Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves), who recognizes that if the balanced budget amendment was appropriate back in 1995, with debt now reaching over $14 trillion today, how much more so is it relevant to pass today.

Mr. GARRETT. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

Mr. GARRETT. Just to the gentleman from the other side of the aisle who made the point regarding what sort of amendment that Thomas Jefferson may have been looking for today, whether he actually would be looking for one, what we call a supermajority, what have you, in point of fact I believe Jefferson would be going even further than what we are doing here today and simply say that Congress should not have the ability to borrow at all. The amendment that we are putting forward would actually give us greater flexibility with that in time of emergency, in time of war, and Congress can take it upon themselves to borrow. Jefferson understood that first and foremost that Congress, just like the businesses and families at the time, needed to live within their means. And he saw it as immoral, basically, to take the responsibilities of this generation and place them on future generations. At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack).

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I would just remind Members of what the leader on the other side said, wondering whether Members have actually read the bill. If Members do read the bill, they understand that Cut, Cap, and Balance, as provided before us, actually does those three things and allows us to pay the bills at the same time. With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross).

Mr. GARRETT. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

Mr. GARRETT. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), who, while the White House says that leadership is not simply proposing a bill to vote up or down, recognizes that the White House has not given us any plan of leadership so far on this issue. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GARRETT. At this point, I will yield that 30 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. GARRETT. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Berg).

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. I rise today in support of a plan, an actual plan, to address our fiscal crisis, to cut, cap and balance. Now, Mr. Speaker, with our debt now topping $14 trillion, we have no other choice but to start sending clear, immediate signals to the marketplace and the world that we are serious about spending and debt reform. And to show that we are serious, we need to put skin in the game in the form of immediate spending cuts today, caps on spending that occurs tomorrow, and a balanced budget amendment to protect us from spending too much in the future. You know, I find it interesting that the proponents of a debt limit increase without any substantial reforms point to the so-called financial meltdown-type scenarios of failing to raise the debt limit by August 2. We hear that interest rates for U.S. Treasuries would skyrocket, causing the cost of servicing current debt to increase, which in turn would require more borrowing and disastrous consequences for the Federal budget and also the global economy. But you know what the other side fails to mention in any of these scenarios is what would happen if we don't get spending under control. The challenge is clear. What are the solutions, though, to it? House Republicans today are demonstrating that we are committed to confronting our country's addiction to spending and debt with bold and decisive action and with a plan in place. The cut, cap, and balance plan is not only the right prescription to address our fiscal crisis, it is the only plan on the table that makes structural changes to right our fiscal ship. In fact, it is the only plan in place. Nobody wants to raise the debt ceiling, but if it's going to be raised, we should use it as an opportunity to finally implement comprehensive reform measures to ensure that we never find ourselves in this situation again; because if we do nothing, we put off the tough decision for another day, the only one to blame is ourselves. This is our moment. This is our time to act. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).

Mr. GARRETT. Would that we had the problem of this Congress over the last 2 years trying to balance the budget, what with $1 trillion in additional stimulus spending, $2 trillion in the cost of ObamaCare, $3 trillion overall added to the budget deficit. Would that be the problem that we'd look to the other side of the aisle to try to live within our means. Unfortunately, that's not the case. And that's the reason why, as our Founders understood and as we spoke of Jefferson before, the need to try to constrain ourselves with cutting spending now, placing legislative caps offered tomorrow, and then going forward in the future with a constitutional balanced budget amendment. With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), who understands the importance of living within our means.

Mr. GARRETT. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GARRETT. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. West).

Mr. GARRETT. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), who is concerned not only about the soul of the Nation today but the soul of the Nation for our posterity as well, who is not willing to duck the hard fiscal issues.

Mr. GARRETT. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to rise with me in support for my amendment, which will save Americans over $500 million. My amendment before us today makes reasonable and targeted spending reductions in order to do what? Achieve significant savings that will contribute to our Nation's fiscal health. Mr. Chairman, we must really now step forward and take bold steps to reduce spending. And I do commend my colleague from the State of New Jersey for the hard work that he has put in, and I appreciate so many of the comments that he has already made on the floor, pointing out to the other side that in so many cases there is money in these accounts, the money hasn't been spent, and they have taken a serious look to try to rein in spending throughout the committee process. For they realize that our Nation is on a path to bankruptcy and we have maxed out our Nation's credit card. So while the committee did an admirable job and made significant cuts in the underlying bill, I stand here myself, and I and the Republican Study Committee believe that we can go further than this. So this amendment is a very reasonable attempt at showing that this body is serious about cutting spending. Mr. Chairman, for too long the Federal Government's energy programs have been sold to the American public as basically wise investments that will yield vast new technologies whose costs would basically pale in comparison to the benefits later on. But when you think about it, when you think about the billions and billions of dollars that we have spent year after year, our energy infrastructure remains largely the same in many respects, and we are still here today dependent upon foreign sources of oil. And energy prices? Well, they just continue to spiral upward. The other side talked wise energy policy. Well, time and time again, Federal energy programs have failed to live up to their potential. These Federal programs have allowed the government to basically play venture capitalists, if you will, and they do so not with their own money. Not at all. They do it with taxpayer moneys. And despite the little return on their investment, they have little choice in making these investments. American taxpayers basically are commanded to increase this investment every year. For example--I will just give out one since we have been here for a long time this evening--the American people are being asked by their government to invest literally millions to promote something called ``advanced solid-state lighting.'' What is that? It's a technology that even its supporters can see is far too expensive to compete in today's marketplace. So does this sound like something that an intelligent investor would do? I think not. But only Members of Congress who are spending other people's money would do so. Mr. Chairman, the United States is home to the most vibrant marketplace of ideas and investors. So the very best way for government to encourage energy innovation and revolutionary technology is to do what? It is to use that marketplace and get out of the way and allow private capital to make those investments. It is in the marketplace where private individuals will assess the risks and rewards, and they will invest responsibly with their own money on projects that will merit further development. So to conclude, considering the precarious state of our economy and the fiscal condition of this country, the government can no longer invest in some of these extremely risky and unproven projects without regard to loss and expense. Government can no longer play the role of that reckless investor. We must eliminate the waste where it exists and encourage the Federal Government to spend the American public's money in a wise and prudent manner. For that reason I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this amendment and fiscal responsibility. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Republic of South Sudan and their declaration of formal independence on July 9, 2011. Six months ago, the people of Southern Sudan spoke clearly when nearly 99 percent of the voters declared independence from the repressive government in Khartoum. While this is a historic moment for southern Sudan and its people, this nation faces great challenges in the infancy of its sovereignty. For the Republic of South Sudan to prosper, a number of challenges must be overcome. Foremost, the country must determine questions as fundamental as citizenship rights and the location of borders with neighboring nations. Additionally, Southern Sudan must establish peace and security within its borders in order to sustain meaningful growth. North Sudanese governmental support for attacks on Southern Sudan have killed more than 1,000 civilians, and have displaced hundreds of thousands of men, women and children over the past year and a half. Simply put, these attacks must cease. In terms of the economy, international agreements regarding Southern Sudan's debts must be negotiated, as well as the development of an infrastructure to allow for the efficient export of oil. However, even in these challenging and uncertain times, this young nation has demonstrated a commitment to improve the lives of its citizens. Recently, we have observed marked increases in commerce and trade, both domestically and internationally, thanks to the government's continued development of modern infrastructure. The ruling government has reached out to opposition groups within Southern Sudan in an honest effort to maintain national unity throughout this momentous process. While there are still hurdles to be overcome, today I recognize and congratulate the Sudanese people for their significant accomplishments in having reached this momentous occasion.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. GARRETT. I rise today in support of this amendment and one which I have also cosponsored with the gentleman. This amendment, quite honestly, is common sense, in that it simply looks to add accountability in how the Pentagon spends our taxpayers' dollars. Now, the GAO released an independent audit that they performed in March that concluded that the cost of the Pentagon's largest programs has risen by $135 billion--that's over 9 percent--to $1.68 trillion by 2008. And as was pointed out, over half of that, or $70 billion of that, involves overruns. And what they say in their report appeared ``to be indicative of production problems and inefficiencies or flawed initial cost estimates.'' Since then, we have not had a complete audit by the Pentagon, and since then, overruns have only multiplied. Just this past week, earlier in the week, I had the opportunity to serve in the Budget Committee, where we had the CBO come in. And we asked them point blank for some of the information that we would like to have with regard to these audits, that we would like the information from them so they could pinpoint some of the, as we always say on the floor, the waste, fraud, and abuse that goes on. But more specifically, where the inefficiencies are. And the answer we got from them was somewhat telling. They said they cannot supply this Congress with the information that we would like because they do not get the information themselves from the DOD. And that is the problem. That is the problem. The Department of Defense is consistently overbudget in acquisition and equipment modernization. There are 92 major defense acquisition programs. Seventy-five percent of them are overbudget. Twenty percent of them are overbudget by more than 50 percent. Mr. Chairman, this is something that needs to be addressed. This amendment will once again hold the Pentagon accountable, assuring that the taxpayer dollars are spent prudently, as intended. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr GARRETT

Mr GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I have strong constitutional concerns regarding H.R. 2278. When the Founding Fathers met at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the differentiation between which branch of the federal government initiates war and which branch conducts it was one of the most seriously debated topics. After deep thought and consideration, the Founders decided to grant Congress the power to declare war and left to the President, as Commander-in-Chief, the authority to conduct wars. Today, the Congress is asked to vote on a measure that would reverse the constitutionally prescribed war powers by directing the President on how to conduct the military conflict in Libya. While I have supported past efforts to defund the military conflict in Libya, I cannot vote in support of a bill that only defunds some of the military effort while endorsing others. The Congress should and must debate the merits of our foray into Libya and either authorize it completely or demand that the President terminate our military engagement. This is the only constitutionally sound course for Congress to take.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Madam Chair, the Hatch-Waxman Act provides for the extension of patent terms covering drug products that must be approved by the FDA. And the extension that we're talking about here, while seemingly straightforward, the Patent Office and the FDA have interpreted it, as we have said, in two different ways, creating uncertainty that has led to miscalculations. So our amendment, consistent with a court ruling, will clarify that when the FDA provides the final approval after normal business hours, the 60-day clock begins on the next business day. So by doing this, by ensuring that patent holders will not lose their rights prematurely, what this amendment does is it will not only resolve a longstanding problem but will encourage the development of innovative new drugs as well. With that, I urge the adoption of this very commonsense amendment.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, as founder and chairman of the Constitution Caucus, I applaud the opportunity to debate the constitutionality of this bill. This is the first of what I hope will be many more instances to discuss the constitutionality of legislation considered on this floor. What this bill does is change the U.S. patent system from one which allows the moment of invention to determine who is entitled to a patent to one which confers this power to a government agency. Such a change would violate the intellectual property clause of the Constitution. Why is that? Because the Founders rejected the idea that rights are bestowed to the people by the government in favor of the revolutionary principle that men are born with natural rights. Our Constitution instituted a government that secures only these natural and preexisting rights. So inventions created by the fruits of intellectual labor are the property of the inventor. These and only these first and true inventors then are entitled to public protection of their rightful property. To remain true to the principles of liberty, we must preserve a system that protects the true and first inventor.