Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. I would appreciate if the gentleman would not make the allegation that we make these applications here because anyone is in cahoots with Wall Street banks, such as you've just made.

Mr. GARRETT. We can supply you with the ones.

Mr. GARRETT. On some things. On other things, the gentleman would agree that there is no information out there at all on certain--

Mr. GARRETT. So the gentleman agrees that there is only partial information at this point in time out there.

Mr. GARRETT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GARRETT. This is a protect retiree pensions and jobs by ensuring a well-functioning swaps market amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask for your support today for my amendment which would do that--prevent unintended consequences from impacting literally millions of pension plan participants and the beneficiaries that follow. My amendment would simply require the CFTC to finalize important data-reporting rules before they implement new rules for certain swap transactions. See, with this change, it would be able to collect the transaction data that it needs to determine the reasonable standards for block trade levels and real-time reporting requirements without first disrupting the marketplace. You see, finalizing any numerical determination of block trade sizes or setting real-time reporting requirement timeframes prior to having necessary data, really, if you think about it, would be arbitrary, would encourage litigation, and will likely have the unintended consequences on those very same pension funds I talked about--their ability to protect their investors, as well as on the economic growth of our country and job creation. So, what this amendment would do is require swap data-reporting rules to be finalized and be in place before promulgating the final block trade rules or those real-time reporting criteria rules. Now, I do this because numerous market participants of all shapes and sizes have sent to us public comment letters warning of the dangers of getting block trades and real-time rules wrong. I will just give you this one. I had others. I will just give you one of those letters, and that comes from the American Benefits Council. Who are they? Well, they and their members provide benefit services to over 100 million Americans in the Committee on Investment of Employee Benefit Assets, whose members include more than 100 of the country's largest pension funds and manage more than $1 trillion on behalf of 15 million member plan participants and the beneficiaries. I will just give you one quote from this, not all the other ones: We have concerns about the sequencing of proposed real-time reporting rules in relation to the collection of swap market information. We believe that they should first obtain market information via reporting of trades of swap data repositories--which have to be set up, of course--and then propose rules based on this data such as real-time reporting, which necessarily would better serve the intended purposes. So, in conclusion, by instituting a more commonsense approach to these rule-makings, we're giving them the ability to collect that data of the swap transaction information to determine those reasonable block trade levels that they have to set, the real-time reporting requirement as well, and to do so in a way that will not impair the well- functioning of the marketplace. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GARRETT. If the gentleman will yield, I know I read through it quickly because I was asked to move along things quickly at the end of the evening, but one of the documents that I read was one of the comment letters. It was not from the Wall Street bank but was from the American Benefits Council, those very same pension benefits companies speaking about this. They are the ones who are raising it. So it is those end users. Those are the participants. Those people are representing beneficiaries. They are the ones who are asking for this delay. It's not the Wall Street banks that I'm making reference to. It's the pension funds.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I applaud Speaker Boehner for raising this important issue today before the House. I cannot agree more with the Speaker that the President has failed to explain to the Nation the purpose and goals of our military operation in Libya. The Speaker's resolution rightly demands answers from the President with regard to U.S. security interests and military objectives in our engagement in Libya. I would go even further than that to suggest that the President has been in violation of the law and has set out specific responses from Congress. But let's be clear: Congress must engage in a full, open and honest debate about sending our brave men and women into harm's way, into combat. We owe that to them, and we owe that to the American people. The Founders intended such a debate when they granted Congress the power to declare war. The President's complete failure to consult with Congress and receive specific authority as required by the War Powers Act and by the Constitution leads to only one conclusion: that President Obama is in violation of the Constitution and the authority under the War Powers Act as well. The United States Congress cannot now sit idly by any longer as the President refuses to abide by his constitutional and his legal requirements. So, in conclusion, I believe that Congress must hold this President accountable, and the Speaker's resolution is a first step in that direction.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. I thank the chairman. Today, I stand here to introduce this amendment, No. 58, to the National Defense Authorization Act to clearly set out congressional intent with regard to military operations in Libya. The amendment is simple: it clarifies that this authorization bill does not serve as congressional authorization for any military operation in Libya. The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the sole power to declare war, to authorize it. And we know that the War Powers Resolution was enacted to give the President the ability to commit forces to defend American interests in an expedited manner for up to 60 days before having to seek that congressional authorization. Subsequent military engagement must then, under that act, be authorized by this Congress. But despite that clear standard, Presidents have routinely disregarded the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution and the role of Congress. As you know, President Obama consulted the U.N. and the Arab League of Nations before engaging in hostilities. However, the whole of Congress was not consulted nor authorized and to date has not authorized any military action in Libya whatsoever. I do believe firmly that the President must come to this Congress for authorization to continue any and all U.S. military action. So I encourage Members of this House to support this amendment.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress and a friend of Taiwan, I rise today to urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Taiwan's full membership in the World Health Organization, WHO. Since 2009, China has permitted Taiwan to participate in the annual summit of the WHO in Geneva on a restricted basis. This year's meeting will be held from May 16th to the 24th. While I certainly welcome Taiwan's participation in this important international body, I am also concerned about the restrictions that China has placed upon Taiwan's involvement. First, Taiwan's role in the WHO has been restricted to that of ``observer status.'' This means that Taiwan does not have the ability to vote, speak, or participate in deliberations--they can only sit and listen. I believe that as a sovereign state, with a population of 23 million people, Taiwan deserves full representation in the United Nations and its affiliated organizations. As such, Taiwan should be recognized as a full voting member of the WHO. As we all know, infectious disease knows no borders. Taiwan was affected in 2003 by an outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and the 2009 outbreak of the H1N1 virus. These events demonstrate the important role Taiwan plays in global health and the Nation should be recognized as such. Second, Taiwan is participating again this year as ``Chinese- Taipei.'' I would prefer to see Taiwan recognized under its name ``Taiwan'' rather than as a subsidiary of China. Lastly, I have grave concern with China's veto power over Taiwan's role on the international stage. Chinese approval should not be a prerequisite for Taiwanese participation in United Nations organizations, or any other international organization. Taiwan should not have to rely upon the goodwill of China to voice beyond its borders. Allowing this to become the international norm will undermine its current status as an independent, sovereign state. To close, I believe the United States should amend its current policy of supporting ``meaningful participation.'' I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Taiwan's full and equal membership in the WHO as well as other international organizations.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. As I was saying, just last week in Indiana, the Governor signed probably the most comprehensive taxpayer protection law to prevent taxpayers from doing what? Subsidizing abortion. I was reading the article in the L.A. Times. They said this is probably going to go in other States. Why is that? Because it's the will of the people. Let me tell you and conclude on this. I'm the father of two beautiful girls. When I look at them, I see the promise of tomorrow. My life is, without question, better for the love I share with them. America is better for each child and life that is here. So I will come to this floor and continue to fight to protect the most fundamental right of the unborn in each of us: the right to life.

Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman. Before I begin my remarks, I just have to say that I am really shocked by the statement from my friend and colleague from the State of New Jersey as well when he basically makes the bold statement that basically by taking away a subsidy of sorts of what we're doing here, and that translates to a tax increase on an individual. Nothing, of course, is done in this legislation to that effect. I come to the floor today and rise in full support of H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. I commend everyone who has worked on this, especially my other colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) not only for sponsoring the bill before us today but for being a leader on this important issue. You see, by passing this bill, what we really do is establish a permanent government-wide prohibition on subsidies for abortion and abortion coverage, while giving the doctors opposed to abortion certain protections to safeguard them from performing abortions against their will. This is a commonsense bill. It is consistent with the opinions of the majority of Americans who have voiced opposition to Federal funding for abortion. See, I believe that the time has come to do away with the patchwork ban currently in place with a law that extends the Hyde amendment to all aspects of spending authority here in Congress. Now, I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will tell you that cutting off funding to abortion services will only cause abortion rates to do what? Rise, they say, but just the opposite. In fact, published research by the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute shows what? That we would actually see a 25 percent decrease in abortions. Furthermore, contrary to what the opposition would have you believe, this legislation will not affect funding for family planning services. It will only prevent funding and subsidies for abortion and abortion coverage. So it's important to point out that taxpayers across the country do not believe that they should be funding abortion coverage. Well, just last week in Indiana, Governor Daniels signed probably the most comprehensive taxpayer protection law.

Mr. GARRETT

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

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

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks), who actually read this amendment and understands that it makes absolutely no changes whatsoever for seniors 60 years of age and over and actually strengthens health care for seniors in generations to come.

Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Democrat substitute amendment. Let me just quickly here sum up. The Democrats' prescription, if you will, for our Nation's fiscal troubles basically includes what? More spending, more debt and more taxes, more taxes on hardworking families and small businesses. And so while the Democrat budget has lower deficits than, well, the President's budget, you really need to take a closer look at how they achieve this and how they achieve the deficit reduction compared to the White House's budget. Let's take a look at it. First, well, they raise taxes again. How much? By $208 billion more than the President's budget on all Americans. Then what do they do next? They cut the defense budget. By how much? By $614 billion again relative to the President's budget over the 10-year window. Now, at the same time, you already had Secretary Gates who has said that we need to cut the Defense budget by $78 billion. They want to cut Defense by $614 billion on top of that. What about in addition to that? Well, in their budget, if you go into it and look, there's about $400 billion in unspecified savings. Unspecified? Here at the 12th hour they still can't decide how they want to try to rein in spending? Of course not, because they really honestly don't want to do so. I believe that budgets must be credible, and the Democrats' budget doesn't pass that test at all. The only specific savings in the budget come from how? Raising taxes again on Americans and cutting the defense budget. The Democrat budget does not tackle even the drivers behind our deficits. What are they? It does not address the pending bankruptcy-- yes, bankruptcy--of Medicare and Medicaid. The Democrat budget is nothing more than punting, which is exactly what the administration and the White House have been doing as well. Now, look, the American people want Congress to do the right thing. The American people want us to get spending, want us to get deficits, and they want us to get our debt here in Washington under control, just as American families have to get their spending, deficit and debt under control, just as small businesses across this country have to get it under control. The Democrats' budget is frankly an embarrassment and shows that the other side is not serious about taking our fiscal challenges seriously.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. So we stand before you, as I said before, with clear distinctions on the course that this country will lead in the future. Shall we continue to make the same bad policy that we have made in the past which sets us on a fiscal crisis, which not only this side of the aisle but the President of the United States recently stated as well? Or should we change the direction of the ship of State? Should we direct ourselves on a path towards fiscal sanity? Should we go in the direction that every single family in this country has to go in, that is to say, that we will live within our means, that we will not put an additional burden on our children and our grandchildren? Shall we go in a direction that we can say to the seniors 60 years of age or older that we will not change your entitlements, we will not change your health care but, rather, that we will put in place today's programs that will make sure that they are here for you and for your children and future generations as well? Shall we go on a path that says to our children of today and of tomorrow that we will not put additional burdens onto you today or in the future by putting in programs that we cannot afford? The Republican Study Committee chooses the latter. The Republican Study Committee decides that we should live within our means. The Republican Study Committee ensures that our Nation spend responsibly by freezing the total discretionary spending at 2008 levels, ensures our national security by meeting Defense Secretary Gates' defense request. Our budget puts non-defense discretionary spending on a sustainable path for the future. We reduce unnecessary mandatory spending other than Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as opposed to what my friends on the other side of the aisle say. We strengthen Medicare's long-term finances. This budget would slowly phase in increases to Medicare eligibility and make it stronger for the future. And most of all, unlike any other budget that will come to the floor today, this budget will actually balance, we will actually come with a balanced budget within the lifetimes of all the Members here sitting today. Mr. Chairman, we believe that the solutions outlined in our budget proposal will put our Nation on a greater, surer footing, address the fiscal crisis and set the course for dynamic innovation, job creation, and economic growth for the future.

Mr. GARRETT. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland), who recognizes we must keep our promises, especially to the youth of tomorrow. (Mr. SOUTHERLAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GARRETT. May I ask the Chair how much time remains.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), who does not believe it's a social experiment to do what all families have to do: live within our means.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), who realizes that the young people would do best if we not put additional tax burdens of over $40,000 or $50,000 on their birth coming into this country by the actions of not living responsibly.

Mr. GARRETT. At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who recognizes the fact that the solutions to all the problems in the world, as the other side may think, is not raising taxes on anyone and certainly not raising the taxes on those who produce the jobs in this country.