Peter Roskam

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. First of all, I want to thank Chairman Thompson and the Homeland Security Committee for working with me on this amendment. I appreciate their attitude very much and their openness to this suggestion. This is a fairly straightforward amendment. What it is trying to do is to mirror the resources of the Federal Government and to make sure that they're in sync with the needs of local transit systems. This actually developed out of a homeland security working group dialogue that I had in my congressional district. I represent the west and northwest suburbs of Chicago and a wide range of commuters. We've got bus lines and rail lines in the Chicago area, and there is a certain level of vulnerability. So last March I invited some of the leadership of the public transit systems and some of the security agencies to really offer ideas, and this is one of the ideas that they had. They said, Look, we have needs at the local level, and there are resources at the Federal Government, but sometimes those two things aren't really in sync. So what this is, it says simply that the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security will hold hearings, if this amendment is passed, and those hearings are really about the subject of whether current allowable uses of grant funds are sufficient to meet the daily security needs and the transit security needs of these local agencies. Then after that happens, after this conversation happens and these hearings, to come back to Congress and to report. I think that this is one of these areas where there's a great deal of common ground. There is uncertainty sometimes at the State and local level about how Federal funds fit into their agenda. We all know that we, in the Congress, are trying to help. And this is a structured way to have that conversation, because when it comes down to it, there's nearly 12 million Americans that are riding on passenger trains each day, and that's six times as many that fly in our skies. I think that this is a wise use of resources and urge the adoption of the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Joseph Devlin for his forty years of devoted service to the Village of Roselle. After his long service to the Village, he has announced that he plans to retire. Joe's first experience in elected office was in 1969, when he was elected Village Trustee. He served as Mayor from 1973-1981, and then returned to his post as Trustee from 1981 to 2009. Through the years, Joe has been an insightful observer, keen in his understanding of the long-term challenges facing the Village. Throughout his career, he has tackled challenges with deft skill, deep understanding, and strong personal integrity. While Roselle has gone through many changes over the years, one thing has remained the same. Trustee Devlin has kept a steady hand to the wheel, working tirelessly for the benefit of his community. Joseph Devlin has been an advocate for the people of Roselle since his very first days in office. He has affected countless lives, and left an indelible impression on Roselle and its residents. Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, Joseph Devlin is a remarkable man who has dedicated his life to serving the people of Roselle. Please join me in honoring him for his extraordinary career.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Thank you. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. You know, I offered an amendment to the Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act, H.R. 2352, and it's one of those bill titles that is sort of inarguable. Who can simply be against job creation through entrepreneurship? Nobody. So I put forth an amendment to bring some predictability to this entire debate that we're having or, frankly, that we're not having about the death tax, because the death tax, as you know, is a crushing tax. It's a tax that is imposed on success that has been created many times through generations who have worked, who, ironically, have paid taxes on their businesses and who are looking for some sense of predictability into the future. What is happening, coming from this Congress, is sort of an orthodoxy that has developed that says we're going to sort of make it up as we go along. Here we have the Energy and Commerce Committee that has been dealing with foisting another tax burden. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee characterized this--and I'm paraphrasing--as a tax that is the cap-and-tax initiative. There is no other way to describe it. Yet here was this simple amendment that would have repealed the death tax and that would have brought some predictability into it. Just on a party vote, it was sort of swatted aside. I'm told by listening this morning that it was characterized as unimportant. Well, I'll tell you what. For companies in my district, for small businesses in the suburbs of Chicago, the death tax is not an unimportant issue. Let me just highlight a couple of the entities that are in favor of the death tax repeal: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the National Federation of Independent Business, which the gentlelady referenced a minute ago; the National Association of Manufacturers; the National Small Business Association; the National Association of Realtors; the S Corporation Association of America; the Association of Equipment Manufacturers. We know dozens and dozens, if not hundreds and if not thousands, of small companies, entrepreneurs, and self-employed folks who understand fundamentally how important this issue is. So it shouldn't be characterized in sort of the inner sanctum of the Rules Committee as unimportant when all of these entities have stepped forward and have said, No, no, no. This is vital. This is not unimportant. This is vital, and it ought not be swatted away. It ought just not be said that we're not going to allow a roll call vote on this and that the only way you're going to be able to raise this issue is to sort of scrap along and bring it up in a rules debate. The House is going to be completely silent? Think about the signal that that sends to the small business person. Think about the signal that that sends to the entrepreneur. Think about the signal that this Congress is sending to the self-employed. It is sending a signal that says there is no predictability into the future based on what this Congress is going to do. I would suggest that we are in an economic situation the likes of which none of us have ever seen before. We're in an economic situation the likes of which no generation has really ever seen before, and the pace of change is moving so quickly that it's very difficult for folks to get their arms and their heads around it. The Rules Committee had an opportunity to say, Look, once and for all, let's get this done. Once and for all, let's get this death tax repealed off the books. Take away the ambiguity so that people know what they're doing in the future. It is said that up to $25,000 a year is spent by small businesses, on average, just for attorneys and for consultant fees in order to figure out how it is that they need to arrange assets, to put it in different places and to title it in certain ways so that they can best get the advantage for their families. For a Congress that has come along and has sort of given lip service to small business and has given lip service to entrepreneurship--I mean think about it. This is the bill title that we're talking about right now: Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act. I mean, hey, fabulous little language, but you know what? If you want to create jobs, if you want to create opportunity, if you want to help entrepreneurs, the way to do that, in part, is to repeal the death tax. So I am really disappointed that the majority on the Rules Committee was just entirely dismissive of it, was sort of plugging their procedural ears, and was unwilling to offer the opportunity to simply have a debate in the people's House about the death tax. What is it that is so unpleasant. What is it that is so difficult? What is it politically that folks are gun shy to take this issue up? Do you know what it is? It is the clarity with which this issue speaks throughout the entire country, and I think that this Congress has missed a golden opportunity. It is with deep regret that I stand in opposition to this rule.

Mr. ROSKAM. Thank you. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Briefly, in response to the gentleman from Colorado, he raised two interesting points. They were procedural points largely, and I would just like to speak to them. As I recall, one was germaneness and the other one was PAYGO. I think it's disappointing that the Rules Committee majority decides to impose these standards on certain bills and then decides to ignore these standards on certain bills. To act as if the majority is as pure as the wind-driven snow on PAYGO is a mischaracterization of past conduct. This is a majority that has run roughshod over its own rules in the past. So, on the PAYGO side, people in my district would characterize that as ``spare me.'' Now, on the germaneness, here we look at the rule, and the rule in paragraph 5 waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. In other words, the rule, by declaration, can take care of the germaneness issue. So let's not hide behind procedure here. Let's not hide behind a rule book that the majority has been very, very willing to cast aside in the past to advance its own agenda. Instead, why don't we come together. Why don't we come together and say, You know what? Let's do something that we absolutely know is going to help small businesses. Let's do something that we absolutely know is going to help the self-employed, that we absolutely know is going to help the entrepreneur, because if you're interacting with those folks across the country who are really the ones who we all give lip service to, who are really the ones to whom we all say, Well, this is the group that creates jobs, then why in the world are we putting this albatross around their necks? Why in the world are we allowing this ambiguity? They don't know if they're afoot or on horseback on this thing, and it's not fair. You know what? This Congress can do something about it. This Congress can create predictability. If it chooses to, this Congress can say to that small business owner and to that family who has created through work and risk and toil, Look, we're not going to come through here with a confiscatory tax that takes from one generation to another. You know, we've seen enough generational theft, frankly, that has come through this Congress, where one generation has piled on debt, upon debt, upon debt, upon debt on our children. It is, frankly, irresponsible. From George Washington to George W. Bush, we've seen how it took 43 American Presidents, Mr. Speaker, to create $5.1 trillion in debt. Yet, with this majority and with this administration, doubling that amount in 5 years and tripling that amount of money in 10 years is simply staggering. Here we have a simple amendment that the Rules Committee sort of looks at and says, Oh, no, no, no, no, no. We're not interested. It's not important. Not important? Not important to the folks in my district? Not important to the businesses and to the entrepreneurs in suburban Chicago? Not important? It's vitally important. This Rules Committee needs to do better. This Rules Committee needs to be bringing things to the floor that create prosperity and that create opportunity. With all due respect to this bill--and I'm sure it's a fine bill--you know what? It falls short of what the possibilities are, because when something is so important as the predictability of the repeal of the death tax and it is simply swatted away--just sort of all the Democrats ``yes'' or all the Democrats ``no'' and all the Republicans ``yes'' and that's the amount of discussion it gets--then, frankly, it's not good enough. It's not good enough for the constituents whom I represent, who are deeply disappointed by the way in which this rule has come about. The underlying bill could be fabulous, but you know what? This rule is deeply disappointing, and I urge opposition to it.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Mid America CropLife Association (MACA) on its recent 50th Anniversary. Founded in 1958 by Herbert Woodbury, Porter Wiliams, Robert Yapp, Harold Howard, Doug Nelson, Wally Smith, and G. E. Zackert, MACA has represented the agricultural chemical companies of the Midwest whose products help feed the world. From humble beginnings MACA has led the industry for 5 decades in growing membership, developing industry safety guidelines, and educating our youth on the processes that feed the world. Madam Speaker, since its creation, MACA has incorporated membership from basic manufacturers, distributors, formulators, and allied industry representatives. Having input from such a broad membership, MACA has been an industry leader in creating guidelines for agriculture safety and the crop protection industry. MACA's dedication is so apparent they have developed member guidelines and standards above and beyond those required by the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation. In addition to their industry development, MACA has reached out to our local communities by speaking at local elementary schools to educate children on the process of agriculture from the farm to our table. In my community MACA participants reached out to the 4th and 5th grade classes at Central Elementary in Des Plaines. Since the inception of the MACA's CropLife Ambassador Network, over 25,000 students have been provided scientifically based information regarding the safety and value of American agricultural food production. From its modest start to its present day roster of members on the Fortune 500, MACA has been a voice for agriculture and the agricultural chemical professionals who serve those who feed the world. I congratulate MACA on this achievement and wish them another successful fifty years.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the first anniversary of the election of the Republic of China's (Taiwan) President Ma Ying-jeou. With close to 65,000 Taiwanese Americans in the Chicagoland area, I have closely observed President Ma's progress on the world stage during his first year in office. In just one year, the Harvard educated President Ma has made accomplishments in leaps and bounds to improve Taiwan's international standing in no small part because of his work to normalize relations with mainland China. Most recently, Taiwan has been accepted as an official observer at the World Health Assembly that will take place later this month in Geneva. The World Health Assembly, which is part of the World Health Organization, will give Taiwan's 23 million citizens a voice at this very important international forum. Also, in April, officials from China and Taiwan participated in the Chiang-Chen Talks. The talks resulted in the signing of the following agreements: (1) ``Agreement on Joint Cross-Strait Crime-fighting and Mutual Judicial Assistance;'' (2) the ``Cross-Strait Financial Cooperation Agreement;'' and, (3) the ``Supplementary Agreement on Cross-Strait Air Transport''. All of these agreements will result in improved coordination between the Taiwan Straits neighbors in the areas of law enforcement, financial exchanges and travel. Finally, President Ma's administration has successfully removed Taiwan from the Special 301 Watch List which is maintained by The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. The removal from this list shows Taiwan's commitment to preventing the importing and exporting of illegally pirated materials such as DVDs and CDs. These are three of President Ma's many achievements during his first year in office. Please join me in congratulating, President Ma, on a very successful first year.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. These choices that we are dealing with remind me of a story I heard about a young woman who was a foreign exchange student here. I forget what country she was from. But she came over here as a high school student or a college student and spent 1 year here like so many foreign exchange students do. And someone asked her, So what did you think? Wind it up for us. What did you think about this year that you spent in America? And what was the thing that made the biggest impression on you? And they were thinking, oh, computers or the highway system or the cool kids at school or whatever some of those predictable things were. But she said something that was very, very unusual. And she said that the biggest impact on her was the number of people who approached her and said, So what are you going to do? What do you want to study? What do you want to grow up and be? And sometimes we lose track of that. I think that is such a common experience for Americans, an expectation that one generation is going to supersede the next generation in terms of achievement. But for this girl, it was revolutionary. She came from a culture that didn't really support that, where that wasn't the expectation. And so for her to go around and be reaffirmed on these dreams, that dream of possibility, all of a sudden it was like, wow, I could do a lot of things. One of my favorite authors is an author named Paul Johnson. Paul Johnson is a living British historian who likes the United States. So it is nice to read his stuff. He really likes America. And in one of his books called ``A History of the American People,'' Paul Johnson talks about our Founders and compares them to the advisers of King George III. And so he goes through this list and he says, basically, you have got this A Team, this unbelievable group of people who founded our country. And you know all the names, Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, Monroe and Madison and a whole cast of great leaders. And he says that they were such special people, but they were ultimately eclipsing themselves because the combination of them was so great. And he said there was a second and a third tier of leadership underneath them that in any other generation would have been tier one people, but they just had the dumb luck to be on the scene with this incredible group of talent. And Johnson writes and compares that to the advisers of King George III, the King of England during the Revolution. And I'm overcharacterizing this, but it is as if we weren't playing fair. That is how good our Founders were compared to the leadership on the other side. And Johnson makes this point: he said all kinds of factors go into history, into how history turns out and how things happen. There are economies. There is weather. There are wars. There are a whole host of things. But ultimately the single most important thing in the determination of history is the people who are in charge at the time-- and now this is the Peter Roskam footnote--and the choices they make. And so here we are, we are at this time, almost a tumultuous time in our public life where there is a great deal of fear out there. There is a great deal of anxiety and restlessness. People have been so disappointed for the last couple of months about solutions that they have seen and expectations that Washington and big institutions were going to come through for them. And ultimately, many of those institutions have failed. One of the reasons that I am here and one of the reasons that I am part of the party that is the Republican Party is because there is that real bedrock of knowledge that, notwithstanding all of the challenges, there is this high view of the individual and a confidence that given a fair set of laws, given a fair shake, given a fair opportunity, there is going to be, on balance, a very good result. That is not to say we don't have responsibilities because we do. But this view that somehow government is going to come in and make problems go away is, I think, profoundly naive. And we need to be mindful of surrendering so much of our national identity and so much of ourselves to a government that hasn't always deserved our confidence.

Mr. ROSKAM. I think one of the things that we find ourselves in this quandary as Americans is sort of a gotcha mentality, right? The gentleman from South Carolina referenced that a minute ago. I think of my fourth-grade teacher. My fourth-grade teacher's name was Lillian Anderson. She was a dear woman. I had her her last year, which you can interpret as I drove her to retirement, I suppose. Ms. Anderson was one of those teachers, though, when you would go and do work, she would come back and make the corrections. And it was sort of a gentle way. I mean, she would look at the report and, ``Oh, Peter, you didn't indent this.'' We've all gotten those marked-up papers from teachers. So you think about American businesses today who are looking at a regulation. They have an assignment. They have a law that is passed by Congress, and then some Federal agency has come up with a rule interpreting that law. As we know--we have all dealt with constituents--some of the laws are clear as mud, and some of the rules are even worse. So you're a small business owner, you're a big business owner, whoever, and you're not sure what the rule means, and you're doing your best. You are legitimately doing your best. And you realize, ``You know what? We've messed this up. It wasn't through malice, it wasn't through manipulation, it wasn't through cheating or deception. It's an honest mistake.'' Well, other countries have figured this out. Other countries have created a regulatory environment that is not a gotcha environment. Other countries have figured out you can go to a regulator and say, ``Look, this is what we're doing. This is how we're interpreting this rule. Are we doing the right thing?'' And in these other countries they will look at it and say, ``No, you're not doing the right thing. Here's the right thing to do. Don't do this anymore. And if you do this in the future, you will be punished, but we acknowledge that it wasn't intentional and you're not trying to deceive or defraud anybody.'' Can you do that the United States of America under this current environment in our country? No. If you're doing something on balance and you have an ambiguity about it, 9 chances out of 10, you're crazy if you go to a regulator and say, ``You know what? This is what we're doing. What do you think?'' They will come back to you and say, ``You have the right to remain silent.'' And we know the Miranda rights. It makes no sense. So what we have got to do, I think, in this country in order to create prosperity and in order to create an environment where we are regulating for the right things instead of regulating for the sake of regulating--and there's a big difference there. If we're regulating for the right things, that means someone can come in and say, ``Look, we're doing this,'' and the regulator says, ``Don't do that anymore.'' Or, alternatively, ``Yeah, you're doing the right thing. Proceed. Off with you. And be lively.'' I think there is an attitude that has to develop in the United States. And I think Republicans that I have interacted with in the House of Representatives get it. They get the idea that government is not supposed to come along with a heavy hand, to go back to the gentleman from South Carolina's language, with a heavy hand and come in and just pound and pound and pound and just take the life right out of some entrepreneur or somebody who's self-employed or starting something up. But instead, it's supposed to come in with a light touch. And if there is a legitimate area where there's wrongdoing, then we all agree there needs to be a reconciliation to that. So none of us are saying, ``Don't punish the wrongdoer,'' but there is an attitude, there is a way to get to that point that honors business people and honors and recognizes that people that are starting companies in all of our districts. They are the ones that are putting capital at risk, they are the ones that are working. They don't have lobbyists that are coming here to Washington, D.C. They are not represented here, except by us. I think that as we are moving forward, we ought not fall into sort of this harsh language--harsh antibusiness language--that we see coming out of the leadership on the other side of the aisle that actually has a very low view and paints everybody with a bad brush. Are there some bad actors? There sure are. Are there people that need to be punished? There sure are. But let's not drag business through the mud with an expectation that an entrepreneur or somebody who wants to work hard isn't well motivated. I think that that sort of degrading of business is a point that we need to be very, very mindful of. I know our witching hour is approaching.

Mr. ROSKAM. If the gentleman would yield. I thank the gentleman for gathering us today and for his leadership, and really having a conversation that I think is very important, Mr. Speaker, to talk about where we are, because my sense is that we are at a very pivotal point in our public life right now and when the types of changes and the types of choices that are being presented to the public are choices that we are going to reflect back in 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40 years and say that was the time. I remember my mother grew up in Oak Park, Illinois, and she was born in 1930. She remembers and I remember her telling me about what it was like for her as a little girl turning on the radio and hearing the voice of Adolph Hitler, and just that sort of ominous feel. And now I am kind of projecting here, but I am imagining that my mother as a little girl sort of knew that there was something that was going on, and that time that she was involved in was formative. And I would suggest to you, take the World War II reference and abandon it now, and this time that we are in just has a feel about it. It has a poignancy to it, and it has a sense that decisions that are going to be made are going to be made and have long-term implications, and I think that one of a couple of things is going to happen. My hope and expectation is that we are going to make decisions and we will say, thank goodness that there were clear-thinking people in Washington at the time that the wheels were coming off the cart. But the alternative is that we surrender so much freedom and we give up so much to a benevolent government that sort of pats us on the head and says: We are going to take care of all your problems. And then we wake up, and when the government fails--and we've seen that time and time and time again lately. We wake up and we don't have those tools that should be ours, and instead they were squandered and they were given away at a time of panic and at a time of legitimate fear. So here we are on the floor of the House of Representatives, and we are in the midst of this conversation as a country and we have got to look carefully at where we have been and then figure out where we are going. And I think any honest assessment of where we have been takes a look back and says: Okay, United States of America, you have been given an inspired Declaration of Independence. You have been given a Constitution that is the envy of the world. You, as a Nation, and your predecessors have gone through the Civil War. You have gone through the turmoil of slavery. You have gone through world wars. You have gone through a Depression like we were talking about a minute ago. You defeated communism. You defeated fascism, and here you are at this moment where great decisions need to be made. But do so as a Nation with a proud heritage, as a Nation that has understood where it has come from and where it needs to go. But don't panic. Don't underreact. Don't act as if there are no problems, because there are problems. We know there are great difficulties. We know we have a health care system that is unsustainable. We know that the world is an increasingly dangerous place. We know that the amount of money that is being spent here in Washington begins to feel like generational theft. It really is too much. So we are rightly sobered by these things. But as we are contemplating solutions, we ought not be dismissive of this incredible heritage that we have been given. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. ROSKAM. I jotted down what you just said: Relying on the government, we weaken these other institutions, and that is really to the point. You know, the gentleman from South Carolina was talking about sort of an orderliness, if I could paraphrase, an orderliness. And I know the three of us and I know every Republican in the House of Representatives recognizes the role of government. There is an appropriate role of government, and the gentleman just gave a glimpse into the seeds of that, and it goes back ancient of times in civilization, and it was to create a structure for fairness and follow- through and an ability to have an expectation of what the ground rules are. But when government bleeds over into responsibilities that aren't really the government's, and when people give the government that kind of responsibility and ultimately that authority, then you see where this ends up. And it is not a good picture. Going back again to Genesis, I am reminded of the story of Isaac and his two sons, Esau and Jacob. And as you know, in that Near Eastern culture at that time, the oldest son who was Esau had the birthright. He had the property right. Give me a little grace here. It was about 90 percent ownership expectation that the oldest son was going to get the estate, the cattle and the household. And then the number two son kind of picks up the scraps. That is sort of the way it was in that time. Well, as you know, the account is that Esau comes in out of the field, and he is famished. He is crazy hungry. And we have all been like that. We know what that is like, just being so hungry you can hardly see straight. And his brother, Jacob, the number two son, is cooking some sort of stew. And Esau comes in and says, Give me some stew. And Jacob says, Give me your birthright. And Esau agrees to it. And now I'm collapsing the story down, but Esau gets passed over. He gives up his birthright. I have this sense that we, as Americans, right now are in a position where we have this birthright that has been given to us not really through work of our own, but it is this birthright that has been entrusted to us. It is the ability to start a company, the ability to innovate, the ability to really capture what it is you want to do; and yet we are being coaxed, as a country, right now by some people who are saying, Give up that birthright. Just give it up. Here. We will give you ``stability.'' And in the name of ``stability,'' many, many people are sacrificing a fundamental birthright. It hasn't happened entirely. But we are sort of on that verge. You get the sense that that is what is beginning to happen. One of the reasons that I'm a Republican is because I think the Republican Party has this high view ultimately. Many times it is not articulated well. Many times we bumble along. And we are far from perfect. But do you know what? There is a core there that says, We know what that birthright is. And it is a system that has been the envy of the world that has created more prosperity for more people than the world has ever seen before. And yet we are being told, Just give it up. Just give it up, and you will get stability in exchange. And I would submit that is a very, very bad deal. And we ought not make that exchange. I will yield to the gentleman.

Mr. ROSKAM. I think that is the great invitation. That is the conversation that we are having with the American public. That is what is such a dynamic part of where we are today. There was a great theologian in one of the early church fathers, Saint Ambrose, who said we don't impose on the world; we propose a more excellent way. I think that is, in part, at the essence of what we are about right now because, you know, we have all seen, everybody knows what a government that is too big and too unwieldily looks like. That story doesn't end well. I think about the cartoon ``The Jungle Book'' with the Walt Disney cartoon and it has the snake, Kaa. The snake, Kaa, is very charming and gets young Mowgli in his eyes, and basically Mowgli becomes transfixed. And Kaa is able to manipulate him. Kaa says ``trust in me'' and he comes up with a song, and I will spare you in my singing of that song. Ultimately this young Mowgli is completely bewildered. And where does he end up? He ends up in the coils of Kaa, the boa snake. I think there is a little bit of wow, that sounds really great. That program sounds good and that sounds like something that is great and stable, but my fear is and my hesitancy is that to surrender what the American public is being asked to surrender by, with all due respect the Democratic leadership in this Congress, is, I think, regrettable. The amount of money. And it is being done gently. It is being done very smoothly. It is being done cleverly, if I might say so; but it is being done in such a way to basically coax people into surrendering things which I think they will do so with great regret. I think the invitation is come along on this more excellent way. Come along on a way that says we acknowledge the difficulties of where we are. And we are rightly sobered by the challenges our country faces today. None of us here on this floor are pumping sunshine, acting as if everything is great, because it is not great. We are really sobered by the challenges we face. But notwithstanding those challenges, we don't panic and we don't surrender freedoms that are our birthright. In the exchange, we end up with some sort of stability that I think is going to be completely unsatisfying in the long run. Getting back, I think the gentleman from South Carolina and the observations he made about sort of the predictability of contract and the work ethic, not long ago I was traveling in another country that doesn't have a good solid rule of law. And the officials that we met with were talking about the issue that they characterized known as impunity, meaning you could commit crimes with impunity. You can do it and get away with it. One of the countries that is in this hemisphere has a murder conviction rate of 3 percent. Think about that, 3 percent of the murders that occur in that country end up in a conviction. What does that mean? If you can commit murder with impunity, what does that mean for somebody trying to start a business? What does that mean to try and enforce a contract, or stand up for your rights as an entrepreneur and get things going? And I would submit to you it is almost impossible. And many of these problems that we see around the world, not all of them, but many of them are exacerbated by this idea of impunity, the ability to just do whatever you want. So here we are. We are having a conversation as a country right now about what do contracts mean? What does it mean when you sign a piece of paper? We have seen coming out of the White House some very aggressive moves trying to rewrite contracts. Again, I would submit, over an extended period of time, that is a scene that doesn't end well either. In the short term, that can be very satisfying if you are on the right side of that deal. But at some point in the future, you may not be on the right side of that deal. Ultimately, what does it do? It creates a disincentive for people to put themselves at risk. It creates a disincentive for people to be creative. What we need at this time in our history, with all of the challenges that we have, a whole host of things, the economy and everything, we need our best and brightest leaning into this thing. We need people saying, ``You know what? I'm here. I want to participate. And I know if I do, there is a reward for me, and it's a reward that is borne of my innovation and my entrepreneurship and my willingness to put myself and my capital at risk.'' I will yield to the gentleman.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. ROSKAM. I am, in its current form.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, we are here today because we are having a national conversation about credit, and it is a conversation that has had an impact on each and every one of our congressional districts. It doesn't matter where we are from, it doesn't matter what our background is, credit is inextricably linked to our success as a country. So here we are, and we have got sponsors who have worked hard, and I want to take my hat off to the sponsors and to the chairman of the committee for taking on a very, very serious work. There are some good things in here, there are some good things in the underlying bill, but I think there is a weakness, and I want to point out the weakness and offer a suggestion. This is not a ``gotcha'' amendment. This was an idea presented to the Rules Committee, and, unfortunately, it was sort of swatted aside. I think it was a little bit misinterpreted, and that's disappointing. But the great thing about this process is you get another shot at the title. So here we are and we have another opportunity to consider this idea. Here is what it says. Notwithstanding everything that is in this bill, it doesn't matter what you have been told about it, what has been represented to you, what kind of talking points, what kind of hearings you have heard, what kind of testimony, let's face it, if this falls short and it has an adverse impact on small business, then we have failed. If this has an adverse impact on the biggest job creators in our economy, then we have failed. So my attitude is look, we all, all of us, talk about how important small business is, how important the entrepreneur is, how important the self-employed are. But ultimately, if we are passing legislation that has an adverse impact on that group's ability to get credit, we have failed. So what this amendment says, it says, look. What the motion says is take a good hard look at the bill, but hit the pause button, and here is why. Let the Fed look at this, do a study that says it is not going to have an adverse impact on small business. ``Small business'' is a term of art, one that we can all come around. It is not meant to sneak up on anybody. It is not meant to overly characterize anything. But what it says is do the credit card changes, if you will, but make sure we are not having an impact on the small person. Now, why is this important? Why should we be thinking in terms of a pause button right now? And I want to give you three examples where we cumulatively voted on things that have been presented in one way and they have turned out very differently. Remember during the bailout debate last fall, remember the drumbeat, the pounding sort of, that pulsing feeling on the House floor and that sense of urgency of you got to pass it, you got to pass it, you got to pass it? Well, what is in it? I don't know, but just pass it and it is all going to be great. Well, it didn't work out so well. Credit markets haven't been restored and we are still limping along months later. Remember during the stimulus debate, when we heard from the White House that if we pass this, unemployment was going to peak at 8 percent, the birds were going to be chirping, it was all going to be great and that was going to be the high mark in terms of unemployment? That didn't happen to turn out that way, and we are already at 8.5 percent or beyond. And most recently in the budget figures we heard represented in the Ways and Means Committee, that the Budget Committee heard, this is what we were told in terms of projections: That real GDP was only going to shrink by 1.2 percent this year. But already this quarter, this last quarter, it is down 6.1 percent. Now, why do I bring those numbers up? They are important because they are indicators of mischaracterizations of things. So when people say we are going to fix this credit card situation, my reluctance, and I think the reason there is a little bit of reluctance out there is the suggestion that there is going to be no cost to it and it is all going to be great and it is all going to be roses, and what I am suggesting to you today is that if we fail to protect small business, then we have failed. Now, you will hear that the NFIB has endorsed it, and endorsed it they have. The NFIB has endorsed it, and I think in fairness to the NFIB, they have looked at it and they have thought it is okay. But we can do better. We have an opportunity to raise this to a higher standard. We have a chance today with adopting this simple motion to say it is all well and good, but let's make sure the Fed checks this out and comes back affirmatively. Now, you might hear there is a study, Congressman, in the bill already. And I would suggest to you that the way the study in the bill is already crafted, it is a retroactive study, right? So it says within 3 months, 6 months of the acceptance date, we need to move forward. You know what you need to do, and you know we need to do it.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. I want to thank the gentleman very much, Madam Speaker, for yielding to me. When the gentleman uses language like allowing, we are allowing a debate, we are allowing certain amendments, I think we can do better than that. Look, 52 amendments were submitted. That means, do the quick math, that's a whole host of ideas that were just sort of cast aside. We can do better, 17 out of 52. We know we can do better than that. Let's vote against this rule and come back and do it the right way.

Mr. ROSKAM. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I offered an amendment before the Rules Committee, and unfortunately, it was sort of swatted away in a partisan fashion. I really regret that. I think that the tone that we hear many times coming from the leadership of this Congress is there is no pride of authorship, there is willingness to listen, and yet, somehow the conduct and the procedure that we have seen coming from the Rules Committee has really fallen short of that soaring rhetoric. Let me give you an example of that. I offered an amendment which was very straightforward, and it directed the GAO to make sure that the requirements of this bill would not restrict access to credit or increase the cost of credit for small business. And all it does is it would have delayed the effective date of the legislation until the President determined that the GAO study concluded that there was no extra burden for small business. And if the President differed in his determination, all he had to do was justify it. So this isn't a power grab, this isn't overstating or overstepping, but what it is saying is, look, we all cumulatively talk about how important small business is. Everybody, when we go back to our districts, when we go to our teletown hall meetings, when we talk to the chambers of commerce and the rotary clubs, everybody talks about how important small business is. And, yet, there is a very real possibility that the underlying bill that the majority is advancing right now is going to have an adverse effect on credit availability for small business. Now, we have heard, during the course of this national economic debate and conversation that we have had, that we hold in highest esteem the following groups. We say we are very concerned about the small businessperson. We are very concerned about the entrepreneur. We are very concerned about the self-employed. And, yet, when an opportunity comes along to stand up for that very group and basically say, whoa, hold on, just a second here, let's be very, very careful when we are changing credit policy that everybody acknowledges is the life and blood of a small business, yet, suddenly, we are just quickly going to run roughshod over that group, when all we are doing is saying let us have a vote on an amendment? This isn't ramming something down; just have the vote. Just let the people's House decide. But yet the Rules Committee, Madam Speaker, was very, very dismissive of it and said, no, no, no, we are really not interested in that approach, and we don't even want to hear about it. I think that's regrettable. I think that this House can do better. I think this rule can be much better than this. What's to be afraid of? What's to be afraid about a vote and a conversation in the people's House, on the floor of the people's House about standing up for small business. Now, I know that there are other elements of the bill that claim to be helpful to small business. But I will tell you what, when it comes down to it, if we are that cavalier that we are not willing to have a conversation and a vote, a recorded vote on an amendment that simply says we are going to put a pause button on this to make sure that the GAO looks at this, to make sure it doesn't have an adverse effect on small business, I think it's deeply regrettable. And notwithstanding the soaring rhetoric that we hear coming from the leadership of the majority, Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the promises, notwithstanding the sort of bumper-sticker mentality that you hear, see out and about in this town, I think it's really regrettable. Here we have this opportunity to stand up for small business, to make sure that they are treated well, and that they are treated with respect and that they have access to the credit that they need. I think we can do much better. I am, therefore, urging people to vote against the rule.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

Mr. ROSKAM. Well, I thank the gentleman for his comments, Mr. Chairman. I would just go to the underlying purpose of the legislation, as it's sort of the declared statement of the committee, which is to improve the Federal Government's role in designing and in implementing Federal water research, development, demonstration, data collection and dissemination, education, and technology transfer activities to address changes in the water use, supply and demand in the U.S., including providing additional support to increase water supply through greater efficiency and preservation. There is one word that isn't in there, and that is the word ``duplication,'' and I think sometimes we all benefit from another perspective coming in. I respect greatly the expertise of the committee, but every once in a while, there's maybe another perspective that could come along that will say: You know what? In the great scheme of things, the pace at which Congress is moving and the pace at which programs are being put in place, let's hit the pause button here, and let's have the GAO go out and really span the spectrum because, in the underlying legislation, it is absolutely silent as to duplicative efforts. So I accept the criticism at face value. It's a valid argument, but I think that this is an improvement. It's not meant to be an impediment, and clearly, it empowers the President of the United States to waive the finding. I think it's a simple, straightforward type of thing that's in spirit with the inaugural statement of the President. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, in a nutshell, it's a fairly straightforward amendment. To briefly put it into context, it's trying to follow up on President Obama's inaugural address where he really challenged Congress and the American people to go through the Federal budget line by line, looking carefully at programs. I don't want to put words into the President's mouth, but if I were to paraphrase, I would say that part of the subtext of the challenge is to look where there is possible duplication, and that's what this amendment seeks to do. It respects the underlying legislation and says, well, if we're going to be doing this program--in other words, if we're going to be coordinating the Federal Government's approach to water problems--then let's do it in the context of clarity. So here is what it says: We're going to have an amendment, and we're going to direct the GAO to do a study about the possible duplication of programs. In the interim, notwithstanding the passage of the bill, it's going to suspend the implementation date of the program to wait until the GAO comes back with the study. If the President finds that there are duplications, he can move forward and waive the underlying findings, but he has got to do it in a declarative way. In other words, he needs to affirmatively move forward and say, ``Look, I've evaluated these duplications, and on balance, I think we should do this,'' or maybe in the alternative he'll say, ``Let's not do it that particular way.'' There are only two programs that are specifically cited as sort of a heads-up to the GAO that they need to take a look at. One is the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which is a current program that the GAO says take a look at or that we tell the GAO to take a look at. The other is the State Water Resources Research Institute Program, which again is flagged, but notwithstanding that, it says to take a look at the other programs that are out there. If there is a duplication, bubble it up to the surface, and let's make a decision from there. At this point, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 75th anniversary of the Roselle Lions Club in my Congressional District. On April 26, 2009, the Roselle Lions will mark more than 75 years of dedicated community service. Through the years, the Lions Club has been instrumental in aiding those with hearing and vision impairments by providing members of the local community in need with hearing aids, glasses, and support groups. With local events like The Lions Carnival, National Night Out, and the Children's Christmas Party, the Lions Club has raised funds for these worthy causes and provided a fun and safe environment for families to spend time together. The extent of the Roselle Lions' dedication and generosity can be seen in the countless library, school, and civic projects they have supported financially, and with their time and energy. Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, the Roselle Lions Club has worked tirelessly to make their local community a better place to live, work and raise a family. They have brought compassion to those in need and been a tremendous asset to the citizens of Roselle. Please join me in recognizing the impressive work of the Roselle Lions Club, and wishing them every success in their next 75 years of fellowship and service.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Village of Itasca in my Congressional District. Through a dedicated community-wide effort, Itasca has earned the designation of an International Safe Community from the World Health Organization. This impressive effort places Itasca at the forefront of public health and safety efforts as the only Illinois community, and one of only five communities across the nation to receive this prestigious designation. By developing community programs including self defense classes, home safety inspections, an unused prescription drug disposal program, investing in defibrillator equipment and training, and establishing a Community Emergency Response Team; the Village of Itasca has worked to engage its citizens, first responders, and local leaders in making Itasca a healthier, safer place to live and work. Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, please join me in recognizing the Village of Itasca for achieving this challenging goal and setting an outstanding example for all Illinois communities to work together to tackle public health and safety challenges.