Floor Statements

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.

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. 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.''

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.

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.

I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from California.

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. Speaker, the largest abortion provider in America should not also be the largest recipient of Federal funding under title

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

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. 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.