Mike Pence

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I especially thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for his support of this amendment and his yeoman's efforts in this education bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a proud member of ``Hoekstra's heroes,'' a band of my colleagues who over the past several days have rallied around the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and his heroic effort to preserve the vision of State and local control of education in America. It is said that without a vision, the people perish. And the vision of Washington, D.C., the vision of the founders of this country was a vision of limited government that left things like education to those who could govern best at the State level. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will allow local school districts to transfer more funds to specific programs and better utilize their resources for the benefits of students. Let me repeat that, this marginal increase in transferability is for the benefit of students. By increasing the transferability cap, this body permits Federal dollars to be targeted to the areas that most help students. Mr. Chairman, the people of east central Indiana did not send me to Washington, D.C. to increase the Federal Government's role over education or education resources. They sent me to help students by promoting innovation and reform. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will help us modestly innovate and reform by raising the transferability cap; and I urge my colleagues, all of my fellow Hoekstra heroes, and all Hoekstra hero ``wannabes'' on both sides of the aisle to support this fine amendment.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the important amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary) to protect the freedom of association of the Boy Scouts of America that is inherent in the Constitution of the United States of America. Mr. Chairman, it is a sad, sad day in this country when the Boy Scouts of America, an institution recognized as a pillar of moral strength, is increasingly denied access to school facilities based on its membership or leadership criteria. Mr. Chairman, in an era where the headlines have been graced with atrocious incidents of kids killing kids, the rise of drugs and violence in our schools, it is shocking that this Congress would stand by those who point to the Boy Scouts and order them out of our schools. High school students in the State of Indiana can be asked to watch MTV programs to fulfill a course requirement, but the prospect of allowing the Boy Scouts of America to meet in the same building is somehow offensive to the Constitution of this great land. The Boy Scouts of America is a model of integrity, strong ethics, devotion to God and the public good. Closing school doors to them is at minimum misguided, and at the most it is extremism. The Founders of this Nation fought for one Nation under God. The phrase ``In God we trust,'' Mr. Chairman, graces the walls of this very Chamber as testimony to this historic truth. Let us in this place by this amendment make it possible for the next generation of Americans to embrace those same timeless values.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Armey-Boehner-DeLay amendment because school choice is about one thing. It is about educational opportunity for all Americans, regardless of their race or socioeconomic status. The parents of children trapped in our most dangerous and failing schools are having to challenge a status quo that opposes those opportunities to them. This debate, Mr. Chairman, between the status quo and the needs of largely minority students is not new. Decades ago, the defenders of the status quo stood in the schoolhouse door and said to some, you may not come in. Now, the defenders of the status quo stand in the schoolhouse door and say to the grandchildren of many of those same Americans, you may not come out. I strongly rise in support of the Armey-Boehner-DeLay amendment in so much as it is part and parcel of restoring the dream of boundless educational opportunity for all Americans.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 122 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and of the Hope for Children Act. I thank my colleagues on the Hope Coalition for their bipartisan leadership on this issue, especially the gentlewoman from Ohio. Mr. Speaker, there are very few things that can touch a life more than providing a home for a child without a family. The presence of parents in a child's life is undoubtedly the single most important aspect of their development. However, many would-be parents of children without homes are prevented from opening their doors due to the high cost of adoption. Mr. Speaker, the Hope for Children Act will tear down the financial barriers to adoption by doubling the adoption tax credit from $5,000 to $10,000. While this credit may cause a relatively small loss in revenue for the Federal Government, it is a significant step to placing loving families and children together. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the Hope for Children Act. It is said that He puts the lonely in families. It is the Hope for Children Act that puts the Congress in the business of putting lonely children into the families of America.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and I commend their efforts in this important matter. Mr. Chairman, much has been said this day about the effects of the Mexico City policy. Our opponents claim that this is a gag on the first amendment and that it is an attack on family planning. Mr. Chairman, these claims are false and are simply an effort to change focus away from the real issue here which is federally funded abortions and abortion lobbying around the world. Regardless of one's personal stance on the sanctity of life, this body should be able to agree that the millions of pro-life taxpayers that have a moral objection to the practice of abortion should not be forced to pay for abortions or abortion advocacy internationally. America has always and should ever stand for life and liberty across the globe. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to choose life today and to vote for the Hyde-Barcia-Smith amendment and end forced taxpayer funding of abortion and abortion advocacy internationally.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 428. I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for their excellent work on this measure. Mr. Speaker, the passage of this measure before the House will mark yet another triumph for the United States and Taiwan. For too long Taiwan has been denied the benefit of participation in the World Health Organization and a dialogue with its member nations concerning public health policy. Unfortunately, this absence has prevented the people of Taiwan and the members of the World Health Organization from the experiences of an emerging leader in East Asia. I am pleased that we will correct this oversight today. Mr. Speaker, we have a moral duty to ensure that our neighbors have access to the same lifesaving information and technology that we enjoy in the United States. As one of the world's most densely populated regions, Taiwan has been successful at controlling infectious diseases and matching the infant mortality rates of developed nations. Yet work remains in areas such as food safety and the control of illegal drugs. Mr. Speaker, the World Health Organization can help Taiwan in those efforts. I am encouraged by the prospects for all the World Health Organization's members, and I look forward to increased participation by Taiwan in world health events. Ultimately, the real benefit of Taiwan's entry in the WHO will be the children of Taiwan who will have better access to immunizations and preventive care. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in this bipartisan effort in supporting this bill.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful that the distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), has given me this time, and I appreciate his efforts and his diligence in defending our men and women in uniform who, but for this amendment, might be subject to arbitrary and capricious actions of rogue nations bent on perverting the International Criminal Court. None other than President George Washington warned his posterity about certain relations with foreign governments that might put liberty at risk. The system of law that is likely to be practiced in the ICC is outside of our Constitution and our rule of law. It does violence to the very common law that is our inheritance. There is little doubt that the framers of the Constitution would reject this peculiar foreign legal system outright as a form of tyranny. The notion that our citizens, men and women in uniform, would be subject to the whims of a foreign court is anathema to the principles of the American founding. American citizens and their military personnel should never be subject to laws not created by the American people. The fear voiced by George Washington must control our debate today.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, each year for the past 38 years the President has issued a proclamation calling for the celebration of National Small Business Week. National Small Business Week, which is sponsored by the SBA, is being held this week. We honor the estimated 25.5 million small businesses in America that employ more than half the country's private workforce and create three out of four new jobs, and generate a majority of American innovations. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Oversight, I would like to lay out the principles that I believe should inform this body's agenda for our Nation's small businesses. First, we need tax relief for small business owners. The House has taken a step in the right direction in passing a fiscally responsible budget that leaves room for tax relief. Contrary to what our opponents charge, cutting rates in the highest income tax brackets does not yield benefits just for the wealthy. Most small businesses pay taxes as individuals. Sixty-three percent of tax filers who will benefit from the top rate cut are small business owners who will likely reinvest their money in their businesses. The Department of Treasury reports that a top tax rate reduction could increase small business receipts by 9 percent. The tax reform and relief allowed by today's budget will help encourage risk-taking and investment in small businesses. Secondly, we need health care reform that protects employees and small businesses. In many cases, associations and industry organizations can provide health care to their member organizations at lower cost than those charged by traditional providers. We should actively promote legislation that will free small businesses to choose health benefit packages that will attract and retain the best people. Right now, government employees, our own staffs, have far more choice in health plans than the small businesses in our districts. Colleagues, this ought not to be. Let us let small business employers offer the same health care choices to their workers that our staffers on Capitol Hill are given. In reforming health care, we must not extend legal liability to employers for health care decisions made by HMOs or other similar providers. Holding small businesses responsible for mistakes made by health care providers will drive many of them out of business and millions of employees out of insurance. Thirdly, I believe we must create high-tech infrastructure that aids entrepreneurs. If we do not create an economic environment that allows for high-tech innovation, our small businesses will stagnate, unable to keep up with competitors in the high-tech marketplace. Increasingly, new small business owners are starting their own businesses in cyberspace. Unless the high-tech infrastructure is in place to make this possible, there will be a dangerous divide between the ``haves'' and ``have-nots'' which could significantly undermine business growth and development in small and medium-size towns, like many which I represent in east central Indiana. Without access to the information superhighway, both education and local economies will suffer. Fourth, we need regulatory reform which is informed by sound scientific information and careful and unbiased research. Much of the debate in the small business area is driven by Federal regulatory agencies and the new policies they create for health, safety and the environment. While the government has made great strides in recent years to improve compliance assistance and review for impact on small businesses, much more remains to be done. Let us work together to remove the regulatory impediments to innovation and problem solving. Congress must ensure that the engine of our economy, our Nation's small family-owned businesses, are not undermined by flawed and burdensome regulations. Finally, we must explore new opportunities for trade to open up new markets and opportunities for small businesses. Small manufacturers and entrepreneurs are increasingly successful because they are able to win new customers in overseas markets. Congress should help the President win access to new markets through fast track trading authority. Also, we must work to expand free trade zones around the world. The President's recently announced initiative to advance a Free Trade Area of the Americas is a visionary first step. By fighting for fair free trade in our own hemisphere, we will help end unfair trade practices that undermine America's natural competitive advantage. These new markets will help grow our economy and ensure that our allies in the Western Hemisphere continue to grow politically and economically. Our Nation's small businesses are the strongest in the world. With tax relief for small business owners, health care reform that provides choice for employees, high-tech infrastructure that aids entrepreneurs, and regulatory reform to eliminate burdensome regulations, combined with expanded international trade, I believe that our small businesses will continue to be the backbone of our economy in the 21st century. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) for the opportunity to speak during this special order and for his leadership of the Committee on Small Business, and permitting me to join with you in celebrating the small businesses of Indiana and the small businesses of America.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule, and I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the Committee on Rules for their excellent work. The passage of the budget today in the House is a victory for all Americans who, after 4 months of hard work, have finally earned enough to pay their taxes this year. It is written: If one owes debts, pay debts. If honor, then honor. If respect, then respect. This budget pays our debts, honors our veterans, and respects the right of hard-working Americans to keep more of their own money. Mr. Speaker, under the current system, taxpayers today send a higher percentage of their income to Washington than any time since World War II. I am pleased that, for the first time since 1981, this Congress will provide substantial tax rate reductions for all American families that pay taxes. Washington is sending America a pro-growth message that helps families, small businesses, and family farms. It is refreshing, Mr. Speaker, that Congress is recognizing that the wealth of this Nation and the size of our surplus is not our creation but a product of the work of every American. This budget is an extraordinary step in the right direction. The best news of all is that this is only the beginning, Mr. Speaker. In a little over 100 days with a Republican President in Congress, we have prepared a budget that provides $1.35 trillion in tax cuts, repays historic levels of public debt, strengthens Social Security and Medicare, and bolsters our national defense. Most important of all, we have shown fiscal discipline by reining in the growth of our Federal Government and spending. I would like to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) for all he has done to build this budget. I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the House's attention to our country's most vital economic sector, our small businesses. Each year, for the past 38 years, the President has issued a proclamation calling for the celebration of National Small Business Week. This year, National Small Business Week, which is sponsored by the SBA, is being held right now. Mr. Speaker, this year's celebration will honor the estimated 25.5 million small businesses in America that employ more than half the country's private work force, create 3 out of every 4 new jobs, and generate a majority of American innovations. Small Business Week also recognizes small business owners all across America for their personal achievements and contributions to our economy. From this group, in Indiana, the Indiana Small Business Person of the Year is Joseph A. Beckman. He is the owner of Home Lumber and Glenlord Lumber Company. This a retail lumber and land development concern that has grown steadily under his leadership and become a successful business in Indiana. Today, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Mr. Beckman and all the winners from across America who work long hours and make huge sacrifices to build family small businesses that are the backbone of this economy.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Biscuit & Cracker Manufacturer's Association. This leading cookie and cracker baking industry association is celebrating its 100th Anniversary this week. The B&CMA's ``Biscuit Boy'' trademark is emblematic of the past 100 years of baking. It evokes memories of the nostalgic cracker barrels of 1901 and reminds us that its products still taste great in 2001. Every father knows the value of a well-placed cookie during important negotiations with his four-year-old. The B&CMA has led the charge for rigorous and rapid growth throughout the century. Regional bakeries sprouted up all over the country. One that is especially important to me is our own Richmond Baking Company in East Central Indiana. It has been a leading manufacturer and employer for many Hoosiers in my district. Richmond Baking ideally reflects the benefits of membership in the B&CMA. It has a working relationship with the community, offers delicious products and enhances our local economy. Richmond Baking is a good corporate citizen and their membership in the B&CMA is a part of that legacy. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating the B&CMA on a century of outstanding service to the cookie and cracker industry. May the association continue to thrive and produce products that will delight families for years to come.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a new Member of this body in strong support of H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, offered by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham). Mr. Speaker, it amazes this new Member that there are those who oppose this initiative before the House, which is simply an effort to defend unborn children from violence. Do we not all have an interest in protecting mothers and their children from violent attackers? Who in this House has not read a story in the newspaper about an expectant mother like that described by the Committee on the Judiciary chairman, the story of Shawana Pace whose boyfriend paid to have her assaulted and because of that abuse she lost her child? The outrage and the anger of the public after these events demands that we take action. Mr. Speaker, the opposition, in their zeal to prevent this bill from becoming law, would have us believe that punishing criminals for existing Federal crimes would compromise the rights of mothers. This premise is simply wrong. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act specifically targets not women or women's rights, but criminals who cause death or harm to an unborn child while committing one of 63 existing Federal crimes. As the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) observed, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a recent study that found that homicide is the most common cause of death among pregnant women in Maryland. A week later, JAMA published another study that found that 6 percent of all pregnant women in North Carolina are abused while they are pregnant. Despite these alarming facts, Federal law does not punish criminals who prey on pregnant women simply because they are pregnant. The alternative to this bill to be offered later today fails to address a central cause of violence against pregnant women because it fails to recognize that the child is often the primary target of the assailant. Mr. Speaker, by protecting the child we protect the mother. It is a fundamental axiom of Western civilization, the belief in the sanctity of human life. By failing to recognize crimes against the life of the unborn child, we place not only one life at risk but two. We must correct this oversight in Federal law and ensure that criminals who prey on pregnant women and their unborn children pay the appropriate penalty for their crimes. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. This Congress should seize this opportunity to extend the protection of the law to the most defenseless in our society.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for this opportunity to speak on behalf of House Joint Resolution 41. Mr. Speaker, despite my belief that we ought to rarely trifle with the work product of the founders of this country from that balmy summer of 1787, where in the Philadelphia State House they crafted our Constitution, I rise today in strong support of the Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment that we will vote on today. I do so, Mr. Speaker, because it is my belief that we live in this year 2001 in an age of reason about tax policy, different than other times in American history. Today, most Americans oppose most tax increases. But, Mr. Speaker, we must recognize that this too shall pass; that some day soon, given the seemingly glacial growth of the Federal Government, the day will come that once again tax increases are no longer broadly objectionable. So I believe that this Congress should seize upon this season of sensibility to constrain future Congresses from reflexively raising taxes to pay for that ever-growing Federal welfare state. It is a growth in government, Mr. Speaker, that does ultimately erode our economic freedoms and the balance of our liberties. A tax increase constitutional amendment, if adopted today in the Congress and sent to the States, would be an important restraint on the Federal Government in years ahead, and it would give this Congress and this government the same restraints that some 14 States live under who have tax limitations in their Constitution and in their laws. Mr. Speaker, tax increases should always be the last resort of this Congress, and the Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment ensures that it will.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the work the Committee on Rules has done to structure the debate. In many ways the Federal Tax Code is illogical, immoral and unfair. This is the case with the marriage penalty, most certainly. Currently the Tax Code is structured so a married couple pays higher taxes on their income than an unmarried couple earning the same income and filing separate returns. Mr. Speaker, under this Tax Code many couples are punished for being married, including many in my congressional district in Indiana. Cameron Gardner and his wife Lindsey are an example of over 38,000 Hoosier families in my district who suffer under the marriage penalty. Cameron works for a local company in Anderson, and Lindsey is a student at Ball State University. They have a 1-year-old daughter. Eliminating the marriage penalty would allow Cameron and Lindsey to keep about $1,400 more a year to help pay bills and take care of their daughter. It does not include the benefits that would accrue from the President's increased child tax credit. Mr. Speaker, families should be encouraged today. I stand in strong support of this rule. I stand in strong support of this bill. It is time to end the illogical, immoral and unfair marriage penalty; and I believe in my heart Congress will do so today.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the alternative budget offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and supported by the members of the Republican Study Committee. Over the past 5 years, Congress has been, let us admit it, on a spending spree with the people's money. Last year's budget included an 8.7 increase in nondefense discretionary spending, and it took Congress just 5 months to consume $20 billion of the $26 billion surplus for last year. Mr. Chairman, I believe the budget presented by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, is an excellent start. However, Congress has demonstrated that if there is money to be spent in Washington, indeed it will be spent. The Republican Study Commission reintroduces fiscal discipline to Washington, D.C. It recognizes that the surplus was created through the efforts of hard-working families of America by returning $2.2 trillion of the surplus to them. It does this by speeding marginal tax relief to working families, small businesses, and family farms, and by making tax cuts fully retroactive up and down the scale. At the same time, the RSC budget provides for our most important initiatives: IDEA funding, Medicare, Social Security, defense, and debt reduction. Our friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have us believe that a tax cut and a fair and responsible budget is impossible. This premise is simply false. This budget has proven that we can help families with a tax cut and have a responsible and fair budget. The proof is in the numbers. Defense spending would increase to $350 billion, $25 billion more than the proposed budget. The RSC budget would require 100 percent of Social Security and Medicare surpluses, as well as other priorities be funded. It is a responsible budget, and it helps working families.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the House's attention to the current debate about retroactive tax cuts for all American families. Some of my colleagues may have missed some important developments over the past few days that reflect what I believe, Mr. Speaker, is a major shift in the conventional wisdom about President Bush's tax cut proposal. Forgive me for being indelicate, Mr. Speaker, but everyone today seems to be singing the President's tune. Mr. Speaker, first our Democratic colleagues said that the President's tax cut proposal was a risky scheme. My colleagues may remember last year that most of them voted against a tax cut that was just 70 percent of the total that they are now supporting as an alternative to the President's plan. They may not want us to remember their old position, Mr. Speaker, but the facts are plain. Their message on tax relief has definitely changed. This weekend the President of the United States and even Senator Kent Conrad both said, ``We ought to act now on tax relief.'' The momentum in the political debate continues to move in the right direction, Mr. Speaker, namely toward larger, retroactive tax cuts this year. Even the toughest critics of tax relief said if you are going to use tax reductions as a method for economic stimulus, you must ask quickly to have any effect whatsoever. Tax cuts will be meaningless to this year's economy, Mr. Speaker, unless they take effect this year. Our faltering economy is not just about a jittery stock market. There is no need to beam up any one around here today. Everyone seems to agree with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and I, tax relief is the new religion, Mr. Speaker; and everyone has caught it in Washington, D.C. Finally, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Alan Greenspan of the Federal Reserve have both said that America's economy is experiencing a crisis in consumer confidence. No other single thing that Congress could do this year will do more to improve consumer confidence than by providing tax relief for every taxpayer that begins January 1 of this year. Mr. Speaker, the idea of retroactive tax relief is an idea whose time has come. This Congress should act and act now.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for this opportunity to come to the floor this morning to urge my colleagues to support the Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act. I specifically thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Ose) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) for their efforts in this regard. My good friends, the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Burton) and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Manzullo), have introduced and worked with these gentlemen to introduce an important bill to help the new administration protect small business from an ever-expanding regulatory burden. As the new chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Oversight, I am especially pleased to pick up the regulatory reform mantle from the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) and my good friend and predecessor David McIntosh. They did a tremendous job as advocates for small business, and I hope to continue to fight regulatory excess and burdensome paperwork that acts as such an impediment to economic growth and expansion. In fact, Mr. Chairman, reducing this burden is as important to small businesses as tax relief, because filling out forms competes directly with the business manager's principal goal, growing his or her business. This mountain of paperwork has been the enemy. In spite of the importance of small business to the success of our economy, small businesses face serious hurdles. One of the hardships that I have heard over and over again in east central Indiana from small business leaders in my district is the burden of paperwork and Federal red tape. The Office of Management and Budget estimates the Federal paperwork burden at 7.2 billion hours. What does this mean, Mr. Chairman? It means that it takes an army of 3.5 million workers working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year to simply fill out all of the paperwork the Federal Government requires each year. According to the Office of Management and Budget, this costs the American public $190 billion a year. Much of the information that is gathered in this paperwork is important, sometimes even crucial for the government to function. However, too often the paperwork is duplicative and sometimes unnecessary. Unfortunately, past efforts to fix the paperwork problem have not worked. In 1995, Congress passed amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The goal of the act was to annually reduce the requirements of the Federal Government. These annual reductions in paperwork, however, have not been achieved. In fact, paperwork burdens have increased over the past 5 years. As my colleagues know, the regulatory burden that the Federal Government imposes on business is staggering. According to the Small Business Administration, it costs large firms $3,400 per employee to comply with Federal regulations. However, the cost to small businesses is 50 percent greater, a staggering, $5,100 per employee; and for small businesses, nearly $2,000 of this cost is for paperwork alone. H.R. 327 starts to deal with these paperwork issues. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Virgil Scheidt, an outstanding citizen and dedicated community leader in Bartholomew County, Indiana. He recently retired as the Republican Party County Chairman and intends to spend more time with his lovely wife, Bettie, and eleven energetic grandchildren. In addition to his service as County Chairman, Mr. Scheidt is a former State Chairman, a 30-year District Chairman, and a former County Treasurer. He has served as a delegate to the Republican State Convention each session since 1958 and as a delegate to the National Convention on seven separate occasions. Indiana Governors Edgar Whitcomb, Otis Bowen and Bob Orr have all recognized Mr. Scheidt's devotion by awarding him the Sagamore of the Wabash. Privately, he farms 300 acres of land in Bartholomew County. As a pioneer in real estate, he developed both the Highland Ridge Subdivision and Woodridge Retail Center near Columbus, Indiana. Such achievements earned him the title Realtor of the Year in 1987 by the Columbus Board of Realtors. Mr. Scheidt's passion for public service has made him an inspiration to all the residents of Bartholomew County. He is not only deeply regarded, but also deeply loved. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this respected man who has helped make selected communities of south central Indiana the pleasant places they are today.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a Hoosier hero who may have been overlooked in all of the media coverage about last week's capture of two fugitive teenagers suspected of murdering a family in New Hampshire. I take this opportunity because doing excellent police work happens when no one is looking. ``Sheriff Avoids Tragedy'' is seldom a headline and ``Captured Without Incident'' does not have the same made-for-TV angle that most producers look for, but it is exactly the kind of admirable police work that characterizes Henry County Sheriff Sergeant William Ward. Sergeant Ward was monitoring the citizens band radio and overheard a trucker on Interstate 70 trying to find a ride for two teenaged boys headed for California. Ward knew about the national search underway from two accused killers of New England. Using judgment honed by more than 22 years of service, Sergeant Ward showed just how Indiana and our county are served by these tremendous work-a-day heroes. Sergeant Ward and his wife, Candy, together have four children, Sara, Paul, Thad, and Matthew. I know that his family and all of us in East Central Indiana are proud of his excellent service record. Today, we pause to call special attention to his actions last week. This is important because it is one small part of a career of excellent service.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Monday, February 12, 2001, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 13, for morning hour debates.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Thursday, February 8, 2001, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday, February 12.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker for this opportunity to address the House on a topic that is important to all Americans. Mr. Speaker, while the Federal Government prepares to inhale a nearly $6 trillion tax revenue surplus over the next 10 years, I join many of my colleagues here on the floor today to speak on behalf of American families who face a much less promising future. Our goal today is to call attention to the growing surplus here in Washington and the moral imperative to return this excess revenue to the people who earned it. My colleagues and I have claimed this time today to argue in favor of the economic recovery package of 2001, a package not unlike the one proposed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. While not nearly as ambitious as its namesake, we are lucky that we do not confront nearly the same grave economic crisis. Today our challenge is preserving the economic prosperity first leveraged by that 1981 Reagan tax cut made some 20 years ago. Despite the not inconsiderable economic successes of the past few years, Mr. Speaker, Hoosier families in my district are confronting layoffs at a record number of major employers. Our hometown Cummins Engine in Columbus, Indiana, and DaimlerChrysler in New Castle, Indiana, have both announced layoffs that have garnered national attention. I am sure their employees and families are watching and waiting for some sign of what is ahead. So, too, I know that the small businesses dependent on these companies are fearful. Uncertainty stalks the heartland and these Americans are looking to this Congress to at least return the overpayment collected by the Federal Government, at a minimum. This House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker, is the heart of the American government, and as such it should resonate with the hearts of the American people. Mr. Speaker, the people's hearts are anxious with increasingly disappointing news about our economy. All this while income tax rates, as a percentage of the economy, are at the highest level ever recorded. The time has come to cut taxes for working families, small businesses, and family farms. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's decision to support a tax cut is not a change of heart, as some have characterized it. He has long argued that surplus revenues should not be used for spending programs. He, like me, recognizes that money not used to pay down the debt will be spent in Washington. This is one of the many compelling reasons for supporting tax relief. It is not, however, the reason that moves the American people. All the media attention devoted to the recent downward pressure on interest rates and the wonkery of supply side theories has done little to answer a very important question. Why is the government keeping so much of the Nation's wealth while watching the economy falter? The plan proposed by President Bush is an excellent start, Mr. Speaker. This plan will indeed reduce personal income tax rates. A new 10 percent tax bracket would be created that would apply to a substantial portion of the income that is currently taxed at 15 percent. The 28 percent and 31 percent tax brackets would be reduced to 25, and the 36 percent bracket and 39.6 would be lowered to 33. This is good public policy for several reasons. Number one, the current tax rate on work, savings, and investment penalizes productive behavior and impedes economic growth. Because of steep personal income tax rates, highly productive entrepreneurs and investors can take home only about 60 cents of every dollar they earn, not including State and local taxes and other Federal taxes. This reduces the incentive to be productive. Lower tax rates will reduce this tax wedge and encourage additional work, savings and investment, risk taking and entrepreneurship. This is also good public policy because, Mr. Speaker, the budget surplus is growing. According to the latest Congressional Budget Office projections, the aggregate budget surplus for the 10-year period of 2001 to 2010 will be at least $4.6 trillion. The CBO is expected to revise this projection upward. The Clinton White House reportedly projected tax surplus revenues between 2002 and 2011 of $5 trillion. President Bush's proposed tax relief package is expected to save taxpayers $1.3 trillion to $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years, not including revenue, feedback from the additional economic growth that will follow. Mr. Speaker, this is also good public policy because reducing the tax burden will help control Federal spending. Without the specter of deficits, lawmakers lose the will to say no to special interests and pork barrel projects. In the 3 years since the surplus materialized in 1998, inflation adjusted Federal spending has grown twice as fast as it did during the three prior years when the government was running a deficit. Also, Mr. Speaker, lower tax rates are an important step toward fundamental tax reform. When tax rates are high, deductions, credits and exemptions provide large savings to some taxpayers, but roughly 70 percent of all taxpayers receive no benefits since they claim the standard deduction. A simple and fair Tax Code would treat everyone equally, without creating winners and losers, by taxing all income once and at one low rate. Reducing marginal tax rates, Mr. Speaker, will move the Nation toward a low tax rate system and reduce the value of special interest tax breaks which are more valuable when rates are high. The economic distortions they cause, the political pressure they add, all command tax relief. Also, Mr. Speaker, tax increases did not cause the surplus; and tax cuts will not cause a deficit. Opponents of tax cuts often claim that the 1993 tax increase is responsible for today's budget surpluses. This is contradicted by the Clinton administration's budget documents. In early 1995, nearly 18 months after the enactment of the 1993 tax increase, the Office of Management and Budget projected budget surpluses of more than $200 billion for the next 10 years. Clearly, events after that date, including the 1997 capital gains tax cut and a temporary reduction in the growth of Federal spending, caused the economy to expand and the budget deficit to vanish. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this is good public policy because tax rate reductions and entitlement reforms are not mutually exclusive actions. Critics argue that a big tax cut would make it harder to reform Medicare or modernize Social Security by allowing younger workers to shift some of their payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts. Given the magnitude of the projected budget surpluses, there is no conflict between these goals. Moreover, entitlement reform would be desirable, even without a budget surplus, because it would significantly reduce the long-run unfunded liability of both programs. Large projected surpluses simply make it easier for legislators to implement the necessary policies. Opponents once argued that tax cuts were unwarranted because the Federal Government was running a budget deficit. Now they argue that tax cuts are unwarranted because there is a surplus. Their real agenda is to block any tax reduction and a reduction in tax rates and increase the dollars they have available here in Washington, D.C. Mr. Speaker, the American people are wise to this game. Hundreds of layoffs in my Indiana district will attest, this economy is listing badly under the weight of 8 years of increased taxes and regulation. This Congress must again become the Congress of economic recovery. President Bush's tax plan plus the additional incentives for work and investment contained in the Economic Recovery and Growth Act of 2001 is the cure for what ails our economy. This Congress must turn this economy around. This bill will achieve economic recovery for the families, small businesses, and family farms that make this Nation great. The supporters of the Economic Recovery and Growth Act believe that the Congress should do all we can to give America's families a tax cut they will feel right away. We want American workers to see the difference in their weekly paycheck. As the President has said, this should include a cut effective at the beginning of this year. So, too, the cut should be designed to stimulate economic growth. Our Economic Recovery and Growth Act will, number one, continue to save Social Security and Medicare surpluses and thereby reduce the deficit; number two, keep all existing components of President Bush's outstanding tax reduction proposal; and, number three, the Economic Recovery and Growth Act would accelerate and expand the across-the- board cut in income tax rates, accelerate and expand the repeal of the marriage penalty and death taxes; the capital gains tax reduction and small business tax relief all would be accelerated and expanded under the Economic Recovery and Growth Act. The bill will also repeal the 1993 Social Security tax increase and provide IRA expansion and pension reform. While some have tried to argue that even the Bush plan is extreme and a risky scheme, a close analysis of the historical record, Mr. Speaker, will prove otherwise. Both Senator Bob Graham of Florida and Alan Greenspan agree that the Bush tax cut is average by historical standards. Consider, for example, this chart, prepared by the nonpartisan National Taxpayers Union. The Bush tax cut and the tax cut proposal we support in the Economic Recovery and Growth Act of 2001 are considerably smaller than either the Kennedy tax cut of the 1960s or significantly smaller than the Reagan tax cut of 1981 as a percentage of gross national product. So too, Mr. Speaker, the Bush tax cut and the Economic Recovery and Growth Act proposal represent a smaller portion of Federal revenues in constant 2000 dollars than either of the earlier tax reduction proposals. In fact, even Democrat Speaker Tip O'Neill, not exactly legendary for his support of big tax cuts, Democrat Speaker Tip O'Neill's alternative tax initiative in 1981 was larger than the plan that many of us conservatives in the Congress propose today. The Economic Recovery and Growth Act proposal is a well-reasoned and sensible alternative to plans that call for keeping more money in Washington, D.C. As the preceding comparisons demonstrate, Mr. Speaker, the Bush and our own Bush-plus tax cut are anything but dangerous or irresponsible. They are, instead, measured actions, taken to alleviate two serious challenges facing the American people today. First, by reducing rates and thus increasing the incentive for work and investment, both plans can help reinvigorate an economy that is finally beginning to collapse under the weight of 8 years of ever- increasing tax and regulatory burdens. Secondly, the proposals will finally offer relief to American families who are currently taxed at a rate not seen since the world was at war. Hard-working Americans deserve to keep more of their wages, Mr. Speaker, so that they may provide for their families, not for bigger government bureaucracies.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, while the Federal Government prepares to inhale a nearly $5.7 trillion tax surplus over the next 10 years, I rise to speak on behalf of the families, small businesses and family farms of Indiana who face a much less promising future. Despite the talk of boom times, Hoosier families in my district are faced with layoffs at major employers in Columbus and New Castle, Indiana; and many of the small businesses dependent on these companies are fearful as well. This House of Representatives is the heart of the American Government; and as such, it should resonate with the hearts of the people. Mr. Speaker, the people's hearts are anxious with increasingly disappointing news about our economy. All this while income tax rates measured as a percentage of the economy are at the highest level ever. Mr. Speaker, our Congress must again be the Congress of economic recovery. President Reagan, whose birth we celebrate today, showed us the way to turn around this American economy, by cutting taxes for all taxpayers. In order for our country to recover economically, we must cut taxes big and cut taxes now.