Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, last year, when we passed the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions and Divestment Act, I came to the floor stating that we must go further. Our stated goal then, as it is now, was to protect Americans, our allies, and the Iranians who suffer under a tyrannical regime. We have made it clear that it is unacceptable for Iran to develop nuclear weapons. While a step in the right direction, last year's version of Iran Sanctions gave too much flexibility to the administration and included vast loopholes that weakened the law's effectiveness. As I speak now, the Obama administration has only applied sanctions to ten foreign companies and has given leeway to companies operating in Iran. Iran has continued development of nuclear weapons and poses an even greater threat to America and her allies. Today's bill, H.R. 1905, the Iran Threat Reduction Act, takes the threat of Iran's nuclear program seriously. This legislation would mandate sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran. It would also impose sanctions on foreign banks that continue to do business with the Iranian Central Bank. Just last week the Senate unanimously supported sanctioning the Iranian Central Bank. As the House and Senate are deeply divided on other major issues, we all believe that Iran is a threat that must be dealt with swiftly and that the Central Bank must be sanctioned. H.R. 1905 also would reassert that it is U.S. policy to ensure Iran does not obtain the ability to produce nuclear weapons. Finally, the bill would close the loophole in current U.S. law that allows foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations to bypass U.S. sanctions. Will this legislation single-handedly prevent a nuclear Iran from emerging? Likely it will not. We may have waited too long for our actions today to single-handedly dismantle Iran's nuclear ambitions. However, with this legislation, allies are already indicating they will follow our lead and potentially sanction the Iranian Central Bank as well. As we show the rest of the world we take this threat seriously, they will too. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, today I extend my deepest condolences and heartfelt sympathies to the family of Liz Coventry. Liz passed away on October 26, 2011, after waging a valiant battle against cancer. Throughout many years of my public service--from my Congressional campaign days to my early days as a U.S. Congressman, Liz was an unwaveringly loyal and exceptionally focused member of my team. Whether working on casework for constituents, tirelessly advocating on behalf of veterans, spearheading the annual Congressional Art Competition for my office, or organizing various special projects, Liz took on every endeavor with passion. I cannot imagine the early days of my office without her. Yet far beyond being an employee, Liz was also a friend. And as anyone who knew Liz would undoubtedly agree, to be able to call her ``friend'' is truly an honor. While Liz's daily presence will be acutely missed by those who knew and loved her, the memory of her friendship and her legacy will remain. I deeply appreciate Liz for her friendship and support, and I honor her for her service to our state and our nation.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 854, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Stated against:

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 855, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Stated against:

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of a balanced budget amendment, and some would say it's the only solution to our current fiscal crisis. Statesmen throughout the history of our Republic have stressed the importance of fiscal responsibility, but it's the voice of Thomas Jefferson that, I think, we must pay particular attention to. Thomas Jefferson bore the burden of debt throughout his entire life, and some historians have argued that Jefferson's personal experiences influenced his thinking about the public debt as well. Jefferson inherited a significant amount of debt at the young age of 31, and some say his own spending added to that and worsened his financial condition personally during his life. When he died, he, unfortunately, passed his debt on to his descendants, which is exactly what this Federal Government is doing now to future generations today. So, if the Federal Government says that it's so concerned about the welfare of our children and the next generation and the next generation, then we should be taking the time right now to address this staggering public debt that our children and our grandchildren will stand to inherit if our leaders here in Congress fail to have the courage to--what?--cut spending and to balance our budget and to live within our means. Jefferson had a moral message to the future public servants in this regard. He believed that those who are entrusted by their constituents to represent them, as he said, ``shall consider themselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts and are morally bound to pay them ourselves.'' Jefferson expanded on this message in a letter he wrote to James Madison in 1798. He said, ``Neither the representatives of a nation, nor the whole nation itself assembled, can validly engage debts beyond what they may pay in their own time.'' Still writing to Madison, he explicitly endorsed a balanced budget amendment, stating, ``With respect to future debts, would it not be wise and just for a nation to declare in its constitution that neither the legislature nor the nation, itself, can validly contract more debt than it may pay within its own age.'' So what would Jefferson think about where we are in this country today? The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, has projected that maintaining all of our current spending would eventually require that the middle class in this country would have to have a tax rate of almost two-thirds of all their income--63 percent--and that the small businesses in this country would have to see their tax rates skyrocket up to 88 percent in order to cover all the spending. These numbers have a real impact on the lives of individuals, on families, and on businesses. So, if Congress were then to keep on spending and have to raise taxes as much as the CBO has prescribed, Congress would do what? Congress would basically doom our families to a crushing tax burden, and this would smother the ability of businesses to expand and, therefore, to create jobs. See, the economics of all this is very clear. If we refuse to address our spending problems, tax rates are going to have to rise, and they will rise in such a manner that would commit future generations to a tax burden to pay for--what?--the spending of today. So we now, as often is the case, stand at a crossroads. We can continue to do as we have done in the past, which is to overspend and borrow and put this burden on our children, or we can do something else. We can demonstrate our commitment to a balanced budget by making it the supreme law of the land in this country. Let me conclude then with a final quote from Jefferson: ``To preserve the people's independence, we must not let our government load us up with perpetual debt. We must make our selection between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude.'' So let's make Jefferson's dream a reality. Let us pass a balanced budget amendment.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Part of the other problem is that you may not find the interest actually by the broker-dealers if you're talking about a $25,000 or $50,000 or $100,000 enterprise. Is that another reason why you went this way?

Mr. GARRETT. Before you leave, tied to this is another one of the two last points I was going to raise, which perhaps you would like to illuminate on. The bill also requires that the intermediaries state a target amount that you're raising. You just said perhaps $50,000; right? And one of the requirements under it, as I understand it, is that you would have to withhold the capital formation proceeds, the money that you collect, the capital, until you hit a percentage of or that target amount. Is that correct?

Mr. GARRETT. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. GARRETT. Well, I will very briefly. I understand that I've gone over the time that I was supposed to be speaking.

Mr. GARRETT. With that, I rise in complete support of this legislation.

Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for all of his work on this legislation, as well as the chairman of the full committee, Spencer Bachus, for his leadership on this initiative as well. To the extent, as with the previous piece of legislation that we had, it goes to the overarching theme I think of today--and also during the last 10 months of this time in the House--which is job creation for this country, what can we do here in the House of Representatives to facilitate the creation of more jobs. And just like with the last piece of legislation, what we can do is help businesses, both small and large, to obtain additional capital, capital being at the heart of the ability of a small business to go out, to expand, to grow, to hire new employees, and to create jobs in this country. The legislation before us goes well in that direction. And now, done in a bipartisan manner, it, as the sponsor, stands head and shoulders above the way it was before because it adds additional provisions for safety and soundness to it. It allows for equity financing, in which investors can purchase ownership stakes in the company in exchange for basically stock or shares in those companies to grow in a future direction, to grow larger and what have you. And it allows the companies to obtain those funds without having to repay specific amounts at any particular time. What does that mean? That means it enables the company today to obtain that capital today to expand the company and hire new employees. Now, through the efforts of the gentleman from North Carolina, what they did, in a bipartisan manner, was to add additional--what do you want to call it, protections, I guess, it will--and which was part of the discussion I think we had in committee at the time. And that was a good discussion there. We had the markup in the committee to allow for some of these discussions; and I know it went further, after the hearing and eventually with markup, to achieve this. I think it's important--I'm just going to spend a minute--I know you touched on some of these, but I want to take a minute or two to run through what the additional protections are that we are providing for investors, in no particular order--well, maybe they are, actually. They are in the order of page eight and nine of the bill, but in front of me here, first: Warning investors of the speculative nature generally applicable to investment in startups--and that's what we're talking about here, they're startups. And if you're going to invest in a startup, it's not a sure thing, it is speculative. So those warnings are there. Secondly, warning investors that they are subject to the restrictions on sale requirements. What that basically means is that if you're investing in this today, don't expect necessarily that you can just take your money out tomorrow, but that there may be restrictions as to when you can take out your money. But that's necessary, as I said before, so that the business can have that capital to grow. So it's reasonable. Thirdly, taking reasonable measures to reduce the risk of fraud with respect to such transactions--again, a reasonable measure. Fourthly, providing the SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, with continuous investor-level access to the issuer's Web site. Why? Because we want to make sure that that information that is being conveyed to whom--the investors in this--is the same information that the SEC has. A good provision. Fifthly, requiring each investor to answer questions, to do what? To demonstrate their abilities--and I think the gentleman from North Carolina already went through this as far as what those restrictions should be--but, A, recognition of the level of risk generally applicable. It goes back to what I said before: If you're going to get involved in this, make sure that you understand it. And that's one of the questions. B, risk of liquidity. If you're talking about a startup company as opposed to something that's traded on one of the exchanges, there's not a lot of liquidity out there, generally speaking. That means there's not a lot of folks out there who are trading these shares on a daily or hourly basis. So you have to understand that there is going to be a restriction on liquidity in this marketplace. And, C, such areas as the SEC may determine appropriate, so broad authority there. Sixth out of seventh I'm going to touch upon, and maybe this is the point that the gentleman was just referencing in some respects, the outsourcing of cash-managing functions to a qualified third-party custodian. And I think the gentleman referenced traditional broker- dealers, but actually this goes into a slightly different caveat from that which, I think, is actually the appropriate manner; otherwise, what you may be doing with all these restrictions being good, you don't want to get too restrictive in this and too costly. If you did do that, then you may end up making this just as difficult as if you were in some other framework.

Mr. GARRETT. The point of that is, again, what? Basically investor protection here. What you don't want to have happen, I guess, is: Say I'm going to go out into the marketplace and start raising money, and as soon as the cash starts coming in I can start using it right away, even though I was intending to raise $200,000, but I'm going to start using it right away. Those proceeds may not go to the point where you intended. I see the gentleman from Colorado is nodding his head. Is that your understanding? Is that the reason why this was included in here?

Mr. GARRETT. One of the reasons that you do that is because we are talking about small companies, companies that may be creative artists starting up a business, a nonprofit starting up a business, a small entrepreneur, so you're talking about small folks, small businesses. You're talking about businesses under $1 million. If you were talking about what we read about in The Wall Street Journal, if we were talking about things that may be shortly traded on the New York Stock Exchange, that would be more appropriate. But you're talking about these much more, smaller type of industries here; right?

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the gentleman from California as well for his leadership on this issue, as well as others, and also behind us over here, the chairman of the full committee, Spencer Bachus, for his leadership on this issue as well as on the general issue of trying to do what we can do best in order to facilitate the greater liquidity and openness of credit in the marketplace. This bill is one step in that direction, so I commend both gentlemen for their efforts in that regard. I've been on the floor, I guess, for the last few days now, and I've heard Members from the other side of the aisle repeatedly coming to the floor, saying, Where are the jobs bills? We haven't had any jobs bills come through. Here is certainly one of the pinnacles of the jobs bills that we've been talking about that this House has passed already and that today we will pass going forward. What this bill will do is provide, as has already been indicated, to both small and big businesses the opportunity to get the wherewithal to start their businesses, grow their businesses, expand their businesses--and to do what after that? Create jobs. That's what this is all about. We just had a litany of people come to the floor, one right after the other, just as the sponsor of the bill has done. He is someone who started out with probably not much in his pockets but was able to get that all together and probably get some capital outside of that as well--and do what? Create a business. It wasn't a one-man operation, I'm sure. He then brought people into that business. He created jobs. The other speakers who came to this floor, they created jobs as well. As the other side of the aisle has already indicated, this bill will create jobs. Now, one of the other things this bill does is to create certainty in the marketplace, which is something that has been a problem over the last couple of years with all of the legislation and regulation that has been coming out of Washington. This will provide some degree of certainty in the marketplace so that investors and business owners will understand how they can get into the credit marketplace and then do so. I know a little bit later from now we may see some attempts to amend this bill which would go in just the opposite direction. What would it do? It would provide more uncertainty in the marketplace; it would provide more convolution to the system; and it would make it even more difficult to do what we're trying to do today. Support this bill clean as it is right now in order to create more jobs for the American public.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman for not only managing the floor tonight with regard to this conference, but also with regard to all your great work with regard to trying to push forward the BBA, making sure we get over the goal line this time. As the chairman and founder of the Constitutional Caucus, we rarely come to the floor to advocate for an amendment to the Constitution, but that's exactly what we're doing here tonight. It brings us here tonight because the United States Government has what? Just as the other speakers have said, overspent, overborrowed, and overtaxed, putting this Nation on the road to fiscal ruin. Yet, as much as that is true, there are many who believe that the solution going forward is even more of the same: more spending, more borrowing, more taxation. And only here in Washington, DC, could that ever be given serious consideration. American families are not given that luxury. American families have to do what? They have to live within their means or face fiscal disaster in their family pocketbook. So, too, here in the United States Government we should live within our means as well; but unfortunately, today, as you saw the previous chart and previous speaker, we have been incapable of doing that. And that is why we're here tonight because we know we must force ourselves to do so through a balanced budget amendment. Now, step back. Amending the Constitution is a difficult process. It should not be entered into lightly. The process reflects the Founders' commitment to republican self-government while protecting what? The integrity of the supreme law of the land. And so in the spirit, then, of the Founders' vision for an amendment to the Constitution, we support tonight a balanced budget amendment as the only solution to excessive and irresponsible spending that we've seen go on for far too long. And yet we hear from the other side of the aisle and the other House--Senate majority leader called the balanced budget amendment a radical new idea. But how radical is it really? Radical? Well, 49 States in this country have some form of a balanced budget amendment, and they realize they must abide by it to live within their means. A new idea? Well, indeed, Thomas Jefferson is the intellectual forefather of the balanced budget amendment. So we can go back some 200 years. Back in 1798, when Jefferson wrote to Virginia Senator John Taylor that the solution to then-extravagant spending was a constitutional amendment eliminating the power of the Federal Government to incur debt, he went on to say: I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an article, taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing. Now, the balanced budget amendment is the Jeffersonian solution, therefore, to today's debt crisis. And yet, when you think about it, the amount of spending and overspending that they had in Jefferson's time pales in comparison to the reckless spending that we have today and the reckless and fiscal ineptitudes that we see going on in Washington. According to CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, the government will spend nearly--get this--$1.5 trillion this year more than it takes in. And if we refuse to balance our budget, as your amendment would do, what will happen over the next 10 years? Almost $9.5 trillion in additional red ink will be added to the bottom line. So, in conclusion, the choice I think is clear: Either we continue down the same road with blissful disregard of the warnings of financial catastrophe that we've seen, or we do what? We amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget and put the United States back on the road to sustainability and also prosperity. So let's make the balanced budget amendment the 28th Amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I rise in support of H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act. Doesn't that name really say it all, the ``Protect Life Act''? Historically, the Federal funding of abortion has been restricted. Time and time and time again, an overwhelming majority of Americans has indicated that they oppose the Federal funding of abortion. Go all the way back to 1976. Congress has repeatedly passed the Hyde amendment. What does it do? It ensures that no Federal Government dollars are used to pay for elective abortion or insurance plans that provide elective abortion under Medicaid. Unfortunately, the insurance plan that was forced through Congress this last session would now allow Federal funds to subsidize, to basically support and pay for, abortions on demand in America for the very first time since 1976. So the Hyde amendment, as it stands today, only extends to HHS. The Obama health care plan, what does it do? It exploits that loophole. As the law now stands, the government can literally force that federally funded and private health care providers cover abortion under the guise of family planning or pregnant women services or countless other euphemisms. My friends on the other side of the aisle will say, Well, that's incorrect because President Obama signed an Executive order to bar abortion funding. No. Members on both sides of the aisle know that pointing to an Executive order is disingenuous at best. We all know, as we come to this floor, that this Executive order, the same one that the Planned Parenthood Federation of America calls a ``symbolic gesture,'' can be completely undone by a future administration. The only way to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not spent on abortion is--how?--through legislative action. President Obama's insurance plan passed Congress. It did so over the objection of the majority of the American public. So it is time now that we come to the floor to respect that majority of Americans and to ensure that they do not fund abortions simply by paying their taxes every April 15. Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, as I said at the very beginning, the Protect Life Act--the bill that says it all.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in objection to the Palestinian Authority's blatant attempt to circumvent its past agreements and treaties with Israel and seek a unilateral declaration of statehood at the United Nations (UN) later today. Peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will not be settled through a resolution at the United Nations. Lasting peace will only be achieved through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority's unilateral declaration of statehood directly contradicts UN Resolution 242, which states that the two nations must work together to achieve peace in the region so that both states are secure. When Resolution 242 was passed, President Johnson stated, ``It is clear . . . that a return to the situation of June 4, 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders. Some such lines must be agreed to by the neighbors involved.'' Now is the time for the UN and the Palestinian Authority to heed that advice. The borders should not be dictated to the Israelis; rather, an agreement should be based on direct negotiations between the two states. Recognition in any way by the UN will only embolden the belligerent Palestinians to avoid the negotiating table and circumvent direct negotiations with Israel. An affirmative vote by the UN Security Council, even with a United States veto, will have dire consequences for years to come. I urge the UN to reject the resolution so that both nations can return to the negotiating table without pre-conditions.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor, as the previous speaker has said, to say this side of the aisle is committed to reaching a solution and not just a deal to this problem. We are committed to reaching out across the aisle and across the other side of this House to reach a compromise. We have already compromised on the level of cuts going even further. We have already compromised on the level of the caps, raising the caps to make it even easier in that regard as well. We have also already compromised from where we started with regard to a balanced budget amendment, holding true to the idea that we should, as all Americans also agree, eventually pass a change to the Constitution and require a balanced budget amendment. But at the end of the day, although we will compromise on cuts and we will compromise on caps and we will compromise on moving forward on a balanced budget amendment, let it be clear, as God is my witness, we will not compromise on our principles; our principles of defending the Constitution and defending Americans and making sure that our posterity does not have this excessive debt on it.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. I congratulate the chairman of the full committee, the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Wisconsin for the good work done on, really, a commonsense piece of legislation before us. Earlier, I heard the ranking member from Massachusetts comment about the partisanship here. He said something like, well, we didn't make this partisan; they did it. Well, I remind the chairman that his underlying piece of legislation, the Dodd-Frank piece of legislation, actually had more Democrats vote against it than it had Republicans for it. And he was the one that actually pushed through a bill in an extremely partisan manner, and that's really why we're here today. I believe that the agency we're talking about, the CFPB, is really a one-stop shop to basically allocate credit and give the government the power to direct and control the economy. At the same time they're talking about consumer protection, what are they doing? They're separating safety and soundness from it. How can you have consumer protection when you're separating safety and soundness? I also remind the ranking member, who originally was the sponsor of Dodd-Frank--the bill that has his name on it, that bill that is going to destroy so many jobs in this country as pointed out once before-- that he was in favor of the same type of legislation that we have before us today on the floor. So, basically, this is once again a case of where the ranking member was in favor of it before he was against it. So operating under that logic we are hearing from the other side, if the bill today weakens the agency, then the bill that the gentleman introduced originally would actually destroy the agency. Now, I've heard the ranking member during his debates do what he always does when he doesn't have the facts or the law on his side: He attacks and he twists other people's motives. He knows that he was essentially supportive of the elements of this bill today by offering these provisions himself before to get through the House, but today he comes out against it. Basically, he accuses everyone on our side of the aisle of trying to kill his legislation. But I remind him to consider his own statements. The ranking member has claimed over this past week that the most important piece of the Dodd-Frank bill is the risk retention section of the legislation.

Mr. GARRETT. So he says on the one hand that the risk retention is most important; then he turns around and says that any loans with 4 percent down payment should be exempt from risk retention. I don't know very many loans that are at that level. So I find it surprising that he is attempting to exempt everyone from what he claims is the most important portion of his bill instead of accusing everyone else of attempting to destroy this job-destroying bill. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the gentleman from Massachusetts think before he speaks on the legislation and then come out in support of the same legislation that he once supported in the past.

Mr. GARRETT

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

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. 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 Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).