Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his kind remarks.

The American people know and House Republicans know our Nation is facing a serious recession. American families are hurting. Many have lost their jobs. Many million more are worried they will be next. House Republicans know that Congress must do something. But it's important that we do the right thing.

As this debate begins today, we just heard moments ago from a distinguished colleague and others that somehow Republicans are about saying ``no.'' Well, let me say with great respect to the gentleman, this is not about saying ``no.'' This is about saying ``yes'' to solutions that will put Americans back to work.

Republicans have brought forward such solutions built on the time honored experience of President John F. Kennedy, of President Ronald Reagan, and the experience of this Nation with the impending recession that followed September 11. We didn't go on a spending spree on Capitol Hill. We didn't offer Americans a $13-a-person tax cut. John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and this Congress and this government after September 11, under George W. Bush, cut taxes across the board for working families, small businesses, and family farms; and the economy grew.

But what has the majority brought to the floor today? The truth is this stimulus bill will do nothing to stimulate this economy in the long term. The only thing the Democrats' stimulus bill will do is stimulate more government and more debt.

The American people are asking, what's 13 bucks a week going to do to get this economy moving again for the average American? What's $2 billion for community organizing to organizations like ACORN going to do to get Americans from the unemployment line to the factory line or millions to begin rationing health care or to purchase green golf carts going to do to put families back to work in Indiana?

As the gentleman said, I had a town hall meeting Monday, myself, in Indiana. A 13-year-old girl stood up, told me that her dad, raising her and her sister, alone as a single parent had lost half of his hours at work. He'd gone from 40 hours to 24 hours. And she stood up bravely in front of 300 Hoosiers, and she said, Anything in that bill, Congressman, that can help my dad get back to full-time? And I looked at little Hillary, congratulated her for her courage, and I said, Hillary, because I can't answer ``yes'' to your question that there is anything in this bill that's going to help get your dad back to full time, I can't vote ``yes'' on this bill. And the 300 Hoosiers in that room exploded in agreeing applause.

The American people know what's going on here. The American people know that this administration and this Congress are about to pass a bill that will not grow our economy. It will merely grow our government. We can do better. We must do better. This Congress owes the American people no less.

Today Congress will begin to consider, under the guise of stimulus, what will amount to the largest spending bill since the Second World War. As millions of Americans have come to realize, this spending bill is not so much about creating jobs as it is about creating more government and more debt. Senator Chuck Schumer referred to the ``porky'' elements of this bill. And we're learning about millions of dollars for golf carts. And this morning we learned about millions of dollars to protect San Francisco mice.

But I don't rise this morning to debate the bill, Madam Speaker, so much as to defend the public's right to know. Just a few short days ago, Congress unanimously voted to post the so-called stimulus bill on the Internet for 48 hours to let the American people judge for themselves. I rise to challenge my colleagues in the Democrat majority, slow this process down. Post this bill on the Internet. Let the American people see this so-called stimulus bill in all of its details and they can decide whether we're creating jobs or just more government and more debt.

Madam Speaker, Abraham Lincoln was our nation's sixteenth President, and its greatest.

His vision and courage in our nation's darkest, most perilous moments were instrumental in unifying a fractured nation, and preserving its precious founding principles.

On this--what would have been his 200th birthday--we pause to remember Lincoln the Statesman, and as is befitting of such times, there will be many things said. There will be many aspects of Lincoln's legacy that will be

remembered, many traits of Lincoln that will be exalted and many deeds of Lincoln admired.

While there are many who would lay claim to the mantle of Lincoln, I believe that an honest appraisal of Lincoln's legacy lays bare two critical distinctions of the Great Emancipator.

First, he was a Hoosier; secondly, he was a conservative.

Lincoln, though born in the heart of Kentucky, spent his formative years in southern Indiana. The Lincolns moved to Spencer County, Indiana when young Abe was 7 and for the next 14 years, lived in the Hoosier State. It was during this time as a Hoosier of humble circumstance, living in a log cabin on 160 acres near Little Pigeon Creek, that Lincoln developed his voracious appetite for reading and learning, once walking 20 miles to borrow a book.

He also learned the power and promise of the free market as a young entrepreneur. He crafted his own boat and started his own ferry service to and from the Ohio River. On one occasion, when two patrons each tossed him a silver half-dollar, Lincoln noted, ``It was a most important incident in my life. The world seemed wider and fairer before me; I was a more hopeful and thoughtful boy from that time.'' Indeed, from then on, he was a staunch advocate for the free market and the equality of opportunity.

He also cultivated a real affinity for the ideas of the Founding Fathers as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence--natural rights, economic freedom and equality under the law. It was this commitment to the ``first principles'' of our nation that served as the fulcrum of Lincoln's leadership during his most heroic--and ultimately heralded-moments.

When others looked forward at an unknowable and uncertain future, Lincoln looked back--he looked back to what sustained this nation through the birth pains of its Founding--and it was in this act of looking back that Lincoln serves as a model of true conservatism.

In 1859, in a speech given in Columbus, Ohio, Lincoln asserted that the ``chief and real purpose of the Republican party is eminently conservative'' and that the party's sole aim should be to ``restore this government to its original tone . . . and thereto maintain it, looking for no further change than that which the original framers of the government themselves expected and looked forward to.''

More to the point, to the question ``what is conservatism?'' Lincoln succinctly answered, ``Is it not the adherence to the old and the tried, against the new and the untried?'' Surely there are those who would do well to heed those words in these times.

It has been said in many ways and many places before, and it bears repeating, that the promise that all men are created equal--as written in the Declaration of the Independence--and the incredible potential that is inherent in the notion of equality under law--as established in the Constitution--are both realized in the person and Presidency of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln himself said that he ``never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.''

As the Indianapolis Star noted today, ``An old Indiana farm boy still has many lessons to teach America.''

I close with the words of Lincoln that ring as true today as they did when they were first spoken nearly two centuries ago:

``Our republican robe is soiled, and trailed in the dust. Let us repurify it. Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence, and with it, the practices and policy, which harmonize with it. Let north and south--let all Americans--let all lovers of liberty everywhere--join in the great and good work. If we do this, we shall not only have saved the Union; but we shall have so saved it, as to make, and to keep it, forever worthy of the saving. We shall have so saved it, that the succeeding millions of free happy people, the world over, shall rise up, and call us blessed, to the latest generation.''

Madam Speaker, in October 2007, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the Free Flow of Information Act, legislation that would provide a qualified privilege to journalists to shield confidential sources from compelled disclosure by a federal court. I am pleased to join over 30 of my colleagues today in reintroducing that same legislation that previously garnered 398 votes here on the House floor. Today, we take up the mantle and renew the push to make this bill law.

I am honored to be joined by my distinguished colleague Congressman Rick Boucher, who is such a tireless advocate for the First Amendment. Also, we are pleased to have Chairman Conyers and Reps. Coble, Walden, Blunt, Goodlatte, Lofgren, Wexler, Yarmuth and many others as original cosponsors. This is truly a bipartisan issue. It is a First Amendment issue, and I thank these Members for their leadership. They are truly champions for a free press.

Enshrined in the First Amendment are these words: ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.''

As a conservative who believes in limited government, I know the only check on government power in real time is a free and independent press. The Free Flow of Information Act is not about protecting reporters; it is about protecting the public's right to know. Our Founders did not enshrine the freedom of the press in the Constitution because they got good press. And, I am certainly not advocating a free and independent press because I always get good press.

We all remember when not long ago a confidential source brought to light abuses at the highest levels of government in the long national nightmare of Watergate. History records that W. Mark Felt never would have come forward without the assurance made to him of confidentiality.

But, thirty-plus years later the press cannot make that assurance to sources, and we face the real danger that there may never be another Deep Throat. The protections provided by the Free Flow of Information Act are necessary so that members of the media can bring forward information to the American public without fear of retribution or prosecution.

In recent years, we have famously seen reporters such as Judith Miller jailed and David Ashenfelter, Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams threatened with jail sentences. They are a few names among many who have been subpoenaed for taking a stand for the First Amendment and refusing to reveal confidential sources.

Compelling reporters to testify, and in particular, compelling them to reveal the identity of their confidential sources, is a detriment to the public interest. Without the promise of confidentiality, many important conduits of information about our government will be shut down. The dissemination of information by the media to the public on matters ranging from the operation of our government to events in our local communities is invaluable to the operation of our democracy. Without the free flow of information from sources to reporters, the public is ill-equipped to make informed decisions.

Thirty-six states and the District of Columbia have various statutes that protect reporters from being compelled to testify or disclose sources and information in court. Thirteen states have protections for reporters as a result of judicial decisions. The Free Flow of Information Act would set national standards similar to those that are in effect in the states.

The Free Flow of Information Act closely follows existing Department of Justice guidelines for issuing subpoenas to members of the news media. It simply makes the guidelines mandatory and provides protection against compelled disclosure of confidential sources. In doing so, this legislation strikes a balance between the public interest in the free flow of information against the public interest in compelling testimony in highly limited circumstances such as situations involving grave risk to national security or imminent threat of bodily harm.

Abraham Lincoln said, ``Give the people the facts and the Republic will be saved.'' The Free Flow of Information Act is designed to ensure that the American people have the facts that they need to make choices as an informed electorate.

A free and independent press is the only agency in America that has complete freedom to hold government accountable. Integrity in government is not a Democratic or Republican issue, and corruption cannot be laid at the feet of one party. When scandal hits either party, any branch of government, or any institution in our society, it wounds our nation.

As a conservative, I believe that concentrations of power should be subject to great scrutiny. The longer I serve in Congress, the more firmly I believe in the wisdom of our Founders--especially as it pertains to the First Amendment and freedom of the press. It is imperative that we preserve the transparency and integrity of American government, and the only way to do that is by preserving a free and independent press.

Thomas Jefferson warned that, ``Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that limited without danger of losing it.''

This Congress would be wise to take those words to heart. Now is the time to heed the advice of Mr. Jefferson.

I believe there are bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate sufficient to enact this bill this year. President Obama pledged his support for a federal media shield during his service in the Senate.

With the bipartisan support of my colleagues in Congress and the President, I believe the time has come to stitch this tear in the First Amendment freedom of the press.

House Republicans know we are in a serious recession. The American people are hurting, and despite the claims by some in the administration and some here on the House floor, House Republicans know that Congress must act and must act now to deal with this serious economic downturn affecting America's businesses and families.

Despite the accusations of some that Republicans want to do nothing, because somehow a choice between one party that wants to do something and another party that wants to do nothing, I was struck, Mr. Speaker, this morning when even the Washington Post called that allegation a straw man.

In fact, the choice before us here today is whether or not we will move the legislation that's now become a back-room deal that has the size and magnitude of the entire discretionary budget of the United States of America, whether we will move that bill without any input whatsoever from House Republicans.

But this is not an argument about who had their say. This is an argument about what would be the best solution to deal with these challenging economic times.

Republicans oppose this bill because this back-room deal is simply a long wish list of big government spending that won't work to put Americans back to work. It won't create jobs. The only thing it will stimulate is more government and more debt.

And it will probably do more harm than good, and it sounds from news reports at this point, Mr. Speaker, that the conferees on this committee have made this bad bill even worse. I'm hearing reports that modest tax relief in this bill has been reduced to pay for even more big government spending.

And the American people have a right to know what's in this bill. Yesterday, Republicans and Democrats came together and unanimously voted in this Chamber that when this bill was completed it would be posted on the Internet for a minimum of 48 hours for the American people to review it. The question today is, will the House majority keep their promise to the American people and post the legislation, that is about to be imminently revealed to this Nation, on the Internet to be carefully examined? The American people have a right to know what's in this bill.

And I believe with all my heart that the more they know, the more they will agree that Republicans have a better solution. Rather than more government, more debt and more spending, Republicans want to take half the amount of money that the majority wants to spend and use it for fast-acting tax relief for working families and small businesses.

Using the economic analysis of the Obama administration, the Republican plan would create twice the jobs at half the cost. We simply believe we have a better solution.

Madam Speaker, we gather on this floor at a time just a few moments after the United States Senate has passed by a sufficient majority a spending bill, the intention of which is to stimulate this economy. But careful examination shows, and more Americans every day are realizing, that the only thing the Democrat stimulus bill will stimulate is more government and more debt.

Let me say emphatically: House Republicans know two things to a certainty. Number one, we are in a recession; American families are hurting; millions have lost their jobs, and millions more worry that they will be next. But, number two, Republicans also know this Congress must do something.

Despite the fact that the President of the United States last night told the Nation's media and the American people that he disagreed with some in Congress who believe we should do nothing, let me say, with great respect to our President, I know of no Republican member of the House or Senate who believes that in these difficult times we should do nothing. I would be prepared to stand corrected if the administration would like to provide names, but a casual survey of Republican members of the House and the Senate should instruct the American people that Republicans believe we should do something, but we also believe we should take time to get it right; that we should create a stimulus bill that is not, as the bills that have passed the House and Senate now are, a stimulus bill that actually is not a long laundry list of worn- out liberal spending priorities but actually is, at its center, a bill that will give working families and small businesses more of their hard-earned dollars to spend.

At the President's invitation, Republicans brought forward a Republican alternative which would give the average married couple a tax break this year of some $3,400. We would let small businesses write off up to 20 percent of their profits this year. This kind of tax relief, Madam Speaker, is precisely the kind of tax relief that John F. Kennedy advanced to stave off an economic downturn in the 1960s; that is what Ronald Reagan did to turn back an even more serious recession in the 1980s; and, after the towers fell in New York City and the Pentagon was struck on 9/11, it was what this Congress did in a bipartisan way to turn around a downturn in our economy.

Tax relief, when combined with some modest investment in infrastructure that I believe Republicans in the main would support, is precisely the kind of stimulus that the American people want to see happen, and it is not what has passed out of the House or Senate.

But I rise today with a hopeful note that, after some tough partisan rhetoric in recent days, this Congress now with the conference committee will come together and will again embrace President Obama's call for bipartisan input on this bill. Conference committees, for people looking in, are really the time when the House and Senate reconcile differences. But sometimes they can be a fresh start in legislation; and our hope is that now we will be able to bring forward these time-honored, time-tested efforts for growing our economy. And I believe the American people are with us.

Yesterday, in Indiana, I held a town hall meeting a little bit south of where the President was. Three hundred Hoosiers gathered at Donner Center in Columbus, Indiana yesterday. And I have to tell you, Madam Speaker, I sensed, as was reported in the local paper today, a tremendous amount of skepticism about the idea that we can borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing economy. There was tremendous support in that room for tax relief for small businesses and working families.

But a little girl named Hillary rose and touched my heart. She said to me: Congressman Pence, my dad is raising me and her sibling as a single parent. Little Hillary told me he just got his hours cut from 40 hours a week to 24. She said, ``Is there anything in this bill that they just passed that will get my dad his hours back?'' And I looked at her with no small amount of emotion and I said, ``Hillary, because I can't answer yes to that question, because I can't tell you that something in the Democrat stimulus bill will help your dad get back to full time, I can't support this bill.''

The American people are on to it. We need to come together in a bipartisan way and do what history teaches will get this economy growing again.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I take a second chair to no one in this conference in my respect for the integrity of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Mr. Obey is a man with whom I differ on a broad range of issues, but he is a man of integrity, Madam Speaker. And I come to this floor in part to acknowledge that.

Let me say also how much I appreciate that the chairman said that he has no objection to the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1 that is before the body today that would require that before the House shall record its final approval to the conference agreement that the text of the agreement should be made available to the managers in an electronic, searchable and downloadable form for at least 48 hours. I commend the chairman for that.

I would respectfully disagree with the statement that the chairman just made, Madam Speaker, and it's a statement that we heard the President of the United States make last night. And maybe it was inadvertent by the chairman, but it is this contrast that somehow this debate is between people that want to do something and people that want to do nothing. With great respect to the chairman, that is not an accurate articulation of the competing positions on this bill.

House Republicans know we are in a recession. This is a very serious time in the life of American families and in the life of our economy. At the President's invitation, House Republicans brought forward a series of proposals that would bring fast-acting tax relief to working families, small businesses and family farms. And despite President Obama's laudable call for bipartisanship, those House Republican proposals were completely excluded from this bill. And so to hear last night on national television and to hear today that there are those of us in the body that would do nothing, I would say respectfully to my Democratic colleagues and to this administration, who are you talking about? I know of no Republican in the House or the Senate who believes in these challenging economic times that we should do nothing. House Republicans believe simply that we should do the right thing. And millions of Americans stand with us that this massive spending bill that is nothing more than a tired wish list of leftover liberal spending priorities is not the answer. But we simply believe that we can do better. And by requiring that this legislation be on the Internet for 48 hours before final vote, we believe we're going to have a better opportunity to get the American people even more into that conversation than they are today.

I still believe that we can achieve a bipartisan result. I believe in the goodwill of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. And I believe in his integrity. I believe in the goodwill of a great number of my colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle. And I believe our President is sincere in saying that in these difficult economic times, we ought to be coming together and bringing the best ideas from both sides of the aisle to confront this very serious recession. But let's bring the American people into this debate. Let's pass this motion and ensure that this bill is open to the public for 48 hours. And we will hear what they have to say.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Our Nation is in a recession, and millions of Americans are hurting. Many have lost their jobs. Many more millions worry that they will be next. It is absolutely right that our new President and this Congress take decisive action to stimulate this economy. But the legislation brought to the floor last week and the legislation being considered on the Senate floor this week in the form of the Democrat stimulus bill is not the answer.

Last week, House Republicans unanimously rejected the so-called stimulus bill that was brought to the floor by Democratic leadership, and we urge our Senate colleagues to do likewise. House Republicans unanimously opposed the Democrat spending bill for a variety of reasons. But, among them first, the bill that Democrats brought to the House was not about stimulating this economy, but more about stimulating government and debt.

It included wasteful government spending that has nothing to do with creating jobs. As I asked on this floor last week, what does $50 million to the National Endowment for the Arts have to do with creating jobs in Indiana? What is $400 million for climate change research going to do to move people from the unemployment line to the factory line?

In legislation before the Senate this week, $20 million for the removal of small- to medium-sized fish passage barriers; or $25 million to rehabilitate off-roading trails for ATVs is not going to put this economy back on track. And it was exactly that kind of wasteful government spending that resulted in unanimous Republican opposition last week.

Well, the average American is starting to catch on. We are starting to see support for this so-called stimulus bill eroding around the country. And leading economists are catching on as well. As the Republican leader just said moments ago, we opposed this bill unanimously, not just for what was in it, but for what wasn't in it.

The Republicans have what we believe to be and what history proves is a better solution to get this economy moving again. Republicans proposed a broad range of fast-acting tax relief proposals that would bring immediate relief to working families and small businesses, giving the American people and American families more of their hard-earned dollars to get this economy moving again.

The bill that House Democrats brought to the floor last week was not then about stimulating the economy. Under the guise of stimulus, House Democrats brought a partisan bill to the floor. It was really more of a wish list of longstanding liberal priorities that have little to do with putting our economy back on its feet.

Now, having originally promised that a stimulus bill would be temporary and targeted, House Democrats brought to the floor this week, and the Senate is considering now, legislation that is more about, as the Speaker said, and I quote her with great respect, ``taking America in a new direction.''

Well, respectfully, Madam Speaker, I thought what we were doing was trying to pass a temporary stimulus bill that would create jobs, not reorder all the priorities of the Federal Government along liberal Democratic lines.

The truth be told, not only are the American people catching on about this bill, but many leading economists are. Some 300 economists recently published a full-page newspaper advertisement opposing this bill. Conservative economist Martin Feldstein, who last year declared his support for a fiscal stimulus bill, came out late last week describing the legislation that came before the House as ``an $800 billion mistake.''

Feldstein wrote, I believe in the Washington Post, ``The problem with the current stimulus bill is not that it is too big, but that it delivers too little extra employment and income for such a large fiscal deficit. It is worth taking the time to get it right.''

House Republicans, leading economists, and average Americans are opposing this so-called stimulus bill for one reason, and one reason only. It won't work. And it's a disservice to taxpayers.

More big government spending on a liberal wish list of programs won't cure what ails the American economy. And House Republicans do have a better solution--fast-acting tax relief for working families and small businesses. And, according to analysis and economic models used by President Obama's own economic advisors, when those models are applied to our plan, the results are clear--not the 2 million to 3 million jobs that the Democrat plan boasts that it will create in the next several years. Rather, 6 million jobs would be created under the Republican proposal, at half the cost. Twice the number of jobs at half the cost.

Better solutions. Let's put politics aside and do what is best for the American people.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of the Republican alternative to H.R. 1.

Mr. Chairman, our Nation is in recession and millions of American families are hurting. Many have lost their jobs. Many now worry that they will be next. And it is absolutely right that this Congress is taking decisive action in the early days of 2009. But the bill the House Democrats have brought to the floor is not about stimulating the economy. The only thing this Democrat bill will stimulate is more government and more debt. Under the guise of stimulus, House Democrats have brought a partisan bill to the floor. It is merely a wish list of longstanding liberal Democrat priorities that have little to do with putting our economy back on its feet.

Millions of Americans are asking today, what does $50 million to the National Endowment for the Arts have to do with creating jobs? What is $400 million for climate change research going to do to put people back to work in Indiana? And what is $335 million for sexually transmitted disease education going to do to get this country working again?

Most House Republicans will oppose this bill tonight for one reason: It won't work. More big government spending on liberal programs won't cure what ails the American economy. House Republicans have a better solution: Fast-acting tax relief for working families, small businesses, and family farms.

According to analysis and economic models used by President Obama's top economic advisers when applied to our plan, we come with one conclusion: Twice the jobs, half the cost with the Republican alternative.

Now, Democrats also said that we are going to pass temporary and targeted stimulus legislation. But as I close, let me remind the American people and anyone gathered here, Mr. Chairman, what we keep hearing. From the Speaker of the House that I greatly respect to other colleagues that have come to the floor, we have heard that this bill is about ``taking America in a new direction.'' Well, I say with great respect, Mr. Chairman, I thought this was about creating jobs.

This long litany, $136 billion in program spending, is simply about trying to reorder the budget priorities according to the whims of a Democrat majority. What we ought to be doing is coming together across this middle aisle, across the partisan divide, as our new President has challenged us to do, bring the best ideas, the best minds, the best solutions. This Republican alternative is the best solution. I urge its support.

Mr. Chairman, it should be evident to anyone looking on tonight, from the passion that's displayed on both sides of the aisle, this is a serious debate. The American people are hurting. Many millions of Americans have lost their jobs and many more are worried that they will be next.

And so we come to this floor tonight to begin a debate on legislation that should, in the best of worlds, be a result of a thorough vetting and a thorough and bipartisan negotiation over what would be, on balance, in the best interests of the American people. But this legislation falls far short of that standard, and I rise to oppose it.

I commend the President of the United States today for coming to Capitol Hill and meeting with House Republicans. It was a frank and cordial discussion. The conversation is not compromised, and the American people deserve to know that Democrats in Congress have completely ignored our new President's call for bipartisanship in the formation of this stimulus bill.

In reality, House Democrats have used this moment of national economic crisis to fund big government priorities under the guise of stimulating the economy. As I told President Obama today, we take him at his word, but we urge him to make good on his pledge to challenge his party to set aside partisan differences and to bring the best ideas from both parties to the table, and this bill does not accomplish that.

The promises of change and bipartisanship ring hollow in the face of a stimulus bill that does little more than fund a wish list of long- standing liberal spending priorities.

I ask, Mr. Chairman, what is $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts going to do to create jobs in Indiana? What does $200 million to plant sod on the National Mall going to do to put people back to work in your State, or $400 million for climate change research going to do to get America working again.

The truth is the bill that we will consider tomorrow, fashioned entirely by the majority in this House, won't stimulate anything but more government and more debt. The slow and wasteful spending of the House Democrat bill is a disservice to millions of Americans, and Republicans are disappointed, but the American people should be disappointed as well. These are serious times, and what will come to the floor tomorrow is not a serious effort to address this crisis with reform.

Republicans have a plan. We don't claim to have the exclusive right to all the best ideas in the world, but the time-honored tradition of stimulus from this Chamber has always included real and immediate and significant tax relief for working families, small businesses and family farms. Handing out rebate checks this year, like we did last year, will likely have as little result stimulating our economy as it did before.

And so we will take our case to the American people. We may lose on the floor tomorrow, but the American people will have a choice between slow and wasteful government spending and a plan that will bring tax relief to working families and small businesses.

I urge opposition to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the House Republican Conference, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, today, millions of Americans from the National Mall to prayer services in small-town churches will mark the sad 36th anniversary of Roe versus Wade, the worst Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott.

As most Americans know, it is simply morally wrong to end an unborn human life by abortion. But it's also morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use it to promote abortion at home or abroad. As many Americans fail to recognize, the largest abortion provider in America is also the largest recipient of Federal taxpayer dollars through title X. This should not be.

Yesterday, with more than 60 cosponsors, I reintroduced the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, a bill that would deny any Federal funding to Planned Parenthood of America.

On this dark anniversary, let us rededicate ourselves to protecting the unborn and to protecting taxpayers on matters of conscience. I urge my colleagues to join me in bipartisan spirit

in cosponsoring the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act.

I rise in support of the resolution of disapproval.

Our Nation is confronted by a serious financial crisis; it is a crisis of confidence in our financial markets and, let's be honest, it is a crisis of confidence in our government. While many are anxious about how we will confront these times, many more face this moment with faith, not fear. We will get through this. We have confronted greater challenges than this. I am confident we will restore our markets and renew our government. But, as I said last fall in the original debate, we must do so in a manner that is consistent with the principles that make America great.

As the distinguished chairman of this committee said following last week's action in the Senate: No matter what happens here today, the second half of the bailout funding will go forward, adding $350 billion to the national debt and burdening future generations of Americans with the mistakes of Wall Street, and Capitol Hill during the present day, despite sincere efforts at reform.

This legislation remains the largest corporate bailout in American history, forever changes the relationship between government and the financial sector, and passes the costs along to the American people.

I did not come to Washington to expand the size and scope of government. I did not come to Washington to ask working Americans to subsidize the bad decisions of corporate America. Therefore, I did not support the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act last fall, and I cannot support the legislation before the Congress that would send good money after bad. As I said then, while this bill promises to bring near-term stability to our financial markets, I ask my countrymen, at what price?

The decision to give the Federal Government the ability to nationalize almost every bad mortgage in America interrupted a basic truth of our free market economy: Government can't control outcomes in an economy without eroding the independence and the integrity of our free-market system. When the government chooses winners and losers in the marketplace, every American loses.

Now, some say this crisis was too acute to rely on what they call antiquated notions about the role of government in the private sector, but I disagree. I believe the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and representative democracy and personal responsibility are as relevant today as they were in 1776.

Now, there are no easy answers to these times, but the American people deserve to know that there were and are alternatives. Last fall, House Republicans offered an alternative that would have required Wall Street, not Main Street, to pay the costs of this recovery. And today, House Republicans are preparing fast-acting tax relief instead of more bailouts and more spending to get this economy moving again.

President Theodore Roosevelt said, ``An American must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs.'' With this legislation, we again, by second half, place upon the American public a responsibility which was not theirs, bailing out financial institutions after they made irresponsible business decisions. This, we should not have done. This, we should not do again. Instead, we should confront this crisis with resolute courage, faith in God, faith in the American people, and the ideals of freedom and free enterprise.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing further funding of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it is very humbling to follow words of such eloquence and passion. But I will do my best in a few minutes. The old book says if you owe debts, pay debts; if honor, then honor; if respect, then respect.

And when I heard that the gentleman from Arizona had organized a modest tribute to the 43rd President of the United States today on the House floor, I felt this was such a moment to pay a debt of honor and gratitude to a man with whom I did not always agree and as I sometimes would joke at home, he almost always noticed.

The time as a freshman I opposed the President's signature legislation, No Child Left Behind, the time I and other Republicans opposed other signature bills like the Medicare prescription drug entitlement, this was a President who would let you know when he had a difference of opinion, but always respectfully and never spitefully.

So I stand here today not as a vacuous apologist for George W. Bush. I have occasionally been referred to as a thorn in the flesh to the Bush administration, being a cheerful conservative on Capitol Hill who was fighting against big government spending during the Bush years, but I come here today, among other cherished colleagues, like the gentleman from Iowa, simply to say I truly believe that this Nation owes a debt of gratitude to George W. Bush.

I am struck, and I expect I will quote with attribution the gentleman from Arizona's missive about popularity being the pocket change of history. It is a wonderful line because it is my judgment, as Mr. Franks just suggested, that when the fullness of time arrives and the American people are able to see the contribution of this good and decent man in the context of history, they will know that George W. Bush served this Nation with integrity and with courage and was in effect the kind of President that America needed during such a time as this.

And I say that, and I told the President not long ago that it was one of the greatest privileges of my life that the first 8 years of my career in public service would coincide with his 8 years in the White House. I sensed a little emotion in his eyes when I said that, and the bear hug that followed gave evidence of it. But again, it was not because I always agreed with this President. It was because I saw when it mattered most, George W. Bush did what he thought was right, regardless of what the polls said, regardless of what may have been in his personal interest.

I want to cite two specific examples and then close with a word about the fundamental character of the Presidency and what character means to the office.

The two occasions that will always be burned into my mind because I lived

them, I was here that day and in those days, were in effect a day in September 2001 and another day in the latter days of 2006 and early 2007.

In September 2001, I scarcely need to say to you, Mr. Speaker, or anyone looking in about the service this President rendered to America. In what at least matched her darkest hour, as the buildings fell, as the smoke was still rising from the Pentagon, as I had made my way home to hug my small children at our residence in Arlington, Virginia, and had worked my way back into this closed city for official meetings, as I crossed the 14th Street bridge, the two Marine One helicopters blew past me maybe 50 feet off the deck, and our President went back to the White House that day. Shoulders back, he stood tall. A few days later he would literally stand amidst the rubble of September 11 at Ground Zero and drape his arm over a firefighter and speak into a bullhorn words that would echo American resilience around the world, and the Nation was no longer afraid.

I won't add any more to that because it seems to me in that moment when my great grandchildren look back at these times, more than any other aspect of George W. Bush's career, he will be judged in that moment and he will not be found wanting.

You talk about approval ratings, I think it was following that moment that a man who left office as one of the least popular Presidents in our history was for a time the most popular President in American history. But I can assure you, having spoken to him about it privately, none of that mattered to him. It didn't matter to him that he was unpopular. He did what he thought was right for the American people, and he did it with courage.

The second instance, and then I will close. I was called over to the White House, I believe it was in early 2007. His party has just experienced devastating losses in the midterm elections. A few of us who survived were invited over to the White House for a meeting with the President. Everyone who was anyone in the punditocracy of this town thought that the President would announce a retreat from Iraq.

The President called myself and about 15 other Members into the Cabinet Room, members of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Armed Services. He looked at us across the table and said I have counseled with this general I am going to put in charge. His name is Petraeus. He says he has a new idea about how we can put things back together in Iraq. And he said I am going to give him what he is asking for, and I am going to put him in charge because, and he said words I will never forget, ``I've decided not to lose.''

As I told the President personally a year later, I believe in the fullness of time when the history of this time is written, that will go down as one of the most courageous decisions by an American President in a time of war. All public opinion suggested, all of the polling, rather, that was out, suggested a majority of Americans were ready to get out, regardless of the cost. Let it go to seed, forget about the sacrifices that have been made, but this President decided not to lose. And he looked for a way to make it work and he went to the American people. And as is undeniable today, the surge worked.

I believe the gentleman from Iowa recently mentioned that more people have died in accidents in Iraq since last summer than have died in combat-related violence. Is it still a dangerous place; certainly. Are there challenging days ahead; of course. Is there lethal enemy there and in the region; yes. But it is not the way it was in 2006, and that is because of the character and resilience of this man.

So on those two occasions we saw character. I believe, even though I disagreed with the President on the bailout last fall and again today on the floor, I disagreed with the spending record, in those moments, the character that shown through was a service to the Nation, and my family was safer as a result.

Last thought. It has been a long time since the 1990s and people forget how embarrassed the American people were by what happened in the Oval Office by the predecessor of this President. And I have no desire to revisit the sordid and lurid tales that were displayed before our children during the last administration. But to me, the essence of the Presidency is character, and George W. Bush showed the courage of his convictions in defending this country and he also showed through his fealty to his wife, through his integrity in office, the administration of what it is to provide good and decent government and to be an example to the American people and to our families and our children. For that we owe him a debt, and I am pleased to rise today to pay some small amount toward that.