Floor Statements

Thank you, Chairman Petri.

I also want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Rahall, for working with us. We advanced this bill through committee, and it passed our committee by voice vote.

Mr. Speaker, the bill is very simple. Chairman Petri mentioned it maintains the status quo on a single highway in Wisconsin that is being changed from a U.S. highway to a U.S. interstate. Highway 41, from Green Bay, Wisconsin, to Milwaukee, is slated to become an interstate next year. To do that without any disruption to safety, it's important that we grandfather the current weight limits that are currently on the road, and this bill does exactly that.

It ensures that any trucks that drive on the road today will be able to drive on the road after the conversion. Without this bill, shippers would simply have two options, and neither would be good for safety. One option would be to move these trucks onto side roads, which, in Wisconsin, are often rural or through small towns that are not suited for truck traffic. The other option would be to put more trucks on the highway in order to comply with the lower weight limits. Neither option is good for safety, and neither option is good for Wisconsin.

As Chairman Petri mentioned, it is supported by the Wisconsin State Patrol; it is supported by the Governor of Wisconsin; it is supported by the Wisconsin State Assembly, including the majority and ranking members; it is supported by the Wisconsin State Senate; and it is supported by the Wisconsin DOT.

As the ranking member mentioned, this is not a precedent-setting piece of legislation. In fact, it has happened in other parts of the country. I am in support of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 44) authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the District of Columbia Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Concurrent Resolution 44.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H. Con. Res. 44 would authorize the use of the Capitol Grounds for the District of Columbia's Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run that will be held on September 27, 2013.

I would first like to thank Ranking Member Norton, of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management, for introducing this resolution, as well as to thank Chairman Barletta of the subcommittee for cosponsoring it.

As in years past, the torch run will be launched from the West Terrace of the U.S. Capitol and will continue through the Capitol Grounds as part of the journey to the annual D.C. Special Olympics Summer Games.

The Special Olympics is an international organization dedicated to enriching the lives of children and adults with disabilities through athletics and competition. The Law Enforcement Torch Run began in 1981 when the police chief of Wichita, Kansas, saw an urgent need to raise funds for and to increase awareness of the Special Olympics. The Torch Run was then quickly adopted by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Today, the Torch Run is the largest grassroots effort that raises funds and awareness for the Special Olympics program. The event in D.C. is one of many law enforcement torch runs throughout the country and across 40 nations.

I support the passage of this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

This is a terrific event. It's one that every Member of Congress should support, and I encourage the adoption of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of Pierce Manufacturing, located in Appleton, Wisconsin. Pierce Manufacturing is a subsidiary of Oshkosh Corporation, and builds fire and rescue apparatuses. Over the past 100 years, this company has grown from its modest beginnings as Pierce Auto Body Works, Inc. focused on building truck bodies for the Ford Model T to become a world-class manufacturer of quality fire and rescue vehicles.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Pierce Manufacturing donated one of its rescue vehicles to the Fire Department of New York City. According to reports, no ceremony was held to mark the occasion. The workers and leadership at Pierce Manufacturing simply ``felt compelled to help.'' As Congressman, I am incredibly proud of the highly skilled workers in Appleton and Weyauwega that play a vital role in designing, building and maintaining these custom fire and rescue vehicles.

Again, I congratulate Pierce Manufacturing on its 100th anniversary, and encourage all residents in Northeast Wisconsin to celebrate this company's wonderful history on Saturday, July 13th, 2013.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation today.

I'll tell you that I've often told folks back in Wisconsin that working in the House of Representatives is sometimes like living in an alternate universe. For the last hour and a half here we've been debating what is not rather than debating what is. Maybe we should debate what is, and that is what is in this bill.

This bill, for the first time, eliminates direct payments to rich farmers. I think that sounds like a pretty good idea. It eliminates it by $14 billion. We remove subsidies to people who no longer farm, and I think that sounds like a pretty good idea. For Wisconsin, America's dairy land, we fix our Nation's dairy policy. That sounds like a pretty good idea as well. We fix forestry problems and improve timber harvest. We stop the brain drain that has been going on in our national forests. It improves the fruit and vegetable production in the Midwest. Finally, it minimizes reforms and improves important regulatory problems that have put burdens on producers.

These are all of the really great things that are in the bill, and I think

we ought to focus on what is there rather than on what is not. Let's worry about what is there today and worry about what is not tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Divine Temple Church of God in Christ, located in Green Bay, Wisconsin. This historically significant structure, designed by architect George Rockwell for the Christ Episcopal Church, was built in the famous Gothic Revival-style. The site has now been added to the National Register of Historic Places. The church and its members are planning to celebrate this milestone on Friday, June 28th, 2013.

The cornerstone of this church was put in place in 1898, and the structure that stands today was completed one year later. Throughout its long history in downtown Green Bay, this church has served the spiritual needs of the community, and offered congregants a safe place to worship. I congratulate Pastor L.C. Green for his efforts to pursue this designation, and commend the congregation of Divine Temple Church of God in Christ for volunteering their time to preserving this wonderful structure.

There is a quote from Romans 15:7 on the church website that reads: ``Wherefore receive ye one another as Christ also received us to the glory of God.'' May this church continue to receive those seeking spiritual refreshment in the years to come. Again, congratulations to Divine Temple Church of God in Christ for receiving this special recognition.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments from Mr. Valadao, my colleague from California, earlier

when he said that they didn't have enough consumers to buy their milk. Well, we've got the opposite problem in Wisconsin.

People want Wisconsin milk, and they want Wisconsin cheese. And it shows the geographical difficulty with this problem and with this underlying bill.

Mr. Goodlatte seeks to correct those geographical differences by taking the most controversial piece of it out, and I stand here in support of doing that.

You know, our Founders kind of instructed us and said, if you can find agreement in this Chamber, do those things; but if you can't find agreement--and we can't find agreement here--don't do those things.

And so what Mr. Goodlatte is trying to do is go to the place where we have the most and most broad agreement, leaving the margin insurance element in place for farmers, but stripping out the supply management element where some regions of the country would be damaged by it.

I support the Goodlatte amendment because it's the right type of reform for all Wisconsans and all of this country's dairy producers and processors, not one or the other, but both.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Lucas for yielding.

SNAP is an incredibly important program in the United States. I don't think there's anybody that I've met on my side of the aisle or on theirs--and I particularly appreciate Mr. McGovern's position on the fact that we need to make sure that hungry children in this country get food to eat. We want them to have good, healthy meals.

On behalf of the taxpayer, however, the data doesn't support that we continue to increase funding for SNAP. In fact, if you follow the red line here, that's unemployment in America. You see during the recession unemployment went up, as did SNAP spending. It was almost exactly at the same ratio. And as the economy began to recover and unemployment went down, as did poverty go down, SNAP funding continued to go up. In fact, from 2008 to 2011, SNAP funding went up 119 percent while poverty went up only 16 percent. Between 2010 and 2011, poverty actually went down while SNAP spending went up.

It's not just an either/or, Mr. Chairman, that we can either provide food for the poor or charge the taxpayer money. We need to do both. But as fiduciaries of the taxpayers' dollars, we must do it reasonably.

We don't want any child to go without food, but we recognize that the economy has begun to recover since 2009, where we were spending only $53 billion on SNAP. ``Only'' is the appropriate word. Today we're going to be spending $82 billion on SNAP. Unemployment went from 10.2 percent in 2009 down to 7.6 percent today. Under this basis, I wonder at what point could we ever have SNAP go down.

Here's the reality. We keep talking about $20 billion. In fact, next year, with a $2 billion cut annually, we won't even roll SNAP back effectively 1 year.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order.

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud and honored to lead this discussion on the House floor this evening. I organized this special order to show the American people that there are Members of Congress who can have a civilized conversation and who actually want to solve problems.

Everyone here tonight is a member of the organization No Labels. As you can

see, we're all wearing orange pins as a symbol of our solidarity. These problem-solver pins represent a lot about who we are and who we want to be as legislators. Instead of wasting time fighting, we're committed to fixing what's broken here in Washington.

Being identified as either a Republican or Democrat says a lot about each of our values and our ideologies, but it's not the sum total of who we are. I am proud to be a Republican and have a conservative voting record, and that supports my beliefs.

But just because there's an R or D after someone's name should not automatically make them enemies. It's possible to find ways to work together, and all of us are here tonight as proof of that.

I recently introduced a biennial budgeting bill that has both Democrat and Republican cosponsors. This is just one of many examples that show that both sides of the aisle can get behind legislation that will help better our economy.

Unfortunately, Congress has come to a point where problems are not getting solved because too many are yelling and not enough are listening. I was taught that the best way to attack a problem is putting all possible solutions on the table and having a conversation about the pros and cons of each.

Nowadays in Washington, the meaning of solution has become a euphemism for undercutting the other party. Sound bites have replaced conversations, which has made attacking others easier and more widespread.

It seems like every time you turn on the television or open a newspaper, there's some headline about Republicans and Democrats spewing vitriol at each other, or playing another round of the never- ending blame game.

This type of behavior and unwillingness to work on solving problems must end in order for our country to move forward, and that's why we're all here tonight, to show that Washington doesn't have to function this way.

All of us came to Congress because we wanted to do our part to make our country better and to help our constituents back home. And coming together on the House floor is a small way to reaffirm our dedication to the American people and let them know that we'll work for their best interest.

This evening you'll hear from both Democrats and Republicans who are committed to problem-solving. I'm proud to say that these people are not just my colleagues but they're my friends. And while we don't see eye to eye on everything, we have all made it a point to put a stop to the spiteful tone that has become the norm here in Washington, and to actually have a real conversation with one another. And tonight the American people watching get to be a part of that.

With that, I'd like to yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young).

I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Thank you for being here tonight.

I now yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Murphy).

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I now yield to a very good friend of mine, the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Kurt Schrader.

I thank the gentleman.

When I first came here it was interesting how few places there were where both parties could get together and talk about issues. It just didn't really exist. And those of us that have decided to get together and talk, we've never asked anyone to lay down their own personal beliefs or ideologies, but we did ask for them to stand up and defend them and to speak about them and to encourage others and to, most importantly, listen to each other and to try to learn why we believe what we believe.

I'd like to now yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman).

I thank the gentleman.

I would now like to yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Maloney).

That's encouraging to all of us. I appreciate your comments.

I now yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bentivolio).

I thank the gentleman for your comments.

I now yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

I thank the gentleman.

I would like to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Indeed, there's no time to waste.

I yield to the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Bustos).

I thank the gentlelady.

I'd like to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

I thank the gentleman.

It is now a privilege of mine to yield to my friend from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).

Mr. Speaker, with that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

I remember very clearly, Mr. Speaker, I had been in Congress only a few days--the President of the United States came into this Chamber for the State of the Union address--and my good friend from Maine invited me to sit with him. We began a relationship there and continued to work together throughout these last few years.

Thank you very much for coming to the floor tonight.

With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao).

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

With that, I'd like to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera).

I thank the gentleman.

I would now like to yield to the gentlelady from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).

I thank the gentlelady, and I thank her for mentioning our veterans.

My own father left the mainland in 1945, and the first place he went was to Pearl Harbor on the Island of Oahu, in your home State, before he went into the Pacific Theater. I can't help but think that he would have wanted this very thing to have happened here in that we would actually come here and spend our time honoring the sacrifices that those men and women made and finding solutions for the American people, making the American Nation a better place to live and work, to study and grow up and excel, and to become the type of people we can become.

So thank you very much for your comments today.

Now I would like to yield to a good friend of mine from Illinois, a Chicago Bears fan himself, Mr. Lipinski.

I thank the gentleman for his comments. And I just have to say if a Green Bay Packer fan like myself, Mr. Speaker, and a Chicago Bear fan like Representative Lipinski can get together and talk about things--if we can talk about that, we can talk about anything.

In fact, around Christmastime 2009, is when I became convinced about possibly running for Congress for the first time. I'm in my second term, Mr. Speaker. I came here to this Chamber not just to represent the citizens of northeast Wisconsin, but I came here because I believe that the fabric of trust between the American people and this government has been torn. But fabric torn can be mended. It can be mended by common thread that binds us together not as Republicans and Democrats, men and women, but common thread that binds us together as Americans.

Common thread can only be used if it's found; common thread can only be found if you seek it.

One of the reasons that I feel we sometimes can't repair this torn fabric is because it's so difficult to find the common ground. But common ground, indeed, can be found when representatives are willing to seek it out.

Mr. Speaker, our Founders established a representative Republic and instructed us. They said that if we can find agreement, do those things. But if we couldn't find agreement, they warned us as well. They said, Where you can't find agreement, it might be best for you not to do those things until you can, in fact, find agreement.

So we have to go out and we have to look for it, and I could talk to my Republican colleagues every single day. In many respects, it's like preaching to the choir, and I think that preaching to the choir is a fine thing. I mean, you often preach to the choir because you want them to sing. The fact of the matter is I have agreement with my Republican colleagues on most things--not everything, but most things. So therefore I must go and talk to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

The fastest way to mend that torn fabric is by meeting people, by building trust, by taking the time to understand them and then seeking the areas of common ground, to find the common thread that binds us together, and when we find that, we can begin to repair the torn fabric between the American people and its government. It's really what we've been sent here to do.

We've been sent here to find and solve problems, not to fight about them. Disagreement will happen. In fact, you can look historically into this Chamber, and there's been a lot of disagreement. It dates back to the beginning of our Nation's founding. There's also been a lot of agreement.

Think about the differences from 1787 to today. Think about the America that exists today. Much of it exists because the men and women who were sent by the citizens of their districts to lead came here, and through statesman-like qualities, were willing to lead. They had the courage to make tough decisions and then lead this country to the place that it is today.

I am filled with hope about America. I'm filled with hope because of the colleagues that I work with here. I'm filled with hope, Mr. Speaker, because of men like you.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give the American people some truth telling about what is going on with the FAA and flight delays. We have been told this is all the result of the sequester. And yet in 2001, there were about 30,000 takeoffs per day in the United States, and they did that with about $6 billion worth of funding. Today, takeoffs are only 20,000 a day, and they have $10 billion of funding. In 2001, there were 14,000 air traffic operators, and today there are 14,000 air traffic operators.

So if it's not a demand problem because demand went down, if it's not a people problem because they have the same people, and it's not a resource problem because they have about 100 percent more money, what is the problem?

I contend to you, Mr. Speaker, it's a political problem. It's time to tell the administration to stop playing politics with the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the efforts of 14- year-old Amber Van Den Heuvel. Ms. Van Den Heuvel committed two years to developing the ``Ride Oconto History'' bike tour of Oconto County, Wisconsin. This project was the result of her involvement in another program called ``Oconto Promise,'' a group dedicated to getting young people more invested in their communities.

Ms. Van Den Heuvel's research and planning led to the creation of 5 different bike routes through the county that highlight 46 unique and historic stops along the way. Those stops include a National Landmark and 28 locations found on the National Register of Historic Places. This project is not only a tribute to her hard work, but also the support of her mother who encouraged her daughter and helped secure sponsors to assist in developing pamphlets, posters and signs for these bike trails. This project has already earned Ms. Van Den Heuvel the George E. Hall Award from the Oconto County Historical Society.

I commend Ms. Van Den Heuvel for this project, and I know that the residents of Northeast Wisconsin, and the many tourists that visit Oconto County each year, will enjoy the fruit of Ms. Van Den Heuvel's labor for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize March as National Frozen Food Month and to honor one of my home state's own frozen food companies, Seneca Foods Corporation.

Founded in 1949, Seneca Foods is one of our nation's largest processors of fruits and vegetables. In fact, Seneca Foods produces more than 2 billion cans and bags of frozen fruit and vegetable products every year, which equates to over 5 billion servings.

I had the pleasure of visiting Seneca's Gillett, Wisconsin plant last August. There has been an active canning factory on this site since 1909 and Seneca took over the site in 2003.

Seneca Foods believes in providing the community with jobs and continually improving its facilities. At Gillett, this included a 2007 warehouse expansion that tripled the storage space.

There are 37 full-time employees at this facility. But in season, it grows to employ over 210 seasonal employees and has an annual payroll of $4.3 million.

Much of what I know about Seneca Foods I learned from Executive Vice President and COO Paul Palmby, who serves on the Board of the American Frozen Food Institute and is the chairman of the Produce for Better Health Foundation, PBH, which promote increased consumption of fruits and vegetables for better health.

Both Seneca Foods and the American Frozen Food Institute were recognized recently as PBH Fruits & Veggies--More Matters' Role Models.

Working together, these entities regularly promote the nutritional benefits of fruit and vegetable consumption as part of an important effort to encourage healthy eating.

Mr. Speaker, in celebration of National Frozen Food Month, I wish to applaud Seneca Foods and the entire frozen food industry for their hard work and contributions to the health of our nation and its citizens.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

It has been quite an afternoon already: slash, cut, tone deaf, burn, plunder, shred, eviscerate, end Medicare as we know it, balance the budget on the backs of our seniors, and then my favorite, austerity Kool-Aid. There has been enough hyperbole in this room today, I should have brought my boots.

Let's talk about austerity. We talk a lot about the least fortunate about us, the concern for seniors and for veterans and the most needy. This is what the budget actually does. These are the real numbers. I have read the real budget--not somebody's report on the budget, but the real budget.

This is what we do for veterans. We increase from $145 billion to $187 billion. That's a 20 percent increase, a 20 percent increase over a decade. That is a $1.675 trillion commitment to our veterans.

Then I heard we are going to end Medicare as we know it. Well, $509 billion to $864 billion in Medicare over a decade, if this is austerity Kool-Aid, I don't know how you can define $6.656 trillion as austerity Kool-Aid.

I have heard a lot of people say I'm concerned about my mom. My colleagues have said it on both sides of the aisle. I want you to know, moms, we have got your back to the tune of $6.656 trillion. We are here for you.

Let's look at Social Security. We hear that Social Security is going to be in trouble. Well, this budget goes from $854 billion to $1.423 trillion. So what does that come out to? Well, it is just a meager $11.15 trillion over the next decade on Social Security alone.

So what does that do for these three programs? Three programs, Mr. Chairman, this is our austerity Kool-Aid: $19,481,692,000,000 on three programs, nearly $3 billion more than the accumulated national debt in the last two centuries. If this is leaving our seniors behind, if this is leaving the most fortunate behind, I don't even know what we can do to make it right other than this.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud of the budget you have put together, and you achieve balance, including meeting these demands for the least fortunate in our society.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a fallen hero who has finally come home. Our experience is different than it would have been had Second Lieutenant James Des Jardin been found in 1944. James' parents had already buried one son, and now would have been burying another. Grief and sadness was the companion for this family on that December day in 1944.

Just three days after Christmas, the family was told of James missing in action with a letter. And I think you should know that similar letters were sent to over 73,000 families during the war saying that their loved one was missing. Our nation paid a heavy price to bring freedom to the world.

I cannot imagine the horror of hearing that news. More than that, I cannot fathom the uncertainty of a family not knowing. James' brother Earl, a bomber pilot, had already been killed in service to our country, in France just two months before, and now another son was missing.

Was James a POW? Was he hiding in Germany and working his way home? Did he perish that day? Or later? These are the questions that no parent, no brother or sister or son or daughter ever wants to ask. But these questions had to be asked. They provided hope. They provided encouragement. . . . but they also provide doubt and despair.

The questions certainly lingered. The sacrifice of the family, quietly held in their hearts and thoughts, and the yearning to know. December 28, 1944, and the years that followed, certainly brought heartache, that unless you have experienced it personally must have been difficult to understand.

So finally today brings closure. We get to lay to rest Second Lieutenant James Des Jardin--An American hero. Today we get thank a family for their sacrifice. Today we get to, and I know this is a bit odd to say and maybe a bit odd for you to hear, but today we get to celebrate a hero and a hero's family. We as a community join with this family to share not just in grief but in joy of knowing our hero is finally home.

It's certainly different today than it would have been for the Des Jardin family in 1944. Today instead our mourning a fallen hero we celebrate his homecoming.

Today the family's questions have been answered and so have ours. Today an American hero is welcomed home and laid to rest. May God Bless the family and in His time provide the same closure for our Nation's other MIA families.

Thank you to the Des Jardin family for your sacrifice and thank you for including me today.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of this legislation which includes the Midnight Rule Relief Act that I authored earlier this year.

I would like to take just a moment as a former small business owner to talk a little bit about the impact of regulations because we will hear from our colleagues on the other side that there is no evidence that regulations affect hiring, it doesn't affect start-ups, that if we do these things that the whole environment is going to go down the hill, the whole country is going to end here because of the fact that the Federal Government can't control every minutia of our lives.

Now I would say this, Madam Chair, that I believe rather than a big government, I believe in a big, free individual. I think a little bit, as I tell my story today about my father who started our roofing company in 1958, there were fewer rules of the road then. There were rules of the road, for sure. There were certainly rules put in place. Since that time, there have been thousands and thousands and thousands. There has been a lot of discussion in this Chamber about the gap between the rich and the poor and how the middle class is getting squeezed. I just wonder if we ever think that the middle class is getting squeezed, but they're getting squeezed by their government. They're not getting squeezed by rich people; they're not getting squeezed out of it by opportunity. They're getting squeezed out of it by a government that no longer lets them pursue the American Dream. Sometimes I feel that the other side wants them to pursue their dream, that our government wants to dictate what the dream ought to be for American citizens.

My father had his own dream. He was a milkman in the 1950s after he came home from World War II as a U.S. marine. He had six sons and later adopted two girls. I'm the youngest of eight. There were many, many times in my life, when my father, as he tried to not just make a better dream for himself, not just to live out his hopes and dreams and aspirations, but to build a better future for me and my family, for my children and for my grandchildren as he started our family business. I wonder if today he could even do it. He had no money. He was delivering milk at the time, one of the lowest paid jobs out there at the time in 1956.

He put an ad in the paper and tried to find work, and he decided that he would go into the roofing business. And through pure grit and determination and hard work, he started his own company. He was able to do that because all of the barriers that had been put in place by this overreaching government weren't there. He had a customer of ours--his, actually, because I was just a child--tell him he ought to name the company Security Roofing because they felt secure in his hands. That customer was well aware of the fact that my father was providing a service for them that they were willing to transact money for. And it was a fair transaction of goods. And if my father had cheated them, his reputation would have went down, and he wouldn't have been able to sustain himself. He built his company on fairness. He built his company on honesty and integrity, and the government wasn't in the way.

And now today, imagine some unemployed worker thinking about starting his own landscaping business, his own roofing company, a young college graduate, a young woman who wants to be a beautician and start her own beauty shop. We have this complex maze of rules and regulations and licensures and all these things that we think have made life better, but have taken freedom and have crossed the American Dream.

That's what this bill is about. It's about for a moment in time, it's about incentivizing this government to remove the barriers and obstacles, to get them out of the way and say to the American people, there will be no more for a period of time until unemployment reaches this level, 6 percent. We're not taking away rules. We're just saying you can rely that there won't be new ones for a time.

Also, this bill will stop the President of the United States, both Republicans and Democrats, from doing a lame duck session, whether they have been fired or extended in their careers, to not promulgate a bunch of rules and regulations during a lame duck session. We've seen a massive increase of rules and regulations during that period of time-- 17 percent in the 3 months following an election where parties change hands.

The number of major rules issued during Bill Clinton's midnight period totaled 3\1/2\ times more than the average number issued during the same calendar period in the other years in President Clinton's second term. President Bush wasn't much better. His was 2\1/2\ times more.

So to solve this problem, this bill would simply say to the President of the United States, for 90 days you can't do it. I support this bill, Madam Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize America's log cabin industry as a quintessential symbol of the American pioneering spirit, embodying America's strength and ingenuity.

Log cabins, whether used for recreation or as primary residences, are economically sustainable, reducing waste and employing materials that put Mother Nature's beauty at center stage. The industry is experiencing renewed growth, exporting this American icon to nations from Germany to China.

Log cabin production directly supports thousands of jobs from builders to sales professionals, as well as the housing market, lending institutions, and many others. The people of this industry are hard- working, charitable, and deserving of recognition for their centuries of accomplishment.