Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Oradell Public Library. On February 7th, 1913, a small group of community leaders met in Oradell to discuss the creation of a public library. A little over two months later, these individuals successfully opened the public library on April 19, 1913. The library was originally managed by its Board of Trustees and the president of the board, William Zabriskie, who served in that position for 25 years. The board dedicated their time and efforts to ensure the library continued to grow and serve the community. The examples of generosity that contributed to the development and evolution of the library are numerous, but some instances demand specific mention. The first librarian, Marie A. Skinner, worked on a volunteer basis for the first three months and thereafter received a mere ten dollars per month for her hard work. A local carpenter volunteered his time and materials to build the library's first shelves. World renowned painter Charles Livingston Bull, an Oradell resident and an original board member, donated multiple works of art which reside in the library to this day. After ten years of occupying a room behind the local post office, the library moved to its own building provided by the Bellis- Blauvelt family. Residents later donated books to increase the library's collection. A hundred years after its founding, the Oradell Public Library remains an exemplary model of what is possible when people come together for the betterment of their community. I congratulate the Oradell Public Library on this important and impressive milestone. It is an honor to represent the people of Oradell and to commend the hard work and personal sacrifice of so many that established the Oradell Public Library.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for arranging today's Special Order. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey also for his leadership on this very important issue, not just today, not just yesterday, but over years, year after year after year, coming to this floor, speaking around our State, speaking around the Nation as well, speaking for those who do not have a voice, speaking for the weak, the unborn. We thank you for your leadership in this area. We recognize that you have done a profound thing for this Nation, and we thank you for that. I, too, come from New Jersey; and tonight I would like to speak briefly, and I will reference a woman who lived in New Jersey, who lived in Bergen County, who actually lived in Tenafly, up in my neck of the woods. And maybe some of you have heard her name before, and you would if you've walked about this Capitol, because she is commemorated in a sculpture located in the rotunda of this building, and I'm talking about Elizabeth Cady Stanton. She was a suffragette. She was a women's rights activist. She was someone who fought long and hard to ensure the equality of women before the law in this country. And also she fought for the important issue of the sanctity of life. Way back over 100 years ago in 1873, she wrote a letter to Julia Ward Howe, a prominent abolitionist and also a suffragette, and in it she wrote the following: When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our own children as property to be disposed of as we see fit. So she classified abortion as a form of infanticide. Today, Mrs. Stanton, I believe, would be horrified. I believe she would be disgusted, as my colleagues are as well, with what millions of Americans are watching going on in Philadelphia right now. Kermit Gosnell is on trial in a city that gave birth to America, in a city that gave birth to the Declaration of Independence, a city that gave birth to the idea, the promise of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He's there on trial for the callous murder of eight Americans, one woman, she who died from a botched abortion, and seven innocent, defenseless children who were born alive and healthy but then were killed by the abortionist. These are only the murders that Gosnell is being charged with. His clinic, it is recorded, has carried out literally hundreds, thousands of abortions over the years using the doctor's own gruesome techniques on children, who were often over the Pennsylvania legal limit of 24 weeks. Now, as was pointed out, news reports on the trial are nonexistent. Reports of testimony in the grand jury are basically nonexistent in the media. But if you dig down and you get a copy of the grand jury's report, you see what we're talking about and how gruesome it is. According to the grand jury's report, ``Gosnell had a simple solution''--this is from the grand jury's report. ``Gosnell had a simple solution for unwanted babies; he killed them.'' He didn't call it that. He called it, ensuring fetal demise. He called it, then, ``snipping.'' Over the years there were literally hundreds of snippings. This we find from the grand jury's report. Snipping? This is not a medical procedure. This is murder, and we should call it for what it is. Where, then, is the protection of life? Where, then, is the protection of liberty? Where is the protection of the pursuit of happiness? Where is the outrage at what is going on there? Where is the outrage that nothing of this is being reported in any of the major newspapers across this country, on any of the major radio stations, on any of the major TV or cable channels across this country? You have to dig, as I did, to find it in the back pages. The media and the pro-abortion movement are more concerned about things like Rush Limbaugh's comments on contraception, or ensuring that girls under 18, kids, have easy access to the morning after pill than they are with this trial, the gruesome acts in the trial, they allege, of Dr. Gosnell, or for the 1.2 million unborn Americans who die in America every year. So, Mr. Speaker I join the rest of my colleagues tonight in expressing my disgust with this case and the failure also, the disgust also with the media to cover these actions. Every child is precious. Every child is a gift. We must continue, then, this fight to protect this most fundamental right for the unborn, and each of us, the right to life. And we must also make sure that when it is destroyed, that it is exposed. Again, with that, I conclude, and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his actions tonight.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT. And just to take a word from the gentlelady from California, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), who has actually walked the walk and created jobs to create more American prosperity.

Mr. GARRETT. I thank the CBC for actually coming to the floor with a budget, something that the President of the United States has not been able to do four out of five times, even though it is the law of the land that he is required to do so. So I commend them for doing so. We should look to see what is it that we agree with in this and what do we disagree with. We do agree on several points, such as that we want to have a just and fair Tax Code. We do agree, as we have in our budget, to make sure that we address the most vulnerable, those people who are out of work, the poor in the country, those who are trying hard to make ends meet, to try to end poverty as well, to try to make sure that there is health care in this country. But where we differ from the CBC is the impact that their budget would have on each and every one of these. Their budget would have a devastating impact on those who are out of work, those who are trying to not just get a handout, but get a hand up; those who are looking for health care and not being able to afford it; those who are looking for health care from the Federal Government and realizing that within a short period of time, over the next decade, we will see, actually, the money in the Federal Government for the health care that they're receiving right now basically run out. So that is why I applaud their attempt to come to the floor with a budget. But I ask them to take a look at what the impact of their budget will do as opposed to what the Republican budget will do. We will actually be able to create jobs in this country. We did so before in something called the JOBS Act, which we passed in a bipartisan manner. We are going to take the next step to make sure that there is a level playing field in this country versus other countries, to bring back those jobs that have been lost to other foreign nations and bring them back into this country as well. We will be able to reform the system with regard to the poor. We will be able to provide for a system that provides for the American family in a fair and just Tax Code.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GARRETT. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today, as they say, in opposition to the Progressive Caucus substitute. While my friends across the aisle are motivated by good intentions, I believe that their substitute is, frankly, a blueprint for fiscal disaster. Instead of restoring the certainty to the economy by promoting fairness and providing American families the opportunity for more prosperity, this budget is simply a black hole for American families. I can at least give credit to both the Progressive Caucus and the Democrat Caucus for offering a budget because the President of the United States has failed to do so. As you are aware, on February 4, the President, as required by law, is to give us a budget. It's March 20 now; and the American people, well, we're still waiting. That is the fourth time in 5 years that President Obama has failed to submit a budget on time and failed to abide by the law. The Senate Democrats, well, they're not much better. It has taken them almost 4 years to produce a budget that basically now increases government spending by $265 billion, taxes up by almost $1 trillion, and cuts health care providers by almost $300 billion. Over the period covered by the budget, deficits under the Senate plan are nearly $4 trillion larger than those under the House plan. So, today, we have a Progressive substitute on the floor. This budget will do what? It will raise taxes by almost $6 trillion over the next 10 years, including a new tax on carbon. $5.7 trillion in new taxes necessarily means greater tax burdens on who? The American family. These tax cuts put job creators in the penalty box again, and that means more Americans will be where? Without jobs. These tax policies are deceptively sold under, really, a warped notion of what ``fairness'' is. The reality is this ``fairness'' of theirs is merely a heavy-handed government taking from one pocket and putting in another pocket. This budget's tax policy is based on the equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. When he's talking about equality, Milton Friedman once pointed out that a society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality, however, will get a high degree of both. So true fairness is the freedom to manage and direct one's own life and one's own future. Those who take risks giving their all in the pursuit of the American Dream deserve to keep what they've earned. Those who work hard day in and day out, they deserve to keep what they've earned. But the Progressive budget is nothing but regressive. There's nothing fair about this budget, especially to the risk-taker or to the hardworking American family. Their budget would spend nearly $9 trillion more than the Republican budget. Note, now, when I say those numbers--where does that money come from--that means from our children and our grandchildren. They ultimately will be the ones who will have to bear this burden. This budget would also establish a government-run health insurance option under ObamaCare and let the government basically set price controls on drugs. What does that mean? That means for those who were around back in 1970s, I think that's most of us, price controls on gasoline. How did that work out for us? Not too long. Waiting lines for gas is one thing. Waiting lines, however, for lifesaving medicine is a whole other story. This budget would also expand the current, broken, and failed Federal job-training program without any reform whatsoever. This budget calls for even more money for the bureaucrats in Washington with regard to education, and this budget calls for even more money into the broken-down highway transit system that we have in this country. And this budget even fails in the government's first responsibility-- providing for the common defense. This budget further goes and guts the Defense Department by calling for almost $700 billion in cuts to the Pentagon compared to our budget. This Progressive substitute then would put this country basically on the wrong path. For that reason, I urge a ``no'' vote on this budget. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Lankford.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman who played a critical role in fashioning the budget that is before us, the Republican budget, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).

Mr. GARRETT. In recognizing that we can create the jobs and the prosperity by not raising taxes at the same time, I yield now 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Mr. GARRETT. I would ask the Chair how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. GARRETT. That being the case, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, so here we are at the end of the debate, and where are we? The Progressive substitute, what would it do? It would raise taxes on the American family. It would increase spending throughout the country. It would put programs such as Medicare, to allow them to go bankrupt, if you will, within the decade, in 2023. It would do all this and put the burden on our children and never, ever balance. In contrast, before us is the House Republican's Path to Prosperity. What does it do? It takes the first step. It takes the very first step toward reversing this trend, this path to debt and decline that the President and his fellow Democrats on that side of the aisle, and the Senate Democrats as well, have laid out for the American people. See, the Republican budget stops spending money that we do not have. The Republican budget simply does the right things in this area. The Republican budget fixes our broken Tax Code. It does away with all of those unfair corporate deductions and the like that we've talked about. There is some commonality there. So it fixes our broken Tax Code, and it does so in a way at the end of the day creates jobs, increases wages, and helps the American family. The Republican budget will protect and strengthen important priorities like Medicare and national security, not allowed by the other side of the aisle. The Republican budget will also reform our welfare programs, such as Medicaid, so they can actually deliver on their promise and not go bankrupt. Every American family, every family in this country understands the necessity of having a balanced budget. The President and the Democrats could surely learn by talking to them across the country. Budgets are more than numbers. Budgets basically come here to Congress and set priorities, if you will; and beyond that, they have real impact on human beings. Unlike the Progressive substitute that's before us right now, the Path to Prosperity will provide real economic security for workers, for parents. It will ensure security retirement for the elderly and our seniors. It will expand opportunity for the young. For that reason, I urge this Chamber to vote on the side of freedom and opportunity and reject the Progressive Caucus budget substitute. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, today I rise because today's budget is the budget that helps American families. I rise today to support a budget that recognizes that the status quo is not only unacceptable to American families, but it is also unsustainable to the economy. This budget that is before us now will finally restore much needed certainty, certainly to the economy, promote fairness, and provide those American families with the opportunity they are looking for to prosper. Importantly, this budget stops spending money that we simply do not have. At the same time, it advances commonsense changes in proposals to strengthen our Nation's safety net programs. We do that for American families. So the Path to Prosperity takes us the first step towards reversing the path to debt and decline that the President and his fellow Democrats have laid out for the American people. To say that President Obama and the Democrats over in the Senate have failed to lead this Nation in what is probably the most predictable economic crisis in our Nation's history would be a drastic understatement. Why is that? On February 4, the President's budget was due. On March 19, the American people are still waiting. It was over four times in 5 years that this President has failed to basically follow the law of the land and to submit a budget on time. It is interesting that the President's brackets are always on time. His budgets, not so much. The Senate Democrats are not any better. It took them almost 4 years to produce a budget that increases government spending by $265 billion, raises taxes on this country by almost $1 trillion; and, at the same time, it has cut health care providers by almost $300 billion. Over the period covered by the budget, deficits under the Senate plan are going to be nearly $4 trillion--yes, $4 trillion larger than those under the House Republican budget that we are talking about right now. Every family, every family in the country, every family in America, they understand the necessity of having a balanced budget. The President and Senate Democrats could surely learn by going back to their districts and learning from the example of American families across the country in how to set a budget. Families don't have the luxury of waiting for the next election. They don't have the luxury, if you will, of going through yet another cycle. Quite frankly, as we stand here today in Washington, neither does Washington. Let's stop the spending insanity, if you will. Let's start putting the country back on track, and let's do this for the American family.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GARRETT. Madam Chair, I want to thank the chairman, and I also want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina--I'm not sure if she's here right now--for her efforts to make necessary and meaningful changes and reforms to the SKILLS Act. The Federal Government spends literally billions and billions of dollars on workforce training programs every single year. But in 2011, there was a study done by the GAO, the Government Accountability Office. They found that very little is actually known about the effectiveness of a lot of these programs. So when we're here at a time of constrained spending and constrained budgets, we have to do everything we can from both sides of the aisle to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and that the recipients of these dollars or the programs actually get an effective program at the end of the day. So the SKILLS Act that's before us now includes provisions mandating--this is good--meaningful evaluations of these very same programs. But simply mandating that evaluations be done doesn't really guarantee that they will actually be conducted. For example, back in 1998, there was the Workforce Investment Act legislation, and it mandated that the Department of Labor conduct what they called then the gold standard, if you will, of studies, of job training programs, and required that those studies be done by 2005. But here as we stand here now in 2013, those studies still aren't done. In actuality, we checked into it, and they said they will not be completed until the year 2015. That's 10 years later than when the studies were supposed to be completed. Look, Congress can no longer tolerate the neglect of report deadlines, especially concerning the effectiveness of Federal programs that cost us billions of dollars. And when they're not being done effectively, the people who should be getting the affected programs are not getting the services they perform. My amendment simply provides an incentive to the Department of Labor to conduct these evaluations on time so we can have the information and the authorizing committees can have the information to do their job, as well. It does neither the taxpayer nor the job seeker any good at all if Congress is funding something that is ineffective. This amendment will put the executive branch on notice, and Congress is keeping an eye on their performance, and the authorizing committees can also have more information to do their jobs. With that, I urge support of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT. I begin by saying I associate myself with the words of the gentlelady over there in that we should not put the burden on the least in this country, and that's why we support this legislation before us and this amendment. I now yield 20 seconds to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

Mr. GARRETT. I just want to reiterate that we are on the exact same page with our colleagues from the other side of the aisle. We understand the burdens that the Americans across this country are suffering right now. We understand that the burden and the cuts that we may have to consider in going forward in this country should not fall on the least among us, that they should not fall on those who are without jobs, and that they should not fall on those who are struggling at the bottom and who are trying to get up to the middle class and to an even higher rung after that. We have to work together to make sure that they do not suffer like that, and that's why we have this amendment. It is to make sure that every single dollar that we pass in this Congress and that every single penny that we spend on a program is an effective dollar, is an effective penny that gets the job done and that lets them rise out of the depths of despair that they are in to a higher level, and we want to make sure that we have effective programs. That's exactly what our amendment would do, and I encourage both sides of the aisle to join in the support of this legislation. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman. Right now, as we stand here, the national debt in this country stands over $16 trillion, and one-third of that was rung up just during this President Obama's administration. And some outside expert says, what does that translate to you and me? Well, the average taxpayer may be in debt of $111,000 to the U.S. Government because of that. On top of that, do you know that this is the fourth time that this White House, that this President, has failed to follow the law and to submit a budget to the House on time? But when he finally does, I really do hope that this budget differs from his other ones which were riddled with red ink and absolutely had no intent to balance, not in 5 years, 10 years, or 15 years. They never balanced. In short, his budgets have been an economic disaster. Maybe that's why there has been bipartisan opposition to these budgets. In the Senate, which is Democratically controlled, he got absolutely zero support for his budgets in the past. So it's high time that this President gets serious about the deficits, acknowledges that frivolous spending is part of the problem, and addresses the issues with appropriate budgets. I support this legislation before us.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address an important issue regarding the implementation of the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act (NRRA). The NRRA is legislation that I co-authored and was signed into law as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The NRRA was drafted with the specific intention of addressing burdensome and often conflicting regulatory and tax compliance issues facing only two industries--the surplus lines and reinsurance. This legislation received bi-partisan support and was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in multiple Congresses. At no point during the bill's multi-year consideration was its application to the captive insurance industry ever discussed. Unfortunately, several states have indicated that they plan to interpret the NRRA to also apply to the captive insurance industry. This was not the intent of Congress. In drafting this legislation, it was never contemplated to have the captive industry fall under the NRRA. In addition, this legislation has been subject to numerous Congressional hearings and has been approved by this body on multiple occasions. At no time was the legislation's application to the captive industry addressed or suggested. Furthermore, in the bill's summary, the intent of this legislation was clearly stated to impact only two specific industries--surplus lines and reinsurance. Inaccurate and inconsistent interpretations will cause confusion throughout the captive insurance industry. Should regulators implement this faulty interpretation, captive insurance companies would be subject to additional taxation and regulation--the exact opposite intent of the underlying legislation. As one of the authors of this legislation, I am committed to ensuring that this title of Dodd-Frank is implemented as Congress intended, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee to address this issue if necessary in the future.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. ``If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.''

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. GARRETT. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 41) to temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the National Flood Insurance Program.

Mr. GARRETT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend the remarks and include extraneous material on this bill.