Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor, as my colleagues do, the medical doctors as well, saying we do all agree that we do need reform here; it is just that we are listening to the American public who says not the reform of the ObamaCare or the Pelosi legislation that we are looking at that is before us right now. And I hear from the gentleman from New York that we need to talk about the facts, issues like Social Security and Medicare and the like. It seems to me I heard that in committee. The gentleman from New York actually submitted an amendment to repeal Medicare, if I am not mistaken. So I am not sure whether his constituents know that when he rails against us on the position of Medicare, he was the author of the amendment to repeal Medicare. But let us not digress on those other issues; let us talk about the facts of the health care bill before us today. Interestingly enough on that, while we would like to talk about the facts on these issues, we know that your side, the Democrat side of the aisle, does not want to do so. Why do we know that? Because here is a memo that came out of talking points for the Democrat majority, Thursday, March 18, saying that to these very points on what they should be saying and what they shouldn't be saying: We cannot emphasize enough. Do not allow yourselves to get into a discussion of the details of the CBO scores. Further on, it goes on to say: Do not give them--and who is ``them''; I guess, the American public. Do not give them grounds by debating the details, for example, a March 1 letter. Again, focus on other issues, essentially, is what it says. So that is their talking points, to stay off message, don't talk about the facts. Well, here are some of the facts. The bill is replete with budget gimmicks. Why health care reform will cost more than Democrats say it will, here are some of the facts: Delayed benefits and immediate taxes. The bill will raise taxes around $60 billion before almost all, 98 percent, of the benefits will go into effect. Do you hear that? We will be taking tax dollars out of our pockets before 98 percent of the benefits will ever go into effect. Secondly, the CLASS Act. What does CBO, Congressional Budget Office, say about it? They say this program will pay out far less in benefits than it will receive in premiums over the 10-year budget window. What is that? Well, the gentleman from New York may be familiar with the Bernie Madoff situation. Well, that is what this is. According to Senator Conrad, it is a Ponzi scheme. Next, the doc fix that was talked about here. They do not include anything to deal with the doc fix. That will cost $371 billion. And why don't they? Well, it says here in their talking points, or in your talking points, the inclusion of a full SGR doc fix repeal would undermine the reform budget's neutrality. So again, Do not allow yourself to get into a discussion of the details of the CBO scores in textural narratives. Why don't they put the CBO score and the doc fix in it, because they know then the bill would be honest and fair as to the cost of it. Fourthly, raid Social Security. Again, where is AARP on this one when they are going to raid Social Security to the tune of $53 billion in new Social Security revenue to give us the appearance of a deficit cut? These revenues were meant to benefit Social Security, not to be a new entitlement and give them cover.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Will the gentleman not yield on the facts then?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I am responding with a direct answer.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentlelady. In my hand right here--and the chairman may know what I have here--is a document from your side of the aisle which basically is your talking points to your communication folks and the like saying that you want to talk about information. The memo actually says to your Members, We cannot emphasize enough, do not allow yourselves to get into a discussion of the details of CBO scores or any other such narratives. It continues to say, Do not give them--meaning Republicans or the media and such--grounds for debating the issue. Isn't that fascinating that, after all of this, the truth comes out? The fact of the matter is that you do not want to discuss the details. You do not want to get into the facts of the matter. You want to talk in hyperbole and rhetoric. Well, let me spend my next 2 minutes telling the American public what the actual details are and what the CBO says about your bill. Number one: Delayed benefits, immediate taxes. This bill raises taxes before any other major benefits would go into effect. Ninety-eight percent of the major benefits don't start until 2014, but we immediately start taking taxes out of the American public's pocket. Two: The CLASS Act has been described by Members of their House, Senator Conrad, as a Ponzi scheme. Why is that? Something in there called the CLASS Act appears to make the bill cost less than it does because, as the CBO states, the program would pay out far less in benefits than it would receive in premiums under the 10-year budget window. What does that simply mean? That means we will be collecting taxes for years and years and years before we actually pay out any benefits. Thirdly, no doc fix. I've heard other people talk about that. That 10-year doc fix will cost $371 billion. If you really want to talk about the facts--as obviously you do not want to--you would have included the doc fix in here to give us a better picture of what this bill costs. Raid on Social Security. A raid on Social Security in this bill, in the presentation that you're making. I also heard somebody talk about AARP. Where are they talking about the fact that in your presentation on the numbers, they rely on $53 billion in new Social Security revenue to achieve the appearance, only the appearance, of deficit reduction. The fact of the matter is these revenues are meant to stay and pay for Social Security benefits, not to fund a new entitlement. Fourthly, double-counting of Medicare savings benefits, the other side of the aisle claims that $520 billion in Medicare cuts and $210 billion in Medicare taxes in the bill will improve solvency of the Medicare trust fund. But that's not the case. You're double-counting. Look, either Medicare savings improves solvency on the one hand, or they pay for this brand-new entitlement. You can't have it both ways. But I guess that's why you don't want to get into, as your very own talking point memo says, do not get into discussing the details. One last one, if time permits, your legislation relies on unrealistic budget cuts. This is not my suggesting that. This is what your very own actuary at HAS says.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Your very own actuary said this, that the level of cuts was ``unrealistic and finally jeopardized access to care for senior citizens.'' That's not me saying this; that's not this side of the aisle. That is your very own actuary saying what your bill will do is jeopardize care to senior citizens. When you begin to discuss the details, you will agree to vote ``no'' on this bill. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today to speak out on the Democrats' proposed ``Slaughter solution.'' This is a sleight-of-hand with an unconstitutional move to avoid a true vote. Article I, section 7 of the Constitution reads, Every bill shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate before it is presented to the President of the United States. With the Slaughter solution, leadership is attempting to manipulate the rules to circumvent this fundamental constitutional requirement. In the Senate, they have a bill there with so many special deals--taxes on insurance, coverage for abortion--even they cannot pass it for a second time. And so Democrat leadership here in the House tried to avoid a traditional up-or-down vote. The Supreme Court has even spoken on this and said a bill must contain the exact text before it is approved in one House and then the other--precisely the same text. Madam Speaker, if we ignore the basic requirements of the Constitution, whether by disregarding procedural restraints or overstepping our congressional authority by dictating people's health insurance, we will descend from the freedom of democracy toward the tyranny of a dictatorship.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I do indeed rise today in honor of Sergeant Christopher Richard Hrbek, a recently fallen marine. It was on January 14, 2010, when Sergeant Hrbek gave his life in service of our country. And today, we have the opportunity to pay tribute to Sergeant Hrbek by considering H.R. 4628, this legislation that will rename the post office up in Westwood, New Jersey, in his honor. In addition, though, to paying tribute to Sergeant Hrbek, I would like to pause for a moment to recognize his family as well, for the sacrifice that they now have endured on behalf of our Nation. Chris is survived by his wife, Jamie Lynn Wengerter, his mother and stepfather, Cheryl and James Hodges, his father and stepmother, Richard and Gail Hrbek, his two sisters, Amy Dellentash and Lori Hrbek, and his two stepbrothers, Jim and Beau Hodges, as well. As was pointed out, Sergeant Hrbek was not only a hero in the armed services, he was a hero back in his hometown as well. Chris was born and raised up in Westwood, New Jersey, and as stated, at the age of 16, he, along with a couple of his friends, became cadets in the Westwood Fire Department. And just as an aside, I remember going to the funeral and hearing the little stories that they told--even before they were 16 just pretending to be firemen and the like, and always wanting to be a firemen when they grew up. But at age 16 they were able to actually put that into action and become cadets in the Westwood Fire Department. Chris saw every opportunity to serve as a chance to shine. This is why it was no surprise when he enlisted in the U.S. Marines in 2003. And as a marine, Sergeant Hrbek served four tours of duty, which included two combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it was indeed on December 23, 2009, when they were under heavy enemy fire that he saved a life, and it was of his own Sergeant Major, Sergeant Major Raymond Mackey. As it was recounted later on to his family, Chris had been out on a patrol at that time when he heard an explosion about 10 paces behind him. Chris turned to see what it was, and he saw Sergeant Major Mackey badly wounded by the explosion. So what did he do? Well, he immediately turned his attention to Mackey, applying seven tourniquets and saving the Sergeant Major's life, and he did this all while under attack at the time. This is truly a definition of grace under fire. And for his valiant efforts Chris earned a Bronze Star with a Combat V. However, Chris was not able to ever receive that medal in person. For it was on January 14 that Sergeant Chris Hrbek was killed on patrol in Helmand Province in Afghanistan after he encountered an IED. Hrbek's family posthumously accepted the Bronze Star on behalf of his life at his funeral. A letter was issued to his parents from the Marine Corps, and I think it really captured the sentiment that I know all America shares. It said, ``by his zealous initiative, courageous actions, and exceptional dedication to duty, Sergeant Hrbek reflected great credit upon himself and were in keeping with the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.'' After Chris died in combat he received a hero's welcome back in his hometown in Westwood, New Jersey. It was on January 20th, this year, that his flag-draped coffin passed through the streets of Westwood, which were lined as far as you could see with flags and residents and students all coming out who stood proudly, side by side, in a mass of people, to pay tribute to this young man. Now, joining the procession were the Marines from Camp Lejeune who served alongside him. And one of the marines was Sergeant Ryan Harsman. Sergeant Harsman noted, When Chris walked into a room everyone knew that he was there. He just had that presence. He never ran out of fuel. Now, the New York Fire Department also honored Chris and, this month, bestowed the title of honorary firefighter, because Sergeant Hrbek had been accepted to begin training with the fire department over in New York City, but he deferred his enrollment twice so that he could continue his service to the U.S. Marines. Sergeant Hrbek set the highest example, someone who was willing to risk his life to save the lives of others. And so I am proud to be the sponsor of H.R. 4628 honoring the life of Sergeant Hrbek. And I, with my colleague, join all my colleagues here to support this legislation memorializing Chris and his service to his hometown of Westwood, New Jersey, where Christopher Hrbek will forever be remembered as a hero, as a heroic marine, a loving husband, a son and a brother as well.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, as a member of the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Affairs, I am proud to congratulate the nation of Greece on its upcoming celebration of the 189th anniversary of independence. It's been one hundred and eighty-nine years since Greece obtained freedom from the oppressive Ottoman Empire. On March 25, 1821, the Greek people rose up against Ottoman oppression and declared their independence. The Greeks had been under occupied rule by the Ottoman Turks for over 400 years. After years of war and negotiations, Greece was finally recognized as an independent nation in 1832. As the birthplace of democracy, Greece has shared numerous self- government efforts across the world, including here in the United States. America's Founding Fathers were inspired by the political experiences and philosophies of ancient Greece in writing our Constitution and founding our representative democracy. Today, Greece is again a thriving democracy and an example of self-determination for other nations. Greece has long been one of the United States' closest allies. Greece fought alongside America in every war of the 20th Century and continues to offer strong support in the current war on terrorism. I am honored to cosponsor H. Res. 1107 which recognizes the 189th anniversary of the independence of Greece and am pleased that this bill is being considered by the House of Representatives today. I would again like to congratulate Greece for celebrating such a momentous occasion. This anniversary is a time to remember the sacrifices of the past, to take pride in your nation, and to look ahead to a future of promise.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank Mrs. Maloney for her introduction of H.R. 4621, the Prevent Deceptive Census Look Alike Mailings Act. What this bill will do is seek to prevent the word ``census'' from appearing on mail that does not pertain directly to the national census. Currently we do have laws to address sending deceptive or fraudulent mail, and the Postal Inspection Service currently has responsibility for investigating allegations of this nature and determining if a violation has been committed. However, what this bill will do is simply reinforce and reiterate existing law. This bill would give postal inspectors an additional tool, if you will, in addressing mail sent by those seeking to capitalize on the importance people place on the U.S. census--mail that may be in a gray area where inspectors are unable to determine whether a violation has been committed or not. The census is one of the most important functions of the Federal Government, particularly given the role it plays in our representative democracy, so confusion or reduced participation can affect political representation, and also whether a community receives its fair share of Federal dollars. So when a piece of mail says ``census'' on it, we want people to take it seriously, to read it and to respond to it. We must maintain public trust in this process and send the message to citizens that an accurate census is of paramount importance to all Americans. Mr. Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 4624, designating the facility of the United States Post Office located at 125 Kerr Avenue in Rome City, Indiana, as the ``SPC Nicholas Scott Hartge Post Office.'' It was back on May 14, 2007, that Specialist Hartge met a tragic, yet heroic fate when his unit came in contact with enemy forces in Iraq. In honor of this fallen American hero, it is fitting and appropriate that we recognize the ultimate sacrifice that he made for his country. He was raised in Rome City, Indiana. Specialist Hartge was profoundly affected by the 9/11 attacks on the United States. It was then that he decided that he wanted to, more than anything else, serve his country. Before graduating from East Noble High School, he enlisted in the Army. Just 1 week after graduation, he left for boot camp at Fort Benning. In August 2006, he was deployed to Iraq, where he and his unit patrolled the difficult streets of the city. Risking his life every day, he served as a driver and a radio/telephone operator. Although he was one of the younger members of his unit, he distinguished himself as hard working, a good soldier, and the type of person his comrades could always count on. He believed in what he was fighting for. He believed and felt that they were really helping the people of Iraq. While he was only 20 years old, he aspired to do something special with his life. And, indeed, when we think about it, he did. He became a positive role model for those around him and those he surrounded himself with. He once told his fellow soldiers that ``the Army doesn't give you values; it develops values that you already had from your parents.'' That's so true. He is survived now by his parents, a sister and brother--a fellow soldier. Yes, this fine young man embodied the values and the passions of this great Nation. Sadly, he paid the ultimate sacrifice to preserve those freedoms for all of us. Mr. Speaker, as I come to the floor and speak about this fallen soldier, I'm mindful of the fact that I was here only literally several weeks ago, submitting a similar resolution for a young man about the equal age, back from our district, from the Fifth Congressional District of the State of New Jersey. Likewise, in these circumstances we saw the outpouring of support from the people of his community on the day that he was returned once and for all to his final resting place in his hometown. At that time, members of his fire department, the mayor and council and, more importantly, the entire community came out and recognized him. It was at that point we realized that it's a day to remember these fallen soldiers when they do come back. But that day is a fleeting day. Even when you talk to the parents of the soldiers at those funerals and the services, they don't really even remember it, in some ways. A week later, it was such a blur, just a fast passing, and all the commotion that went on that day. It was hard to remember who was there. So I'm sure, like the speaker on the other side of the aisle and all the Members on the other side of the aisle agree, it's for this reason we come to the floor today and name the post office for Specialist Hartge, because we don't want to just make it a 1-day event. We don't want it to be an incident where the community comes out and pays respect at the church service and graveside. We don't want it to be a time that is in passing. We want to have something there in the community that, day in and day out, members of his family, other members of the community that he grew up with, his boyhood friends and the like, will able to see his name on post office. We also want to have something in the community that, days in the future, when future generations grow up, kids that he grew up with have grown up and gotten married and have children themselves and they come back to town, that they will see Specialist Hartge's name up there on the post office. Maybe they will ask their parents, Who was that Specialist? Who was that name? Who was that soldier? And there will be people still around in the community who say, I remember him when he grew up here. I remember what he did for the town. I remember him going through the high school in the days there, and the friends that he had there. I remember him for the love that he had for his family, his brother and his sister, and for everyone else here. I remember him also for the sacrifice that he made for this country overseas. So in that respect a little bit of him will be remembered for this generation and his posterity as well. So I thank the gentleman for moving this piece of legislation in a bipartisan manner so that a piece of him will be remembered for posterity. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for H. Res. 1036, recognizing the contribution of Korean Americans to the United States. It was indeed back on January 13 that we marked the 107th anniversary of Korean American Day, for it was on that day, 107 years ago, that a boat carrying 102 Korean immigrants arrived in Hawaii. In the years since that time, many Koreans have come to the United States for opportunity, safety, and other reasons. Like the millions of immigrants before them, Korean Americans have made a tremendous contribution to the United States. At the beginning, these immigrants were laborers on farms, worked in mines, railroads, and such. It was their hard labor that literally helped build this country as we have it today. Today, there are over a million Korean Americans across this great country. This year marks yet another great anniversary for them. The Korean War began 60 years ago this June, impacting the lives of millions of Koreans and, of course, people in this country as well. By the 1960s, Koreans became one of the top five immigrant groups to the United States, as many Koreans sought hope and freedom and refuge from poverty and violence. The consequences of a divided Korean Peninsula affected the world then, as it does today. We will continue to work for diplomatic relations to resolve this conflict, and a North Korea free from nuclear weapons as well. These Korean American immigrants have made untold contributions to American society. They have raised strong and good families and built successful businesses, dynamic communities, active civic associations, churches and charities. Thousands of Korean Americans currently serve in our Armed Forces; and many of them deployed overseas today, in harm's way, are keeping our Nation safe from terrorism and other risks. Whether it's in military or in education, in science, in business or in the arts, Korean Americans have played and continue today to play a vital role in shaping communities throughout this country. So, Mr. Speaker, I come pleased to present this opportunity to recognize the contributions that Korean Americans have made to our Nation and urge all of us here on the floor and my colleagues across this House to support H. Res. 1036. I would like to say thank you to the gentleman from the other side of the aisle for the past resolutions and this one as well.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize some of the unsung heroes of our ongoing military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq: the Military Working Dogs (MWDs). For over 60 years, military dogs have been working, serving, and risking their lives alongside our brave servicemen and women around the world. Like their handlers, these Military Working Dogs have served this country with honor and distinction, keeping our country safe both at home and abroad. During World War I, many dogs, beginning with the first military dog, Sergeant Stubby, served alongside American forces overseas. On March 13, 1942, the Army Quartermaster Corps officially recognized and incorporated the so-called K-9 Corps. Between 1942 and 1945, over 10,000 dogs were trained in the War Dogs program. Military dogs have continued to play an important role in the U.S. Armed Forces through the 20th century and into the 21st. Today, these four-legged soldiers serve alongside our soldiers overseas, searching for explosive components, drugs, and IEDs. As they do every day in our homes and yards, these dogs have proven to be man's best friend on the battlefield as well. I became aware of the important work of Military Working Dogs through Frank Yevchak, a constituent from Hewitt, NJ and founder of Support Our Four-Legged Soldiers. Frank and his organization have sent thousands of dollars of supplies to MWD handlers stationed in Balad, Iraq. Supplies range from cooling vests and blankets to toys and treats--whatever the handlers need to keep the dogs comfortable and able to complete their important jobs. Frank also includes letters and cards from local students in the care packages. Most recently, Frank has partnered with Macopin Middle School in West Milford. In the fall and winter, the ``Paws of Love Campaign'' at the school was able to raise $1,200 for our soldiers and canine companions. As a dog owner, I understand the important traits of loyalty, courage, and dependability that these dogs give to our Armed Forces. Today, one day shy of the Military Working Dogs' 68th birthday, I recognize the important work of Military Working Dogs and thank their owners, trainers, handlers, and supporters for all they do for our soldiers and our Nation.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do rise today in support of H.R. 4547, designating the facility of the U.S. Post Office, located at 119 Station Road in Cheyney, Pennsylvania, as the Captain Luther H. Smith U.S. Army Air Forces Post Office. Luther H. Smith was an original of the now legendary Tuskegee Airmen. His accomplishments, as already set forth, during World War II truly speak for themselves but deserve to be mentioned here on the floor. Mr. Smith was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Purple Heart, the Air Medal with six oakleaf clusters, the Prisoner of War Medal, and eight European and Mediterranean Theaters Campaign Ribbons. It was on October 13, 1944, while he was flying a mission over Hungary, that Mr. Smith's P-51 Mustang fighter plane was hit, caught fire, and he was forced to bail out. Saved then only by a parachute, Mr. Smith lost consciousness as he drifted towards Earth, snapping his hip in two places when he crashed into a tree. Later, there were some German soldiers who found him, and he was placed in a German hospital and then, after that, a prison camp for 7 months until the war ended. Wounded and starving, the exuberant and now talkative man, affectionately nicknamed Quibbles by his Airmen friends, withered to a mere 70 pounds during his internment. After returning home from the war, Mr. Smith received an engineering degree from the University of Iowa. He went on to spend the next 37 years as an aerospace engineer for General Electric, leveraging his experience to hold two U.S. patents; a testament, I think, to his creativity and his innovation. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Smith's life is an inspiration, and his tremendous sacrifices and a clear willingness to place himself in harm's way for this Nation are worthy of commendation. I ask our colleagues to support this resolution so that his life story will continue to inspire generations of Americans to serve their country. Having no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor the work of VFW Post 8946 in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey for their selfless and inspiring deeds towards their fellow citizens. For the past few years this group of extraordinary individuals has been traveling to the Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, D.C. as well as the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. During their trips the members of the Post have spent time with wounded veterans and their families. They have brought items such as clothing, CD players, electric shavers and even a large TV for the recreation room. After one of their more recent visits to Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, William Huston, a member of the Post, told a local reporter that, ``these young men have a remarkable attitude, we cannot properly express the admiration we have for them.'' It is this sense of genuine commitment towards helping those who have given so much to our nation that makes this Post unique in many ways. As I reflect on the deeds they have done I cannot help but be reminded of the enduring words from President Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address. Lincoln challenged his fellow Americans to ``care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.'' The men of this Post are a living testament to these words. I want to once again thank this group of exceptional men for their service towards their fellow citizens. I am proud to represent such a fine group of people in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 63th commemoration of Taiwan's ``2-28 Massacre.'' In the Fall of 1945, 50 years of Japanese occupation of Taiwan ended with World War II. The United Nations gave administrative control of Taiwan to the Chinese Nationalist Party. After more than a year, the Taiwanese people were frustrated by the corruption and economic mismanagement that seemed to plague the party. On February 28, 1947, an elderly woman was arrested and beaten. A group of Taiwanese confronted the Chinese troops responsible. One of the Taiwanese was shot, riots raged, and Chinese soldiers gunned down thousands of unarmed civilians. During the following days, government troops arrived from mainland China. The Chinese soldiers began capturing and executing leading Taiwanese lawyers, doctors, students, and other citizens. It is estimated more than 18,000 people lost their lives. During the following four decades, the Chinese Nationalists continued to rule Taiwan with an iron fist under Martial Law that was not lifted until 1987. The Massacre had far reaching implications. Over the next half- century, these events helped galvanize Taiwan's struggle for independence and for its transformation from a dictatorship to a thriving and pluralistic democracy. I urge other Members to join me in commemorating this important historical event.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill for a number of substantive reasons. But also, quite honestly, after hearing the comment from the gentleman from California, I also was about to say I rise with concerns as to the process as well. I appreciate the ranking member's comment as far as potentially moving forward on this. I too have been there in the past, where we do things in committee, in the relevant committees I serve on, serve on Financial Services Committee and have agreements with the other side of the aisle and with the chairman specifically of Financial Services, with Chairman Frank, and then things go to the Rules Committee, and I don't know whether it was a bipartisan obstacle in this case, but be it as it may, problems happen with Rules Committee. And I can tell you with my working with Chairman Frank, he was able to actually get things done then on the floor as far as the substantive amendments done here to get it done. So I hope that we see similar action with regard to this as well that we have seen in other committees. But I do rise in opposition or concern about this bill with regard to the repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson aspect. And I do so for three points. One has been touched upon, but I want to go into a little bit more detail with regard to the CBO. CBO, Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan entity, has noted the States already have the laws on the books to prevent what we are really trying to deal with here, price fixing and bid rigging, et cetera. Furthermore, State insurance commissioners already typically review the rates charged by insurance companies. So what does this basically mean in a nutshell? Basically, States are working in this direction already, and that the passage of this legislation will have a minimal positive impact. Just a side note. When we talk about State insurance regulation in general, you have to remember when we are talking about the financial situation that we are in right now, it was not the fault of the State regulators of the financial marketplaces that brought us to where we are, it is the fault largely to errors and omissions in the Federal regulators. So if we are trying to cast blame or aspersion on any regulators out there, it should not be on the State regulators, because in essence they have done their jobs, and we should not be throwing other impediments to that getting done. Second point, someone already mentioned about a report out of the CBO. Let me go into a little bit more specifics about what the CBO said with regard to costs. CBO said, and I quote, ``To the extent that insurers would become subject to additional litigation, their costs and thus their premiums might increase.'' Let me repeat that. Their premiums might increase. So to all the points of the other side of the aisle saying that we are doing this with the good intention of trying to get premiums to come down, what do the experts, the nonpartisan CBO, say? Just the opposite, premiums might go up. So the conclusion there is here is a case where increased litigation costs would actually drive up the cost of insurance, and not bring it down. Third and final point, touched upon a little bit, and let me go in more detail. This legislation could have the effect of shutting out new entrants, not folks already there, but shutting out new entrants into the marketplace.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Thank you. This legislation would have the effect of shutting out new entrants into the marketplace. The other side of the aisle has already talked about the fact that they want to have greater competition in this area of health insurance, and I am assuming insurance across the board. But what this will do, as the gentleman and others have already said on the floor, is basically say to the new entrants, to the small companies who want to get into this marketplace, to be able to compete against the large entrenched companies that are already there, you are pushed out, you are locked out. So is that what we want to do with this legislation? That will be the impact. Let me conclude then. In a letter to Speaker Pelosi, the National Association of State Insurance Commissioners says the following: ``The business of insurance, while exempted from Federal antitrust law, is still subject to State antitrust enforcement actions.'' That is important. ``In fact, even if the McCarran-Ferguson antitrust exemptions were repealed, the State action doctrine exempting them would continue to apply. The most likely result of this repeal would therefore not be increased competition, but a series of lawsuits testing the limits of the State action doctrine, with associated litigation costs being passed along to the consumers in the form of higher premiums.'' The conclusion, Madam Speaker, is more litigation, more harmful consolidation, and more increase to the cost to the consumer, all things that we should be working to oppose. And that is why I do not support the underlying legislation.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the other side of the aisle has been calling for even more misguided government spending despite the fact that they have controlled this House for the last 3 years, with massive spending in the past. Hasn't the American public spoken loud and clear that the Federal Government is just spending too much and trying to do too much, and that they want us to start cutting spending here? You know, the consequences of governments spending too much money are apparent around the world. Over in Greece, with potential default, they are only the tip of the iceberg. You have Italy and Spain also showing serious concerns as well. But here at home over the last 3 years we now see, because of the Democrat leadership of the House, $1.6 trillion deficits without any serious commitment whatsoever about trying to cut spending. And what is the result of that? Well, Moody's is now saying that there is a real possibility that the U.S. may lose its AAA rating. Think about that for a moment. Serious people are beginning to whisper that if things don't change here, the U.S. may actually default on its debts in the coming years and do serious damage to our economy and weaken it and cause higher interest rates. You know, throughout the last year we have talked a lot about spotting systemic risk in our economy. Well, there is one major risk in it right now, our mammoth Federal deficit and ever-increasing debt. Washington and the Democrat majority leadership must get serious about addressing this fast.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Boy Scouts of America. Established on February 8, 1910, the Boy Scouts have provided a positive influence for millions of young men throughout the country and have instilled in them the twelve key pillars contained in the Scout Law, which reads: A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent. Over the past 100 years, we've all known family, friends, and neighbors involved in the Boy Scouts who took these building blocks of leadership to heart and made their communities a safer and better place. The Boy Scout program has reminded the American people of the higher notions of patriotism and good citizenship. With a range of former Boy Scouts such as Buzz Aldrin, Bill Gates, Tommy Lasorda, and Gerald Ford, this program has served to structure the lives of some of our greatest countrymen. I want to personally congratulate the two Boy Scout Councils in my district, the Northern New Jersey Council and the Patriots Path Council, on this very special anniversary. The dedicated Scout leaders who are involved in these programs have introduced Scouts in New Jersey to exciting explorations and taught them new skills that they will use throughout their life. They have recounted stories of Native American folklore around campfires, taught Scouts the uses of a taut-line hitch and bowline knot, and have provided the Scouts with an opportunity to take on responsibilities and duties to further their maturity into adulthood. There are few greater chances for aiding our country than to help these young men in their efforts to make themselves physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight. The Boy Scouts of America owes its tremendous history and over two million Eagle Scouts to an unknown English Scout who helped an American newspaper publisher cross a street in London. That newspaper publisher was so impressed by the Scout's willingness to help that he would later go on to found the Boy Scouts of America. Today, the Boy Scouts of America embrace the social and personal virtues needed in mankind and provide countless opportunities for their Scouts to better our world as a whole. With their example in mind, I hope all Americans will use this opportunity to help a neighbor, volunteer in his or her community, explore nature, or learn more about our great Nation.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, there is not a member of this body who has not been gripped by the graphic stories and images coming out of Haiti since the tragic earthquake on January 12. The human suffering is on a scale we can scarcely comprehend, and its proximity to our country and the need of its victims have rightly roused the charitable spirit of the American people. In the midst of such tragedy, however, we look to stories of hope from the rubble. I would like to share one of those stories today. On January 9, fifteen members of the Trinity United Methodist Church in Hackettstown, NJ, departed for an eight-day missions trip to Port- au-Prince and Bon Regos, Haiti. This missions team delivered dozens of suitcases filled with medical equipment and personal hygiene items to orphanages, hospitals, and schools in some of Haiti's most disadvantaged neighborhoods. Thankfully, no one on the trip was seriously injured in the earthquake. In the following days, thanks to the tireless work of the State Department and the kindness of strangers, the entire team was evacuated to the Bahamas and is now safe at home with their families and loved ones. While it was not their intention when they signed up, the members of this team deserve to be recognized for their selflessness and service. Their names are: Rev. Frank L. Fowler III, Leslie Williams-Wexler, Virginia G. Mitchell, Erica L. Pattky, Frank Proccaccini, Suzanne P. Buchanan, Melissa J. Deibel, Kim M. Koch, Vicki L. Meuller, Virginia L. Thorp, Taylor S. Thorp, Danielle S. Chamberlain, Kathryn A. Stiner, Linda C. Callaham, and Carmen M. Courter. I join their family, friends, and parishioners in a prayer of thanksgiving for their safe return. I am especially proud of Erica Pattky and Taylor Thorp, two teenagers from my district who were part of this team. Their commitment to service at such a young age is a model for people of all ages in our community. In the coming months and years, American churches, non-profits, and relief-aid organizations will play a vital role in stabilizing and rebuilding the Republic of Haiti. I am convinced that Americans will answer the call to ``Love thy neighbor,'' not due to any government mandate or social obligation, but because it's just what Americans do. In crises both small and large, the United States has proven itself the most philanthropic and charitable nation in the world. I thank the members of Trinity Methodist for providing such a courageous example.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of a recently fallen Marine, Sergeant Christopher Richard Hrbek. He was a field artillery cannoneer with the 3rd Battalion, 10th Marines, out of Camp Lejeune. He was stationed in Afghanistan. Sergeant Hrbek was an active member of his community back in Westwood, New Jersey. He was a volunteer fireman for 9 years. In 2003, in response to the attacks on September 11, 2001, he enlisted with the United States Marines. He heard the call of duty and he answered it. As a Marine, he served multiple tours of duty, which included combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. On December 23, 2009, under enemy fire, he saved the life of his sergeant major, who had stepped on an IED. For this, he was to be awarded a Bronze Star with a combat ``V.'' He then set the highest example of someone who was willing to risk his life to save the lives of others. Sadly, on January 14, 2010, he, himself, stepped on an IED, and died in the service of his country. He is survived by his wife, Jamie Lynn Wengerter; mother, Cheryl Hodges; stepfather, James Hodges; father, Richard Hrbek; stepmother, Gail Hrbek; two sisters, Amy Dellentash and Lori Hrbek; and two stepbrothers, Jim and Beau Hodges. His dedication to his country and to his fellow soldiers represents his tremendous sense of loyalty and selflessness. Christopher Hrbek is a true American hero. Chris will never be forgotten by his friends, by his family or by the country he fought for.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I can tell by looking at the proverbial clock on the wall at 8:30 that an important election that was just held today with the voting booths now closed just one half hour ago and the ballots all being collected in their boxes and brought to the appropriate places for counting, and we will see--potentially during the course of the next 60 minutes--just how that election should turn out. Just as an aside, for those who are with us here this evening taking part in this discussion on the constitutionality, or the lack thereof, the unconstitutionality of the health care legislation that's about to come before this House again, we will be interspersing some of the election results so we can keep everyone apprised of just how those elections are turning out. I mentioned the fact that the election was held today, and I'm sure there will be pundits on the air tonight talking about exactly what do the election results mean up in the State of Massachusetts, not just for the State of Massachusetts, but for the country as a whole; and a number of them will be saying what I have said before, that it's not so much just looking at those two individual candidates, but what their respective parties stand for, and more specifically, what the President of the United States and this administration has stood for over these last 12 months and what his seminal program, his major issue, has been, and that of course is this health care, so-called ``reform,'' the imposition of new mandates and taxes and totally changing the health care configuration and how the delivery of it is done in this country. Some would make the case that what the election that just closed now 32 minutes ago in Massachusetts is about is whether or not the American public agrees with what the Obama administration has put forth as their major proposal is changing the health care delivery system in the United States or not. We will see the results, if not in the next 60 minutes, at least sometime tonight. More importantly, though, than what the outcome of that one election will be is what will Congress be doing with that legislation here in the House and in the Senate this week or next week or whenever they decide to bring back that issue for a vote, and we anticipate that they will. The fundamental issue, though--this is the one that we'll be discussing in here--is not some of the minutia of that health care legislation, not some of the small language that is buried within-- first in the thousand pages that came before this House that I would hazard a guess that probably just about no one on the other side of the aisle read thoroughly and had a complete comprehension of what they were voting on when they voted ``yes,'' nor clearly in the 2,000 pages that came forth in the Senate variation and version of that health care bill. It's not some of the minutia, not some of the small language, and not so much the details that should be the first question that any Member of Congress should be asking themselves when they're about to vote on that bill; but it's rather the fundamental issue of whether that piece of legislation is constitutional at all. In my pocket here is my wallet, and in my wallet is my voting card-- actually, I have it over here because we just finished voting a little while ago. And as you know, Madam Speaker, every time we vote, we put it in one of these little slots here before we vote red, green, or yellow. I always suggest to my colleagues that before they vote on whatever the legislation is, they should be asking themselves one fundamental question: Is the bill that they're about to vote on constitutional or not? Does the Constitution of the United States give us, as Members of this body, the authority to pass that law that we're about to vote on? We are all required, when we become new Congresspeople every 2-year terms, to raise our hands and to say that we support and defend the Constitution of the United States. As a matter of fact, I was just in New Jersey earlier today where now-Governor Chris Christie did the same thing, raised his hand and said that he is supporting and defending not only the Constitution of New Jersey, but also the Constitution of the United States as well. We, as Members of this body, of the House of Representatives, do that every 2 years when we have the honor and privilege of being elected by our constituents at home; we come to Washington and say we will support and defend the Constitution. As an aside, there is one member of our delegation from Texas who has suggested that it should be a requirement that every Member of Congress and their staffs should read the Constitution at least once each term. Well, I'm not going to say that we have to mandate that; I think it would not be a bad thing for each Member to do it each term. I go through the Constitution on a regular basis, and I hope that other Members would as well. But we have all held up our hands and said that we are going to uphold it, so that is why I suggest to each Member that before they vote on any bill, that they ask themselves is that bill constitutional. Now, the health care bill that we're talking about here is far more sweeping than just about any other piece of legislation that I have ever dealt with in my short term here in Congress. And I think it is far more devastating and sweeping than any other legislation that we have seen in generations. It would impact upwards of one-sixth of our economic activity of this country. But far more important than that, it would impact our very fundamental liberties that our Founding Fathers intended that our Constitution was designed to protect. And so that is what our discussion is going to be tonight. And we will eagerly await the outcome of the election in the State of Massachusetts to see what the voters of that State would like to have their voices come in on. But I think the voices of that State will say, whether they support the nature or some aspects of this health care bill or not, I think all of those citizens of Massachusetts, as with the citizens of the great State of New Jersey would also agree with me, that whatever we do on health care in this country should at the very least be constitutional. Now, one of the primary aspects of this bill that I would suggest has a flaw in it with regard to the constitutionality of it is the health care mandate. And what is that? In the bill, for the first time ever, I would suggest, in the history of the United States, Congress is going to suggest that we are not going to try to be regulating activity, but we are going to try to regulate inactivity. For a long time now--well, basically, you can go back to the 1930s and the New Deal courts and FDR and the like--Congress has grown in its authority and had the Federal Government grow in its size as far as its reach of regulation and taxation of economic activity in this country. And so now you can see just about every aspect of your life in one way, shape or form having a little bit of a reach of the Federal Government into it as the Federal Government tries to regulate in one way, shape or form. But that is always in the area of activity. If you're in interstate commerce some how or other, if you're a trucking firm, the Federal Government is going to reach out and regulate your activity. If you're selling some sort of product either in your State or outside of your State, the Federal Government is going to try to come in and regulate that form of activity. If you're in any other form of business, in State or out of State, the Federal Government is going to try and step in in some way, shape or form, I would suggest, and try to regulate that activity. But never before since our Constitution was first created in 1787 has the Federal Government said we are now going to regulate inactivity. We are going to start regulating you even if you do absolutely nothing. Even if you just stay home, don't buy anything, don't do anything, we are now going to regulate your activity. And we're going to do that regulation in a more personal and profound nature than any other aspect that we've been talking about here on the floor in the last several months or years, and that is your health care and your health insurance. So in this legislation that the administration has proposed that has passed out of this House, that has passed in the Senate, and now is in some area of compromise on the other side of the aisle, the Federal Government, this administration says, can regulate inactivity. They can step into your house and say, because you are not doing something that the Federal Government believes you should be doing--what is that? buying insurance--we're going to penalize you and we're going to do that with a tax. We have never seen this before. And I would suggest that that is an overreach, a far overreach of what the Founding Fathers ever intended for this government, this Federal Government to be able to do. It is, therefore, a fundamental flaw, an unconstitutional flaw in this legislation. It is one of the main reasons why I voted against it when it came in this House, and it will be a continuing reason why I will vote against it if ever it comes back on the floor of this House again. Now, I see I have been joined by some of my colleagues from the floor who have spoken on the difficulties or the problems or the demerits of the health care bill in the past. As I said in my opening comments, there are a number of those areas that we can talk about with regard to the taxation aspect or with regard to the fact that you're putting the government--and I'm looking at a doctor now--between you and your doctor and other problems with this bill as well. There are a whole host of reasons why this legislation is bad as it impacts upon us as individuals and our health quality in this country. But as I said at the beginning, the most profound aspect of it is that it's unconstitutional, and it's unconstitutional because of this mandate. With that, I am pleased to be joined by Ms. Foxx, who would like to speak on this topic as well.