Peter Roskam

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Will you yield?

Mr. ROSKAM. The first step is to push the pause button, Mr. Chairman, and to recognize the current obligation--

Mr. ROSKAM. Maybe it is a two-step dance.

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman. In the same way, Mr. Chairman, you have demonstrated it to the committee, and you have been a leader in this dance, basically, by saying, ``Trust me in how we are going to fund this.''

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I am always one to learn and I am always open to instruction, and I appreciate that very much. But the point is when a question is asked in committee and the ranking member of a subcommittee asks it and it is essentially not answered, I think the subtext is ``trust in me.'' And I think that the opportunity as we move forward is to say, look, we have got an opportunity to take a $3 billion fund here that has been created that the chairman of the committee has found and to do the right thing with it.

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important within this context to realize who has the gavel and who has the majority. Mr. Chairman, you have the majority. You have the ability to direct vast sums of money. And what I am suggesting is that in your earlier conversation regarding those that were a part of the 2005 vote that you sort of felt like was somehow binding into perpetuity, 54 of us, Mr. Chairman, were not part of that conversation, and 54 of us didn't really find it informative. There are 54 of us that came in this Congress totally new, fresh. We are the Etch-A-Sketch that is clean; 41 on your side of the aisle and 13 of us. And so what I am suggesting is in the course of the campaigns that brought us here, many, many of us, and I Googled and searched several of yours and I didn't want to string them out by naming names and so forth. But many of your new freshmen said they were champions of Social Security. Well, you know what? They have got an opportunity to vote in favor of this bill.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from New Jersey will continue to yield, we can have a wonderful conversation about germaneness. But getting back to the chairman's point earlier about what I characterize as a ``trust in me'' argument. No, you didn't use the ``words trust in me,'' but I think it is important that the body not be left confused about the implication at least that we took about a verbal interchange that the chairman had with the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) when she asked, and I am quoting from the committee transcript: ``I know we have discussed the fact that there might be other ways to do this, but it seems if it is the chairman's plan to reconsider the details of the housing fund in the future, why not just take the fund out of here and then have the hearings and then make the decision.'' And at that point Mrs. Biggert continued: ``I cannot remember a time where we put something in and said maybe we will do this in this way but then we might do it another way and then we will go back and re-do it.'' And then she yielded to the chairman, who then said: ``The reason I do not want to leave it out now is I am very strongly committed to it, perhaps more than some other members. It is, I think, a rational part of this bill. It is a part of, frankly, an agreement. ``Let me be very clear. I believe that there is a great deal of interest on the part of the administration and some others in having a greatly increased regulatory structure for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. ``Not everybody who wants an increased regulatory structure for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is committed to that Affordable Housing Fund. If the Affordable Housing Fund was not established in this bill and was a stand-alone bill, it might get vetoed. ``I think it is less likely to cause vetoing of the whole bill. I like very much the idea of the Affordable Housing Fund. I do not believe it could stand on its own necessarily, and that is the reason for including it in this bill.'' Now, I took from that, and I think it is a very reasonable inference, Mr. Chairman, the ``trust in me'' argument, and I think that that is a consistent argument.

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate my colleague's instruction on germaneness. I have drunk of that cup. I offered what I thought was a relevant but nongermane amendment and sort of learned the hard way the buzz saw of the parliamentarian on a previous bill and sort of learned my lesson. I thank the gentleman for that.

Mr. ROSKAM. Let me make my point, and I will reciprocate. But, like you do, you tend to finish your point. Mr. Chairman, we have to make priorities. You know, I come from the O'Hare Airport area. O'Hare is in my district. And you know, the biggest challenge in O'Hare and why everybody hates flying through it is because there are so many planes in the air. This puts another plane in the air when nationally, you know what, we've got so many things circling, we've got one obligation after another that we're not doing well. I commend the chairman. Look, you found $3 billion. The Democrats should give you a legislative, well, I was going to say something that was a little over top. They should congratulate you for finding that type of, those type of resources. And what I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, is that we put this on pause. I'm not getting involved in the debate earlier about whether it's a good idea or a bad idea. Say, for the sake of argument, it's fabulous. Say, for the sake of argument, western civilization won't process forward without it. I still say that there are higher priorities. And I named any number of them. And what you have done, Mr. Chairman, in your advocacy and the way that you have asked us to, I would characterize it as trust you on how this is going to be articulated and distributed in the future based on legislation that you will have a profound influence on. And I would also say that we've got the ability, it's a two-step process.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROSKAM. Maybe it is a two-step dance.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would take the conversation this evening in a little bit of a different direction. It simply would postpone the diversion of funds to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund that is created in this bill until such time as Congress stops raiding the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for unrelated government programs. This year, the majority proposed and passed a budget that assumes it will raid the entire Social Security surplus, an estimated $190 billion, to spend on other government programs, and that amount will increase to $203 billion for the year 2008. During the course of many of our journeys to this office in this last election cycle, we stood up in senior centers and in conversations and in coffee and corner conversations, and we said, ``We will stand firmly with the seniors on behalf of Social Security.'' The chairman of the Financial Services Committee has sort of quietly admonished the Republicans on this side of the aisle who were here in the year 2005 for voting on a past bill and so forth. But there are 54 new Members of the House of Representatives, and we all took the oath of office. I took it right over there where Congressman Feeney is sitting, took my oath; my wife was in the audience, my children were by my side, my mom and dad were here. Fifty-four of us all came in, 13 on our side, 41 on the other side, and we took that oath of office. We were not part of the conversation in the year 2005, but many of us campaigned on the integrity of the Social Security system. Mr. Chairman, I don't know what the parliamentary rule is on referring to quotes and so forth, and I know that it is not what in our family is called cool, so I am not going to name names. But a quick Google search of the new Members of Congress who joined me in this class, the class of 110th, criticized opponents that they defeated for voting to rob the Social Security Trust Fund and spend it on other programs. ``Those were documented votes. Those are budget votes, and they used the Social Security Trust Fund to mask the overall Federal deficit.'' Someone else said, ``We are going to make sure we have real substantive programs about how we make sure Social Security is secure.'' Or, Mr. Chairman, how about this. Another new Member said in their campaign that they would ``fight for Social Security for seniors.'' Or how about this language. That they would ``stop the raids on the Social Security Trust Fund that are used to help cover our Nation's huge Federal budget deficits.'' You get the point. You know, life is choices. And I respect the chairman and his passion on this bill and the intellectual honesty with which he has approached this. When I saw the chairman, who was injured, I sort of thought that he might have tripped and fell over one of those Blue Dog signs that are littered all over the Cannon Building in my office. They are everywhere. Mr. Chairman, I have a copy of one of the Blue Dog signs that says, ``The Blue Dog Coalition. The national debt is $8.8 trillion, and your share of the national debt is $29,000.'' You know what? Those signs are getting a little bit faded. There is not quite so much interest in that issue right now on the part of the Blue Dogs, it seems to me. I think we have choices to make, and I would submit that the choice that we have to make is a choice of priorities. And voting ``yes'' on this amendment says our highest priority in this conversation that we are having is to ensure the integrity of the Social Security system. It simply says, it transcends this last hour or two of debate. It doesn't get into the profitability and loss, the shareholders, and so forth. It admits, okay, great idea. But put it on pause, and take the money that the chairman has found, take the money and put it into the Social Security Trust Fund. That is what this amendment says. It says put it on pause, and use it to fund our obligations. Look, we have got a lot of moving parts in terms of problems in this country. We have got the national debt, we have got veterans obligations, we have got pension obligations. We have got to lower gas prices. You name it. There is one thing after another that we need to do. And all this bill does is it says, great idea, terrific idea even; wrong time. So I think the majority owes a great debt of gratitude to the chairman of the committee, because he has come up with $3 billion that can be enacted in one rollcall this evening to make the Blue Dog Coalition promise come true.

Mr. ROSKAM. Here's the point.

Mr. ROSKAM. Page 2, paragraph I, the term ``actual on budget deficit'' means, with respect to the fiscal years, for fiscal year the total outlies of the government, excluding for Social Security program, exceeds the total receipts of----

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 634, the American Veterans Disabled for Life Commemorative Coin Act introduced by Mr. Moore and by my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Kirk). Madam Speaker, occasionally we disagree on the floor of this great Chamber, and we heard some of those disagreements aired a couple of minutes ago, but now there can be no disagreement about the goals of this legislation, honoring the heroes who have been grievously injured in the defense of this country, in defense of liberty, in defense of democracy. There are plenty of monuments, as well there ought to be, for those who gave their lives for those causes, but I know of no monument to those who lived, but whose lives were drastically altered, whose bodies were broken, but whose spirits are still strong. But now they will have their own monument, and it is only right, Madam Speaker. This memorial will be for the World War II vet who came back without a hand, the Korean War vet who uses a wheelchair, the Vietnam vet who uses the white cane of the blind, and for the veterans of the conflicts in the gulf, who came back to us forever changed. In 2000, Congress approved the building of the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial. It will be a $65 million privately funded memorial just west of the Rayburn Building, across from the Botanic Garden and in full view of the Capitol. The Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission approved the conceptual design in 2004 and reaffirmed it in 2006. The memorial will express our Nation's gratitude to those who paid the terrible cost of defending freedom. It represents the values of duty, of courage and of sacrifice that are the lifeblood of American democracy. I urge Members, staff and the rest of the country to look at the Web site of the memorial at avdlm.org. About half of the money for construction already has been raised, and this legislation, through surcharges on the sale of silver one-dollar coins to be issued by the U.S. Mint in 2010, could raise another $3.5 million to be used for construction or to maintain the dramatic memorial. Madam Speaker, I am glad to be one of more than 300 Members of Congress who have cosponsored this bill, which is supported by the VFW, the American Legion, the DAV, and thousands of veterans and veteran organizations across the Nation who have contributed to the memorial's creation. Madam Speaker, I ask for the immediate passage of H.R. 634 and urge all Members to support it.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. The other day, Mr. Chairman, when we originally debated the bill, the chairman of the committee gently admonished one of the other speakers, one of the gentlemen from California, for selectively quoting a particular article. We all do that, though, don't we? He was making the point Wednesday, when we discussed this bill, about this particular issue, and the chairman, in sort of a gentle nudge, teased him a little bit, but sort of called him out and said, you know, read the entire article. It seems to me that the chairman of the committee may be falling into that same trap a little bit. Because coming to this floor now and having a conversation of the range of the Securities and Exchange Commission and sort of, by implication, giving the imprimatur of approval on rules that the SEC promulgated is not a great celebration necessarily of the entire framework of the Securities and Exchange Commission. It is not as if we have a choice today. We are in the minority. We don't get to set the debate. It is not as if we get to take the Etch-A- Sketch of Securities and Exchange law and go and shake it today and come up and create a new thing. Now, if the gentleman from Georgia says, well, within the context of this, there is something that is decent that is happening here that the SEC has done, then so be it. But that is not an imprimatur of everything----

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting, the majority has now slipped into I think the same arguable bad habit that the chairman accused us of, because now the SEC has been criticized as Presidential appointees lacking the wisdom that Congress has. Let's just discuss this amendment for a minute, because I really do think it is a good amendment. It gets to the heart of this matter. And it basically, for purposes of our discussion today, Mr. Chairman, it accepts, I think, the premise of the chairman. It says, here we go. Let's go back to the underlying bill and just focus our conversation for a minute. The underlying bill says, let's put a nonbinding referendum on the ballot. The chairman has made a number of arguments in favor of it. But the gentleman from Georgia, essentially says, in this amendment, okay, let's do that, but first, just hit the pause button. Just put the pause button on just for a bit and let the Securities and Exchange Commission, who, over the past day or so of debate, have risen to the point of almost Superman status, they have been so widely complimented and called wise and so forth by the other side of the aisle. Let's ask that commission what their opinion is. Let's study it. Let's look at it. And if, if, if, they say no problem, then there is no problem. No harm, no foul. The bill is put into place and on we go. But if the Securities and Exchange Commission says that public companies enter into a competitive disadvantage because of this, then ought we not consider that? Shouldn't we then hit the stop button? Because we have heard the other side get up on the floor today and over the past few days and talk about the free market and how they are in favor of capitalism, and we have heard the gentleman from Oregon a couple of minutes ago telling us that the reason that companies are going to Europe is somehow because they don't have shareholder rights, and the logic was so dizzying, I couldn't even follow it. But accepting everything that the other side says for the sake of argument is then implicit in accepting this amendment. Because all this amendment says, and let's be very clear about it, is it simply says hit the pause button for 90 days. Just wait 90 days. So let's assume for the sake of argument that this blows through the Senate. Let's assume for the sake of argument that it is signed into law on June 1. I would submit to you between June 1 and September 1 we can wait to take the temperature to find out if this is a good idea or if somehow this hinders us competitively.

Mr. ROSKAM. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would suggest the chairman should resist the temptation to overcharacterize a particular argument.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, my only point is that the 2009 date, and that is a fair observation on your part that it's not going to happen tomorrow, but if this becomes law, it's going to happen no matter what. So even if the SEC comes up and sends a signal flair and says, hey, this is going to be a train wreck, this is going to be a real problem; and we're going to see more and more companies either going private, unwilling to go public, which is sort of the subtext of a lot of what's going on, or ultimately going to Europe, my point is that this will not stop.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think in response to the chairman's observations about the gentleman from Florida's amendment, I do take the chairman at face value that what you are trying to do and the way you are looking at it is trying to create a neutral framework by which these matters are determined. No question about that. But it seems to me that the beauty of this amendment is that it really does seem to get at the heart of the matter that is really prompting this sort of national conversation. In other words, I think the gentleman from Florida has come up with a more surgical way to accomplish the very task that the chairman of the committee is trying to do. So while the chairman's bill in and of itself is a bit of a blunt instrument, I think that the gentleman from Florida's amendment sharpens that blunt instrument and helps to really cut to the cause and the issue that is before the Congress, and I urge its passage.