Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I offered an amendment before the Rules Committee, and unfortunately, it was sort of swatted away in a partisan fashion. I really regret that.

I think that the tone that we hear many times coming from the leadership of this Congress is there is no pride of authorship, there is willingness to listen, and yet, somehow the conduct and the procedure that we have seen coming from the Rules Committee has really fallen short of that soaring rhetoric. Let me give you an example of that.

I offered an amendment which was very straightforward, and it directed the GAO to make sure that the requirements of this bill would not restrict access to credit or increase the cost of credit for small business.

And all it does is it would have delayed the effective date of the legislation until the President determined that the GAO study concluded that there was no extra burden for small business. And if the President differed in his determination, all he had to do was justify it.

So this isn't a power grab, this isn't overstating or overstepping, but what it is saying is, look, we all cumulatively talk about how important small business is. Everybody, when we go back to our districts, when we go to our teletown hall meetings, when we talk to the chambers of commerce and the rotary clubs, everybody talks about how important small business is.

And, yet, there is a very real possibility that the underlying bill that the majority is advancing right now is going to have an adverse effect on credit availability for small business.

Now, we have heard, during the course of this national economic debate and conversation that we have had, that we hold in highest esteem the following groups. We say we are very concerned about the small businessperson. We are very concerned about the entrepreneur. We are very concerned about the self-employed.

And, yet, when an opportunity comes along to stand up for that very group and basically say, whoa, hold on, just a second here, let's be very, very careful when we are changing credit policy that everybody acknowledges is the life and blood of a small business, yet, suddenly, we are just quickly going to run roughshod over that group, when all we are doing is saying let us have a vote on an amendment?

This isn't ramming something down; just have the vote. Just let the people's House decide.

But yet the Rules Committee, Madam Speaker, was very, very dismissive of it and said, no, no, no, we are really not interested in that approach, and we don't even want to hear about it. I think that's regrettable.

I think that this House can do better. I think this rule can be much better than this. What's to be afraid of? What's to be afraid about a vote and a conversation in the people's House, on the floor of the people's House about standing up for small business.

Now, I know that there are other elements of the bill that claim to be helpful to small business. But I will tell

you what, when it comes down to it, if we are that cavalier that we are not willing to have a conversation and a vote, a recorded vote on an amendment that simply says we are going to put a pause button on this to make sure that the GAO looks at this, to make sure it doesn't have an adverse effect on small business, I think it's deeply regrettable.

And notwithstanding the soaring rhetoric that we hear coming from the leadership of the majority, Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the promises, notwithstanding the sort of bumper-sticker mentality that you hear, see out and about in this town, I think it's really regrettable. Here we have this opportunity to stand up for small business, to make sure that they are treated well, and that they are treated with respect and that they have access to the credit that they need.

I think we can do much better. I am, therefore, urging people to vote against the rule.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to thank the gentleman very much, Madam Speaker, for yielding to me.

When the gentleman uses language like allowing, we are allowing a debate, we are allowing certain amendments, I think we can do better than that. Look, 52 amendments were submitted.

That means, do the quick math, that's a whole host of ideas that were just sort of cast aside. We can do better, 17 out of 52. We know we can do better than that.

Let's vote against this rule and come back and do it the right way.

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

I am, in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today because we are having a national conversation about credit, and it is a conversation that has had an impact on each and every one of our congressional districts. It doesn't matter where we are from, it doesn't matter what our background is, credit is inextricably linked to our success as a country.

So here we are, and we have got sponsors who have worked hard, and I want to take my hat off to the sponsors and to the chairman of the committee for taking on a very, very serious work. There are some good things in here, there are some good things in the underlying bill, but I think there is a weakness, and I want to point out the weakness and offer a suggestion.

This is not a ``gotcha'' amendment. This was an idea presented to the Rules Committee, and, unfortunately, it was sort of swatted aside. I think it was a little bit misinterpreted, and that's disappointing. But the great thing about this process is you get another shot at the title. So here we are and we have another opportunity to consider this idea. Here is what it says.

Notwithstanding everything that is in this bill, it doesn't matter what you have been told about it, what has been represented to you, what kind of talking points, what kind of hearings you have heard, what kind of testimony, let's face it, if this falls short and it has an adverse impact on small business, then we have failed. If this has an adverse impact on the biggest job creators in our economy, then we have failed.

So my attitude is look, we all, all of us, talk about how important small business is, how important the entrepreneur is, how important the self-employed are. But ultimately, if we are passing legislation that has an adverse impact on that group's ability to get credit, we have failed.

So what this amendment says, it says, look. What the motion says is take a good hard look at the bill, but hit the pause button, and here is why. Let the Fed look at this, do a study that says it is not going to have an adverse impact on small business.

``Small business'' is a term of art, one that we can all come around. It is not meant to sneak up on anybody. It is not meant to overly characterize anything. But what it says is do the credit card changes, if you will, but make sure we are not having an impact on the small person.

Now, why is this important? Why should we be thinking in terms of a pause button right now? And I want to give you three examples where we cumulatively voted on things that have been presented in one way and they have turned out very differently.

Remember during the bailout debate last fall, remember the drumbeat, the pounding sort of, that pulsing feeling on the House floor and that sense of urgency of you got to pass it, you got to pass it, you got to pass it? Well, what is in it? I don't know, but just pass it and it is all going to be great.

Well, it didn't work out so well. Credit markets haven't been restored and we are still limping along months later.

Remember during the stimulus debate, when we heard from the White House that if we pass this, unemployment was going to peak at 8 percent, the birds were going to be chirping, it was all going to be great and that was going to be the high mark in terms of unemployment? That didn't happen to turn out that way, and we are already at 8.5 percent or beyond.

And most recently in the budget figures we heard represented in the Ways and Means Committee, that the Budget Committee heard, this is what we were told in terms of projections: That real GDP was only going to shrink by 1.2 percent this year. But already this quarter, this last quarter, it is down 6.1 percent.

Now, why do I bring those numbers up? They are important because they are indicators of mischaracterizations of things.

So when people say we are going to fix this credit card situation, my reluctance, and I think the reason there is a little bit of reluctance out there is the suggestion that there is going to be no cost to it and it is all going to be great and it is all going to be roses, and what I am suggesting to you today is that if we fail to protect small business, then we have failed.

Now, you will hear that the NFIB has endorsed it, and endorsed it they have. The NFIB has endorsed it, and I think

in fairness to the NFIB, they have looked at it and they have thought it is okay.

But we can do better. We have an opportunity to raise this to a higher standard. We have a chance today with adopting this simple motion to say it is all well and good, but let's make sure the Fed checks this out and comes back affirmatively.

Now, you might hear there is a study, Congressman, in the bill already. And I would suggest to you that the way the study in the bill is already crafted, it is a retroactive study, right? So it says within 3 months, 6 months of the acceptance date, we need to move forward.

You know what you need to do, and you know we need to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Village of Itasca in my Congressional District. Through a dedicated community-wide effort, Itasca has earned the designation of an International Safe Community from the World Health Organization.

This impressive effort places Itasca at the forefront of public health and safety efforts as the only Illinois community, and one of only five communities across the nation to receive this prestigious designation.

By developing community programs including self defense classes, home safety inspections, an unused prescription drug disposal program, investing in defibrillator equipment and training, and establishing a Community Emergency Response Team; the Village of Itasca has worked to engage its citizens, first responders, and local leaders in making Itasca a healthier, safer place to live and work.

Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, please join me in recognizing the Village of Itasca for achieving this challenging goal and setting an outstanding example for all Illinois communities to work together to tackle public health and safety challenges.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 75th anniversary of the Roselle Lions Club in my Congressional District. On April 26, 2009, the Roselle Lions will mark more than 75 years of dedicated community service.

Through the years, the Lions Club has been instrumental in aiding those with hearing and vision impairments by providing members of the local community in need with hearing aids, glasses, and support groups.

With local events like The Lions Carnival, National Night Out, and the Children's Christmas Party, the Lions Club has raised funds for these worthy causes and provided a fun and safe environment for families to spend time together. The extent of the Roselle Lions' dedication and generosity can be seen in the countless library, school, and civic projects they have supported financially, and with their time and energy.

Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, the Roselle Lions Club has worked tirelessly to make their local community a better place to live, work and raise a family. They have brought compassion to those in need and been a tremendous asset to the citizens of Roselle.

Please join me in recognizing the impressive work of the Roselle Lions Club, and wishing them every success in their next 75 years of fellowship and service.

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

Mr. Chairman, in a nutshell, it's a fairly straightforward amendment. To briefly put it into context, it's trying to follow up on President Obama's inaugural address where he really challenged Congress and the American people to go through the Federal budget line by line, looking carefully at programs. I don't want to put words into the President's mouth, but if I were to paraphrase, I would say that part of the subtext of the challenge is to look where there is possible duplication, and that's what this amendment seeks to do. It respects the underlying legislation and says, well, if we're going to be doing this program--in other words, if we're going to be coordinating the Federal Government's approach to water problems--then let's do it in the context of clarity.

So here is what it says: We're going to have an amendment, and we're going to direct the GAO to do a study about the possible duplication of programs. In the interim, notwithstanding the passage of the bill, it's going to suspend the implementation date of the program to wait until the GAO comes back with the study. If the President finds that there are duplications, he can move forward and waive the underlying findings, but he has got to do it in a declarative way. In other words, he needs to affirmatively move forward and say, ``Look, I've evaluated these duplications, and on balance, I think we should do this,'' or maybe in the alternative he'll say, ``Let's not do it that particular way.''

There are only two programs that are specifically cited as sort of a heads-up to the GAO that they need to take a look at. One is the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which is a current program that the GAO says take a look at or that we tell the GAO to take a look at. The other is the State Water Resources Research Institute Program, which again is flagged, but notwithstanding that, it says to take a look at the other programs that are out there. If there is a duplication, bubble it up to the surface, and let's make a decision from there.

At this point, I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, I thank the gentleman for his comments, Mr. Chairman.

I would just go to the underlying purpose of the legislation, as it's sort of the declared statement of the committee, which is to improve the Federal Government's role in designing and in implementing Federal water research, development, demonstration, data collection and dissemination, education, and technology transfer activities to address changes in the water use, supply and demand in the U.S., including providing additional support to increase water supply through greater efficiency and preservation.

There is one word that isn't in there, and that is the word ``duplication,'' and I think sometimes we all benefit from another perspective coming in. I respect greatly the expertise of the committee, but every once in a while, there's maybe another perspective that could come along that will say: You know what? In the great scheme of things, the pace at which Congress is moving and the pace at which programs are being put in place, let's hit the pause button here, and let's have the GAO go out and really span the spectrum because, in the underlying legislation, it is absolutely silent as to duplicative efforts.

So I accept the criticism at face value. It's a valid argument, but I think that this is an improvement. It's not meant to be an impediment, and clearly, it empowers the President of the United States to waive the finding. I think it's a simple, straightforward type of thing that's in spirit with the inaugural statement of the President.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 140th Anniversary of the incorporation of Lombard, Illinois, in the heart of my Congressional District.

In 1837, Sheldon Peck and his family settled on 80 acres in what was then known as Babcock's Grove. In 1869, the Village of Lombard was incorporated.

In the years since its humble founding, Lombard has become a center of culture and commerce, serving as a home to businesses, professionals, churches and organizations that have made this a vibrant and thriving community. Over the years, Lombard has developed a well- deserved reputation as an enjoyable place to live, work and raise a family.

On the occasion of this 140th Anniversary, we join together to celebrate Lombard's legacy of growth and prosperity, and to look ahead to the opportunities facing our local community and our nation. Today both marks 140 years of working together to build a brighter future, and reminds us that our work continues.

Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, please join me in recognizing Lombard Village President Bill Mueller, the Village Board of Trustees and the citizens of Lombard in wishing them happiness on this special occasion.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a dedicated public servant from my Congressional District, Mayor Tony Arredia of Des Plaines. After nine years as Mayor, Tony has decided to retire.

Tony was born and raised on the west side of Chicago, and he attended Mount Carmel High School. In the private sector, Tony brought his talents and relational skills to bear as he worked for Continental Bank and the Asbury Court Retirement Community.

In his first experience with elected public office, Tony served two terms as the 8th Ward Alderman of Des Plaines. Then, in 2000, Tony was appointed to replace Mayor Paul Jung. Over the years, Tony has been an insightful observer, keen in his understanding of the long-term challenges facing the City. Throughout his career, he 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 Des Plaines to confront, one thing has remained the same. Mayor Arredia has kept a steady hand to the wheel, advising the City Council and working tirelessly for the benefit of the community and her residents.

Tony Arredia has been an advocate for the people of Des Plaines since his very first days in office. Tony truly embodies the meaning of a public servant as he approaches his job with compassion and humility. In his time with the City, he has shown true leadership to bring economic development to the area and to achieve important progress in flood preparedness and relief. Tony has improved all of our lives and left an indelible impression on the City of Des Plaines.

Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, Tony Arredia is a remarkable leader who has dedicated his life to serving the people of Des Plaines. Please join me in recognizing his extraordinary service and wishing him every happiness in the well deserved respite of his retirement.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

A couple of minutes ago, our friend from the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Oregon said, and I wrote it down, ``We need to resist the temptation to tinker with this.'' Wow. I don't really have a category for that. Think about the experience that we're coming off of where this body failed to properly vet the stimulus package that ends up passing with an 1,100-page thud and all of a sudden people are unable to answer the simple question, did you read it or did you not read it? And we have an AIG debacle that has completely confused and created a great deal of consternation across the country.

Nearly half the bills that are being contemplated in this omnibus, Madam Speaker, have not been contemplated by the House, and that is considered ``tinkering''? I think that this is acting as a coequal branch of government. And we ought not to give up this authority, we ought not to give up this responsibility, and we need to vote against this rule so that this House can do the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

A couple of minutes ago we heard from the gentlewoman from California, the Speaker of the House. She said this isn't complicated. And you know what? It's really not complicated.

It was just a few short weeks ago that the House Republican leader, John Boehner, came out here with, I don't know, was it a thousand pages? It was a whole lot of pages in the stimulus package. And he gave a poignant observation, and he made a challenge and he said nobody on that side of the aisle has read this bill. He dropped it, and like a thug those pages hit. And there was silence on the other side because you know what? The other side, Mr. Speaker, could hardly give you eye contact because they hadn't read the bill. And now, lo and behold, we come up with one shuffling answer after another as to how it is that this policy gives AIG the ability to walk away with taxpayer money. The list of excuses knows no end.

So the Speaker is right. This isn't complicated. This is what happens when we abrogate responsibility, when the Congress doesn't read bills, and when we create what my predecessor calls the ``greased chute of government.''

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In a nutshell, this is an amendment that is meant to follow on some of the themes that President Obama articulated in his inauguration where he said--and I'm paraphrasing--``Programs that are good, we are going to continue to do, but those that are not so good, let's not do them.''

Toward that end, this is an attempt to give us a diagnostic tool to make sure that we have a clear understanding of what's working and what's not working.

So, in a nutshell, Mr. Chairman, the amendment directs the Office of Management and Budget to evaluate all programs authorized by the entire legislation under the Program Assessment Rating Tool or some successor standard to that.

It also directs the GAO to conduct a review of the National Civilian Community Corps program, and it strikes one of the underlying provisions of the bill which, in my view, and I hope in the majority's view, we can do a little bit better, which would have eliminated the Community Corps' annual reporting requirement, and it would have said let us evaluate this in 2014. But instead, with the amendment, if it's adopted, Mr. Chairman, it will say let's continue on an annual basis with the evaluations.

So I think it's short, sweet, not meant to be controversial, and it's my understanding that it is perceived in that way.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, thank the gentleman from Tennessee, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

You know, in a nutshell, this is an effort--and I don't know of any controversy about it, I think it enjoys quite a bit of support--but it's an effort to create a tool to evaluate the success of the program.

Let me just read the amendment. It's very, very brief. It says, ``The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall conduct a study to evaluate the programs authorized by this Act, including the amendments made by this Act, including the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) or a successor performance assessment tool that is developed by the Office of Management and Budget.''

You know, the genesis of this was really coming out of President Obama's inaugural speech, where he said let's look at programs that are working and get behind them. If they are not working, then let's make some decisions and abolish those programs, quite frankly, that are not working.

So this would simply require all the programs authorized under the legislation to be reviewed by OMB and their Program Assessment Rating Tool, and that is just an effort to rate the effectiveness of Federal agencies and programs by assessing purpose, planning, management and accountability.

And in the interest of transparency, it will ensure that the authorizations of H.R. 1262 are analyzed for effectiveness. Really, in this area where Americans, I think, are trying to look with confidence about what their government is doing and how things are being spent this, I think, serves everybody's interest.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.

I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and the members of the committee.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 1105, FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act:

Requesting Member: Congressman Peter Roskam

Bill Number: H.R. 1105

Account: Department of Education, National Projects, Safe Schools and Citizenship Education, Economic Education Exchange Program

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Center for Civic Education

Address of Requesting Entity: 5145 Douglas Fir Road, Calabasas, CA 91302

Description of Request: I rise in support of funding I helped secure in H.R. 1105, the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, for the Cooperative Education Exchange Program activities under the Education for Democracy Act. The Cooperative Education Exchange Program in economics is an important one that provides American educators the opportunity to join their counterparts from countries making the transition to a market economy. This provides these emerging areas with the benefit of assistance to education leaders in those foreign countries. It also provides the tremendous opportunity for us to have a voice in shaping these rising economies, and enabling us to think afresh about our own system, giving us the added benefit of enhanced critical self-evaluation. I am proud to support this program that has cast a wide influence--teachers and students from 43 states and DC have been able to engage teachers and students from more than 30 emerging democracies on the principles and institutions of a market economy and their interaction with a democracy.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year 2009.

As I have stated on the floor previously, I am a true believer in the need for increased transparency through the earmark process--whether in appropriations, authorizing or tax-writing legislation. It is important that the Illinois taxpayer can judge for themselves the funds that we spend at the federal level.

I appreciate this opportunity to discuss how taxpayer funds are spent in my congressional district. As a Member of Congress I was elected to this body to fight for the needs of my constituents.

My constituents elected me to Congress because I am serious about accountability and transparency in the budget process. I take a deliberative approach to project requests to ensure that any request with my name on it is worthy of federal funding. The key ingredients I look for in any project are job creation, opportunities to support Illinois' efforts in keeping us globally competitive, a guarantee that the project will not rely solely on federal funding and can instead become viable in the private sector.

Most important to me is to ensure taxpayer dollars are returned back to my constituents, who pay more to the federal government than they get back in government funded projects. Illinois taxpayers receive less federal funding per dollar of federal taxes paid compared to almost any state in the country. In 2005, Illinois citizens received only $.75 in the way of federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid. This ranks the state 45th nationally and highlights the importance of my work to advocate for the priorities of my constituents on the federal level.

This is why I stand here today to advocate for the following projects I have secured in H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of FY09:

FY09 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations

Congressman Peter J. Roskam (IL-6)

Department of Justice, OJP Byrne Discretional Grants--$50,000 for Advocate Good Samaritan Hospital's Preventing and Addressing Domestic Violence Program (3815 Highland Avenue, Downers Grove, IL 60515)

With the growing numbers of reported domestic violence in DuPage County and throughout Illinois' 6th Congressional District, Advocate Good Samaritan seeks to strengthen and expand its current domestic violence program to ensure that both current and expected needs are met.

One in three American women is abused at some point in her life by an intimate partner. Domestic violence creates multiple health problems among victims and causes 100,000 days of hospitalization and 30,000 Emergency Room visits annually. With such startling statistics, Advocate Good Samaritan has teamed up with the Downers Grove Police Department to move forward on a comprehensive approach to addressing domestic violence in the community.

The federal funds I have obtained will be utilized to expand the successful partnership by providing internal education and debriefing/ consultation on domestic violence cases in order to increase awareness. This funding will allow Advocate Good Samaritan to provide customized trainings internally within Advocate (including parish nurses) and to local agencies which serve as strategic points of entry (emergency departments, local police departments, and faith-based organizations). This will increase its outreach efforts to community organizations, including a major focus on large corporations in the community and the training employers to recognize and work with employees who may be victims of domestic violence. Other plans of expansion include an expanding website, a regional domestic violence awareness program, and purchase and distribution of educational materials to increase awareness among and educate the public about domestic violence. Along with matching funds from the hospital of $25,000, Advocate will also be able to leverage its involvement in the Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence for additional funds.

Congressman Peter J. Roskam (IL-6)

Department of Justice, COPS Law Enforcement Technology--$200,000 for the DuPage County Sheriff's Department (501 N. County Farm Road, Wheaton, IL 60187)

One of the lessons learned from the tragedy of September 11th was the inability of first responders and public safety agencies to communicate. To meet the requirements of the National Telecommunications & Information Administration, the State of Illinois is in the process of implementing a statewide interoperable radio system (STARCOM21). Subsequently, the DuPage County Emergency Telephone System Board (ETSB) awarded a contract based on the state bid to purchase the interoperable radio equipment for public safety agencies in DuPage County.

In recent years, DuPage County has experienced a number of natural disasters including tornados, floods and last August, a major storm that cut a swath across the entire county impairing first responder communication among municipal police, fire agencies and other public safety agencies and hampering rescue efforts. Over 8,000 9-1-1 calls were received during the storm.

Chicago and O'Hare International Airport are located at the northeast border of DuPage County and it is vital for DuPage County police and fire agencies to communicate via radio with Cook County and Chicago in the event of a major urban or terrorists' threat at O'Hare or in Chicago. A radio system connected to STARCOM21 will enable regional communication.

The objective of the ETSB project is to provide 6,000 users (first responders, police, fire, homeland security & public works) with a seamless 700-800MHz interoperable radio platform throughout the county and the state via STARCOM21. Each participant in the ETSB (which includes DuPage and portions of Cook, Kane & Will Counties) is required to purchase their own radios (6,000 countywide) under this new system at a cost of $5,213 per radio.

To Federal funds obtained for this entity will be used to purchase 40 radios for municipalities in DuPage County that will be compatible with the new statewide interoperable radio system (STARCOM21). This funding will be leveraged with a state grant DuPage County obtained of $430,000 that will cover the purchase of 83 of the required 411 radios needed. The Sheriff's Office will assume all operations costs of the new radio system and the cost of purchasing the remaining radios.

Congressman Peter J. Roskam (IL-6)

Department of Justice, COPS Law Enforcement Technology--$75,000 for the Northern Illinois Police Alarm System (675 Village Court, Glencoe,

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 150th Anniversary of the incorporation of Wheaton, Illinois, in the heart of my Congressional District.

In 1836, the vibrant community of Wheaton found its roots when Erastus Gary and brothers Warren and Jesse Wheaton purchased a plot of land from the federal government. They quickly set about building a town and, through the enterprising spirit that continues to characterize Wheaton to this day, secured a rail line through the center of the town. By 1859, the City of Wheaton was officially incorporated.

In the years since its humble founding, Wheaton has become a center of government and commerce, serving as the Seat of DuPage County and home to businesses, professionals, educational institutions, publishing houses, churches and organizations that have had an impact all over the world. Throughout the State of Illinois and across the nation, Wheaton has developed a reputation as a wholesome place to raise a family. In fact my wife Elizabeth and I are proud to call Wheaton home and the place where we are raising our four children.

On the occasion of this 150th Anniversary, we join together to celebrate Wheaton's legacy of growth and prosperity and to look ahead to the opportunities facing our city and our nation. Today both marks 150 years of working together to build a brighter future, and reminds us that our work continues.

Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, please join me in recognizing Wheaton Mayor Michael Gresk, the Wheaton City Council and the citizens of Wheaton, and in wishing them happiness on this special occasion.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

So I was at a birthday party for some young kids not too long ago, and everybody is playing the normal games that all little kids play. But there is one kid--and this is typical at every kid's birthday party--that sees the cake and starts scraping the icing off the cake, and he leaves the grubby mess for everybody else. That's exactly what this bill does.

According to the CBO, an entity that everybody pauses and recognizes as authoritative, the CBO says, yeah, you may get a short-term sugar buzz off this. But in 2013, because of the passage of this bill, you're going to have negative growth. From 2013 to 2019, what we're basically going to be foisting on this economy is that grubby, nasty birthday cake without any of the icing. We can do much better than this. I think the President expects us to do much better than this. And I urge a ``no'' vote.