Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in the midst of what has been characterized as a silly debate, and I don't rise so much to disagree with that characterization, but maybe for different reasons.

Let me say, as others have said, I was here on September 11, like many of my colleagues. I do not question the imperative of providing for the physical safety of the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. I strongly supported the decision by the President to provide for private jet travel for the Speaker of the House then and support such transportation now. We must protect those who lead us and we must not play politics with that protection.

But let me say on the subject of whether this is a silly debate around the gentleman from Virginia's amendment, I think it is silly to question the right of the minority to question public expenditures. The gentleman from New York, whom I deeply respect, comes to the floor to question the very act of Congress being Congress. We are asking questions, in the minority, of the majority about the public expenditure of public assets; and that is precisely what Congress and the minority in Congress exists to do. I think it is altogether silly to question the right to question in the Congress.

Let me also say, Mr. Chairman, I think it is a little bit silly, some of the public consternation about a Democrat Speaker's airplane needing to be much bigger than a Republican Speaker's airplane, because to the extent that the airplane itself is a metaphor for government, I believe that we can expect all of the government will continue to need to be much bigger under a Democrat majority in Congress.

In a very short period of time, we have seen our colleagues bring wage and price controls and raise taxes. So to part of me, with great respect for my colleagues on this side of the aisle, it is not terribly surprising that the plane needs to be bigger too. When we think of the history of entitlements under Democrat control of Congress, we might well anticipate a fleet of planes in a fairly short period of time.

But, of course, I jest. I think it is a bit of a silly debate to question the right to question in this Congress. I think my colleagues know this to be true. But I also think it is a little bit silly for the American people to ever expect government to get smaller under Democrat control.

And it is also rather silly, and I close, to think that Republicans will ever fail to come to this floor to object when government grows needlessly under a Democrat majority. We will rise to that challenge. We will object to the expansion of government, even when it takes the shape of a 757.

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's sensitivity. I think the lights were already going to be paid for today, and I didn't have anywhere better to be but down here making the case for the American people for less government, less taxes. This is the role of the minority, to question, to fight for smaller government.

I commend the gentleman from Virginia for his principled stand today.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in this bipartisan gathering with thanks to the leadership of Congresswoman Julia Carson to congratulate the world champion Indianapolis Colts. I congratulate the gentlewoman from Indianapolis for her leadership on this resolution and its eloquent drafting.

As others of my colleagues have suggested, the Colts' victory was not just a demonstration of athletic prowess, but it was a moment where I think the world got to see a little bit of Indiana on the world stage. They got to see the kind of serious work ethic, humility, commitment to getting the job done without a lot of flash and a lot of fanfare that really characterizes the people of Indiana.

As Congressman Burton said, I also had the privilege, along with my wife Karen, of witnessing some history, not only the first world championship to come to Indianapolis, but also I saw the first African American coach lead a team to the Super Bowl, and to see two great teams led by two African American coaches shatter that glass ceiling, that for reasons of culture and habit had somehow been long established, in that stadium for that great championship game.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it is said that attitude reflects leadership, and I believe that Coach Tony Dungy really personifies just the type of leadership that deserves rewarding in the NFL and is heralded in the State of Indiana.

Let me say that Coach Dungy should be admired not only for that calm, steady leadership on the sidelines, but also his career off the field is equally impressive. Since his time in Tampa Bay, he brought his commitment to Christian values to young people through the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. He launched Mentors for Life, a program that provided tickets to young people for home games and their mentors. And I was there about a year ago when Coach Dungy, one of many such occasions around the country, spoke in Anderson, Indiana, to a stadium full of young people about his profound faith in Christ and about his belief in the relationship of character to success.

But we also celebrate Peyton Manning, the man awarded with Most Valuable Player in the Super Bowl, and of course now a man who others have said has minted his reputation as one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time. He personifies a humility and a work ethic that I believe are rightly celebrated.

Let me close by saying, as Peyton Manning remarked on being selected MVP, he said, ``I am excited, but I am proud to be on this team.''

I would like to close my remarks today by asking unanimous consent to add to the Congressional Record the names of all of the members of the Colts' offense, defense, substitutions and the coaching staff, because this truly was a team effort. It was men and women in the head offices, and on the fields, on the training staff, and the catching staff that brought this world championship home to our capital city.

They have our praise, our congratulations.

Offense: Reggie Wayne--Wide Receiver, Tarik Glenn--

Offensive Tackle, Ryan Lilja--Offensive Guard, Jeff

Saturday--Center, Jake Scott--Offensive Guard, Ryan Diem--

Offensive Tackle, Dallas Clark--Tight End, Marvin Harrison--

Wide Receiver, Peyton Manning--Quarterback, Joseph Addai--

Running Back, and Ben Utecht--Tight End.

Defense: Robert Mathis--Defensive End, Anthony McFarland--

Defensive Tackle, Raheem Brock--Defensive Tackle, Dwight

Freeney--Defensive End, Cato June--Linebacker, Gary

Brackett--Linebacker, Rob Morris--Linebacker, Nick Harper--

Defensive Back, Jason David--Defensive Back, Antoine Bethea--

Defensive Back, and Bob Sanders--Defensive Back.

Substitutions: Adam Vinatieri--Kicker, Terrance Wilkins--

Wide Receiver, Hunter Smith--Punter, Kelvin Hayden--Defensive

Back, Marlin Jackson--Defensive Back, DeDe Dorsey--Running

Back, Dominic Rhodes--Running Back, Dexter Reid--Defensive

Back, Matt Giordano--Defensive Back, Justin Snow--Tight End,

Rocky Boiman--Linebacker, Keith O'Neil--Linebacker, Freddy

Keiaho--Linebacker, Tyjuan Hagler--Linebacker, Dylan Gandy--

Offensive Guard, Dan Klecko--Defensive Tackle, Bo Schobel--

Defensive End, Charlie Johnson--Offensive Tackle, Bryan

Fletcher--Tight End, Aaron Moorehead--Wide Receiver, Josh

Thomas--Defensive End, and Darrell Reid--Defensive Tackle.

Coaching Staff: Tony Dungy--Head Coach, Jim Caldwell--

Assistant Head Coach/Quarterbacks, Clyde Christensen--

Receivers Coach, Leslie Frazier--Special Assistant to Head

Coach/Defensive Backs, Richard Howell--Assistant Strength

Coach, Gene Huey--Running Backs Coach, Ron Meeks--Defensive

Coordinator, Pete Metzelaars--Offensive Quality Control, Tom

Moore--Offensive Coordinator, Howard Mudd--Offensive Line

Coach, Mike Murphy--Linebacker Coach, Russ Purnell--Special

Teams Coach, Diron Reynolds--Defensive Quality Coach, John

Teerlinck--Defensive Line Coach, Ricky Thomas--Tight End

Coach, Jon Torine-- Strength and Conditioning Coach, and Alan

Williams--Defensive Backs Coach.

The father of our Constitution, James Madison, wrote, ``The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the legislature the power of declaring a state of war. The separation of the power declaring war from conducting it is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.''

As we begin the process of hearing resolutions down the hall of this Capitol in the United States Senate, nonbinding resolutions over the way and the manner in which we would conduct our war, we would do well to reflect on the wisdom of our Founders, who separated the article I powers of this body from the article II powers of our Commander in Chief.

Let us remember, as Franklin Roosevelt said, ``Hostilities exist, there is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.'' Let this grave danger color our debates. Provide the oversight that is our purview, but we have but one Commander in Chief, and let him lead us to victory in Iraq.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend in case I say anything especially offensive to the Bears.

Madam Speaker, let me say from my heart that I am honored to cosponsor this important resolution. It represents an important cultural step in American life. That we would shatter the color barrier and ceiling that for reasons unknown to this Hoosier seem to have prevented the matriculation of an African American head coach to the Super Bowl, that we would shatter it in a way that both teams arrive with distinguished head coaches of African descent is enormously important. I think it sends an extremely important message particularly to African American youth, and I rejoice in that.

Now, as to whether or not the coach of the Bears deserves a raise and a ring, let me say with great respect to Lovie Smith, I rise in particular admiration

of head coach Tony Dungy in his fifth season with the Indianapolis Colts. Under his leadership, the Colts have had a record of 60-20, five playoff appearances, four AFC South titles, two AFC championship games, and as the world watched in wonder a week ago Sunday, an AFC championship.

But as Mr. Burton attested, it is his career in Indiana off the field that I find more impressive than his career on the field. Since his time in Tampa Bay, he has brought his commitment to Christian values to young people through the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. He launched Mentors for Life, a program that provided tickets to Buccaneers home games to area youth and their mentors. And I was there about a year ago when Coach Dungy welcomed thousands of young people to the arena known as the Wigwam in Anderson, Indiana, and there he shared about his faith and the importance of faith and character and values to the young men and women who gathered there.

Whoever it is that walks away with the ring, and I remain adamantly confident that the horseshoe will leave Miami with the ring, let me say that Tony Dungy has earned a ring and earned our praise as Lovie Smith has. Our admiration to two great men, two great leaders.

Madam Speaker, I must admit that I was somewhat encouraged in December when the newly minted Democrat majority announced that they were considering a bill that would simply finish this year's budget work with what is known as a continuing resolution, funding the government at current levels and leaving the debate over the budget for the ordinary process of the constitutional system of the legislature. I was particularly enamored with the idea that they would move this so- named continuing resolution without earmarks, and I am pleased to have supported bipartisan earmark reform.

But what will come to the floor tomorrow, to my disappointment, is not a bill that simply continues the funding of the government. It is a new Federal budget: $463 billion in spending, 137 pages. Madam Speaker, it will take 300 pages to read the CBO score. What we see is not a continuation of government spending. We see, rather, the death of deliberation. The Congress is witnessing in the first hours of this new session the death of a long-term process whereby our budgets and our legislation are considered. It is the death of deliberation that must be put to an end.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about an issue that is not so much on our agenda in these first 100 hours, but I believe it will encompass much of our focus during the course of the 110th Congress. It has to do with the how and why that we will achieve fundamental entitlement reform.

President Bush and many leaders in the new majority in the House and Senate have spoken of the priority of reforming Social Security and dealing with the extraordinary unfunded obligations of our mandates in future years. The President, to his credit, 2 years ago raised the prospect of fundamental Social Security reform. But the American people rejected the President's call.

And I rise today to speak about what I believe the parameters of that debate should be from the perspective of a conservative in the minority who believes in the principles of limited government.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the American people did not reject the Social Security reform or the personal retirement accounts that the President advanced. I think they rejected the entire debate and how it unfolded. I think they rejected the notion that the predominant goal of Social Security reform was to make the numbers add up or, in the language of the wonks, to achieve solvency in Social Security. Such a yardstick expresses no opinion on how to fix an increasingly bankrupt system, and I believe that as a result it invariably blesses benefit cuts or tax increases as a result.

And while President Bush has spoken to his opposition to tax increases, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has repeatedly said, in conversations with Members of the House and Senate, that ``everything is on the table,'' raising the specter of the possibility of raising taxes to achieve Social Security reform. And even the President's own Press Secretary, when asked directly whether the White House was ruling out a tax increase to achieve Social Security reform with this newly minted

Democrat majority in Congress, the Press Secretary said, ``No, I'm not.''

I believe, Mr. Speaker, this is all code for a willingness within the Bush administration to consider raising taxes in exchange for achieving Social Security reform. Such a tax increase would likely come from lifting or eliminating the cap on the amount of salary and wages subject to the payroll tax. The current income that is subject to the payroll tax is $94,200.

But raising payroll taxes, I would offer, would prove devastating to working Americans, small businesses and the economy as a whole and, worse, if we eliminated the cap on income subject to payroll taxes for Social Security, would only add a brief 7 years to Social Security's financial solvency.

According to the Heritage Foundation, eliminating the cap will increase taxes by $484 billion over the first 5 years. This 12.4 percentage point marginal tax rate increase would hit middle income families struggling to make ends meet, pay for college and save for retirement, and much of the increase would be borne by the 3 million small business owners who pay both the employer and employee portion of the tax hike. These entrepreneurs are the driving force of our economy, Mr. Speaker. And as a result, a tax increase of this nature would result in a 2 to 3 percent reduction in economic growth, causing massive layoffs across the country. And, again, eliminating the cap on income subjected to Social Security payroll tax would only extend the life of Social Security for 7 years.

Now, there are many, even on my side of the aisle, that are flirting with the notion of raising taxes. But, Mr. Speaker, we have been down this road before. It was 1990, when I was a candidate for Congress, when another President Bush teamed up with a Democrat majority in Congress and headed to Andrews Air Force Base all in the name of entitlement reform and deficit reduction, brought the American people the promise of reform in the future, and the largest tax increase in American history.

We must not go down the road of compromise again. I think the administration needs to be clear that any Social Security compromise must reject tax increases of any kind. That means no increase in the payroll tax rate and no change in the cap apart from the current indexing that happens under the law.

I would say, respectfully, to my colleagues and to the President of the United States, we should say to our good friends in the new majority, ``Read our lips. No new taxes.''

It is imperative that we bring reforms like personal savings accounts to this new deal program. I think it is imperative that we make the new deal a better deal for younger Americans, but raising taxes on small business owners and family farmers in the manner of lifting the cap or raising the rate is an idea whose time should never come.

Last week, President George W. Bush outlined a new strategy and new tactics in our war in Iraq; he called it, ``The Way Forward.'' Sadly, many in Congress and many around the country want to go backwards; to redeploy, to undo our military commitment to freedom in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I understand this temptation, even though I disagree with it. It is always tempting to go backwards, always tempting to want to go back before loss and hardship and war. The Old Book tells us otherwise, reading, ``Forgetting what is behind, I press on.''

Winston Churchill gave us this counsel: ``One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it; if you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.'' So said Winston Churchill.

I support our Commander in Chief. I support our new way forward. We must come together as a Nation. We must decide as a Nation not to see freedom fail in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in respectful opposition to H.R. 3, the

Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, a bill, Mr. Speaker, that authorizes the use of Federal tax dollars to fund the destruction of human embryos for scientific research.

The late President Ronald Reagan wrote, ``We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life, the unborn, without diminishing the value of all human life.''

The supporters argue that this debate today is between science and ideology or dogma; that destroying human embryos for research is necessary to cure a whole host of maladies, from spinal cord injuries to Parkinson's. But the facts suggest otherwise, and physicians on our side have and will continue to make the case for the ethical alternative of adult stem cell research and new breakthroughs, past and present.

But, Mr. Speaker, the debate over the legitimacy or potential of embryonic stem cells, I believe, is actually not the point of our debate today. We are here simply to decide whether Congress should take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them to fund the destruction of human embryos for research.

This debate is not really about whether embryonic stem cell research should be legal. Sadly, embryonic stem cell research is completely legal in this country and has been going on at universities and research facilities for years. But proponents of this legislation apparently don't want to just be able to do embryonic stem cell research, they want me to pay for it. And like more than 40 percent of Americans, I have a problem with that.

You see, I believe that life begins at conception and that a human embryo is human life. And I believe it is morally wrong to create human life to destroy it for research. But I believe it is also morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of Americans who believe that life begins at conception and use it to fund research that they find morally offensive.

This debate then, Mr. Speaker, is not about what an embryo is. This debate is about who we are as a nation. Not will we respect the sanctity of human life, but will we respect the deeply held moral beliefs of nearly half of the people of this Nation who find the destruction of human embryos for research to be morally wrong.

Despite what may be uttered in this debate today, I say again, this debate is not about whether we should allow research that involves the destruction of human embryos. This debate is about who pays for it.

Last year here in Congress, I was surrounded by dozens of snowflake babies, Mr. Speaker, children born from frozen embryos. I couldn't help but think of that ancient verse: I have set before you life and blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.

It is my fervent hope, Mr. Speaker, and my prayer, as we stand at the crossroads of science and the sanctity of life, that we will choose life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in respectful opposition to H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. And I do so understanding that what I do may well be misunderstood by some of my constituents at home and even by some looking on in this debate. But let me say emphatically that a 41 percent increase in the minimum wage that is brought to the well of Congress without providing any relief to small business owners and family farmers is irresponsible and unwise, and it will harm both the wage payer and the wage earner.

An excessive increase in the minimum wage will hurt the working poor, Mr. Speaker, and especially those who are trying to begin the American Dream by entering the workforce at entry level jobs. Minimum wage increases, the unbroken record of our economic history attests, raise unemployment among the young, minorities and part-time workers, the very people that a minimum wage is thought to help. And sadly, for reasons I don't entirely understand, for every increase in the Federal minimum wage, African Americans have been hit the hardest with the advent of jobs that are lost with an increase in the minimum wage.

It would be the late economist Milton Friedman, a Nobel laureate, who said, ``The high rate of unemployment among teenagers, and especially black teenagers, is both a scandal and a serious source of social unrest.'' And then he went on to say, ``It is largely a result of minimum wage laws.''

I believe the minimum wage and this increase is one of the most anti- minority, anti-poor laws that we could bring into this Congress. It violates fundamental free market economics, and it will cost jobs.

The Heritage Foundation recently reported that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage there is a loss of 2 percent of entry level minimum wage jobs. This means, for what we consider today, we literally could see evaporate overnight 8 percent of the entry level jobs in this country.

I recently received an e-mail from a small sub sandwich restaurant owner in Anderson, Indiana, who told me of his frustration about what Congress would consider today, Mr. Speaker; and he begged me to ask for balance and justice for the wage payer as well as the wage earner. He said he had 200 applications on file, but he knew that if Congress passed this irresponsible 41 percent increase in the minimum wage, not only would he not be able to extend opportunity to some, he would have to cancel jobs for others.

Let us serve the wage earner and the wage payer. Let us reject this irresponsible increase in the minimum wage.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the element of the rules package that we will consider today, but I do so conflicted; conflicted, because as a long-time advocate of earmark reform and fiscal discipline, I am in large measure encouraged by the efforts of my colleagues in the new Democratic majority to step forward in good faith and open the process whereby we spend the people's money to greater transparency, particularly in the area of earmarks.

I say from the heart that I appreciate the substantive reforms and transparency and accountability that my Democratic colleagues will bring forward today on earmark reform. That being said, I will oppose this element of the rules package having to do with the pay-as-you-go provisions, which, while they sound in a common sense way attractive, this particular version I believe is lacking for three reasons:

Number one, I believe it is a weak and watered down version of PAYGO proposals of the past, including Democrat party PAYGO proposals of the past.

Number two, it doesn't reduce current spending levels or require a reduction of current spending levels.

Number three, it is, as so many of my colleagues have said, a means of justifying tax increases on working families, small businesses and family farms. In a very real sense, the American people ought to know that this proposal translates to you-pay-as-Congress-goes on spending.

In the category of a watered down provision, other PAYGO versions were enforced by across-the-board spending cuts. That is what created the incentive to control spending. But the Democrats PAYGO proposal is only enforced by a point of order, which can be waived fairly easily, as we all know.

Secondly, it only applies to new spending. Mr. Speaker, I say with some pain, having been a part of the former majority, but we currently don't pay for what goes out the door now. The 2007 budget right now is projected at $286 billion in deficit. This does nothing to require us to address our current deficits.

Lastly, as others have argued, I truly believe that by assuming that the 2001 and 2003 tax relief will automatically expire, this Democrat PAYGO provision will cause a substantial tax increase for working families, small businesses and family farms.

The American people just simply need to know, however well- intentioned, and I assume good intentions by my colleagues in the newly-minted majority, however well intentioned, I believe this PAYGO provision comes up short. It is, in a very real sense, the American people pay, as Congress goes on spending

On behalf of an extraordinary career, but what we know will be an extraordinary future, I am pleased to announce Henry Hyde's recent marriage on the day after Thanksgiving. We wish you all the best, our friend, for many, many years.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were refused.

So (two-thirds of those voting having responded in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. Speaker, I think the sentiment that we heard the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee just express, as well as the incoming Speaker of the House express, is deeply admirable. We are speaking about 600 men and women who have demonstrated their integrity and their commitment to public service in this Nation, and for that we are grateful.

But, Mr. Speaker, I say very humbly that this is still not the right way to reflect the will of the American people with regard to those capable men and women who have served our major committees and our leadership staff.

I am pleased to hear the incoming Speaker's sentiment for Republican staff, and I am confident that sentiment will be there in the early days of the 110th Congress. And well we should call it a night, Mr. Speaker, come back, and allow the people's House in an equitable and a thoughtful way to consider what the needs are of this Nation relative to all of the good men and women who have served this majority so ably, not merely in the leadership offices, not merely in the major committees, but even those excellent men and women who have served many of the colleagues for whom these waning moments will be their last moments in the House of Representatives. Let us do this right. Let us not do this tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on International Relations be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 1095) commemorating the one-year anniversary of the November 9, 2005, terrorist attacks in Amman, Jordan, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, before he leaves the floor I would echo the sentiment of my gratitude for the friendship, the public service and the example of integrity of the gentleman from

New York, and his leadership and his kindness will be greatly missed here as well as his passion for public service. Mr. Boehlert, I congratulate you and thank you.

We gather today in a caucus known as the Republican Study Committee in this leadership hour to do what my colleagues from New York have just completed doing, Mr. Speaker, and that is really taking a moment to both speak of and hear from some of our cherished colleagues who will be moving on to other careers, some voluntarily, some involuntarily, but all of them ending time, short and long, here on Capitol Hill that have been marked by a commitment to principle and a commitment to integrity.

I sometimes will say, Mr. Speaker, that my ambition in Congress is to get out of this place with my family and my reputation for commitment to principle intact, and all of those that we will hear from tonight have accomplished that.

I served as the chair of the Republican Study Committee in this Congress and will be joined this evening with an assist from the newly- elected chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Jeb Hensarling from Texas, who will be helping me introduce and also extol the careers of those individuals who will be leaving the employ of the people of the United States of America at the end of the 109th Congress this week.

I want to begin by introducing for a few remarks the gentleman from Minnesota's 1st Congressional District. Gil Gutknecht represents the peak of the baby boom generation in his career in public service. After serving in the Minnesota House of Representatives for 12 years, Gil Gutknecht was elected to Congress in 1994, part of a storied class that brought a new majority to Capitol Hill. He has served as the chairman of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry, but more than that he has earned a reputation nationally as a deficit hawk for his service while on the House Budget Committee.

He has also throughout his career earned many awards as a friend of the farmer, a friend of the taxpayer, and if I may say so, as I yield time to the gentleman from Minnesota, one of simply the most plain spoken, eloquent Members of the House of Representatives.

Gil Gutknecht has often said that he believes, ``Words have meaning, ideas matter and actions have consequences,'' and he set an example of that throughout his 12 years here on Capitol Hill. It is with great pleasure that I recognize a colleague and a friend and inspiration for the Republican Study Committee, Minnesota's 1st Congressional, Gil Gutknecht.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume, as we see other outgoing Members arriving, to the newly elected chairman of the Republican Study Committee for the 110th Congress, Jim Hensarling from Texas.

Ernest Istook began his career in Congress in November of 1992, serving as a distinguished Member of the House Appropriations Committee where he served as the chairman of the Transportation and Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee.

Before arriving in Congress, he served as a city councilman in Oklahoma City, and during that time also sat on the board of many local interests. He also served in the State legislature there in the Sooner State, beginning in 1986. Ernest Istook leaves us after 14 years of service in the United States House of Representatives, and he takes with him not only an optimistic, cheerful conservatism that was the source of mentoring to me and other conservatives in the Republican Study Committee for many years, but he really takes his greatest asset, which is his wife Judy, who, while she did not become the first lady of Oklahoma this year, she was I think the first lady of the Republican Study Committee for many years and will always be so in our hearts.

I recognize the gentleman from the Fifth Congressional District, Ernest Istook, for such time as he may consume, with the deepest gratitude and admiration of his junior colleagues in the Republican Study Committee, an organization, I might add, Mr. Speaker, that Congressman Ernest Istook founded during his 14-year tenure in the United States House of Representatives, the largest caucus in the Congress of the United States today. I yield such time as he may consume.

I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma's Fifth Congressional District for his service, his founding service to the Republican Study Committee, and would recognize our nearly elected chairman for a few brief remarks.

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, this was a time of transition in particular for my home State, the Hoosier State. Indiana this year will bid farewell to the extraordinary service of Congressman John Hostettler of southwestern Indiana and to a two-term congressman from the land of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana, Congressman Chris Chocola.

Throughout both of their careers, they have been men of integrity, commitment to their families, and in the case of Congressman Hostettler and Congressman Chocola, they are both men who throughout their career in Congress were active members of the Republican Study Committee and they brought the principles of their conservative values day in and day out to committees and to this floor.

Another example of that is Congressman Mike Sodrel who joins us on the floor today. Mike and his wife, Keta, who most members of the Republican Study Committee have come to know well since he was sworn in as the congressman for the Ninth District of Indiana in January of 2005, have made an extraordinary impression on the heart of our caucus and the heart of this Congress in a relatively short period of time.

Mike Sodrel served in the Army National Guard from 1966 to 1973. In 1976, Congressman Mike Sodrel and his wife Keta scraped together a few dollars and bought a truck and turned it into one of the most prolific and successful transportation companies in the Midwest.

A veteran Indiana political reporter called Mike Sodrel, upon his election Congress, ``the closest thing to Mr. Smith goes to Washington as I think you will find in Congress.''

Mike Sodrel and I come dialectically from a very different part of our State. Pronunciation of words is a little different farther south of Highway 40. I hope however long the Lord permits to serve the people of Indiana in this place, that I will serve with the integrity every day to principles and family and to conservative values that the gentleman from Indiana served.

I yield to the congressman from the Ninth Congressional District of Indiana.

I thank the gentleman for his gracious words. I know that I speak on behalf of all of the people of Indiana when I express my gratitude for your career of service that we know will be ongoing. Just the hours will be better, but we are grateful for your participation in allowing us to embarrass you tonight.

I want to yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, before we bring a Member of Congress who is the appropriate clean-up batter tonight in this Special Order celebrating the life and career of members of the Republican Study Committee, I cannot help but feel that we have loaded the bases and the Babe is about to come to bat. At the risk of having to interrupt him, which I have not done in my 6 years in Congress and would not have the courage to do tonight, allow me to do a little housekeeping before that and mention the names of Bob Beauprez of Colorado's Seventh Congressional District, a dairy farmer, community banker, a United States Congressman and a member of the Study Committee.

Mark Green of Wisconsin served his fourth term in the United States House of Representatives with impressive, populist leadership.

We have heard from Gil Gutknecht tonight.

Melissa Hart, a cherished member of the Republican Study Committee from Pennsylvania's 4th Congressional District, was elected in the year 2000. Her district included southwestern Pennsylvania, and she rose swiftly in this institution to some of its most important committees and most powerful positions in the national party. She is a voice that we will hear and see again soon.

We heard of John Hostettler tonight from Indiana's Eighth Congressional District, and from Ernest Istook of Oklahoma's Fifth.

Anne Northup, a feisty, strong, principled conservative who served the Third Congressional District in Kentucky since 1996 is retiring, and she and her tenacity will be missed.

From California's 11th District, finishing his seventh term in the United States House of Representatives, a man who brought principled conservative reform to American environmental policy, Richard Pombo, will be receiving the Congress and our caucus this year.

And a man I might lastly add, Jim Ryun of the Second Congressional District of Kansas, a five-term Member of Congress, a budget hawk, but a man who along with his wife, Anne, have simply been in the business of ministering to families in this institution every day they have been here. Jim Ryun came to global fame as the world record holder in the high school mile, a record that he held for 36 years until one day when we walked from the Capitol together and he received word of a young Virginia teenager who had bested him.

And Jim Ryun in his typical style jumped in the car, drove to meet with that high schooler, and congratulated him. Jim's faith, his integrity, his character, his voice will be missed in this place as will the charm and ebullience of his wife, Anne.

Lastly I would just mention the staff of the Republican Study Committee. During my term as chairman of the Republican Study Committee, we have had not one but two extraordinary executive directors. Sheila Cole served as the executive director during the first year of my tenure, a tumultuous time where the winds of change and circumstances buffeted House conservatives, and our staff led by Sheila Cole, a courageous woman who has gone on to be an at-home mom, we simply would not have been able to achieve what we achieved in impacting the policy of this Nation for fiscal discipline and conservative pro-life values had Sheila Cole not been at the helm.

And if I might also add Dr. Paul Teller, who stepped into her stead and served and led the staff of the Republican Study Committee with equal distinction. Whether it be his passion and guidance on fiscal issues, whether it be his capacity to build coalitions within the Congress or his professionalism in informing Members in a timely way of the issues that we confronted as a caucus, Dr. Paul Teller has provided exceptional leadership to this organization. And I know that his future is so bright that he has got to wear shades, and we thank Dr. Paul Teller.

To Russ Vought, to Joelle, to Derek, to the balance, Mr. Speaker, I would just add to the Record tonight my humble and heartfelt gratitude. Anything that we have accomplished as a caucus, we have accomplished because of an extraordinary staff.

With that said, allow me to yield to our last speaker of the evening, Mr. Speaker. He is the gentleman from the Fifth Congressional District of Arizona. J.D. Hayworth represented Arizona's Fifth District, which includes Scottsdale, Tempe, and its environs. First elected in 1994. He was the first Arizonian ever to serve on the House Ways and Means Committee, which is one of the most powerful legislative panels in Congress. J.D. also added another key subcommittee assignment to his duties for the 109th session of Congress. He served on the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health during a particularly crucial time, the debate over the Medicare prescription drug entitlement. He was a key voice in ensuring that there were free market reforms included in that legislation as it moved through the Congress. He also, being a westerner, served on the Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over public lands, water, Indian affairs. He has been a powerful voice for reform and private property and humanity in the development of those policies.

Since coming to Washington, DC, Mr. Speaker, as anyone looking in tonight might also know, he has become simply the most prominent Republican on the airwaves of the Nation. Whether it was radio talk shows, whether it was television programs on every single network, there has been no more compelling voice for conservative values, no more compelling voice for a strong stand on immigration in America. There has been a no more passionate voice for conservative fiscal and social policies than the gentleman from Arizona.

I yield to Mr. J.D. Hayworth.

I would like to yield the balance of that to the new chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Mr. Hensarling of Texas.