Mike Pence

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, on February 6, 1911, America's fortieth president was born in a small midwestern town. A century later, we remember Ronald Wilson Reagan as a great man and a great leader who personified and advanced the highest ideals of the American people at home and abroad. He may have started his life with a humble beginning in America's heartland, but at a time when America longed for leadership, he answered the call to service. After eight years of his presidency, the communism of Soviet Russia was collapsing, the American military was rebuilt, the nation's economy restored and its moral fabric renewed. As he said himself, President Reagan left America ``more prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years earlier.'' Many will remember him as the Great Communicator. But as the President said many times, he was not a great communicator; he communicated great things. He communicated the traditional American values anchored by his profound Christian faith. His ideas were simple, straightforward and distinctly American. President Reagan believed that freedom depended on limited government. He fiercely advanced the principles of less government, less taxes, a strong defense and a commitment to traditional moral values. Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, President Reagan changed the course of my life. I had the honor of meeting him in the summer of 1988 as a candidate for Congress. Determined to say something of great meaning to him, I looked the President in the eye and thanked him for all he had done to inspire my generation to believe in American again. He responded with characteristic humility by saying that ``the American people decided it was time to right the ship, and I was just the captain they put on the bridge when they did it.'' In the midst of his extraordinary gifts, Ronald Reagan was a deeply humble man who believed in God and the American people with an unshakable faith. He also was able to find inspiration in his beloved Rancho del Cielo. When I had the opportunity to visit the ranch, I immediately understood why President Reagan found solace in its beauty. He spent many a day working at the ranch, and it is not difficult to believe that he contemplated many important decisions while clearing brush, fixing fences and breaking new trails in his jeep. The Young America's Foundation has since taken responsibility of the ranch, and I commend them for preserving this significant part of Ronald Reagan's legacy. In his Farewell Address to the nation, President Reagan spoke poignantly of the distance that high office can place between the servant and the served. He said, ``One of the things about the presidency is that you're always somewhat apart. You spend a lot of time going by too fast in a car someone else is driving, and seeing the people through tinted glass--the parents holding up a child, and the wave you saw too late and couldn't return. And so many times I wanted to stop and reach out from behind the glass, and connect.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, one hundred years after his birth and two decades after he left public service, the American people are still connected to President Ronald Reagan's American ideals and values, which endure to this day.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of National Marriage Week, which occurs annually during the week of February 7th. National Marriage Week was established to help couples strengthen their commitment to each other by hosting special events, marriage classes, and home support groups. While it is important for couples to focus on their marriage every day, National Marriage Week is an excellent opportunity for Americans to rededicate themselves to their spouse and to their family. Marriage was ordained by God and instituted among men. It is the glue that binds the American family, and the safest harbor in which to raise children. Studies indicate that men and women who have a strong marriage tend to live longer, have better health, and experience more personal joy. Strong marriages also create the safest harbor for children to flourish and experience the complete spiritual, moral, emotional, educational, and financial benefits of both parents. I have been a long-time advocate of traditional marriage, and have been proud to support numerous pieces of legislation to protect this sacred institution. The family structure is the cornerstone of our society, and I can think of no better time to emphasize its importance than National Marriage Week. I encourage all Americans to use this opportunity to renew their commitment and devotion to their spouse, and to personally take the steps they can to preserve this important institution.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, it comes as a surprise to most Americans to learn that the largest abortion provider in America is also the largest recipient of Federal funding under Title X. It is heartbreaking news this morning the Planned Parenthood of America has now been the subject of one more undercover video showing someone posing as a pimp being facilitated by employees at Planned Parenthood in how to secure secret abortions, STD testing, and contraception for child prostitutes. You know, as a father of two teenage daughters, I see the video that came out this morning, I see the video that came out last week, and it is an outrage to me that employees of Planned Parenthood clinics across the country are facilitating the abuse of minor girls in this country. It should be a scandal to every American. The time has come to deny all Federal funding to Planned Parenthood of America. I have authored the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, which would deny Title X funds to Planned Parenthood or any other abortion provider, and Congress must act and act now to move this important legislation. Pro-life Americans, and all Americans, should not be forced to subsidize America's largest abortion provider or to continue to provide Federal taxpayer dollars to Title X clinics that engage in this abhorrent behavior.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, tonight the President of the United States will appear in this Chamber, as nearly every President has for more than 150 years, and report on the State of the Union, and we will receive him with the respect that is due his Office. We are told in press reports that the President will focus on the future, on winning the future; but as the President said last Friday, ``The past 2 years were about pulling our economy back from the brink''--and we expect to hear the same thing today. But frankly, as most Americans know, during the last 2 years, this administration and the former majority in Congress met our present crisis with an avalanche of borrowing and spending and bailouts and taxes and takeovers and mandates. Far from pulling our economy back, the weight of debt and taxes and regulation have stifled our economic recovery. Mr. President, we will not win the future with the failed economic policies of the past. As you come into this hallowed Chamber tonight, we urge you, Mr. President, for not just a new speech. Give the American people a new direction.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of talk these days around here about where Members of Congress are going to sit during the State of the Union Address. Well, I've been in Congress for 10 years, and I learned a long time ago that it doesn't really matter where you sit; it matters where you stand. Today, House Republicans are going to stand with the American people and are going to vote to repeal the government takeover of health care--lock, stock, and barrel. Now, I know the other side and some liberals in the media don't like us using that term ``government takeover of health care,'' but let me break it down for you: When you mandate that every American purchase health insurance, whether they want it or need it or not; when you mandate that every business provide health insurance or send people to a government-run exchange; when you pay for it with hundreds of billions of dollars and higher taxes and mandates; and when you throw in public funding of abortion against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the American people, that is the government takeover of health care. And the American people know it. I urge all of my colleagues in both political parties to join us today as we keep our promise to the American people, as we scrap this health care reform bill of last year and start over with health care reform that will lower the cost of health insurance without growing the size of government.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2, repealing the government takeover of health care passed by the 111th Congress. Now, I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and many of their supporters in the mainstream press don't like us to use that term, but let me defend it for a moment. When you order every American to buy health insurance--whether they want it or need it or not--that's a government takeover of health care. When you order almost every business to provide government-approved health insurance or pay higher taxes and send their employees to government-run health exchange programs, that's a government takeover of health care. When you pass legislation that makes it all run with hundreds of billions of dollars in higher taxes, mandates, bureaucracies, and even public funding of abortion against the wills of the overwhelming majority of the American people, that's a government takeover of health care--and the American people know it. Last year, House Republicans pledged that if the American people gave us a second chance to lead this Congress, we would repeal and replace their health care reform with health care reform that focuses on lowering the cost of health care insurance without growing the size of government. And we're keeping that promise today. Now, some in the cynical political class are saying this is a gimmick, it's an empty gesture. Well, we have another term for it on our side of the aisle--it's a promise kept. And House Republicans are here to stand with the American people and say with one voice, We can do better. We can do better than their government takeover of health care. We can pass legislation that will be market-based, patient- centered. But it all begins with today. So I urge my colleagues to join us in repealing this government takeover of health care before it ever takes effect and then work with us as we build health care reform that is worthy of the American people.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I thank the distinguished majority leader for yielding time. Like every American, I will never forget where I was last Saturday. My wife and I were shocked and saddened when we learned of the attack on our colleague Gabby Giffords, her staff, and her constituents. Gabby's a hard worker, a talented legislator. But as has been said poignantly on this floor so much better than I will ever be able to today, she is a dear person and a unique individual who is universally liked in the House of Representatives. We are praying for her recovery, the recovery of all those injured, and the comfort of the families of the fallen. I rise with gratitude to the leadership of both parties in this institution for moving this thoughtful resolution to the floor. Today the American people speak with one voice. We will condemn these unspeakable and evil acts. We will remember the injured and the lost. And we will gently reaffirm our ideals. This act was an unspeakable act of violence. And those responsible must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But as we mourn with those who mourn, two words of gentle admonition. First, we cannot fear free assembly because of the acts of a single assailant. We live in an open society and enjoy representative democracy under our Constitution. Our system depends on regular and informal contact with our elected Representatives. And neither the public nor its servants should be dissuaded from participating in public assembly because of the despicable acts of a single deranged person. Lastly, I understand the pain that Saturday last has caused for so many in this body and around the country. But we cannot fear free and open debate. Democracy depends on heavy doses of civility. And as my colleagues know, I have always sought to model that, here on the floor and elsewhere. We should always refrain from engaging in personal verbal attacks against those with whom we differ on important questions of the day. But let me say we must also resist, in these moments of heartache, the temptation to assign blame to those with whom we differ for the acts of others. No expressed opinion on the left or the right was to blame for Saturday's attack. And we must resist efforts to suggest otherwise. Because to do so has the potential to inhibit and erode our freedom. So we rise to mourn with those who mourn, to grieve with those who grieve. We cannot fail to be moved by the tragic events in Arizona. We must not fail to pray earnestly for all those affected. And we will not fail to defend our freedom lest it be one more victim of the horrific event in Tucson on Saturday last.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on the legislative day of January 6, 2011 and missed rollcall vote 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Welcome to the 112th Congress. While there was much pomp and ceremony this week in welcoming all of the new Members to the House of Representatives, this week belonged to the American people. The American people sent a deafening message on November 2. It was that they wanted to see this national government end this era of borrowing and spending and of bailouts and takeovers and turn our national government back in the direction of fiscal responsibility and limited government. Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to say in this first week of this new Congress, if House Republicans got the message, we will keep our promises to the American people and more. If House Republicans got the message, we won't just extend tax rates for a couple of years; we will extend them permanently. If House Republicans got the message, we won't just find $100 billion in cuts; we will find more than $100 billion in cuts, and we will bring about the kind of long-term reform to change the size and scope of government. If House Republicans got the message, we won't just vote once to repeal ObamaCare; we will vote to repeal ObamaCare again and again until we consign their government takeover of health care to the ash heap of history--where it belongs. So welcome to the 112th Congress. The American people, this is your week.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, but I rise from my heart with a deep sense of gratitude to the American people to urge my colleagues in both parties to join us as we keep our promise to the American people and next week vote to repeal their government takeover of health care lock, stock, and barrel. I know Democrats said at the time that they had made history. I said at the time I thought we broke with history. We broke with some of our finest traditions: Limited government, personal responsibility, and, most profoundly, the consent of the governed. On a late Sunday night in March, the last majority had their say. On a Tuesday in November, the American people had their say. And that brings us to this moment. It is remarkable, though, to hear Members in the minority explaining their opposition to this bill. A year ago, only in Washington, D.C., could you say you were going to spend trillions of dollars and save people money. And this morning, only in Washington, D.C., could you say that repealing a $2.7 trillion government takeover of health care is actually going to cost money.

Mr. PENCE. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman. Reclaiming my time, yes. It must be mystifying for people looking in this morning to hear about the most expensive one-page bill in American history. I say again. Only in Washington, D.C., could a Congress vote to repeal a $2.7 trillion government takeover of health care and the minority says it costs the American people money. Now, I know they don't like us to call it that, but let me explain. When you mandate that every American buy government-approved insurance whether they want it or need it or not, when you create a government- run plan paid for with job-killing tax increases, when you provide public funding for abortion for the first time in American history, that is a government takeover of health care that violates the principles, the ideals, and the values of millions of Americans, and the American people know it. Now, look. After we repeal Obamacare next week, we can start over with commonsense reforms that will focus on lowering the cost of health insurance without growing the size of government. Republicans will waste no time in bringing greater freedoms to the American people to purchase health insurance the way they buy life insurance, the way they buy car insurance. We will deal with responsible litigation reform. We will even use the savings to cover preexisting conditions. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this rule. Join us as we keep our promise to the American people and repeal their government takeover of health care once and for all.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, the largest abortion provider in America should not also be the largest recipient of Federal funding under title X. Today, with the support of more than 120 of my colleagues, I introduced the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act. I am grateful for the support of my colleagues within this House and the support of millions of Americans who long to see this Congress take this decisive action on behalf of our values. The Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act would deny any family planning funds under title X from going to Planned Parenthood or other organizations that perform abortions. It would ensure that abortion providers are not subsidized with Federal tax dollars. Now, let me say, to be very clear, Mr. Speaker, this legislation does not cut one penny from title X family planning funding. I applaud much of the important work that is done at title X clinics across this country: breast cancer screening, HIV protection, education, counseling, pregnancy diagnosis. This legislation simply prevents family planning funding from aiding organizations that profit from the abortion industry. Federal funding should reflect the priorities and the values of a majority of the American people. Whatever people think about abortion across this country since Roe v. Wade, survey after survey has shown that an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the use of taxpayer dollars to support, subsidize, or promote abortion at home or abroad. It is for that reason that I would assume that most Americans would be surprised, if not shocked, to learn that the largest abortion provider in America is also the largest recipient of Federal funding under title X. But that is most certainly the case. According to their own annual report, Planned Parenthood received more than $363 million in government funding in 2009 alone. During that time, they performed an unprecedented 324,008 abortions, a heartbreaking statistic. Planned Parenthood of America continues to receive a greater amount of Federal funding each year while simultaneously taking over an increasing share of the devastating abortion market in this country. Now, look, Planned Parenthood and its defenders will claim that the money they have received from the government has not been used to fund abortions, but that is only technically true. Current law prohibits the use of title X family planning funds ``in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.'' Therein lies the loophole. While title X money cannot directly be used to fund abortions, common sense says there is no question that taxpayer dollars received by Planned Parenthood are used to cover allowed expenses, like overhead, operational costs, thus freeing up other money for the clinics that do provide abortion. And in many of our largest cities, title X clinics run by Planned Parenthood are literally just steps away from abortion clinics operated by Planned Parenthood, many times in the same building. This legislation would close that loophole that has forced millions of pro-life Americans to subsidize the Nation's leading abortion provider sustaining and underwriting this nefarious trade. I urge my colleagues to support the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act. I urge our new majority to bring this legislation forward with all deliberative speed. Let me say again. The largest abortion provider in America should not also be the largest recipient of Federal funding under title X. For the sake of American taxpayers, for the sake of the important work being done at title X clinics across this country, and, most importantly, for the sake of the defenseless unborn and vulnerable young women who find themselves in a crisis pregnancy, we must enact the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act and end the day of taxpayer support for these organizations.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I was absent from the House floor on the legislative day of December 14, 2010. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 628 and 630, and ``no'' on rollcall vote 629.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I thank the ranking member for yielding. Mr. Speaker, since last summer, I've been among those voices in this Congress calling for action to prevent a tax increase that would affect every American just a few short weeks from now. So I rise with a heavy heart today to say that as I look at this short-term tax deal negotiated by the White House with congressional leaders, that I have concluded after much study that it is a bad deal for taxpayers, it will do little to create jobs, and I cannot support it. Let me say, though, that I have the deepest respect for my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle who may differ with me on this issue in the final analysis. This is a tough call. No Republican in this Congress wants to see taxes raised on any American. We all know what we should be doing today is voting to extend all the current tax rates permanently. The reality is that uncertainty is the enemy of prosperity. And simply by extending some of the tax rates that are on the books today for a few short years, we will not create the certainty necessary to encourage businesses to take out loans, to expend resources in ways that will put people back to work. We just know that. I was back in Muncie, Indiana, just a couple of days ago. I had a banker walk up to me at Rotary, and he said, What are you going to do on this? Sounds like a tough deal. And I said, You know, I hadn't decided at that point. He said, Well, nobody is going to come walking into my office to sign a 5-year note on a 2-year Tax Code. So why are we doing 2 years? Well, there's an election in 2 years. I get that. There are people that, for whatever reasons, want to re- debate this in 2 years. I get that. I just don't get how it actually gets people back to work. And with regard to the spending in this bill, we can help families that are hurting in this economy, particularly during this cherished holiday season. But we can also figure out how to pay for it. Lastly, let me say the American people have spoken on November 2, Mr. Speaker. The American people did not vote for more deficits or more stimulus or more uncertainty in the Tax Code. But that's just what this lame duck Congress is about to give them. I think we can do better. Every Republican in this Congress would like the opportunity to do better. Sadly, this rule does not permit us to even have a fair up-or- down vote on extending all the current tax rates, and I'm profoundly disappointed by that. And so I rise in opposition to this rule, but I also rise in opposition to the underlying bill. We can do better. We must do better on behalf of hurting families and Americans who want to go back to work.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, since last summer, I have urged this Congress to take action to prevent a tax increase that would affect every American in January of next year. So I rise with a heavy heart this morning to simply announce to my colleagues that I believe the short-term tax deal negotiated by the White House and congressional leaders is a bad deal for taxpayers, will do little to create jobs, and I cannot support it. Despite the fact that last November the American people did not vote for more deficits, more stimulus or more uncertainty in the Tax Code, that is just what this lame duck Congress is about to give them. You know, Madam Speaker, there is a reason why article I, section 7 of the Constitution says that all bills for raising revenue are to originate here in the House of Representatives. It is because our Founders believed that, when it comes to the people's taxes, the people's House should always lead. If the process is wrong, then the policy is wrong. We perpetuate the uncertainty. It is built into our Tax Code. Uncertainty is the enemy of our prosperity, and frankly, we can provide assistance to families struggling in this economy by making the hard choices to pay for it without adding to the national debt. The American people have spoken. Let's say no deal to this tax deal, and get a better deal out of this Congress 3 weeks from today.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the distinguished ranking member for yielding and the passion that has been expressed on both sides of this issue. But let me state the obvious, if I can. We are a Nation at war. We have soldiers that are in harm's way at this hour, forward deployed, at Bagram and Helmand province, places I visited just a few short weeks ago. And so this business is not taking place in a vacuum. We are a Nation at war. And let me say to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts who just spoke who suggested that those of us who oppose a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell would commit some libel against Americans with whom we differ on life-style choices, nothing could be further from the truth. As a conservative, I have a particular world view about moral issues. They do not bear upon this question. This is an issue exclusively that is about recruitment, readiness, unit cohesion, and retention because we are a Nation at war. Now, I am not a soldier, but I am the son of a combat soldier. I think we should listen to our soldiers as we continue this debate. In recent key findings of the Pentagon study, overall U.S. military predicted negative or very negative effects, 30 percent. The percentage of the Marine Corps predicting negative effects, 43 percent; 48 percent within the Army; 58 percent within Marine combat units. We know that the leadership has testified before the Congress. Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz said: I do not think it prudent to seek full implementation. Too risky, he said. Of course the most ominous of all was a suggestion by Army Chief of Staff General George Casey who said: increase the risk on our soldiers. Men and women, no one in this House, would desire to increase the risk on our soldiers at a time of war. I know that. And so I rise today simply to say let's remember the time in which we live. Let's remember the first obligation of the national government is to provide for the common defense. I believe the first obligation in providing for the common defense is to provide the circumstances and the resources for those who wear the uniform and carry the weapon and provide the shield under which we live and our freedom survives. We are a Nation at war. Reject this measure. Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a successful compromise in 1993; and so that compromise should remain.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a friend and community advocate. After 16 years of faithful service, Kathleen Atterholt of my staff in Anderson, Indiana, will be retiring from public service at the end of 2010. Kathleen was born to James and Margaret Steele on September 23, 1935, in Anderson, Indiana. She went on to graduate from Anderson High School in 1953, and she later earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from Purdue University and a Bachelor of Science degree from Viterbo College. While at Purdue, Kathleen was also an active member of Alpha Chi Omega Sorority. Given her family's history of public service, it is no surprise that Kathleen has also dedicated her life to helping those in her community. Her late father, James Steele, served on the Anderson Board of Public Safety and the Board of Public Works. Her brother, Jim Steele, served as Controller for the City of Anderson and later for the City of Indianapolis. Lastly, her son, Jim Atterholt, served two terms in the Indiana General Assembly and is currently the chairman of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. After staying home to raise her two sons, Kathleen began her career in public service working as a Constituent Services Representative for Congressman David McIntosh in 1994. During those years, she also worked occasionally for the Madison County, Indiana Election Board. When I took office in 2001, Kathleen stayed on with my staff and continued to lend her expertise to the constituents in my district. For more than a decade, she has helped people navigate their way through the Federal Government and receive assistance from Federal agencies. Her kindness and compassion have undoubtedly helped to renew the people's trust in their government. Over the years her particular areas of expertise have been advocating on behalf of constituents with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, United States Embassies and Consulates, the United States Passport Agency, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Kathleen has said that some of her fondest memories have been when parents have brought their internationally adopted children by the office simply to thank Kathleen for her advocacy on their behalf. She has also been able to meet married couples, friends, and relatives whom she helped obtain proper immigration documentation in order to be reunited with their loved ones. Her kind heart has made Kathleen an invaluable liaison to my constituency, and she has shown an ability to relate to others with the compassion and empathy required of public service. I offer my deepest gratitude to Kathleen for her years of tireless devotion and service not only as a member of my staff, but as a servant leader to constituents in my district. She has embodied the commandment found in the Good Book to ``Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.'' Though she will be sorely missed by myself, my family, and the rest of my staff, I wish Kathleen blessings and joy in the years ahead as she begins her retirement.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I was absent from the House floor on the legislative day of November 29, 2010. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 581 and 582.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, the day after I had the privilege of speaking at one of the storied venues in American public life. The Detroit Economic Club for 75 years has been a place where American leaders of every political persuasion and philosophy have come to talk about the economy of this Nation. I had the real privilege of being able to address that gathering yesterday, and I want to express my appreciation to the organizers and the board for that. But I thought I might reflect for a few minutes this morning on my comments because what I sought to do at the Detroit Economic Club yesterday was really broaden the debate here in Washington, DC. We live in no ordinary times. Our economy is struggling in the city and on the farm. Unemployment is at a heartbreaking 9.6 percent nationally; 42 million Americans are on food stamps; and America has seen better days. After years of runaway Federal spending, borrowing and bailouts by both political parties, I believe there is a better way. I believe that we can renew American exceptionalism by returning our national policy to the principles and practices that made this economy and our economy the freest and most prosperous in the history of the world. I believe if we return to the practice of those principles, as I said yesterday in Detroit, that we can restore and rebuild our economy. Fiscal discipline is where it all begins, though. We have to put our fiscal house in order, and clearly the American people on November 2 sent a deafening message to policymakers here in Washington, DC. that they want a government that lives within their means again. Fortunately, there is no shortage these days of ideas about putting our fiscal house in order: admirable suggestions of the President's Debt Commission that we will learn more about this week; the Republicans' Pledge to America; there are thoughtful proposals and blueprints by Members of Congress in both political parties, and I commend them all. On my part, I have coauthored legislation to establish a constitutional spending limit amendment. I think it is time that we limited Federal spending to 20 percent of our economy in the Constitution of the United States of America. We have a saying back in Indiana, Mr. Speaker, that good fences make good neighbors. I think we ought to use the Constitution of the United States in the years ahead to put fence lines around spending to give this and future Congresses a clear guideline of just how much of the American economy this government can consume, and to give them an incentive for growth. But let me say, fiscal discipline alone will not be enough to bring jobs and prosperity back to America. We need an agenda for growth, and that is what brought me to Detroit yesterday. What I described and sought to describe were the building blocks, the traditional American building blocks of growth, an incentive-based agenda. I think it is five-fold. First is sound monetary policy. Second is not only tax relief but tax reform. Third is access to all American resources in energy. Fourth is regulatory relief and reform. And finally, it is expanded international trade. S-T-A-R-T. I believe that it is a prescription for a fresh start in the American economy. And what I expanded on yesterday was my belief that if we will in this next Congress which will gather just weeks from now, if we from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue will repair to these ideas and seek to advance not the arguments that are happening in Washington even at this very hour at the White House, do we preserve tax rates, do we let some tax rates expire and become tax increases, but rather how do we really pursue policies that will release the trapped energy in this economy. Some experts suggest that there is more than $2 trillion in profits on the sidelines in this economy. I believe in pursuing sound monetary policy at the Fed, having them focus on price stability and by preserving all current tax rates but then embracing tax reform like a flat tax. I believe the time has come to abandon our progressive tax rates and have the same flat rate, after a generous allowance, on individuals and businesses. What could be more fair that the more money you make, the more money you pay to the government, but everybody pays the same flat rate. We need to develop an all-of-the-above energy strategy that gives the American people access to new technologies, new resources that are in our own making and in our own reach. We need to bring regulatory reform to lessen the burden on small business owners and family farmers that regulatory red tape provides. I think it is time for regulatory PAYGO, Mr. Speaker. I think if we are going to raise regulation in one area, we ought to lower it in another. And how about a 10-year timeline on any new regulations. And, of course, expanded trade has to be a critical part of any growth agenda. With that, I would send any of those that are looking into my Web site at MikePence.house.gov, I would love to have them take a look at our speech at the Detroit Economic Club yesterday. I hope that it starts a conversation in this and the next Congress about growth because I believe that as we put our fiscal house in order, it is imperative that we return to the practices and principles that have made this the most prosperous nation in the history of the world, and I believe with all my heart will make this Nation the most prosperous nation for decades and decades to come, so help us God. Renewing American Exceptionalism: An Agenda for Economic Growth and Prosperity, Mike Pence, November 29, 2010 Detroit Economic Club Thank you, L. Brooks Patterson, for that kind introduction and heartfelt thanks to Beth Chappell and all the members of the Detroit Economic Club for hosting me. For 75 years, the Detroit Economic Club has been a premier venue for leaders interested in saying something significant about our economy and I am genuinely grateful to be able to join the ranks of those who had the privilege to ``say it here.'' And it's great to be in Detroit--home to Motown, the Lions (you know who this Colts fan was cheering for on Thanksgiving) and the ``Car Capital of the World.'' My father ran a chain of gas stations so, like most Americans, I have had a life long love affair with the automobile. Try to imagine America without the Ford Mustang, the Chevrolet Corvette, or the Dodge Charger. Being from Indiana, I am especially proud of the role that Hoosiers have played and continue to play in this unique American industry. And it all started here in Detroit. America owes a debt to the ingenuity and entrepreneurism of this great city. You helped define the character of a nation. But Detroit and America have seen better days and I come to this storied podium to say after years of runaway federal spending, borrowing and bailouts by both political parties, that there is a better way, a way we can renew American exceptionalism by returning to the principles and practices that built this great city and this great country and can build it again. We live in no ordinary times. Our economy is struggling in the city and on the farm. Unemployment is at a heartbreaking 9.6 percent nationally and nearly 13 percent in Michigan. Nearly 42 million Americans on food stamps. A housing crisis and dismal GDP growth. And it seems that those in authority have no idea what to do about it. Some in the administration call it the ``new normal.'' (like we haven't heard that before) In the 70's they called it a national ``malaise.'' With more than 15 million people still looking for work, President Obama and Democrats in Congress have tried to borrow and spend the country back to prosperity resulting in trillion dollar plus annual deficits and a nearly $14 trillion national debt. To this runaway federal spending they added a government takeover of health care, attempted a national energy tax and approved one bailout after another. In September 2008, when the Bush Administration proposed that Congress give them $700 billion to bail out Wall Street, I was the first Member of Congress to publicly oppose it. I didn't think we should do nothing, I just thought it was wrong to take $700 billion from Main Street to bailout bad decisions on Wall Street. I warned that passing TARP could fundamentally change the relationship between the government and the financial sector and so it has. Dodd-Frank codified ``too big to fail'' for some Wall Street firms and made taxpayers the first line of defense against failure. And we continue to bailout Fannie and Freddie to the tune of about $150 billion, with more expected, despite the fact that many of us have been fighting for years to get them off the Government's books. The partnership between the federal government and Fannie and Freddie socializes losses and privatizes profits with taxpayers getting the short end of the stick. And, even though I am proud of the American automotive tradition and Indiana's ongoing role it, I even opposed bailing out GM and Chrysler. While the administration has been busy making the point that GM is on the rebound and taxpayers are being repaid, most Americans know that it still would have been better if GM had gone through an orderly reorganization bankruptcy without taxpayer support. Taxpayer funded bailouts are no substitute for economic policies that will create real consumer demand. I have no doubt that American automakers and autoworkers can compete and win in a growing American economy. To restore American exceptionalism, we must end all this Keynesian spending and get back to the practice of free market economics. The freedom to succeed must include the freedom to fail. The free market is what made America's economy the greatest in the world, and we cannot falter in our willingness to defend it. Even though our economy is struggling and America seems at a low point, I believe we can restore our economy but it will take vision and courage to do it. And everything starts with putting our fiscal house in order. The good news is there is no shortage of plans for fiscal discipline in Washington these days. We have the Pledge to America, the president's Debt Commission, and over time we've had budgets, blueprints, outlines, and thoughtful proposals from Members of Congress, and blue-ribbon panels. For my part, I believe the answer is a Spending Limit Amendment to the Constitution. Since World War II the federal government has operated on an average of just under 20 percent of gross domestic product. But, in the past three years, Federal spending has climbed to nearly 25 percent of GDP. Left unchecked, and accounting for no new programs, federal spending will reach 50 percent of GDP by 2055. We should remember what Ronald Reagan said, ``No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size.'' We must have a mechanism that forces Washington as a whole to make the hard choices necessary to reform our nation's addiction to big spending and unsustainable entitlements. By limiting Federal spending to 20 percent of our nation's economy in the Constitution, except for certain conditions such as a war, we will create a framework for this and future Congresses to live within our means and have the incentive to grow the economy. To grow the economy we must shrink the size of the federal government but fiscal discipline alone will not be enough to bring jobs and prosperity back to America. We need a new agenda for economic growth and that is principally what brings me to Detroit to discuss today. As Margaret Thatcher said in equally challenging economic times (1977): . . . Of course we're not going to solve our problems just by cuts, just by restraint . . . it was not restraint that started the Industrial Revolution . . . It wasn't restraint that inspired us to explore for oil in the North Sea and bring it ashore. It was incentive--positive, vital, driving, individual incentive. What was true for England in the 1970's, is true for America today. Permitting people to enjoy the fruits of their labor is what built our cities, conquered our frontiers, and made America the most prosperous nation in the history of the world. The new Republican majority in Congress must embrace a bold agenda for economic growth built on timeless free market practices and reform. So what are the building blocks of an incentive-based, growth agenda? I submit they are the following: Sound monetary policy; Tax relief and reform; Access to American energy; Regulatory reform; Trade ``S.T.A.R.T.'' You could call it a prescription for a fresh start for the American economy. Some of these are new ideas. Some are timeless. Taken together, they will put us back on track for job creation and prosperity. Sound Monetary Policy and a Restoration of Free Market Principles Sound monetary policy is the foundation of our prosperity. A strong dollar means a strong America. The American people know we cannot borrow and spend our way back to a growing America and sent a deafening message of restraint to Washington D.C. on November 2nd. But it doesn't look like the administration got the message and neither did the Federal Reserve. During 2008 and 2009, the Fed pushed well over $1 trillion into the financial system in an attempt to rein in unemployment through more government stimulus, yet the national jobless rate has been well above 9 percent for a record-tying 18 straight months. The Fed's second and latest round of ``quantitative easing,'' known as QE2, actually seeks inflation in an effort to bring down unemployment. Printing money is no substitute for sound fiscal policy. And while there is no guarantee that this policy will succeed in reducing unemployment, it is near certain that the value of the dollar will be diluted. As economist Larry Kudlow says, the Fed can print money, but it can't print jobs. I do not lay the blame solely at the feet of the Federal Reserve. The problem for the Fed began in 1977 when Congress imposed a dual mandate, which requires that the central bank pursue price stability and maximum employment in executing its policies. Too often, this conflicting mandate has pit short-term hopes for job gains against long-term costs to the economy. QE2 is an example of what happens when the Fed involves itself too much in macroeconomic meddling. A couple weeks ago, I introduced legislation to end the dual mandate and return the Fed to its original, single mandate--price stability. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner recently said the administration will oppose any effort to end the dual mandate arguing that it was ``very important to keep politics out of monetary policy''. But Congress created the dual mandate in 1977 and getting the Fed back to its original mission of price stability is precisely how we get politics out of monetary policy. It's time that the Federal Reserve focus exclusively on price stability and protecting the dollar. And it's also time that policymakers in Washington D.C. embrace the kind of reforms that will promote real growth. Before I move on, I would like to note that in the midst of all that has happened recently--massive government borrowing and spending, quantitative easing--a debate is starting anew over an anchor for the global monetary system. My dear friend, the late Jack Kemp probably would have urged me to adopt a gold standard here and now. Robert Zoellick, President of the World Bank, encouraged that we re- think the international currency system, including the role of gold and I agree. The time has come to have a debate over gold and the proper role it should play in our Nation's monetary affairs. Tax Relief and Reform: Flat Tax The first principle of a tax system in a free society must be certainty. Uncertainty is the enemy of our prosperity. For too long on tax policy, uncertainty has been the order of the day. To end the uncertainty that is stifling investment, innovation and growth, we must preserve current tax rates and promote permanent tax reform. For starters, of course, Congress must permanently extend the 2001 and 2003 tax rates to ensure no American faces a tax hike on January 1st, and I have introduced a bill with Sen. Jim DeMint to do just that. Most Americans know that higher taxes won't get anybody hired. Raising taxes on job creators won't create jobs. But, preventing a tax increase is not enough. If the current tax rates were sufficient to get this economy moving again, it would be and it's not. The time has come for Congress and this administration to take bold action to simplify our tax system and lower people's taxes. The tax code has grown too large and complex. It has 3.8 million words. The forms are dizzying. And nothing about it seems fair. People are taxed on their income. Then after they pay their bills, they take the leftover money and put it into savings or an investment. If their savings or investments make any money, they are taxed again. If they buy stock in a company, the company pays taxes on its profits. Then it takes those profits and provides a dividend to shareholders and it is taxed again. The final outrage occurs at death, when your estate pays taxes once again on all the money you'd previously paid taxes on while living. All I really know about economics is what you tax you get less of and what you subsidize you get more of. We need a tax system that will encourage income, savings, investment and growth, but our tax code does the opposite. It punishes savers and investors by taxing them twice and in some cases more times than that. To promote income, savings and investment, we need a system built on the principle that income should be taxed once and just once. We need a fair and effective method of taxation that will make doing your taxes easy and remove the confusion of the present tax code. In an upcoming study written by the legendary Dr. Art Laffer, Wayne Winegarden and John Childs, they found the cost of compliance with today's tax code to be over $540 billion annually and that individuals and businesses spend 7.6 billion hours on their taxes. Just imagine if Americans were putting that time and money into enjoying their lives or growing their businesses. The Laffer study predicts that by simplifying the tax code and cutting complexity costs in half, our economy would grow $1.3 trillion more over ten years than if we maintain the status quo. That means each person in this country would be approximately $4,200 wealthier. And that's just from simplifying our tax code by half. But we can do better than that. How about a system where you could file your taxes on a BlackBerry, or a system where you might even be able to file a return with 140 characters or less? How would you like to tweet your taxes? We can create a twenty-first century American tax system that will provide government with the revenue it needs without discouraging growth or placing an undue burden of compliance on our citizens. There is one system that meets all of these criteria: the best option, the most pro-growth option is a flat tax. I believe it is time that America adopted a flat tax and scrapped the current system once and for all. A flat tax would release enormous amounts of capital into the system, and it would operate under a simple principle: what you take out of the economy is taxed, like wages and business income, and what you put into the economy is not, like savings and investments. Individuals and businesses would pay taxes at the same rate. Individuals would pay taxes on their wages or salary after receiving a basic income exemption and an exemption for any dependents, including children and elderly family members and others who you care for in your home. Imagine how easy this would be for people. Gross income minus a generous standard deduction minus any dependent exemptions and you've got your taxable income. Apply the rate and your taxes are done. Everyone pays the same rate, and the more money you make, the more you pay. It's fair, simple and effective. If you are a business, you pay tax on your gross income for the year minus one hundred percent of your expenses: rent, wages, fuel, supplies, etc. Depreciation is no longer necessary because the entire cost of investment spending can be deducted in one year. The flat tax eliminates all of the credits and deductions and special preferences and tax loopholes that Congress and an army of lobbyists have built into the tax code over time. These fuel special interests and generally benefit one person, business or industry over another. Our tax system should not pick winners and losers, but should treat every business, small and large, with the same basic rules. Instead, everyone would be on a level playing field with certainty as to your taxes. A taxpayer would either subtract his basic and dependent exemptions or business expenses and end up with taxable income. It would reduce compliance costs by hundreds of billions of dollars. Following the principle of only taxing once, it eliminates the AMT, the capital gains and dividends taxes, and the death and gift taxes. And this is hardly radical. A flat tax is in use in more than twenty countries around the world, and they have been proposed and supported by various legislators and economists in America over the past 30 years, such as Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka, Dick Armey, Steve Forbes, Art Laffer, Jack Kemp and Richard Gephardt. We don't think about it, but we already use flat taxes in America as taxes for Social Security, Medicare taxes, sales and property taxes. It may come as a surprise to many, but even the New York Times wrote favorably about a flat tax saying, ``. . . every dollar of income would be taxed once and only once. The plan would subsidize saving, and create an exemption that would protect the poor. [I]t is perfectly simple.'' The Gray Lady was right. And a flat tax will make America more globally competitive. New York City is still the financial capital of the world, but for how long will that be true? The Wall Street Journal recently reported that in New York City in 2011, the combined federal and state tax rate will be nearly 54 percent. With government taking more than half of your money, is that an incentive to work hard or to take your business elsewhere? A global economy means New York is now competing to keep businesses and capital from moving to Beijing or Bangalore. Right now, our corporate tax rate is 15 points higher than the rest of the world. And more than twenty countries with growing economies have a flat tax in place for businesses and individuals. Hong Kong instituted its flat tax in 1947 and has no tax on capital gains or dividends. Its tax code is short, to the point, and effective, and Hong Kong is a wealthy, thriving city with a growing economy and government surpluses. Russia, Czech Republic, and Ukraine all have flat taxes. The hard truth is the future is flat. The world is going flat everywhere but in America, and to lead the next American century, our nation needs to lead in capital formation and tax reform again. And a flat tax will mean jobs. According to one study by the Heritage Foundation, the flat tax would result in tremendous economic growth with GDP potentially growing by as much as 7 percent within 3 years and nearly 1.5 million jobs being created. Not that this should come as a surprise. If you look back at history, the Kennedy, Reagan and 2001/2003 tax reforms were all followed by strong economic growth. The flat tax goes beyond these tax cuts and provides not just lower taxes but a greatly simplified system. After the Kennedy tax cuts, the top rate went from 91 percent to 70 percent. Economic growth soared: unemployment went down by more than 2 percent and tax receipts increased by 33 percent. Two decades later, President Reagan's across-the-board tax cuts brought America back from a devastating recession. In 1981, unemployment was at 7.6 percent nationally. The Dow Jones was at 777. Mortgage interest rates were over 20 percent. By 1987, the prime rate was down to 8.2 percent. The Dow was up to 3,000 by the end of Reagan's term, and 17 million new jobs were created. That's real growth. It created true opportunity and improved the lives of average Americans. And after the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, the economy again grew, as did government revenues by $785 billion from 2004 to 2007, a record. There is an indisputable historical case to be made that tax relief and reform creates jobs and incentivizes growth in our economy. American Energy A source of American greatness observed since our founding has been our abundant natural resources. As Daniel Webster said, in words inscribed in the chamber of the House of Representatives: Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests and see whether we also in our day and generation may not perform something worthy to be remembered. A policy for developing American energy must be a component of any plan for growth. We must embrace an all-of-the-above energy policy that promotes energy independence in an environmentally responsible manner. An all-of-the-above energy policy should not mean subsidizing all-of-the-above. It means allowing all types of energy to be developed and compete honestly in a free marketplace. We can and should wisely use these resources to better the lives of our citizens. Our environment can be protected while we increase energy production, encourage greater efficiency and conservation, and promote the development and use of alternative fuels, and innovative new technologies like we're seeing developed right here in Detroit. It also is time for a nuclear energy renaissance in America. The regulatory process for new applications can be accelerated, and we can safely store and recycle spent nuclear fuel. Nuclear energy not only means a source of clean emissions-free energy; it also means construction jobs, manufacturing jobs, and science-based economic growth. Developing our own sources of energy here at home will provide certainty about our future, ensure that energy remains affordable and create jobs. Regulatory Relief and Reform Next, to restore incentive and encourage growth we must reduce the regulatory burden on our economy. There is a place for regulations that ensure safety and soundness and protect people from danger, but our regulatory structure has grown out of control. Today we have too many regulations and too many regulatory authorities that have expanded the reach of the federal government too far. These regulations add billions to the cost of doing business and in their wake they kill jobs. Take the requirement from ObamaCare that businesses must file with the IRS a form 1099 for any purchases from a vendor for goods or services over $600 in a year. Seriously, that is in the law. Of course, this is ridiculously burdensome and just adds to the redtape that small businesses face across the country. It should be repealed immediately. According to the Small Business Administration, the average small business faces a cost of $10,585 in federal regulations per employee each year. These small employers represent 99.7 percent of all businesses and have created 64 percent of all new jobs over the past 15 years. Imagine if small businesses could put the $10,000 per employee they spend each year on federal regulations directly back into new jobs. Ronald Reagan once said ``A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.'' It's time to change that, at least when it comes to regulations. I propose that any existing regulation with an economic impact of $100 million or more must be reviewed and if still necessary, re-promulgated every ten years to allow for public comment and a reassessment of the cost of the regulation. Instead of eternal life, these regulations will get ten years. After ten years, there is no reason not to review, modernize, improve and reduce the cost of existing regulations. Further, I believe that all new regulations that impose an economic cost on families, businesses or local governments should be subject to a regulatory ``paygo'' procedure before implementation. If government wants to issue a new regulation that is going to impose an economic cost, then it needs to reduce another regulatory burden elsewhere so that there is no new burden on the economy. Some regulations, and some bills that have passed Congress, however, impose costs that are too great and can never be offset and must be repealed. ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, TARP, and Section 404 of Sarbanes- Oxley fall in that category. Also, Congress must override the EPA's endangerment finding so that regulatory cap and trade cannot be forced on the American people against their will. Increased Trade As most Americans know, trade means jobs, and that is especially true in places like Indiana and Michigan where we grow food that the world consumes and make cars and other products that are used around the globe. Encouraging free trade lowers barriers to entry for our goods, and that in turn allows U.S. companies to create more jobs. Protectionism and closing our doors to other countries does not help us, or people in the rest of the world. We must support expanded free trade to renew American exceptionalism and create jobs. Despite the president's stated objective of doubling American exports in the next five years, trade has largely been ignored by Democrats in Congress and the administration in recent years. With a new Republican majority in the House, I am hopeful that the free trade agreements with Panama, Colombia and South Korea can move forward. We need to get those deals done, and done right, but it should not end there. We must promote increased trade at every opportunity around the world. When the world ``buys American,'' Americans go to work. Renewing the Character of the Nation Finally, to renew American exceptionalism, we must recognize that our present crisis is not merely economic but moral in nature. At the root of these times should be the realization that people in positions of authority from Washington to Wall Street have walked away from the timeless truths of honesty, integrity, an honest day's work for an honest day's pay and the simple notion that you ought to treat the other guy the way you want to be treated. As strongly as I believe in the economic policies in this address, I know we will not restore this nation with public policy alone. It will require public virtue. `When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?' As we promote policies to restore American exceptionalism, we must also reaffirm our nation's commitment to the values that have made our prosperity possible. As we seek to build national wealth, we must renew our commitment to the institutions that nurture the character of our people-- traditional family and religion. Conclusion In 1977, my brother and I went backpacking through Europe and found our way to West Berlin. I will never forget the day I walked past the barbed wire and tank traps that barricaded the Berlin Wall, passed through security at Checkpoint Charlie and took my first steps into a wider understanding of the world. Standing in West Berlin I saw the energy, bustling streets and glass towers of a big city built on freedom and free market economics. The strassen were filled with stores, people, and bustling commerce. When we crossed through Checkpoint Charlie, past the harsh glare of uniformed East German guards, everything changed. The excitement and energy of West Berlin gave way to the dour reality of Soviet controlled East Berlin. The buildings were drab--concrete block tenement structures. Damage from World War II was still evident in many buildings. The cars were vintage 1950's and people all seemed to be wearing the same colorless apparel. It was a gray, harsh reality. In that moment, I saw the difference between East and West, between a free market economy and a planned economy run by the state. Freedom and personal responsibility contrasted with socialism and decline. The problem with our economy today is that, after years of runaway spending and growth of government under both political parties, America is on that wall between West and East. No longer the vibrant free market that built cities like Detroit but not yet overtaken by the policies that have engulfed Europe in a sea of debt and mediocrity. To restore American economic exceptionalism, we have to decide that we believe in it again and turn and pursue a free market economy again with all our hearts. We have to choose. Ronald Reagan said it best: You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream--the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order--or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. I choose the West. I choose limited government and freedom. I choose the free market, personal responsibility and equality of opportunity. I choose fiscal restraint, sound money, a flat tax, regulatory reform, American energy, expanded trade and a return to traditional values. In a word, I choose a boundless American future built on the timeless ideals of the American people. I believe the American people are ready for this choice and await men and women who will lead us back to that future, back to the West, back to American exceptionalism. Here's to that future. Our best days are yet to come. Thank you.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a kind-hearted and generous woman who will forever be remembered by the community in my home state of Indiana. The snow fell quietly on an early November morning as a community gathered at First Presbyterian Church to remember the first lady of east central Indiana, Janice Ball Fisher. She was the daughter of the distinguished Edmund B. and Bertha Ball who founded Ball Corporation, and whose generous donations significantly benefited Ball State University and Ball Memorial Hospital. Janice was raised in Muncie and later graduated from Mount Vernon College in Washington, D.C. In 1940 she married John Fisher in Leland, Michigan, though they later moved back to Janice's hometown. The Fishers will always be remembered for their leadership in the community and their giving hearts. Together, they donated millions of dollars to further educational institutions around the state such as Ball State University, DePauw University, and Indiana University. Those who knew Janice will remember her most for her dedication to faith and family. Her greatest joy was to be surrounded by loved ones, and she greatly enjoyed bringing her children and grandchildren along on adventures across the country and throughout the world. She was an active member of her church, as well as civic organizations such as the Mayflower Society, Daughters of the American Revolution, and the Mount Vernon Society. Janice also supported numerous philanthropies in Michigan and Indiana such as the Fishtown Preservation Society, Leelanau Conservancy, Leelanau Community Cultural Center, Leelanau Historical Museum, Leland Township Library, Interlochen School of Music, Minnetrista, Cornerstone Center for the Arts, Muncie YMCA and YWCA, Camp Crosley, Muncie Symphony Orchestra, and many other organizations that thrived thanks to her leadership. The Good Book tells us that ``whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for Me,'' and that embodies the way Janice lived her life. Though the community will deeply feel the loss of Janice Fisher, I am confident that she will be richly rewarded for her decades of service and sacrifice for others. I offer my sincere condolences to her beloved family: daughters Joan F. Woods and Judith F. Oetinger; sons Michael J. Fisher, James A. Fisher, Jeffrey E. Fisher, John W. Fisher III, and Jerrold M. Fisher; 19 grandchildren; and 29 greatgrandchildren.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, jobs should be job one in this Congress and the next. Full employment must be the objective of policymakers in Washington, D.C. But after years of runaway spending, borrowing and stimulus, it's clear--and the American people know it--we can't borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing economy. Unfortunately, judging from the latest round of quantitative easing, known as QE2, the Federal Reserve hasn't gotten the message. Printing money is no substitute for sound fiscal policy. This week I introduced legislation to end the dual mandate of the Fed. It is time, once again, to demand that the Federal Reserve focus exclusively on price stability and protecting the dollar; and it's also time to demand that policymakers here in Washington, D.C. embrace the kind of reforms that will promote real growth, tax reform, tax relief, fiscal discipline, regulatory reform and trade. We can't print money as a pathway to prosperity. I urge my colleagues to join me in ending the dual mandate of the Fed, and let's get back to growing this economy on principles and policies that work.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago today, the American people registered a historic rejection of American liberalism and the agenda of this administration and this Congress. The American people said in deafening terms that they are tired of the borrowing and the spending and the bailouts and the takeovers and the tax increases of the recent past. They voted for change. That's why it's so remarkable, Mr. Speaker, that this Congress is poised to allow one of the largest tax increases in American history to take effect in January of this year. A historic $3.9 trillion tax increase could take effect, impacting every American, if Congress fails to act. The average tax increase will be more than $1,500 per household. American families will see the marriage penalty reinstated, the child tax credit cut in half, and tax rates on investments and savings and inheritance will all increase. It is absolutely imperative, if Congress accomplishes nothing else in this lame duck, that we take immediate action to make permanent all of the current tax rates. And let's be clear, this is not a debate over tax cuts. If the tax rates are not preserved permanently, it will result in one of the largest tax increases in history. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting legislation that we will introduce today to make those rates permanent.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, not just for what's in it but for what's not in it. This rule will allow a vote on three separate pieces of legislation, none of which will allow the Republicans and Democrats in Congress, who support extending all current tax relief, to have an up-or-down vote before we adjourn for this campaign season. The truth is, what's happening in Washington, D.C., this week is just unconscionable. Democrats are putting their politics over your prosperity. The economic policies of this administration have failed. Fifteen million Americans are unemployed, millions more have given up even looking for work. But now Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat majority want to impose one of the largest tax increases in our country's history on job creators in less than 100 days, and they won't even allow a vote on the floor to extend all tax relief. Mr. Speaker, raising taxes on job creators won't create jobs. The Democrats are poised to embrace one of the largest tax increases in history in one of the worst economies in my lifetime, and it must not stand. The American people deserve to know. Washington Democrats are putting saving their jobs ahead of saving yours. Mr. Speaker, higher taxes won't get anybody hired. Congress must not vote to adjourn. We must not leave this Chamber before we permit a fair and open up-or-down vote to prevent higher taxes on any American in January of next year. House Republicans say, No extension of all tax relief for every American? No adjournment.

Mr. PENCE

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Van P. and Margaret Smith--of Muncie, Indiana--on the extraordinary occasion of their fiftieth wedding anniversary. Their dedication to one another, their family, their friends, and their community is a shining example of the foundational values which have made this nation great. Margaret Ann Kennedy, born October 27, 1934, in Chicago, Illinois, moved to Muncie with her family as a young girl. There she attended Muncie Central High School and graduated from Ball State University in 1956 with a degree in Education. She went on to teach at Washington Elementary School in Muncie from 1956 to 1961. Van P. Smith was born on September 8, 1928, in Oneida, New York. He graduated from Colgate University with a degree in Public Administration and Economics in 1950, and from Georgetown University with a Doctor of Jurisprudence in 1955. He has also received honorary doctorate degrees from Ball State, Colgate, Indiana State, and Vincennes Universities as well as the Catholic University of America. Van and Margaret met through mutual friends and were married on November 19, 1950. They made their home in Muncie, Indiana, where they continue to be active members of the community. The Smith's have a large and loving family, including five children and nineteen grandchildren. Margaret has been a loving and tirelessly devoted spouse, mother, and grandmother, while Van has been the leader and captain of their tight knit family. Both Van and Margaret have given back to their local community for decades now, and I cannot praise them enough for their many generous charitable gifts. Margaret remains active with St. Mary's Parish, Tri Kappa Sorority, and the Harvest Soup Kitchen. For over 50 years, Van served as an owner and executive leader of Ontario Corporation, employing hundreds of Hoosiers. He was also instrumental in purchasing the Sherry Laboratories unit, where he still reports for work daily at the age of 82. He is recognized by community and business leaders as a respected and honored entrepreneur, dedicated to faith, family, and integrity. His accolades and achievements, though too numerous to list in this brief tribute, have had an immeasurable impact on not only my congressional district, but the entire state of Indiana and beyond. Perhaps most moving to me is the influence that Van and Margaret Smith have had on my life and on my family. My history with Van and Margaret goes back many years, and not only are they dear friends, but they have been a source of great guidance to me; words are inadequate to relay the depth of gratitude I feel for them both. The Good Book tells us that ``the fear of the Lord adds length to life,'' and it is clear that the Lord has had His hand on this remarkable couple. Their contribution is indeed impressive on a local, state, national, and international level. However, their defining characteristic is the depth of their humility and the breadth of their generosity. As is evident to all who are fortunate to know them, Van and Margaret have strived to live their lives honoring to God, family, friends, and their community with integrity and character. Madam Speaker, I again congratulate Van and Margaret Smith on their fifty wonderful years of marriage and humbly thank them for their years of community service and friendship. I honor and applaud them for their dedication and generosity and pray God's best for them and their family.