Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, listen. Listen with me and see if we can hear the sounds of jobs. Shhh, shhh, shhh, shhh. You gotta listen real close. Quiet. Well, I'm not hearing anything.

The administration told us in this House months ago that if the American people stood in favor of the stimulus package that unemployment would peak at 8 percent, and yet here in Illinois, the State that I represent, we've now eclipsed 10 percent.

We were told that the cost curve would be broken if only we would follow the administration's health care plan and it would be the salvation of small business, and yet the Congressional Budget Office came into the Ways and Means Committee last week, Mr. Speaker, and said that was dead wrong.

The question that has to be asked and has to be answered is one that we've heard no answer today from the other side: Where are the jobs?

There are no jobs. This is an administration that has pumped sunshine for months and has failed to follow through, and we ought not follow these brake lights right over the cliff.

We know what we need to do, and that is stand for small business and vote against this plan.

A few years ago, my predecessor, Congressman Henry Hyde, started a great program. It was an initiative to invite young men and women to participate in a civic conversation. It's in Elmhurst, Illinois, and it's a Mayor for a Day program.

I am pleased to announce that Brad Martin of Brian Middle School was the winner of the Mayor for a Day program. I won't read his whole essay. You can go to my Web site and check it out.

But essentially he said that if he were a mayor for a day, he would start a CARE program, which essentially stands for Caring and Respecting Everyone. I think in this day and this age in the 111th Congress, all of us can learn from the wisdom of Brad Martin.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Republican standards on disclosure for Member project requests, I am submitting the following information regarding a project I support for inclusion in H.R. 2996, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

Congressman Peter J. Roskam: H.R. 2996, Environmental Protection Agency, STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project account for the Tubeway Drive Storm Water Lift Station Rehabilitation Project in Carol Stream, Illinois. The entity to receive funding for this project is the Village of Carol Stream, 500 North Gary Avenue, Carol Stream, IL 60188. It is my understanding that the funding would be used to rehabilitate and replace a 35-year-old storm water lift station at the end of its useful life. The Tubeway Drive Storm Water Lift Station is showing signs of corrosion, and is in need of desperate repair to alleviate flooding in the village. Under this rehabilitation project, the lift station will be totally replaced with new more efficient pumps, valving, backup systems and structures. Replacing the station in a timely manner will ensure storm water flows are effectively managed, preventing flood damage losses. Carol Stream has demonstrated a good- faith cost share in the project, providing a 45% commitment of matching funds. Severe flooding has plagued the village in the last year. Rains in September 2008 submerged 50 homes and damaged 400. This was followed in December by more rain, melting snow, and another round of flooding. Even last week the Daily Herald reported on how Carol Stream has had to deal with ``severe flooding in several areas.'' This timely funding will bring much-needed relief to my constituents.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

You know what's happening in suburban Chicago is there are businesses who are really in a touch-and-go position right now. They are treading water. They are barely keeping their heads above the surface of the water. And what they expect from this Congress is for us to come along and literally throw them a lifeline. But you know what this bill is? This bill is a bowling ball. It comes along, it says, Hey, there you go. Hit that with a thud right on your chest. Deal with it, because we are debating ideology today.

My district says let's do the right thing, let's do the transformational thing, but let's not give our markets over to the Chinese, where they have clearly said they are not in this game. Let's not give our markets over to the Indians where they say they are not in this game. Let's not put an additional $3,100 tax on a family of four. Let's offer a lifeline to the American public. Let's pull the plug on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, when the gentlelady from California says that we are fully funding the administration's request, that is true. I accept that at face value. But what if the administration is wrong? What if they have made the wrong request? Remember, this is an administration that has said Iran has legitimate nuclear ambitions. No, they don't. There is no legitimate pursuit of nuclear power in Iran; it is all for an evil and despicable purpose.

This is an administration that got it wrong on the Iranian dissidents and has sort of back-pedaled over the past several days and recast their support of the dissidents when they really missed the mark. So I take the gentlelady at face value that they are fully funding the request; but in my opinion, the request is wrong.

The gentleman from Arizona is right: this is an aggressive regime that ought not to be coddled. This is an effort to make sure that all of us are safe, and this is a sacred duty. I urge the adoption of the Franks amendment.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Republican standards on disclosure for Member project requests, I am submitting the following information regarding projects I support for inclusion in H.R. 2487, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010.

Congressman Peter J. Roskam: H.R. 2487, Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Grant Programs account for the Hanover Park Police Department Rapid Response to School Violence Program. The entity to receive the $48,000 in funding for this project is the Hanover Park Police Department, 2121 W. Lake Street, Hanover Park, IL 60133. It is my understanding that the funding would be used for the Department to enhance its response to school violence capabilities through purchase of equipment, training, and realistic exercises. This funding is desperately needed to equip the Hanover Park Police Department to better be able to respond to threats of school violence, particularly in light of the recent and sudden increase in teen and gang shootings. The Hanover Park Police Department plans to enhance its response to school violence capabilities through purchase of equipment, training, and realistic exercises. This training would be used for all sworn department members in a series of simulated situations of police response to active shooters in schools. Included in the request is funding for purchase of training weapons, and tactical equipment, and armored security gear for use in both drills and actual incident response. The Hanover Park Police Department has demonstrated a willingness to be a regional resource, and has positioned itself to provide mutual aid to surrounding municipalities and even other states. The Department's School Familiarization Program was featured in a June 2008 Law and Order article, and has served as a model for other departments across the country.

Congressman Peter J. Roskam: H.R. 2487, Department of Justice, COPS Law Enforcement Technology Program account for the Northern Illinois Police Alarm System Atmospheric Detection Equipment. The entity to receive the $675,000 in funding for this project is the Glencoe Department of Public Safety, 675 Village Court, Glencoe, IL 60022. It is my understanding that the funding from this joint request with Congresswoman Bean would be used to acquire atmospheric Detection Equipment for the NIPAS regional mutual aid response trained officers. The Northern Illinois Police Alarm System (NIPAS) Emergency Services Team (EST) is a mutual aid organization that is responsible for law enforcement coverage of 68 member towns with a total population of approximately 1.8 million residents. In Illinois' 6th Congressional District, the acquisition of this equipment will directly benefit the municipalities of Bartlett, Elk Grove Village, Elmhurst, Hanover Park, Mount Prospect, Roselle, Streamwood, and Villa Park. This funding will be used to acquire atmospheric Detection Equipment for the NIPAS EST mutual aid response trained officers. Member Police Departments and the NIPAS EST have identified a lacking atmospheric detection capability. Atmospheric detection equipment is needed to allow NIPAS law enforcement officers the ability to respond to crimes or other incidents involving hazardous environments, explosive devices, arson materials, and narcotics. NIPAS will administer this program which will provide coverage for 68 member communities in the counties of Lake, Cook, DuPage, McHenry and Will Counties. Ensuring that NIPAS officers have the Atmospheric detection technology they need will: protect police officers who are the first to respond to Hazmat related accidents/crime scenes and methamphetamine related crime scenes; decrease the response time of officers to hazmat accidents/crime scenes; increase public safety, and provide valuable atmospheric samples that can later be used for criminal prosecutions. This shared resource will leverage taxpayer dollars toward a more efficient procurement of this atmospheric detection equipment.

Congressman Peter J. Roskam: H.R. 2487, Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Grant Programs account for the Advocate Good Samaritan Hospital Domestic Violence Program. The entity to receive the $75,000 in funding for this project is Advocate Health Care, 2025 Windsor Drive, Oakbrook, IL 60523. It is my understanding that the funding would be used to strengthen and expand the Hospital's domestic violence program through greater outreach and enhanced collaboration with more area police departments. With the growing numbers of reported domestic violence in DuPage County and throughout Illinois' 6th Congressional district, Advocate Good Samaritan Hospital (AGSH) seeks to further strengthen and expand its domestic violence program to ensure that current and expected needs are met. In addition, with this funding AGSH will be able to expand its collaborative efforts with local police departments to include Lombard and Wheaton, complementing its current interaction with Downers Grove. Additionally, AGSH will enhance training both internally and for local agencies that serve as strategic points of entry: emergency departments, local police departments, and faith-based organizations. The federal government has recognized the serious public health threat that domestic violence poses to society through its Healthy People 2010 objectives, and the federal government has sought and is seeking a reduction in the rate of physical assault by current or former intimate partners. AGSH seeks to help achieve this important federal objective. This project meets the objectives of the Bureau of Justice Assistance by encouraging the development and implementation of strategies to reduce and prevent crime and violence, drawing in community participation, and providing technical assistance.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, you know, watching the attitude and really this spending adventure that the majority has taken on really reminds me of somebody that's paving a highway, and what they have done is they want to completely flatten out any opposition to really runaway Federal spending, just absolutely no restraining influence whatsoever, Mr. Speaker.

So here you have a group of House Republicans who are trying to articulate a sense of restraint. We are hearing from our constituents who are incredibly concerned about the pace of spending. And yet the speed bumps that we offered have been completely flattened out.

I offered an amendment which would have said, look, the Speaker of the House recently accused people of committing a Federal crime, a crime that is punishable, if true, by 5 years in prison. The amendment that I offered that met the previously articulated preprinting requirement would have said we're going to allocate money to the Department of Justice to investigate this accusation of a Federal crime. And yet what does the majority do late at night in the wee hours when nobody's watching? Being completely intimidated by an open and robust debate.

This rule is really an incredible disappointment. I think it's an incredible insult, frankly, to the American public that wants to talk about spending and is weary of the attitude that has come through from the majority.

We know what we need to do. We need to stand up for the American taxpayer, stand up for our children, stand up for our grandchildren, who are being saddled with a legacy of debt, and vote against this rule.

Offered By: Mr. Roskam

Amendment No. 42: In the item relating to ``Department of

Justice--General Administration--Salaries and Expenses''

after ``$118,488,000'' insert ``(increased by $2,000,000)

(reduced by $2,000,000)''.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a dedicated public servant from my Congressional District, Mayor Claudia ``Gigi'' Gruber of Itasca. After twelve years as Mayor, Gigi is stepping down.

In her first experience with elected public office, Gigi served one term as a Village Trustee in Itasca. Then, in May 1997, Gigi was elected Mayor of Itasca. Over the years, Gigi has been an insightful observer, keen in her understanding of the long-term challenges facing the Village. Throughout her career, she has tackled these challenges with deft skill, deep understanding, and strong personal integrity.

While constant change has brought a steady stream of new difficulties for Itasca to confront, one thing has remained the same. Mayor Gruber has kept a steady hand to the wheel, advising the Village Board and working tirelessly for the benefit of the community and her residents.

Gigi Gruber has been an advocate for the people of Itasca since her very first days in office. Gigi truly embodies the meaning of a public servant as she approaches her job with compassion and humility. In her time with the Village, she has shown true leadership to bring economic development to the area. Gigi has improved all of our lives and left an indelible impression on the Village of Itasca.

Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, Gigi Gruber is a remarkable leader who has dedicated her life to serving the people of Itasca. Please join me in recognizing her extraordinary service and wishing her every happiness in her life's upcoming endeavors.

I have an amendment at the desk.

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. Chairman, I first of all, I want to thank the gentleman for his support. And just one other point for the record: The amendment is endorsed by the American Public Transportation Association. I am not aware of any opponents. I appreciate the gentleman's support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.