Peter Roskam

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding. You know, the gentleman from Rhode Island said he was astounded, and he was bemoaning, and wondering who people like me represent. Well, folks that I represent have a very high expectation of this Congress, and the expectation is that it's a Congress that is going to live up to and match the rhetoric of the campaign of 2006. The campaign of 2006, you recall, was a campaign that seemed to focus on living within our means. I didn't hear, as one speaker on the other side of the aisle, the hue and cry of the American people to come up with a new program. I heard the hue and cry of people within my district to live within the means of government. I am informed that right now the budget of the Department of Housing and Urban Development is on the order of $35 billion. When I go back to the Sixth District of Illinois, they are not bemoaning, they are not astounded. They have an expectation that we are going to live within our means, that within $35 billion, not $5 billion, not 10, not 15, not 20, not 25, not 30, but $35 billion, that the taxpayers have entrusted to us, that somehow that's not enough, and that the only way that this problem can get solved is by going to create another fund, another fund that somehow isn't going to have new Federal employees, somehow is going to be cut out of whole cloth and, counterintuitively, from my point of view, is going to create a higher cost of housing borrowing on the very people that we are trying to help. Well, the district that I represent has the expectation that we will do the right thing, that we won't get caught up in a demagogy and sound bites and so forth, but that we will look clearly at the bills that are before us. In this case, with all due respect to the well-intentioned sponsors, this bill falls short, and we can do better.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Richard ``Dick'' McCann for receiving the Distinguished Citizens Award from the Three Fires Council of the Boy Scouts of America. Dick first began his journey as a Cub Scout, where he quickly learned to love the adventure of the outdoors. A few years later, as a Boy Scout, Dick had the opportunity to attend the three-week-long National Jamboree in Anaheim, California. Through his experiences as a Boy Scout, Dick developed the perseverance that has helped him achieve so much as a business and community leader in later life. Dick's strong moral grounding and commitment to hard work were instrumental as he set out to begin his career. With $1,500 borrowed from family, friends and neighbors, Dick started a construction company in a one-car garage in Villa Park. Under his visionary leadership, McCann Construction Specialties Company soon grew into McCann Industries, directly employing more than 150 individuals in my congressional district. Their economic activity indirectly supports the jobs of countless others. Dick McCann and McCann Industries are a prime example of the hard work and productivity that sets American businesses apart in the global marketplace. As Dick's experience and industry expertise became apparent, he was tapped by his peers to serve as a board member of the Underground Contractors Association and the Concrete Contractors Association of Greater Chicago, as well as President of the Associated Construction Distributors International and President of the Illinois Equipment Distributors. Although Dick retired from McCann Industries several years ago, he has left an indelible mark on both the company and the construction industry at large, working to build a corporate culture of integrity that reflects his many years of involvement with the Boy Scouts. McCann Industries continues to set the standard for construction businesses. In addition to his professional accolades, Dick serves an executive board member and sits on the facilities committee of the Three Fires Council of the Boy Scouts of America. He has devoted countless hours to planning the Council's new Cub Scout Adventure Camp and I am confident that this endeavor, like everything Dick has set his mind to, will be a tremendous success. Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, Dick McCann, a remarkable individual, is being deservedly honored with the Distinguished Citizens Award. Please join me in honoring this outstanding achievement.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I find it ironic, actually, that this amendment, which has its merits, is being advanced, but that other amendments that are sort of similarly situated weren't placed in order. For example, this amendment says that in 9 months the GAO is going to be charged with the responsibility, essentially, of looking back for the past 9 months and looking at the impact on State insurance programs. Great. Really no argument there. But if looking back is a good idea, isn't looking forward a good idea too? Isn't a prospective look forward at the possibility something that we ought to be doing? I just find it concerning that we're willing to put a potential program, put the brakes on a potential program and be reflective, when we, at this very moment in time, as we sit here today, as we stand here today, we have the opportunity to accomplish this task by asking the GAO to look forward and look at the impact of this. This is part of the amendments that were, unfortunately, ruled out of order and were not allowed to be brought to the House and we're going to be denied an opportunity to have an up or down vote on the wind program, as Mr. Hensarling had suggested in his amendment. And yet we're being told, well, you know what, take a glance back after 9 months and let's sort of see how we're doing. And, oh, by the way, we tend to ignore what the GAO says anyway since they've put the National Flood Insurance Program on a high-risk watch list, essentially; and without any managerial changes we're entrusting that group that is on a watch with this great responsibility. And I think this amendment really brings that real concern to mind, that those of us on this side of the aisle were not being given the opportunity to really debate this in totality.

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, have you ever walked by a construction site? When they are putting up big buildings, it is really a sight to behold. And you look down at the foundation upon which they are building. If they are building the house right, they are putting it on a foundation of absolute bedrock. As you are watching them put it together, they are bringing in large pieces of concrete and steel. They are putting it down ever so slowly, ever so slowly, because when they finally put it down on the foundation, it is not going to move again. That is why they are very, very careful. I think today we are missing an opportunity to build on a solid foundation. We have an opportunity to fix a failed and struggling program, and that is the National Flood Insurance Program. That is not bedrock. It is peat moss. It is very, very soft stuff. It has an $18 billion liability right now. Unfortunately, rather than dealing with the flood component, what is happening is that an additional liability is being placed on a program that doesn't have a solid foundation. We are giving additional responsibility in this bill to FEMA without any substantive reforms of FEMA. I know that over the past years, FEMA has been subject to and receives a great deal of criticism with the way in which it conducted itself following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I think that the lost opportunity here is a sad thing. The vast majority, not the overwhelming majority, but the vast majority of claims have been settled in the previous conflict, and now here we have got the chance to fix the flood program. My district wants a flood program that is dynamic and vibrant and solvent and based on a good foundation. As was previously mentioned, the GAO has put the NFIP on a watch list, and yet we are entrusting the NFIP with the new responsibility. That we ought not do.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate Congressman McCarthy's leadership this afternoon and this evening, this opportunity to have a conversation and really to reflect on what it is that we have been sent here to do. I know that I and my colleagues that join me here on the floor, Mr. Speaker, are people that came here as problem solvers. We didn't come here to fight partisan fights. We didn't come here to have sharp elbows. We didn't come here to call people names. But we came here to try to get something done. We represent districts that are really commonsense districts, that have a high expectation of this process. I know that all of us who are on the floor today, we don't celebrate in the very low view that the American public has of the Congress under this current leadership. We don't celebrate in that at all. In fact, we mourn that in many ways, because there has been a real lack of leadership and a lack of an opportunity. I think whenever you have conversations about how you are doing so far, and this is our third quarterly report that the Republican freshmen are participating in, it is always in the context of looking at what the expectations were as the 2006 elections came about. What was it that people said, that the American people trusted in, that the American people believed in, that the American people cast their votes for? What was it, that rhetoric that called people forth? I think we don't have to go very far to really look at the rhetoric from the 2006 campaign and look at the comparison to the accomplishments in 2007, and you can see why 89 percent of the American public says, ``that's not what I voted for.'' So let's kind of refresh our memories. First off was that we were going to be a very hard-working Congress. The 109th Congress, we were told, was essentially lazy and wasn't accomplishing anything. That was the characterization of the previous Congress under the previous leadership. In fact, we were told that during the next year, Members of the House will be expected in the Capitol for votes each week by 6:30 p.m., and will finish their business by about 2 p.m. on Fridays, we were told by then Minority Whip Hoyer. Well, as it has come into fruition, here we are, it is 5:40 p.m. in Washington, D.C. There is plenty of time for us to be doing substantive work, amending bills, debating bills, considering things. We could all be in committees. And yet the House is quiet today, and here we have this time to be reflecting on what the performance has been. I regret that. My sense is that we are here to work, and we are willing to work, and we are anxious to work. Yet the way that the majority has structured the calendar, there is simply too much time. Of the 21 weeks in session, only six have included five full days of work. That is according to the official website of the Clerk of the House of Representatives. Or, we were told that the Members of the House would have at least 24 hours to examine a bill and a conference report text prior to floor consideration. That is what the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Pelosi, said in her publication, ``A New Direction For America.'' She also said, and it was reported in the Washington Post, that she would insist that bills be made available to the public at least 24 hours before they would be voted on by the full House. Yet the reality, Mr. Speaker, is far different than that. You know, it is one thing to not make a big deal about something in a campaign and then follow through and you keep things the way they are. But it is an entirely different situation to create this overarching sense of expectation, to create this sort of nirvana invitation, to come to this new 110th Congress where everything is fantastic, and you are just going to love serving here. Yet the harsh reality is this: The following bills did not enjoy that generous 24 hours notice: The following bills are H.R. 1, the very first bill of this new Congress. H.R. 1 did not enjoy a 24 hour notice period. Now, let's think about it. Is 24 hour notice the biggest deal in the world? No, frankly, it is not. It is not the biggest deal in the world. There is a little bit of process argument to it and there is a little bit of inside baseball feel to it. But the point is the current majority leadership created the expectation that 24-hour notice was going to be the standard. So here are just a few things: H.R. 1, H.R. 2, H.R. 3, H.R. 4, all of the first bills, no 24-hour notice. H. Res. 35, the intelligence oversight authority, not the ability to have 24-hour notice. H. Res. 296, H. Con. Res. 63, and on and on and on, no 24-hour notice. Or we were told by Mrs. Pelosi in the last election cycle, she is quoted as saying, ``Rules governing floor debate must be reported before 10 p.m. for a bill to be considered the following day.'' That sounds great. But the problem, you see, is that the Democrat majority leadership hasn't followed through on that. According to this report which was put together fairly quickly, nine bills with the twinkling of an aye haven't enjoyed that notice. As we are moving forward and considering this, my district is sort of interested in the process, Mr. Speaker, but they are really interested in the substance of this Congress. This is a group that is now in the leadership and now in the majority that made very clear promises about what, fiscal discipline and fiscal responsibility. And those are things that deeply resonate in the district I represent. This is what Mrs. Pelosi said. She said, ``Democrats are committed to ending years of irresponsible budget policies that have produced historic benefits.'' Additionally, she said, ``We will work to lead the House of Representatives with a commitment to integrity, to civility, and to fiscal responsibility.'' That sounds fantastic. You go door to door in the Sixth Congressional District in Illinois, you go door to door in Mrs. Bachmann's district, you go door to door in Mr. McCarthy's district in California, and you say I am going to stand for fiscal responsibility, and they say, hip hip hurray, go to Congress. You go do the right thing. But where the breakdown has happened or the disconnect has happened is when people say, hey, I voted for fiscal responsibility. I voted for fiscal discipline. That's how I cast my vote last November. And now they come into the third quarter of this year and all of a sudden they realize that is not happening. That is not even close to happening. Oh, they are spending money like there is no tomorrow. That is how this majority has approached the budget situation. Do you remember the conversation we had on the earmark process on this House floor, Mr. Speaker? Earmarks are those abilities to sort of put a little Post-it note in an appropriations bill, and the note says this money is going to be spent on this particular program in this particular way. There are some people who say all earmarks are bad. I don't necessarily think that is true, but I think all earmarks should be transparent. People should have the ability to look at the Federal budget, people should have the ability to look at the appropriations bills and look at the work of Congress and say, who is behind that spending item, what is motivating that person, and where is it going. Well, what we were told is that these earmarks would be transparent. In fact, we were told throughout the course of the 2006 campaign what the Democratic leadership wanted to do was completely transcend the earmark process and open it up to sunshine and goodness and light. But the reality was much different than that. The reality was it was the Republican minority in this Chamber that had to fight tooth and nail on this floor to drive the appropriations process open so that earmarks were transparent because the way it was originally set up was that we were told that all we could do was simply write a letter if we had an objection to an earmark to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. That is simply not good enough. So as we are reflecting today and looking about at what is it, how is it that an institution that is to be celebrated, an institution that is to be admired, an institution that is to be respected, is now down at an approval rating at an all-time low? I regret that. I am sad about that. I don't celebrate in that. I think what has happened is the American people have come to the conclusion that the rhetoric of the Democrat majority, the rhetoric of the leadership of the Democratic Party, the rhetoric of the last campaign simply doesn't match with the reality of what they are seeing in Congress. And so the promise to make this the most ethical group in history hasn't come to fruition. The promise to be fiscally disciplined has not come to fruition. The promise to make this process open and accessible to all hasn't come to fruition. I think that, Mr. Speaker, in large part is why we are now at this historic low of 11 percent. I think we can do better. I think there are some of us who are on the floor this afternoon and evening who want to be problem solvers. There are some of us who want to get things done. There are some of us who understand that living within our means means making fundamental choices and decisions. We were elected as leaders, and yet sometimes there is a temptation, which I sense on the majority side that they simply want to kick the can down the lane and have another Congress make the tough decisions. Mr. Speaker, I was sent here to make tough choices and I stand ready with these good colleagues. We are here calling balls and strikes. We don't come in as harsh critics of everything. We are not simply here about donkeys and elephants necessarily, but we are here talking about those things that ought to bring us together as Americans, and that is the ability to work together towards solutions, to make the tough choices now and not defer them to future generations.

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think one of the things that is upon us is this time, Mr. Speaker, that we are in as a country right now and we are really in, essentially, a time of choosing. And there are great weighty issues that are before us as a Nation. There are great challenges that we face today, and yet this Congress is not taking up those challenges. Let me give you an example. Today, we have the free market. That is something to be celebrated and something to be heralded and something to be defended, because the free market has brought about more prosperity for this country, for more people than the world has ever known. Yet, in many ways, the free market is under attack. And so this Congress, if it chose to, could stand up and defend the free market and celebrate the free market and say we are going to stand by the free market. But, no, actually there has been an attitude that has crept into this Congress that says, no, no, no, the free market is something that brings people down. The free market is something that is to bring suspicion on people and ought not to be celebrated. Or, that other thing that we are dealing with, and that is that notion of energy independence. This Congress, if it chose to, could come together in a bipartisan way and create the environment where we strive towards energy independence, where we are not dependent on a complicated and difficult part of the world, Mr. Speaker, and that is the Middle East; where we are not dependent on them for our economic vitality and, ironically, for our national security; where we are not funding in many ways indirectly the very people that do us harm. This is the time of choosing. I think that the reason that we are seeing that this leadership is at an 11 percent figure, and that is almost hard to do if you think about it, to have almost 9 out of 10 people disapproving of you, is because they have squandered this opportunity to deal seriously with these issues.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Central States Trucking Company of Bensenville, Illinois, for being named one of the top 5,000 privately owned businesses in America by Inc. Magazine. The Inc. 5000 list highlights the fastest growing companies in the country. Madam Speaker, companies like this are the backbone of the U.S. economy and an integral part of my Congressional District. With a growth rate of 67%, Central States Trucking Company is a fine example of the hard work and productivity that sets American businesses apart in the global marketplace. Central States Trucking Company is a family-owned business that directly employs more than 300 individuals. Their economic activity indirectly supports the jobs of countless others. Under the visionary leadership of President Doug Grane, Central States Trucking is on track to grow revenues to nearly $42 million. Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, please join me in recognizing this outstanding achievement. I am proud to represent Central States Trucking Company in the United States House of Representatives and wish them all the best in the future.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Quality Float Works of Schaumburg, Illinois, for being named one of the top 5000 privately owned businesses in America by Inc. Magazine. The Inc. 5,000 list highlights the fastest growing companies in the country. Madam Speaker, companies like this are the backbone of the U.S. economy and an integral part of my Congressional District. With a growth rate of 50%, Quality Float Works is a fine example of the hard work and productivity that sets American businesses apart in the global marketplace. Quality Float Works is a family-owned business dating back to 1915. Despite the many challenges currently facing the U.S. manufacturing industry at large, Quality Float Works' reputation for providing exceptional products and complete customer satisfaction has helped them to grow and thrive. Under the visionary leadership of President Sandra Westlund-Deenihan and Vice President Jason Speer, Quality Float Works continues to shine as an outstanding American small business. Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, please join me in recognizing this remarkable achievement. I am proud to represent the employees and customers of Quality Float Works in the United States House of Representatives and wish them all the best in the future.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the commencement of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of introspection, fasting and spiritual renewal. Throughout the entire ninth month of the Islamic calendar year, Muslims demonstrate their devotion to God by fasting from sunrise until sunset. The holy month of Ramadan is also an important time for Muslim families and communities as they join together in expression of their devotion. Many Muslims take the month of September to seek physical and spiritual renewal. In fact, more than 25,000 Muslims in my Congressional District observe this celebration to mark their steadfast commitments to faith, peace, family and heritage. Madam Speaker and distinguished colleagues, please join me in honoring the celebration of the month of Ramadan and wishing Muslims a peaceful and blessed holiday.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, last month I was humbled and honored to introduce a resolution honoring the goals and ideals of Gold Star Mothers Day. In 1940, FDR designated the last Sunday in September as Gold Star Mothers Day to commemorate the tremendous sacrifice these courageous mothers have endured on behalf of our Nation. This year Gold Star Mothers Day will be held on September 30. This brave group of women have turned their personal tragedy into patriotism and caring service. I want to take this opportunity to pay special tribute to Georgette Frank of Elk Grove Village, Illinois. Her son, Phil, enlisted in the Marine Corps right out of high school in response to the September 11 attacks, and paid the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom. Phil believed that the best way to keep America safe was to take the fight to the terrorists. And the last time he saw his mom he said, ``Be strong, Mom. No matter what happens, you be strong.'' That's exactly what Georgette has done. Phil and his family represent the best and the bravest that our country has to offer. Many other courageous families have paid this ultimate sacrifice, one we cannot ignore. Please join me in thanking Georgette and all the Gold Star Mothers by cosponsoring this important resolution.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise today in strong support of House Resolution 552, a measure calling on the government of the People's Republic of China to remove barriers to the United States financial service firms doing business in China. And I'm pleased to partner with Chairman Frank, Ranking Member Bachus, and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall) on what I think is a really important initiative. Some of my prepared remarks, Mr. Speaker, would be cumulative in light of the gentleman's remarks, but let me just kind of fill in some other aspects and highlight a couple of the points that he made. First of all, these are all commitments that the Chinese Government has made. This is not negotiating a new set of agreements. This is not contemplating something that hasn't literally been agreed to before. All we're doing in this resolution is putting the Chinese Government on notice, A, that we're watching; and, B, that we have expectation that they're going to do exactly what they committed themselves to do. Secondly, you know, if you look at what the gentleman from Georgia described, that is, the Chinese economy, there are some that suggest that of 1.3 billion individuals, Mr. Speaker, only 1 million Chinese individuals currently have use of credit cards in China, compared to 480 million people who have access to cell phones. Now, if you begin to think about where this can go, right now the Chinese economy is somewhat held back in a way, because the Chinese consumers and the Chinese financial markets don't have these kinds of tools, and they have a savings rate that almost takes our breath away. About a third of the savings, you know, they're saving at about 33 percent, which, what does that mean? That means that those dollars or that currency is not available to purchase things, particularly from the United States, which, as the gentleman pointed out, creates a very difficult situation in terms of our trade deficit. I view the Chinese economy almost like a potted plant, Mr. Speaker; a plant that, at first glance, may look to be flourishing, but over a period of time, as that plant matures, and as it develops, it reaches a point at which the roots need to go deeper. And I think that this is the point in the Chinese economic growth where China's roots need to go deeper. They need to go deeper into the ground. And our financial services sector, Mr. Speaker, is robust and dynamic, and offers something that I think is a great opportunity. But the unnatural truncating, the unnatural prohibition of the Chinese Government of prohibiting American firms to come in, I think, ultimately has a negative impact on our economy, has a negative impact on our growth, and certainly has a negative impact on the 700 million people who are in China and who are still living in poverty. And I just want to highlight an aspect of this that has an impact on my district, because I represent a district outside of Chicago that employs about 68,000 individuals, about 1,100 manufacturing firms, who are really suffering and struggling based on the currency manipulation issue that the gentleman outlined. This is a way out. This is a way to move forward. And I think it is incumbent upon us, and I very much appreciate the gentleman's work on this in a bipartisan way. It is incumbent upon us to move forward and to urge and cajole and push and give a sharp word to the Chinese Government that they need to make these reforms and do these things to which they've previously committed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I don't have any additional speakers. Let me just yield myself another minute or two just to say this in closing. We have before us, really, two competing economic systems that are playing out essentially. We have our system, which has a very high view of the individual, free people making free decisions within a free market. That is the great strength of the American system. We show great deference and great respect to the free market on balance. China, however, is in some sort of transition right now, where they've not had that high view of the individual. They've not had that high view of the free market, and they're beginning this process of more or less dabbling in it. This is the call for them to stop the dabbling, as it relates to the financial services sector, and to fully embrace those things, those concepts that they propound around the world. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2358, the Native American $1 Coin Act, and urge its immediate passage. The legislation before us is essentially identical to a bill that passed the House in June by a voice vote, with minor changes made by the other body. H.R. 2358 complements the Presidential $1 Coin Act that passed in the last Congress thanks to the hard work and leadership of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). Like that program and the very popular 50-State quarter program, it will provide an enormous educational opportunity for parents and teachers, while also recognizing the immense and important contributions of Native Americans to the history of the United States. Passage of this legislation also could save taxpayers more than half a billion dollars over the next decade. When Congress passed the Presidential $1 Coin Act in December of 2005, it contained a requirement that a third of all dollar coins minted each year bear the design of the Sacagawea coin that first was issued in 2000. The requirement was intended to keep the image and the memory of Sacagawea in people's minds while the mint issues presidential dollars. Unfortunately, through no fault of the design or its subject, there is no real demand for the dollar coin with an unchanging design. At the current rate of issue of presidential coins, the mint would have to make 300 to 350 million of the current design Sacagawea dollars every year, resulting in some $60 million of material and labor costs per year, not counting storage for the unused coins. Under H.R. 2358, the current Sacagawea design would appear on the front of 20 percent of all dollar coins. Similar to the changing design of quarters and presidential dollars, the reverse of the Sacagawea coin would be different each year, honoring such contributions to American history as the Iroquois Confederacy, the Cherokee written language, the code talkers who served the U.S. Army so heroically in both world wars, and individuals such as Olympian Jim Thorpe. Let me close by congratulating the lead sponsor of the legislation, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and by thanking Chairman Frank for bringing the bill to the floor today. I urge passage of H.R. 2358, and I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to an outstanding program in my congressional district, the Sixth District of Illinois. It is the Mayor for a Day Essay Contest hosted and sponsored by the Character Counts in Elmhurst Coalition in Elmhurst, Illinois. This year's winner, a winner from among 1,000 entries of first through eighth graders, is Katie Knopf. When asked the question, what should a person living in Elmhurst do and what should their responsibility be, she said to work as much as she possibly can on her schoolwork, to do volunteer work to contribute to the community. ``It is my responsibility,'' she said, ``to set a good example for the younger children in my neighborhood. All in all, I need to be a good and caring person.'' Indeed, Katie. Well done. Good advice for us all.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, when you come here and represent the Great Lakes and you meet Representatives from all across the country, you meet folks from the east coast and the west coast, you begin having conversations about the water that surrounds their districts. I talk to Californians and people from Oregon and South Carolina, and they are very proud of their coastlines, as they should be. And as a Member who represents a Western district, you try and describe the Great Lakes to them, and it is really difficult to describe. And then you have someone come and visit and they look at Lake Michigan and they look at Lake Superior and Huron and Ontario and Lake Erie, and it takes their breath away because these are beautiful bodies of water. Lake Michigan is so big and so significant that my almost entire congressional district gets its drinking water from Lake Michigan. So you can imagine the sense of pause and outrage and deep concern that many of us felt when we heard of this plan that BP had that was approved by the State of Indiana to move forward and dump these pollutants into Lake Michigan. Madam Speaker, my district counts on the fact that drinking water is going to be as pure and clear as this cup when they open up the tap, and I think it is incumbent upon us on both sides of the aisle to stand today and to say this will not stand. Madam Speaker, my predecessor, Congressman Hyde, had a great line. He said there is one thing worse than gridlock when it comes to government, and that is the greased chute of decision-making. Our role in Congress today is to stand up and to suggest and demand of the Environmental Protection Agency and demand of the State of Indiana that they rescind this order. With that, I am pleased to support the resolution.

Mr. ROSKAM

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

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I offer this motion to recommit with instructions, and it surrounds the general topic of student loan forgiveness. As we know, student loan forgiveness programs seek to help students with the cost of college or encourage them to enter a particular occupation or field. This was first put in place back in 1958 in the National Defense Education Act, and it was reenacted and made part of the Perkins loan program, and it provides forgiveness largely for borrowers who are employed in a specific public service job, including teachers, but over the years has added others as well. I would like to read a short list of those who are currently eligible under various programs for student loan forgiveness. They include: Public school teachers; Head Start staff, whether teachers or not; special education teachers; military members in combat areas; volunteers in the Peace Corps; law enforcement officers; correction officers; teachers in specific areas who are teaching in math, science, foreign language or bilingual education; nurses; medical technicians; child care providers; family service agency workers; researchers at NIH; health professionals in the National Health Service Corps; AmeriCorp volunteers; National Civilian Corps volunteers; and VISTA volunteers. These loan forgiveness programs are so popular, in fact, that 43 States currently have them. Congressional Research Service not long ago surveyed a whole host of financial aid officials across the country and came to the conclusion that these are very effective programs in meeting students' financial needs and particular workforce needs. Earlier this year, the House took on the challenge to expand loan forgiveness for prosecutors and public defenders, and clearly there is a good public purpose behind that. But now under the bill, Mr. Speaker, basically anyone who works for the government or a nonprofit organization would be eligible for loan forgiveness. I repeat that. Basically anyone who works for the government or a nonprofit organization would be eligible for loan forgiveness. So what does that mean? Does that mean that Members of Congress would be eligible for loan forgiveness? I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker, but nobody sent me here to expand loan forgiveness eligibility for Members of Congress. And, in fact, Members of Congress are eligible under this bill. Are members of State legislatures eligible for loan forgiveness under this bill? Yes. Are registered lobbyists who work for nonprofit organizations, are they eligible? Yes. Mr. Speaker, I would like us to look at some of the CEOs of nonprofit organizations and reflect on their compensation and how that would play into this eligibility question. According to the Charity Navigator, the former head of Planned Parenthood Federation of America made over half a million dollars, $500,000, and would that person be eligible? Yes, as would John Adams, the president of the Natural Resources Defense Counsel who makes almost $300,000 a year. The National Journal reported in 2004 that the median compensation for think tanks was $264,000 a year. Or how about this, $227,000 for education, government and welfare organizations. Does anybody really believe that these individuals need this kind of support from the taxpayers? My point is that this new blanket program for nonprofit organizations will give a number of well-to-do individuals a government handout that they don't need and our constituents should not have to fund. So the real question is whether this is the highest and best use of taxpayer dollars. Mr. Speaker, I would submit that it is not, so this motion to recommit is very simple. It would prohibit a borrower who is an elected full-time public official and is paid for that position, as well as a paid registered lobbyist at either the State or Federal level, from receiving any of the loan forgiveness available under this act, period. Very simple, very clear. I think we should speak clearly to the American taxpayers that we as elected officials are not trying to create some unfair advantage for ourselves, that we are not trying to reward ourselves, or our elected colleagues, nor any registered lobbyist, by giving away their hard- earned taxpayer dollars to pay off student debts. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment or to at least set some parameters of this big government program under this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 477 and am pleased to join with my friend from Indiana and am delighted that we are taking time on the floor today to commemorate homeownership in America. Recognizing the many benefits of owning a home, the President designated June as National Homeownership Month as he has done for the past 6 years. To complement this designation, H. Res. 477 was introduced by the gentleman from California (Gary G. Miller) to recognize that designation and the importance of homeownership in the United States. Owning a home is a fundamental part of the American Dream, with economic security and hard work being rewarded. Homeownership is much more than knowing that one has a roof and four walls to shelter one's family. It is the symbol of the American Dream, and it forms the bedrock of our communities. Many of my colleagues celebrate the designation of this month as National Homeownership Month because in America every citizen, regardless of race, creed, color, or place of birth has the opportunity to own a home of their own. Today, the national homeownership rate in the United States has reached a record high, about 70 percent; and more than half of all minority families are homeowners. While many gains have been made, minority homeownership rates still lag. With minority households expected to account for two-thirds of household growth over the coming decade, improving the ability of such households to make a transition to homeownership will be an important test of our Nation's capacity to create economic opportunities for minorities and immigrants and to build strong, stable communities. Buying a home is the largest personal investment most families will ever make. For the vast majority of families, the purchase of a home represents the path to prosperity. A home is a tangible asset that builds equity, good credit, borrowing power, and overall wealth. Not only does homeownership provide economic security for building wealth over time; it also strengthens and builds communities. Homeownership creates community stakeholders and inspires civic responsibility. People who own a home tend to be more active in charities, churches, neighborhood activities and more likely to vote and get involved with their community's growth, safety and development. Further, families owning a home offer children a stable living environment, influencing their personal development in many positive, measurable ways both at home and in school. Without homeowners, neighborhoods, schools and local businesses suffer. Homeownership helps fuel the economy. This happens mostly through people who spend money for home improvements. I hope Congress will continue to explore new ways to put people on the path to homeownership so more Americans can realize its benefits. In closing, it is apparent that the Federal Government, consumers and the housing industry are linked by our mutual goal of creating housing opportunities for more Americans. And although significant strides have been made, we still have much more work to do to achieve together for the American people, and our best hope of being successful is to work in close concert with each other. As Congress considers future action to make homeownership more secure and available, we need to take care not to hamper the market's ability to provide opportunities for homeownership, and that way we can continue to open our communities and neighborhoods to new opportunities for growth and prosperity. The resolution before us, H. Res. 477, recognizes the importance of homeownership in America and dedicates the House of Representatives to fostering an atmosphere conducive to community development and increased homeownership opportunities. Congress has a real opportunity here to forge a better America, an America where homeownership and security abounds. I know we all look forward to continue to work to further the American Dream, and I hope my colleagues will join with me and my colleague, Mr. Donnelly, and join in supporting this important resolution that does just that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I simply rise and urge the passage of House Resolution 477. I have no other speakers seeking recognition and, with that, yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to take you back, because I know as you are sitting there today you have an independent recollection of what it was like to come here in your first term. Many of us in this Chamber came just in January, took the oath of office, and now what we find is that every week is a new week, all new process we are learning. So we come in, those of us who are not appropriators, we come into our conference, and we hear this is the appropriations week. Wow, sit down with our staff, staff gets us up to speed, and we hear about earmarks, heard about them a lot in the campaign, and start to get the staff briefing on what are the tools that we have in earmarks. I heard a lot about them. If you talked to people in Illinois' Sixth Congressional District tonight, and they are awake, and you asked them about earmarks, you would get their attention. They would focus. It was a symbol of an abuse of the process. So when you sit down as a freshman and your staff comes in, they say, Congressman, this is what you do. You can offer amendments. You can argue with these things. You can challenge them on the floor. As iron sharpens iron, so one makes another better. So that process, that winnowing process, is what this is all about. That's what every Member has the right to do, except now, because now what ends up happening is our staff tells us, oh, no, but there is this new process, Congressman. What you get to do is you get to write a letter. Oh, yes, you get to write a letter to the chairman of the committee; and the chairman of the committee is going to open up that letter, and he's going to make a decision about the merits of you, an independent elected Member of Congress. That is who you get to talk to. You don't get to argue on the House floor. You don't get to light up 435 people. You don't get to talk to millions of people. You get to write one letter. That's where you get to go. You know, if you think about that, that's absurd. There are all kinds of great things in this bill. No doubt about it. My prior colleague from the State of Illinois articulated many good things in this bill. It's my hope that we can come together and drive towards those things. But to act as if the earmark process is insignificant is really patronizing. It's patting people on the head and saying, off with you, be lively, you get to write your letter to the chairman, and the chairman will make a declaration on whether it's a good idea or a bad idea. Well, one of our colleagues on the Internet recently said this. He said, to his constituents, he said, I will remain no one's Congressman but yours. Doesn't that sound great? I mean, that's great stuff, that's rich. You know, that is rich in the Chamber of Commerce meetings; that's rich in front of the Rotary groups; that's rich in front of the coffee groups. And you go door to door, I'm going to be your Congressman. But you know what? You end up ceding that responsibility. You end up ceding that opportunity to one person, and that's only if you are lucky enough that he reads your mail. Well, I say ``no'' to that. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Roskam