Mike Pence

Mr. PENCE

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. 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

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I commend the gentleman from Ohio for his work on the Republican Study Committee Budget Alternative, and I especially commend the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, the gentleman from Georgia, Tom Price, for his extraordinary and visionary leadership. The budget brought to the majority today, as has been said again and again, spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much, and the American people know it. The Democrat budget will double the national debt in 5 years. It will triple it in 10. The 2010 spending $3 trillion, 25 percent of gross domestic product, more than $1 trillion in tax increases on virtually every American, a 2010 deficit of $1 trillion and nearly $1 trillion deficits every year for the next 10 years. The hard truth is the Democrat majority has brought to this floor the most fiscally irresponsible budget in American history. And the American people know we can do better. They are doing better. And every family farm or small business across this country, around every kitchen table, Americans are making tough choices. They are sitting down as families and in enterprises, deciding what they can put off for tomorrow, what they don't have to spend today, finding ways maybe for a job in town for a little more income. Everywhere in America, the American people are meeting these challenging economic times with frugality, with sacrifice, and with courage, everywhere but in Washington, D.C. The American people long for men and women in this Congress to show the same character, to make the same tough choices. And I'm proud to stand with the Republican Study Committee and this budget alternative that answers that call. A balanced budget; under the RSC alternative the budget outlook improves every single year, and achieves a surplus budget in 2019, $1.2 trillion of tax relief over the next 5 years for virtually every American, fully funding defense spending, and provides zero growth baseline for non-defense spending, and repeals the obscene spending spree of stimulus bills and omnibus bills that has overtaken our country. No changes in Social Security, increases in Medicare, and provides increases equivalent to inflation in Medicaid. And a raft of reforms of unnecessary spending, ending the earmarking culture on Capitol Hill. After years of runaway spending, the American people long for courage and sacrifice on the floor of this Congress. And my Republican colleagues have brought together an alternative that answers that call. It's time that we embrace fiscal discipline and reform, lower taxes and growth. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Republican Study Committee budget alternative.

Mr. PENCE. The budget brought by the majority to the floor today spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much, and the American people know it. The Democrat budget will double the national debt in 5 years, triple it in 10. 2010 spending: $3 trillion. More than $1 trillion in tax increases in a recession, and deficits of nearly $1 trillion a year for the next 10 years. Truth is the Democrat majority has brought to this floor the most fiscally irresponsible budget in American history. While every American family and every small business is answering these challenging times of sacrifice and frugality, the majority in this Congress continues to believe that we can borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing economy. But not Republicans. Thanks to the bold and innovative leadership of the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Congressman Paul Ryan, Republicans have a better solution. In stark contrast to the Democratic budget, the Republican budget alternative puts America on a path to prosperity, spends nearly $5 trillion less than the Democrats' budget over 10 years, brings debt under control, borrowing nearly $4 trillion less than the Democrat budget over 10, and it does not raise taxes. Creating 2.1 million more jobs than the Democrat budget, this Republican alternative puts its faith in individuals and businesses and private sector. Suspending capital gains taxes, reforming the tax code, reducing the corporate tax rate so we can keep American jobs here. And even while we do so, we fund our national priorities, increasing defense, increasing veterans, providing for healthy retirement security, and touching not one cent of the Social Security program and trust fund. I urge my Democrats to do the unexpected, as Daniel Webster says on the wall just before us, Let us do something in this generation. Let us perform something worthy to be remembered. Embrace bipartisanship today. Embrace fiscal discipline, tax relief, and reform. I say to my Democratic colleagues with the deepest respect, say ``yes'' to the American people. Vote ``yes'' on the Republican budget alternative.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The budget brought to the floor by the Democratic majority today spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much, and the American people know it. This Democrat budget will double the national debt in 5 years, triple it in 10; 2010 spending alone is $3 trillion, 25 percent of GDP. More than $1 trillion in tax increases in the majority's budget. The 2010 deficit estimated at $1 trillion, and independent estimates suggest a deficit of nearly $1 trillion a year for the next 10 years. The numbers tell the tale. The Democratic majority is proposing the most fiscally irresponsible budget in American history. But this isn't just about the numbers. It's not about dollars and cents alone. It's about who we are as a country. It's about the American dream, and it's about our kids. It's about those small business owners and working families and family farmers that are dreading the idea of paying higher taxes during these hard times, higher marginal rates, higher national energy tax on every American household. And it's about our kids who may not even know or understand what they have to fear in the mountain range of debt that we are piling on. It reminds me of a time a few years back I went to the CVS, forgot my wallet. I was with my 10-year-old daughter, and I reached down and I grabbed her purse, and I took out her little kid's debit card to pay for my Coke. I felt so guilty about it. I still feel bad about it today. Truth is, that's exactly what we're doing here. Let's not do this to our kids. Let's not borrow from the next generation of Americans things that we ought to be dealing with in sacrifices and hard decisions today. Every American family, every American business is answering these challenging times by sitting down around tables, sitting down around desks, and with sacrifice and frugality, they're finding their way through these challenging days. Congress should do no different. Let's reject this Democrat budget. Let's reject runaway Federal spending of those who believe we can borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing economy, and embrace fiscal discipline and reform and tax relief in the Republican alternative that will truly put our fiscal house in order and get this economy growing again.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I rise in opposition to the Democratic budget. The budget, brought by the majority to this floor in this debate, spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much, and the American people know it. The Democrat budget will double the national debt in 5 years, triple it in 10, and the numbers tell the tale. 2010 spending, $3 trillion, 25 percent of GDP, more than $1 trillion in tax increases. The 2010 deficit, $1 trillion, and estimates suggests deficits nearly $1 trillion for the next 10 years. The truth is, Madam Chairman, the Democrat majority has brought to this floor the most fiscally irresponsible budget in American history. During debates like this we hear a lot about the numbers, but this isn't just about the numbers. The truth is, it's not about dollars and cents. It's about the American dream, and it's about our kids. It's about small business owners, working families, and family farmers that are dreading the idea of facing higher taxes, higher marginal rates, a national energy tax. And it's about our children and our children's children who may not yet understand what they have to fear and a mountain range of debt. Let us not do this. Every American family, every American business is answering these challenging times with sacrifice and frugality. This Congress should do no different. Let us reject this Democrat budget. Let us embrace fiscal discipline and reform and growth in the form of the Republican alternative.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I would like to honor a man whose iconic voice forever changed broadcast radio and to whom our Nation will be forever indebted. As a high school student, Paul Harvey began his storied career in his hometown of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Spending time to help clean the studios of KVOO, Paul was eventually given the opportunity to fill-in on the air. It quickly became clear that Paul Harvey was a gifted broadcaster as he was soon promoted to become the station's program director. After spending time covering World War II and serving in the United States Army Air Corps, Paul Harvey moved to Chicago where he began broadcasting for ABC. He quickly became a fixture on Chicago's airwaves and on April 1, 1951, `Paul Harvey News and Comment' debuted. Eventually gathering an audience that spanned 1,200 stations and well over 25 million people, Paul Harvey was often the ``largest one-man network in the world.'' Madam Speaker, the list of awards and honors to the credit of Paul Harvey is long and distinguished. His election to the National Association of Broadcasters Radio Hall of Fame reflects a career that spanned more than 70 years. In October 2005, Paul Harvey was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, our nation's most prestigious civilian decoration. Illustrating the extent to which Paul Harvey captured the American voice, his broadcasts and newspaper columns have been reprinted in the Congressional Record more than those of any other commentator. Because of my time in radio, I am especially thankful for the life and character of Paul Harvey. There is no doubt that every broadcaster has taken inspiration from the unique style and unparalleled legacy of Paul Harvey. Epitomizing the values and ideals of everyday Americans, Paul Harvey was a master of his craft and a pioneer in the format of broadcast radio that many Americans continue to rely on. Paul Harvey, Good Day.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today in support of the Free Flow of Information Act of 2009. I do so with a profound sense of humility and with a sense of privilege about being able to come to the floor today in support of this thoughtful and bipartisan measure that may, may well, be a lasting contribution to the vitality of liberty in this Nation. 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 needed to legislate to ensure the freedom of the press. Not until today. We do so because, sadly, the free and independent press in this country is under fire. In recent years, more than 30 journalists have been subpoenaed, questioned, or held in contempt for failure to reveal their confidential sources. For a journalist, maintaining the assurance of confidentiality of a source is sometimes the only way to bring forward news of great consequence to the Nation. Being forced to reveal sources chills the reporting of the news and restricts the free flow of information to the public. 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 the government in our lives and in our enterprises seems to grow every day, ensuring the vitality of a free and independent press is more important than ever. In order to maintain this charge, I coauthored the Free Flow of Information Act with my colleague from Virginia, Congressman Rick Boucher. I would like to take a moment to thank my partner in this legislation. He is truly the gentleman from Virginia. For over 4 years, we have worked on this issue in a spirit of bipartisanship. Rick Boucher is a champion of the first amendment. It has been my great privilege to work with him. I also want to commend the chairman of this committee, Chairman Conyers, Vice Ranking Member Bob Goodlatte, and Representatives Coble and Blunt, without whose efforts in the last Congress the bipartisan compromise in this bill would not have been possible. The bill is known as the Federal Media Shield. It provides a qualified privilege of confidential sources to journalists, enabling them to shield sources in most instances from disclosure. But the bill is not about protecting journalists; it is about protecting the public's right to know. It received wide bipartisan support in the last Congress, and I hope in this, because we addressed the very real and legitimate concerns about how a privilege for journalists could impact security at the national level. The Federal Government, we acknowledge, is tasked with the tremendous responsibility of protecting our country, and we must also keep national security concerns in the forefront. I submit, the Free Flow of Information Act does just that. Many Americans will assume that the fining and imprisonment of journalists is something confined to tyrannical regimes in far corners of the world. They might be surprised to learn that the United States does not have a Federal law on the books that prevents that from occurring. More than three-fourths of State Attorneys General have written Congress in support of this legislation. In fact, 49 States and the District of Columbia had already recognized a journalist's privilege to protect confidential sources. It is important to emphasize, this bill only provides a qualified privilege; meaning, the disclosure of a source's identity may be required in certain situations, as described by my colleague from Virginia. With this I close: Long ago, Thomas Jefferson warned, ``Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press nor that limited without danger of losing it.'' Jefferson's words ring into this chamber today. The passage of the Free Flow of Information Act I believe is necessary and consistent with that charge to not only explicitly and fully provide for the freedom of the press in our Nation but protect the liberty of future generations. With the bipartisan support of my colleagues and Congress and this new administration, let us seize this opportunity to put a stitch in this tear in the first amendment, freedom of the press, and let us do our part to ensure the vitality of a free and independent press for ourselves and our posterity. I urge my colleagues to join me and our bipartisan support for the Free Flow of Information Act of 2009.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. After years of runaway spending at the Federal level, the American people want this Congress to put our fiscal house in order. Instead, President Barack Obama has brought forward the most fiscally irresponsible budget in American history. The President's budget spends too much, borrows too much, and taxes too much, and the American people know it. The American people don't want more spending, more government, and more bailouts. They don't want to see this President's budget result in, as CBO projected, nearly $1 trillion in annual deficits for the next 10 years. The President's budget would actually double the national debt in just 6 years, and even worse, the President's budget pays for all this spending with higher taxes on virtually every American, small business, and a light-switch tax that would raise utility rates for every American household by more than $3,000. Today, Republicans will continue to offer better solutions, unveiling today a blueprint for recovery that's built on fiscal discipline, growth, and reform. Let the debate begin.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Yesterday, the President of the United States took to prime time television in defense of a budget proposal that spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much, and the American people know it. Our Nation is beginning to understand that the President's proposed the most fiscally irresponsible budget in the history of our Nation. It comes at such a difficult time for our country. I recently met firsthand with families in my district who are facing these difficult times with courage and sacrifice. The leaders of Rushville, Indiana, were sitting down around a kitchen table at a farm last week, practicing the kind of fiscal restraint and determination necessary to make it through these difficult times, and the people in all of our Nation want Washington to do likewise. They want us to put our fiscal house in order with fiscal responsibility and a commitment to grow. The President's budget increases spending and raises taxes on almost every American household and small business, and invites record deficits, and adds roughly $1 trillion to our national debt every year for the next 10 years. The American people know there's a better way. In the coming hours, Republicans will unveil a better solution to pass a budget bill based on fiscal responsibility and the principles of growth.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Like a majority of Republicans in Congress last fall, I opposed this Wall Street bailout from the beginning because I feared both the intended consequences and the unintended consequences that would come and bring us to days like today. House Republicans share the outrage of millions of Americans that AIG would use taxpayer dollars to award executive bonuses. But the plan brought to the floor today by the Democratic majority is a constitutionally questionable bill. It would enact a 90 percent tax on AIG employees and, the truth is, it's a transparent attempt to divert attention away from the fact that Democrats in Congress and this administration made these bonus payments possible. House Republicans believe the American people deserve 100 percent of their money back. We have offered legislation that would deny one more dime of bailout money to AIG until they collect 100 percent of those bonuses back for the American people. But Democrats have blocked the Republican plan. And the American people deserve to know this entire outrage that has dominated the national debate this week could have been avoided. Senator Ron Wyden, the Democrat from Oregon, authored thoughtful legislation in the so-called stimulus bill that passed the House. It was legislation that would have banned bonuses of this type but, to use his words, he said ``It was unfortunate that it was stripped from the bicameral conference committee.'' He said, ``We had an opportunity to send a well-targeted message that would have communicated how strongly the administration felt about blocking these excessive bonuses,'' but, ``I wasn't able to convince them.'' Senator Dodd, the chairman of the bicameral conference committee, said the administration expressed reservations about the language. They asked for modifications. The truth is that Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate were in the room when this language was struck that made these bonuses possible. The American people deserve to get 100 percent of their money back. They deserve it to be done in a way that doesn't give offense to the Constitution of the United States of America. Let's do what's right for the American people, and let's speak the truth.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Last fall, like a majority of House Republicans, I opposed the Wall Street bailout because I feared we'd arrive at days like today, in part. House Republicans share the outrage of the American people that AIG would use taxpayer dollars to award executive bonuses during an economic crisis. But the Democratic bill brought to the floor today is constitutionally questionable. In its obviously transparent attempt to divert attention away from the truth, the Democrats in Congress and this administration made these bonus payments possible. House Republicans believe the American people deserve 100 percent of their money back. House Republicans have proposed legislation that will deny AIG one more dime of bailout money until they have recovered all of the bonus payments from their employees. Lastly, the American people deserve to know this whole outrage could have been avoided. The truth is that it was a Democrat Senator from Oregon, Ron Wyden, who authored thoughtful legislation that would have banned executive bonuses included in the stimulus bill, and it was-- late in the night, late in the process--removed. Here's what he had to say about it. Senator Wyden told the Associated Press, ``The President goes out and says this is not acceptable, then some backroom deal gets cut and lets these things get paid out anyway. ``He said, `I think it's unfortunate.' He said we could have had a well-targeted message `which would have communicated how strongly the administration felt about blocking these executive bonuses,' but I wasn't able to convince them.'' ``Even Senator Chris Dodd, the head of the conference committee for the stimulus bill said, `I didn't negotiate with myself. I wasn't trying to change it on my own. The administration had expressed reservations. They asked for modifications.' '' The American people deserve to know that, thanks to the work of Senator Ron Wyden and Senator Olympia Snowe, we wouldn't be here today, because the stimulus bill would have banned these bonuses altogether. But that language was removed. The American people deserve 100 percent of their money back. They deserve to know why House Democrats blocked efforts to ban executive bonuses. We deserve the truth.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Bobby Goodwin's remarkable life of selfless service. I was deeply saddened to learn of his passing and honor his memory today on the floor of the people's House. Bobby W. Goodwin was born in Flemingsburg, Kentucky on March 22, 1939 to the late Lawrence and Edith Goodwin. He was a graduate of New Castle High School, Class of 1958. A loving husband, father, and grandfather, Bobby leaves behind a wonderful family that will undoubtedly miss him. A veteran of the United States Army, Bobby retired from the Ford Motor Company in Indianapolis after 35 years of service. He owned Goodwin Bail Bonding and admirably served the New Castle Police Department, being named Outstanding Police Officer of the Year in 1974. Ever active in the community, Bobby served on the New Castle City Council and was a member of several organizations, including the local Republican Party, VFW and American Legion. At the time of his passing, Bobby served as Head Doorkeeper in the Indiana House of Representatives. Though Bobby sadly has passed away, he leaves a strong legacy that will continue to serve as a powerful example to all who knew him. I offer my sincere condolences to his loving wife Ann Jo, daughter Kathie, and sons Michael, Gary, and Tony.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in the midst of an enormous amount of national outrage. I sensed it yesterday when I was in Anderson, Indiana, meeting with my constituents, meeting with small business leaders at a forum. Now much in the media today is focused on the frustration over a large business, specifically AIG, that received tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer money and now has been busy paying bonuses with it to the tune of over $150 million and has been passing out that money to foreign corporations. That outrage is very real and I agree with it. The American people are tired of bailouts. I voted against the Wall Street bailout last fall, defied a President of my own party, because I simply believe we can't borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing America. And it seems that much of the public has now come to the conclusion that this notion that we can bail out every failing business in the country is a deeply flawed notion. But I also heard an enormous amount of outrage in my district yesterday about this administration's budget. The truth is the more the American people look at the President's budget plan, the more they realize that it spends too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too much, and we have to do better. I heard yesterday from a constituent by the name of Ted Fiock, who runs and owns Anderson Tool and Engineering Company. He talked about the increasing cost in his business, saying, ``The cost burden is just insane right now. We're not doing well. We're struggling. We're in a survival mode right now.'' You can imagine his frustration and even, I would perceive, outrage when I explained to him that 50 percent of the Americans who will be paying higher taxes under the President's budget are actually small business owners just like him. The President said it would just affect Americans who make more than $250,000 a year, but according to the most reasonable estimates, more than 50 percent of the Americans that file taxes over that amount are actually small business owners just like Ted filing as individuals. Raising taxes on small businesses, especially during these difficult economic times, is not a prescription for recovery. It's a prescription for economic decline. I also shared with Ted and others the President's plan, the so-called cap-and-trade energy tax. Under the administration's budget, there would be a new energy tax that could cost every household, let alone every business, up to $3,128 a year for using electricity, driving a car, relying on energy in any way. The President's budget simply taxes too much. And as I explain the metes and bounds in this budget today, the outrage about AIG's bonuses, the outrage about bailouts has suddenly met its match. I think the more the American people look at this administration's budget, the more they know we can do better, and we must do better. It's time for this Congress to embrace the principles of fiscal restraint and policies that will get America growing again, and Republicans are prepared to bring those ideas forward.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. It's St. Patrick's Day, Mr. Speaker, and my Irish grandfather would want me to do nothing short of acknowledging that and wearing the green. But I have to tell you, with the headlines about bailouts, the President's budget for $3.5 trillion and more spending and more taxes to grow government and pay for more bailouts, it's enough to get my Irish up. Reality is that when the American people are taking a closer and closer look at this administration's budget, they know three things. This President's budget spends too much, it taxes too much and it borrows too much. Believe it or not, in these times when the American people are saying enough is enough on big government spending and bailouts, this administration is poised to raise taxes on small business owners. Fifty percent of Americans who file taxes above the level the President wants to raise them are actually small business owners filing as individuals. The average American household will pay $3,100 more with the President's new energy tax. And with the President capping charitable giving, charities in this country, churches and synagogues and the like could lose $9 billion this year alone. Enough is enough. We have to say no to the President's budget and give the American people a budget that is strong and diverse and restrained and committed to growth as they are.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, today, I was unexpectedly detained in my district due to a flight delay and missed three votes. If present, I would have voted: ``yea'' on H.R. 987; ``yea'' on H.R. 1217; and ``yea'' on H.R. 1284.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, during these difficult times, families and small businesses across the land are making hard choices to make ends meet. Sacrifices are being made everywhere, except in Washington, D.C. While Americans are finding ways to cut back, the Democrat Congress and our President have gone on an unprecedented spending binge, bailout after bailout, a $1 trillion stimulus bill. Yesterday, the President signed an omnibus spending bill with an 8 percent increase in spending and 9,000 earmarks. And to make matters worse, the administration has proposed a massive Federal budget that spends too much, borrows too much and taxes too much, and the American people know it. Even a distinguished colleague on the Budget Committee said recently: ``This is not an easy budget to market, for sure.'' Well, I say respectfully to my colleagues, the problem with the President's budget is not marketing, it is content. The American people want Congress to do what they are doing, make sacrifices, be there for our neighbors and embrace fiscal discipline and responsible plans for growth; not a Federal budget that spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. The gentleman points to the President's comments made here on this floor, that only Americans with joint filings over $250,000 a year would experience higher marginal rates under his plan. But that leaves out two thoughts. Number one is that more than half of the American people that file tax returns in excess of $250,000 a year are actually small business owners filing as individuals. Raising taxes on small business owners in a recession is a prescription for economic decline. But there is another tax increase, and that is the energy tax increase the gentleman was just referring to. For the average American household, the energy tax increase could impact several thousand dollars per year on every homeowner, every renter, every small business. It will fall under the category of cap and trade and climate change, but the American people need to be prepared to count the cost as the President moves his budget forward. Higher energy taxes, higher taxes on small businesses, and higher taxes on contributions to charities. By one independent estimate, American charities and nonprofits, including educational institutions, religious institutions, charities that serve the underserved community, some estimates indicate that the President's tax increase could cost charities in this country $16 billion per year. The President's budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much. Republicans have a better solution. We will be bringing those arguments and that solution to the American people in the weeks ahead.

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank my good friend for his strong leadership on this issue on the floor of the Congress. After months of runaway spending here in Washington, D.C., on bailouts and on a so-called stimulus bill, and now the majority is beginning to talk about another stimulus bill and no doubt more bailouts, in the midst of all of that, the incoming administration has presented its budget, more than $3 trillion in spending and higher taxes. I come to the floor today to congratulate the gentleman and my colleagues for their strong statements today. But the American people deserve to know the President's budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much.

Mr. PENCE. The President's budget spends too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too much; and Republicans in Congress have a better solution. In the coming weeks, the American people will hear from this floor, hear on the airwaves of America, and see in print a careful exposition of each of these points: about the extraordinary spending, the extraordinary increase in taxes that have just been described, taxes that will impact in the energy tax every household in America, every business in America.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. In a week that has already been overcome by a blizzard of legislative activity and news, I rise for two reasons today; number one is to commend the gentleman from New Jersey, whose passion for human rights, for human dignity, for the sanctity of life is in high relief on the floor today. I commend the gentleman for coming to the floor and bringing his passion and his knowledge to this issue in the wake of a profoundly disappointing decision by the President of the United States of America. So I commend the gentleman. My second point is to simply say that what was most disappointing to me about the President's decision in authorizing the use of taxpayer dollars to fund research that involves the destruction of human embryos is that it seemed to me, Madam Speaker, to be a moment where the President and his party were putting ideology over science. I say that grounded in the notion that that was an accusation that was leveled at those of us on the side of life in the last 8 years, those of us who believed that we ought not to use the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use it to fund research that involves the destruction of human embryos for scientific purposes. But we were told that we were putting ideology--presumably our pro-life views--over science. But actually, science overcame the debate when, in 2007, nearly 7 full years after President George W. Bush had signed his executive order, and years after Republican majorities in this Congress had authorized tens of millions in increased Federal funding to the National Institutes for Health for ethical adult stem cell research, science came through. As the gentleman just referred, the extraordinary breakthroughs of not one, but two scientific research teams in 2007 found that adult stem cells could be converted into stem cells that essentially were identical to embryonic stem cells through a process called induced pluripotent stem cell procedure. Now, this was a miracle of science. And I remember full well, I remember seeing a report on all the major television networks that said that science has rendered the debate over destructive embryonic stem cell research moot. It seemed as though science had stepped into one of the most difficult and contentious issues of our times and it had taken it off the table. Because of these scientific breakthroughs, it would no longer be necessary to even consider using Federal taxpayers to fund research that destroys human embryos because--and the gentleman, I'm sure, will correct me, having forgotten more about this issue than I've learned-- but I believe scientists found that by introducing a virus into adult stem cells, that they would convert into that highly dynamic mode, they would be induced to take the form of pluripotent stem cells, which scientists have long desired--and have, through private funding, appreciated the opportunity--to do research for the purpose of finding cures and therapies. And so it is not casually that I come to the floor today to say that I believe when President Obama signed an executive order authorizing the use of taxpayer dollars to fund stem cell research that involves the destruction of human embryos, that this administration was putting ideology over science. I didn't hear a word this week about induced pluripotent stem cells. I heard no reference--I'm happy to stand corrected, Madam Speaker--but I heard no reference by the administration or any of its spokesmen, or by the President, to those extraordinary scientific breakthroughs which obviated the need to use my tax dollars and the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans to fund research that destroys human embryos. So as I prepare to yield back to the gentleman, I come to the floor with really a heavy heart. I mean, I believe the sanctity of life is a central axiom of Western civilization. I believe that ending an innocent human life is morally wrong. But I also believe it is also morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of pro-life Americans and use it to fund abortion overseas or to fund research that involves the destruction of human embryos at home. But I found a new layer, Madam Speaker, of wrongness; it's also wrong to do it when it's completely unnecessary. It's wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use it to fund research that destroys human embryos when science itself, in the last year and a half, has made it completely unnecessary to do so. And so it was a moment where this administration put ideology over science. My hope--and, frankly, my prayer--as we enter into this brave new world that could result in embryonic farms, that could result in ultimately setting us on a path where therapies are developed and, therefore, stem cells need to be cloned, we will no doubt hear, it is my hope and my prayer that science will continue to march forward and will overtake the practice of ideology in this Capitol and reaffirm the principle that human life is sacred, we ought not to use taxpayer dollars of pro-life Americans to destroy nascent human life, and most especially, when it is not scientifically necessary to do so to achieve the extraordinary advances that are taking place. I commend the gentleman, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. After months of runaway spending at the Federal level on bailouts, so-called stimulus bills, and big government spending in last year's budget, just last month President Obama unveiled his budget, a more than $3 trillion blueprint for even more spending. At a time when middle class families and small businesses are making sacrifices, Washington continues to spend trillions of dollars on bailouts and new government programs. One independent estimate suggests that the Federal Government will have to hire 250,000 new bureaucrats just to pass out all the money. And the President's plan includes the largest tax increase in history. The majority of his tax increases will hit small business owners. And the new national energy tax will cost every American household up to $3,100 per year. The chairman of the Budget Committee, the Democrat, John Spratt, said, ``This is not an easy budget to market for sure. The reason? Well, the President's budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much, and the American people know it.''

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, we come to this well at a very difficult time in the life of our Nation. American families are struggling under the weight of this recession. Millions of Americans are watching as their life savings are evaporating before their eyes. My own family has been touched by the hardship in the housing crisis and by job loss. So I come to this floor with a sense of urgency, and it is a sense of urgency that was confirmed this morning with the jobs report and a startling reality. But in the midst of these very difficult times, the American people are rising to the occasion. As we speak in this well this morning, millions of Americans are doing in their small businesses, in their family farms and around their kitchen tables what this Congress should be doing. They are finding places to save. They are putting off expenditures that they don't have to make this year to make sure they make ends meet for the priorities in their lives. Yet this Congress, by this massive omnibus bill, is going on with spending as usual. An 8 percent increase in Federal spending, the largest increase in a single year since I was in high school in the 1970s, apart from those months following September 11th, is not what the American people expect to see this Congress doing. ``Spending as usual'' with thousands upon thousands of earmarks and special projects is not what the American people expect from this Congress during these difficult times. Madam Speaker, they want to see the Congress doing what they are doing, and that is making careful decisions, practicing fiscal discipline and setting aside ``business as usual'' to confront these challenging times. And so I rise today to say, let's not just do this continuing resolution for a week but, as others have said, for the rest of this year, let's freeze Federal spending in virtually every area of the government. Let's say no earmarks in the Year 2009. And it's not a value judgment on the Members who've made those project requests. I, myself, don't request projects of that nature. But it is to say, Madam Speaker, that in these difficult times, we have to do what every American family, every small business owner and every family farmer is doing, and that is making sacrifices and practicing discipline. I urge my colleagues in both parties to join the minority today in supporting our motion to recommit. It's a motion that would essentially freeze all Federal spending, say to historic increases in spending in these difficult times, no to earmarks, and say yes to the practiced values of millions of Americans in these difficult days.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act. It's legislation that really will punish those who played by the rules, lived within their means, by forcing them to subsidize Americans who made irresponsible choices. This bill also throws good money after bad. If the HOPE for Homeowners Program was intended to help 400,000 borrowers, the American people deserve to know that to date the program has assisted 43 borrowers, not 43,000, not 430, 43. The President said it was his goal to, quote, eliminate government programs that are not performing. We could start with the HOPE for Homeowners Program. More than anything else, Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing a disturbing pattern here in Washington, one that rewards bad decisions at the expense of people that have made right choices. We saw it in the bailout of Wall Street under a prior administration and continued under the new one. We saw this with the so-called stimulus bill that was designed to stem the rising tide in this economic crisis but was nothing more than a wish list of spending priorities put on the backs of our children and grandchildren. But today we should note more than 90 percent of Americans are paying their mortgages on time and meeting their financial obligations, even in these difficult days, let me say with authority as we consider this bill. People back in Indiana don't want a handout. They don't want to turn a blind eye to people who, through no fault of their own, found themselves in loans in which they should not have been engaged, but Hoosiers don't want to be put on the hook for a handout for people who knowingly made bad choices. These are tough times. We should all be willing to make the sacrifices necessary to weather this economic storm, but we to begin by reaffirming the principle of personal responsibility. The bill before us fails this essential standard. Rewarding bad behavior will not solve our problems, it will only worsen them. We should reject this bill. We should pursue the kinds of policies that put personal responsibility first and ultimately create the incentive for Americans who have invested in their homes and in their lives to continue to expand and prosper.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him and all of my colleagues who will speak here this evening for taking the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to come to this floor and talk about facts. Facts are stubborn things. And it seems like we're living in a time right now of soaring rhetoric. But the facts underpinning the Democrat budget are jarring, and they represent a fundamental departure from the course of American governance. And we need to talk about those things. I mean, the American people understand that the Federal budget is, in itself, the way a party and an administration lays out its vision for the future of the country. The American people deserve a budget that is fiscally responsible and puts jobs first. And as has been said on the floor before, the budget offered by this administration and supported by our Democratic colleagues in the House fails on both counts. The American people know we can't borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing economy. And history has shown that the policies that are embraced in the Obama budget will actually take our country not out of recession, but very likely deeper into recession. The last President of the United States to raise taxes during a recession was Herbert Hoover, who managed, by his deeply flawed judgment and policies, to take a strong recession in the 1920s and turn it into a decades-long depression in this country. And yet here we stand again at a crossroads in our Nation's history when so many families are hurting, so many small business owners are struggling under this economic downturn.