation I was honored to introduce with Representative Rick Boucher of Virginia. The bill provides a qualified privilege of confidential sources to journalists-- which is sadly missing in Federal law--and enables reporters to shield sources in most instances from disclosure. I urge its swift passage by our colleagues in the Senate. While it is my great hope that a Federal Media Shield bill will soon be signed into law here at home, the struggle for freedom of the press is much more primitive in its evolution in many parts of the world. And for that reason we must stand in solidarity with all those around the globe who love freedom and continue to strain at the bonds of tyranny and oppression on this day of remembrance. On this day, we remember reporters like Roxana Saberi. Miss Saberi is a 31-year-old American journalist who was arrested in February 2009, and is being held in Iran on charges of espionage, which her lawyer and the U.S. Department of State call baseless. Saberi is a freelance journalist who moved to Iran 6 years ago and reports for NPR, the BBC, and other news organizations. A true representative of this melting pot that is America, she grew up in Fargo, North Dakota, the daughter of Reza Saberi, who was born in Iran, and Akiko Saberi, who is from Japan. As we learn of cases like Miss Saberi, we understand the stakes that are at risk here. We understand why oppressive regimes like that of Iran want so desperately to muzzle the unfiltered reporting of journalists like Saberi. And we understand why it is so important to cherish and protect freedom of the press as a vital check on abuses of power. Today, we call on the government of Iran to free Miss Saberi, hospitalized in her desperate attempt to win her freedom with a hunger strike that might appeal to the conscience of her oppressor where her valid legal arguments did not. As a conservative who believes in limited government, I believe the only check on government power in real time is a free and independent press. A free press ensures the flow of information to the public, and let me say, during a time when the role of government in our lives and in our enterprises seems to grow every day--both at home and abroad--ensuring the vitality of a free and independent press is more important than ever. I salute the bravery of reporters and press outlets around the world. I urge you to stand firm and take heart. The U.S. House of Representatives stands firmly behind your right to increased freedoms; soon we hope to see this right enshrined in our public law, and stand in solidarity with those on the front lines of the worldwide fight for freedom of the press.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the budget conference report because it borrows too much, spends too much and taxes too much, and the American people know it. At a time when every American family is sitting down around kitchen tables making sacrifices and making the hard choices necessary to get through these difficult days, here in Washington, D.C., we see a Democratic majority and a new administration bring forward a budget that will double the national debt in 5 years and triple the national debt in 10, a $1.2 trillion deficit in 2010 and deficits of nearly $1 trillion a year every year for the next 10 years. The distinguished majority leader spoke of ``political courage'' on the floor just moments ago, but let me say there are no profiles in courage in this budget. The truth is, the Democratic majority in this administration has brought to the floor the most fiscally irresponsible budget in American history. Congress should be doing what every American family is doing--cutting expenses and finding within themselves the faith, and, yes, the courage to get through these times with sacrifice. Instead, here in Washington, D.C., it is more government, more spending, more debt and more taxes. In just 100 days, a new administration and this Democratic majority have decided to continue and to greatly expand the mistakes of the past. But we can do better, and I believe, for the sake of our children and our grandchildren, we must do better. Let's reject this conference report and start over with a budget that will serve ourselves and our posterity with fiscal responsibility.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I especially thank the ranking member of this committee for his strong and principled and thoughtful opposition to H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Mr. Speaker, those who know me, including my colleagues on this committee and the distinguished chairman of this committee, know that I abhor discrimination. I have associated myself throughout my career in Congress with efforts to advance the interests of minorities, and I will continue to do so. People who know me back home know that I have no tolerance for unkindness or disrespect to any individual for any reason, but most especially any disrespect or discrimination that is based on race, creed, or color is anathema to me. So I don't question the motives of those who would advance this legislation. I think I know the heart of many and understand it. But I rise in opposition to this legislation for three reasons: Number one, I believe that we should not treat thought the same way we treat action before the law. Number two, I believe this legislation is unnecessary when a careful examination of State prosecutions and the work that's being done at State levels is examined. And lastly and most ominously, I fear this legislation, intentionally or unintentionally, could have a chilling effect on the religious expression and the religious freedom of millions of Americans. So let me speak to each of those points. Thomas Jefferson once said, ``Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith and his worship, the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, not opinions.'' Thomas Jefferson again stated the core of my objection to hate crimes legislation as a whole, and that is that violent attacks against people or property are already illegal regardless of the motive behind them. And it seems to me that the wisdom expressed by Thomas Jefferson in that quote is wisdom that ought to discipline this legislative body, that we ought to focus the reach of government on actions only and not opinions. And that remains the core of my objection to hate crimes legislation. But even to those who believe, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation is appropriate, I must say that it is also important for our colleagues and anyone looking in to understand that this legislation is also unnecessary. The underlying offense in each of these crimes is already fully and aggressively prosecuted in all 50 States. This bill designates in particular gender identity for federally protected status without, I might add, any evidence of any hate crimes occurring against individuals for gender identity. The hate crimes bill before us today makes a Federal offense out of any violent crime that is alleged to be motivated by gender identity including, for instance, people who describe themselves as transsexuals, even though the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990, as amended in 1994, never collected any data to show that such hate crimes are even occurring. In fact, the truth be told, FBI statistics show that the incidents of what are described as hate crimes has declined over the last 10 years, for which we have data. In 1997 a total of 8,000 what are called ``bias-motived'' criminal incidents were reported to the FBI. The data for 3 of the last 10 years, 2003 through 2005, demonstrated a steady decline in the number of those crimes, and the incidents as the present day approaches decline even further. And, also, lastly, there is zero evidence that States are not fully prosecuting violent crimes that are motivated by hate or for any other reason. Every State in the Nation prohibits a variety of violent crimes that constitute ``willfully causing bodily injury.'' For whatever the purpose of the will of causing bodily injury, those crimes are prosecuted. And for those who advocate hate crimes legislation, a Federalist note: 45 States and the District of Columbia already have specific laws punishing hate crimes. Which brings me to my last objection to this Federal legislation, and that is the concern that I have about the threat to religious freedom and religious expression. The gentlewoman who just spoke said, memorably, that this is not a hate speech bill, this is a hate crimes bill. But because those 45 States already have legislation involving hate crimes, we can see how this kind of legislation actually operates in practice. One case in particular, in 2004 in Philadelphia, 11 individuals were arrested at something called OutFest, which is a gay pride festival. These individuals held signs that displayed segments of the Holy Bible. They were arrested after protesting peacefully. They were charged with three felonies and five misdemeanors. Their felony charges included ``possessions of instruments of crime,'' which apparently was a bullhorn; ethnic intimidation, which was apparently their statement that they believed as Biblical Christians that homosexuality is a sin; and also they were charged with inciting a riot for reading passages from the Bible related to that moral practice. Now, whether or not a riot occurred involving these Christians was debatable, but they faced $90,000 in fines and possible 47-year prison sentences. In San Francisco a city council enacted a resolution urging local broadcast media not to run advertisements by a pro-family group. In New York a pastor who rented billboards posting Biblical quotations on sexual morality had them taken down by city officials who cited hate crime principles as justification. We saw a new colleague today take that oath that we all take, and it was a solemn moment, Mr. Speaker. But we swear to support and uphold the Constitution, which reads, I remind my colleagues, ``Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' We must not pass this hate crimes bill. It is unnecessary and it threatens that constitutional obligation that we have.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today in the midst of a debate and rise in opposition to the conference report on the Democratic budget. I do so following after the quite typically forceful remarks of the gentlelady from Connecticut, whom I respect as a colleague. She, as the gentleman from California just said, focused a great deal on the last 8 years. As someone who in this body through the course of the last 8 years was, as my colleagues know, a harsh and public and consistent critic of runaway Federal spending under Republican control, allow me to stipulate that the gentlelady makes a point. The truth is in the 8 years of the Bush administration's tenure, under Republican control 6 of those years, we did manage to double the national debt. And that was a disappointment to millions of Americans, me included. And I believe it was part and parcel why the American people in 2006 showed us the door because they know we can't borrow and spend our way to a healthy America. So I will stipulate to that point, Madam Speaker. But it doesn't follow or stand to reason that coming to the floor as the gentlelady from Connecticut did and as others have today and complaining about overspending under Republican control of Congress, that the answer would be this budget which would--on top of what has already happened--double the national debt in 5 years and triple the national debt in 10. It just simply doesn't make sense. I would expect, Madam Speaker, that anyone that is looking in, that in the midst of these difficult times--a time when the American people are hurting, when every family and small business and family farmer across this country are sitting down around kitchen tables and metal desks and offices and figuring out how to make ends meet, they are making sacrifices, they are putting off until tomorrow what they don't have to spend today--here they see Democrat majorities in the House and the Senate bringing to the floor the most fiscally irresponsible budget in American history. And I say again, according to the numbers--and we can get lost in the numbers--outlays of $3.5 trillion for fiscal year 2010, $1.2 trillion in deficits in 2010. The deficits over this period never fall below $500 billion. A number that was roundly criticized when the Bush administration and Republicans hit that number is now accepted to be the norm. As I mentioned, public debt by the year 2014 will rise to more than two-thirds as a share of the economy. It is astonishing to point out that the European Union requires countries to keep their debt below 60 percent of their economy.

Mr. PENCE. If this administration and the Democrat majority have their way, the United States of America, by 2014, wouldn't even qualify under the criteria of the European Union--not that I would ever want to join. It just gives a perspective here, Madam Speaker, that what we have before us today is a budget that is out of step with the American people. It is a budget that does not embrace the sacrifice and the resilience and the demonstrated virtue that millions of American families and millions of small businesses are practicing today. The truth is, we can do better. The truth is, the American people know that this Congress has the capacity, even during these difficult times, to do the right thing, to take our jackets off, to roll our sleeves up, to do the hard work. I look across the aisle and I see a gentleman with whom I serve that I personally and deeply respect. And I have to believe there are many colleagues on the other side of the aisle that also know this we ought not to do. After a so-called stimulus bill that spent $1 trillion, an omnibus bill that increased spending by 8 percent for last year's business, and now the most fiscally irresponsible budget in American history, enough is enough. The American people want this Congress to begin to practice fiscal discipline and reform. We ought to do so by rejecting this conference report, and I urge my colleagues to do so.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, this week, House Democrats begin hearings on so-called ``cap-and-trade'' legislation. It is their legislative response to concerns over global climate change. Even former Vice President Al Gore will testify tomorrow here on Capitol Hill. But as many around the country and in this body are realizing, there are a lot of inconvenient truths about the cap-and-trade bill. The Democrat plan actually caps growth and trades jobs, and the truth is this cap-and-trade legislation is essentially an economic declaration of war on the Midwest by liberals in Washington, D.C., and it must be opposed. Under the Democratic plan, estimates suggest the average American household could face more than $3,000 a year in higher energy costs, and people in the Midwest, like us in Indiana, will bear the largest burden. Even the President, as candidate, said, ``Under my plan of cap- and-trade, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.'' We can only estimate these numbers, Mr. Speaker, because the Democratic plan includes no numbers. The truth is the American people deserve to know what all this is going to cost. The Democrats and the Congress need to come clean about the cost of their cap-and-trade bill, and when they do, this Congress and the American people will reject it.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to remember the remarkable life of Megan Miller. I was deeply saddened to learn of her passing and believe her courage in the face of adversity is something special that deserves recognition today on the floor of the people's House. Megan Nichole Miller was born on November 26, 2000, to her loving parents, Scott and Suzanne Miller of Jamestown, Indiana. Megan attended Granville Wells Elementary School and was a member of New Brunswick Church of Christ. Though Megan faced remarkable challenges throughout her brief time with us, she will be remembered by her friends and family for the spirit with which she lived and the faith that guided her life. Megan's passion for life brightened the world for everyone around her. Instead of focusing on her physical difficulties, she used her disabilities to teach others the importance of accepting all people--no matter what their circumstances. It is fitting that Megan loved music, especially hymns about God and heaven, where I am certain she is now. None were more blessed by Megan than her family. She shared a special bond and deep love with her sister Hannah. Megan's parents are forever blessed by their remarkable daughters, and have gained a greater understanding of the worth that we all carry in the eyes of God. Though Megan sadly has passed away, those who knew her will continue to benefit from the inspiring example that she set throughout her life. I would like to offer my sincere appreciation to the doctors and nurses who gave Megan the best possible care and my deepest condolences to Scott, Suzanne, and Hannah.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentlelady. And before she departs the floor-- reclaiming my time--I would call the attention, Mr. Speaker, to you and anyone who might be looking in, to a map that reflects recent research done by the highly respected Heritage Foundation. They call this the manufacturing vulnerability index, which really calculates what the gentlelady said about her home State of Minnesota, my home State of Indiana, represent those kind of heartland States that will be undeniably most impacted by a cap-and-tax system. I would yield to the gentlelady for a quick response. We're struggling in Indiana. Our economy, Mr. Speaker, has a 10 percent unemployment rate. The idea of Congress actually making a priority today--in the name of climate change--to pass legislation without numbers in it. Again, I want to emphasize we don't have numbers in this bill, but the estimates are based on independent studies that it will cost millions of jobs, the estimates are that it will burden families. I would just ask the gentlelady, are the good people of Minnesota in a better position than the people of Indiana to absorb a national energy tax of some $3,128 per household? I would yield.

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentlelady. And I will let her get on to her evening. But I did hear news reports of the administration's suggestion that they might consider phasing in the cap-and-tax. It kind of reminds me of that story of how you boil a frog, whether you turn the heat up slowly and bring it to a boil or whether you drop it into scalding water, it seems to me you've still got a dead frog at the end of that story. The truth of the matter is that there are better solutions, solutions where we don't end up transferring enormous amounts of wealth from the heartland of the country, from the manufacturing bedrock of this Nation, if I can say with some regional pride. There are better solutions where we can deal with CO2 emissions, with new technologies. We can develop a broad, comprehensive energy strategy. And as I thank the gentlelady, Mr. Speaker, and wish her a restful evening, I am prepared to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop). Let me just assure, it has been mentioned by several of my colleagues, I was actually asked by the Republican leader of the Congress to lead a Republican Energy Solutions Working Group. We have brought together not only the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Joe Barton, but also I've got the capable assistance of co-chairmen in the likes of Congressman John Shimkus, Congressman Fred Upton, men who have the experience and the background that helped us develop the American Energy Act as a Republican alternative in the last Congress and are in the process of building a comprehensive Republican energy alternative as we speak. There are better solutions. There are better options. We can achieve cleaner air without raising taxes on every American household in the form of a national energy tax, a cost of living tax, according to estimates, of more than $3,128 per year. Before I yield to the gentleman, let me say this point again because it is--you can probably tell I am a pretty patient man, Mr. Speaker, but when it comes down to denying the American people the information that they need to make informed choices, I am an impatient man. The truth is--and anyone looking on deserves to know--that this week this Congress will begin to debate what could well result in a massive change in our energy generation system in this country, the so-called cap-and-trade system, which would fall foursquare on coal-burning power plants in this country, would fall foursquare on the region of the country that I call home in Indiana and the industrial Midwest that relies so heavily on coal-burning power plants. And this massive multigenerational impact on our economy, on our way of life, all in the name of climate change, and we have no numbers. Mr. Speaker, it is not acceptable. It is not acceptable that the American Clean Energy and Security legislation that will be the subject of hearings beginning this week has been brought to the floor so bereft of detail that the Congressional Budget Office cannot tell the Members of this Congress or the people of the United States of America how much this is all going to cost. That is not acceptable. I urge my colleagues, burn the midnight oil, put the numbers in, or pull these hearings, pull this legislation until you can produce a bill that my colleagues--like the gentleman sitting across the aisle tonight, colleagues that I respect, colleagues with whom I differ vehemently on issues, but whose integrity I respect--that our colleagues can come together and have an honest debate about what this will really cost the American people. Let's debate climate change. Let's debate the science. Let's debate the solutions for achieving carbon dioxide reductions and particulates. But let's also debate the cost. Let's allow the American people to count the cost before this Congress considers a massive national energy tax that could change our economy forever and essentially amounts to an economic declaration of war on the Midwest by liberals here in Washington, D.C. With that, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the former Speaker of the Utah State House, a distinguished member of the Republican minority, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), an expert on issues of energy and an eloquent spokesman about positive solutions.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight with an issue of enormous importance before the American people on my mind. And I'll be joined in just a few moments by distinguished colleagues from around the country who share my profound concern about legislation that has come to be known as cap-and-trade legislation. It is an effort that is under way here on Capitol Hill and from the Obama administration that could well result in an increase in energy cost for the average American household of more than $3,000 per year. Now we want to talk about the facts and the data here because, even in newspapers and in wire services tonight, that number, which is the calculation of a study done by MIT, is the subject of some dispute and of some debate. I want to concede the point that the impact on the average American household, if the President and the majority's cap- and-trade bill were to become law, could actually be much higher than that. In fact, it would be President Obama, himself, as a candidate in January 2008, who spoke these words in a meeting with the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle, and I would say to any of our citizens who are looking in and who are Internet savvy: Don't take my word for it. Go to youtube.com and type in the President's name and the San Francisco Chronicle, and you can watch him say it for yourself. I give the President, whose office and his person I respect, credit for candor. In January of 2008, he referred to this plan upon which he was campaigning and a plan upon which Democrats have now offered legislation, hearings for which begin this week. The President said, ``Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.'' Adding, ``That would cost money, and they will pass that money on to consumers.'' Let me say again: While a careful calculation of a study done, I believe, in 2007 by a distinguished university, MIT, estimates that the average American household would experience increased energy costs of some $3,128 per year, then candidate and now-President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, said that, if his cap-and-trade system passed into law, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Now, the last time I checked, which was just late last week, most of this country was going through one of the worst recessions we've experienced in decades. I say with a heavy heart that the people of Indiana recently learned that the unemployment rate in my fair State is now at 10 percent. The American people are hurting, struggling under the weight of the listing economic fortunes of this Nation. Let me say that the last thing, I believe, the American people want this Congress to do is to pass energy legislation in the name of dealing with climate change that could result in, to borrow the President's phrase, a skyrocketing of electricity rates on working families, small business owners and family farms. As I prepare to begin to recognize some of my colleagues, many of whom have gotten to know more about this topic than I will have a chance to learn, I also want to make one more point about this: This legislation, known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act, offered on March 31, 2009, by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Waxman of California and by the Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Markey, could not only result in this massive energy tax increase, but I want to say, if this legislation were to pass into law, it would be tantamount to a declaration of economic war on the Midwest by the liberal majority of this Congress. Now, people who have known me over the last 8 years in this Congress know that I like to turn a phrase, but I don't like to be an alarmist, and so, for me to come to the floor of this Congress and say that I believe if the President's cap-and-trade bill were to become law it would, in effect, be a declaration of economic war by liberals in Washington, D.C. on the Midwest, allow me to defend that point. According to a recent study done by the Heritage Foundation, what they call their Manufacturing Vulnerability Index, a picture is worth 1,000 words. This map demonstrates the vulnerability being the highest among the dark red-colored States and the beige States being the least impacted by the cap-and-trade legislation. It tells the tale. I can't do better than this. So, when I say that to pass the cap-and-trade legislation could result in a massive national energy tax and would fall foursquare on States that are most dependent on coal-burning power plants for the electricity that we use in our homes and in our small businesses and on our farms, the map tells the tale. The least affected areas are on the coast--on the west coast and in the Northeast--in places like New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, Maine, and New Hampshire. A wider diversity of electricity sources of energy would be the least impacted. Likewise, California, Arizona, Oregon, and Washington State would be among the least impacted, but for the Midwest and my State, which according to this study is virtually ground zero of the impact of cap-and-trade's economic burden, the coloration of this map tells the tale. States along the Ohio River Valley, States across--let me say with pride--the heartland of this country, States that depend the most on coal-burning power plants will bear the greatest burden and households and small businesses and family farms in that region, a region, which if I can say on a very personal level, is already struggling in these difficult times. As I mentioned, there is 10 percent unemployment in the State of Indiana, and for my Michigan neighbors who are looking in tonight, forgive me for not knowing the number, but I do know it's worse, and to think that this Congress, even as we speak, would be contemplating a cap-and-trade piece of legislation that may result in a massive national energy tax increase, falling most harshly on the Midwest, is unconscionable. Now let me say one last item before I yield to a freshman. I'm going to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, and we'll hear from Utah and from the gentlelady who just spoke. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, you've heard that I've qualified my estimates here, because the truth is that the American Clean Energy and Security legislation, offered by the distinguished gentleman from California and by the gentleman from Massachusetts, actually includes no specific numbers on how CO2 emission allowances would be allocated to energy producers. In other words, we don't know whether they'll be free, whether they'll be auctioned--the so-called cap-and-trade scheme. We don't know what price. Therefore, the bill that is going to be the subject of hearings on Capitol Hill this week provides so little information that the Congressional Budget Office confirmed again today that they cannot score the cap-and-trade bill. Now, as I told members of the media today, we had a little budget debate a few weeks ago, and I remember the Republicans came out with a budget alternative, you might remember, Mr. Speaker, and a few days before that, we thought it would be helpful to put out an outline of that budget alternative. Yet it's a live-and-learn deal around here, and what I learned was that the media really doesn't appreciate it when Republicans come forward without all the numbers in the proposal. I've internalized that lesson, and I'm applying it to the Waxman-Markey bill. The truth of the matter is that a nonbinding budget resolution is one thing, but legislation that could literally change the economic fortunes of the heartland of America for generations is another. The American people, Mr. Speaker, are entitled to know what all of this is going to cost, and we don't know today because the bill that will be the subject of hearings, that will be the subject of subcommittee markups just in a matter of days, I'm told, and that may well be on the floor here before we get to Memorial Day weekend has no numbers, no numbers for us to estimate the impact on the average American family, on the average small business owner and family farmer, and that is just not acceptable. So Republicans are left to use estimates like the study from MIT. We took MIT's estimate of a key cap-and-trade bill from the 110th Congress, cosponsored then by Senator Obama, because the targets of that Senate bill tracked the emission targets outlined in the President's budget. We took MIT's own number, $366 billion, divided that by the number of U.S. households. We assumed about 300 million people and an average household size of 2.56 people, all right? If we use that formula, you get roughly $3,000 per household. Using current census figures, you get $3,128 per household using MIT's own numbers. Why are we using that? Why are we doing this calculation? Because we don't have any numbers in the bill. The American people have a right to know. They have a right to know that the price tag is on the plans of this administration and of this majority to raise a massive national energy tax in the name of climate change. We urge them with all deliberate speed to cease and desist any further progress on cap-and-trade legislation until they put the numbers in the bill--leave aside Republicans in the Congress--and until they give the American people the opportunity to count the cost. You know, the old book tells you: Before you build a tower, before you go to war, you count the cost. The American people deserve the right to count the cost on the cap-and-tax legislation that is going to begin to be considered this week. They deserve nothing less. So, with that, I'd like to yield to a new Member of Congress from Texas. The distinguished gentleman (Mr. Olson) is recognized for 5 minutes.