Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. I did not yield, but I appreciate the gentleman's comment. In any other realm of life, personal life, business life or whatever, when you have a failed business, what have you, when you have failed portions of that company and they fail in their performance, is the response, well, the solution to that problem is more people, more authority and more money? That seems to be only the case here in Washington, D.C., in our Nation's capital when you can have a failed entity like the SEC where they failed in so many areas; where they failed, as we've already discussed, with regard to Ponzi schemes like the Madoff situation, the Stanford Ponzi scheme; where they failed in the area of operating a failed investment bank supervising program as well; where there was a lack of supervision over in the money market fund which led to for the first time, I guess, in history the breaking of the buck with the reserve primary money market fund account. They failed in all of these areas. And what is Washington's response or at least what is the response from the other side of the aisle? Let's give them more money. The irony here is that the gentleman from Massachusetts comes to the floor today to enhance their funding, but, if I remember correctly, the Democrats controlled this House from 2007 through 2010. They had all that time to go in and do a complete audit of these agencies. They had all those 4 years to look at them to see where they were making mistakes, how to fix them, improve them, and then increase their resources. But they failed to do that during the last 4 years. And now in this CR they say this is the time to do so. The gentlelady talked about punishing the agencies. Well, they are punishing people. They're punishing the enforcement folks over at the GSA. They're punishing the folks in enforcement over at the IRS. And I would question the gentleman from Massachusetts before he put in this language, did you contact any one of those agencies to see what the implications would be on those agencies for cutting to the extent that you are here?

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

Mr. GARRETT. I thank the Chair and I thank the gentlelady from California on her opening comment with regard to accepting responsibility. I think that's all that this side of the aisle has ever been asking for when it comes to the SEC, to accept the responsibility of their past poor performance in so many different ways.

Mr. GARRETT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 26, due to an unexpected family health emergency, I was unable to make rollcall No. 26. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 13, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of repealing this simply job-destroying health care bill. What we want to do is replace it with a piece of legislation that addresses three main tenets: one that will grow our economy, one that will bring down costs, and one that is basically constitutional. In the area of jobs, you know, I remember when Minority Leader Pelosi, then Speaker Pelosi at the time, said this bill would create 4 million jobs and 400,000 of them immediately. All the same, the CBO was saying, ``It is likely to reduce employment.'' So instead of encouraging America's leading job creators, this takeover of health care hurts small businesses with more taxes, more mandates, and higher health care costs on those small businesses. We need to do this and work together in a bipartisan manner in a way that will help our small businesses. In the area of cost, additionally, this health care bill is deficient in that it fails to address bringing down costs. As companies have begun to digest this health care bill, costs have only risen. CBO has found that this law will actually increase health care premiums by as much as 10 to 13 percent. Now, one of the areas that I looked at--and I've heard from a lot of people in the medical community and I've asked them, What is one major thing you would have liked for us to put in this bill? And that is tort reform, but it's missing in this legislation. It is imperative that any serious reform of the health care system take a very hard look at the issue of medical liability reform. Unfortunately, this bill fails in that regard, too. Finally, in the area of constitutionality, while the Constitution grants Congress the authority to regulate commerce among the several States and the Supreme Court has long allowed Congress the ability to regulate and prohibit all sorts of economic activity, this bill goes even further because, for the first time in the history of the U.S. Government, we are regulating inactivity. For the first time, Congress has mandated that individuals purchase a private good approved by the government as the price of citizenship. On the first day of Congress, I introduced a bill, H.R. 21, the Reclaiming Individual Liberty Act, legislation which would take out that individual mandate, because, while I believe Congress has the ability to pass legislation which I believe is bad policy, I do believe it is wrong to pass unconstitutional legislation.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. ``This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.''

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as founder and chairman of the Congressional Constitution Caucus, I rise this morning to urge support of my resolution to restore the preeminence of the Constitution in lawmaking. My resolution requires that all House bills appropriately cite an enumerated power in the U.S. Constitution. If a bill did not sufficiently cite that justification, it would be subject to a point of order, and it could not be waived by the Rules Committee. Some of my colleagues might claim that all legislation is constitutional as long as it provides the general welfare clause reference. But our Founding Father, James Madison, who was the Father of the Constitution, said in Federalist No. 41: ``For what purpose could the enumeration of particulars be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?'' In other words, Mr. Speaker, why does the Constitution list specific powers in article I if every conceivable law is basically fair game? I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense resolution.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, every year an average of 115,000 American children live in foster care just waiting to be adopted. So, today, I am pleased to honor November as National Adoption Month and November 20th as National Adoption Day. In particular, I would like to recognize Voices for Adoption for its efforts to support adoption. Since 1996, this organization has not only helped recruit adoptive families, but also supported programs that assist families who have already adopted. For example, Voices for Adoption sponsors a program called Adoptive Family Portrait Project. Through this project, Members of Congress celebrate a family from their district that exemplifies the values of adoption. This year, I am pleased to recognize the Campbell family from Waldwick, New Jersey. Shea and George have welcomed over 121 children into their home over the last 30 years. In addition, they have adopted several children. Shea also works for Children's Aid and Family Services as a specialist in helping special needs children who have been exposed to drugs. In the past, she has served on the Child Placement Review Board. The Campbells remain in contact with many of the children who have come into their home as foster children. They also mentor new foster parents and advise those who are considering becoming foster parents for the first time. During this month, I am proud to highlight the numerous ways the Campbells have contributed to promoting adoption in northern New Jersey. Adoption changes far more than one life; it changes a community.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Hyundai Hope on Wheels program, and to congratulate a brave young woman named Brianna Commerford on being named the Hope on Wheels' National Youth Ambassador. This program will donate $6.8 million to 68 children's hospitals across the nation, continuing Hyundai's long- standing commitment to the treatment of pediatric cancer. The organization could not have picked a more able or appropriate ambassador than Brianna. One of the great joys of serving in Congress is representing so many outstanding and remarkable citizens who use their life abilities and experiences to improve the lives of those they may never meet. Brianna Commerford is one of those exemplary citizens. Just twelve years old, Brianna displays a wisdom and maturity far beyond her years, and has created incredible good out of one of life's most terrifying situations. When she was nine years old, Brianna was diagnosed with Stage IV Hodgkin's Lymphoma. With courage, tenacity, and support from those around her, Brianna overcame a year of grueling treatment and eventually defeated the cancer. Since entering remission in October 2009, Brianna has shared her story of survival in schools, hospitals, and other places across New Jersey, bringing hope and inspiration to so many. Moreover, Brianna has helped raise over $20,000 for the American Cancer Society. Brianna has taken a scary and daunting prognosis and unlocked its potential for good. She has learned one of life's most difficult lessons--that greatness is found in our ability to create good within our own locus of control. I can think of no one better suited to serve as a National Ambassador for this important cause. The same energy that carried her through treatment will serve the Hope on Wheels initiative well, as Brianna and Hyundai partner to find new ways to treat and hopefully one day prevent and cure pediatric cancer. Thanks to her courage and the skill of her doctors, Brianna is back to doing what she loves: riding horses, playing soccer, and living the life of an active twelve-year-old. She has made the commendable decision to further the cause of pediatric cancer research by sharing her story with us today. In closing, I would like to leave you with you a line from a poem Brianna wrote while she was in treatment: ``I have CANCER and I really DON'T like it. The chemo is GROSS, but I'm STRONG and can fight it.'' Brianna brings a powerful testimony to the importance of living courageously and pursuing your goals relentlessly. It is an honor to represent Brianna and her family in Congress, and pay tribute to the many successes she has achieved with her great courage and persistence.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate this 223rd anniversary of the Constitution. Over two centuries ago, 39 Founding Fathers signed a document that established a framework for the free and brave society that we have in this United States of America. It was in the late 18th century when the 13 colonies were suffering from heavy trade regulations and increasing taxes, with revenues being sent back to war-ravaged England. American colonists were exasperated by what could only be explained today as taxation without representation. It was John Adams who then described the months that followed as the greatest single effort of national deliberation the world had ever seen, for our Founding Fathers made the first modern attempt at a republican democracy in human history. These brave visionaries succeeded in designing a government that would be the model of the free world right up until the current day. See, our newly ratified Constitution posed a challenge to the age-old political belief, and that was equally distributed powers between three branches of government to create a limited form of government with checks and balances and to facilitate that the States and the people would retain all other power and authority not specifically delegated to those in Washington. It was James Madison, the author of the Constitution, who considered it the tools necessary to enable a government to control the governed but, in the same breath and the next place, to oblige it to control itself. You know, unfortunately, the intrinsic values which made our country the prosperous Nation that it is today have been threatened since the Constitution's signing. Our Supreme Court, across the street, once called the guardians of the Constitution by Alexander Hamilton, have removed broad constitutional protections, which have vastly expanded the powers of the Federal Government. Big Government politicians in this legislative and executive branch have created so many new government bureaucracies that our annual Federal spending right now has surpassed 37 percent of GDP. With these and more, the strict constitutional guidelines that our Founding Fathers put in place are now severely in jeopardy. As a United States Congressman and founder also as I am of the Constitution Caucus here in Washington, my goal always has been to keep the Constitution in the forefront in modern-day politics, though, without its influence, we do not possess the groundwork needed to keep our country strong and free as we all desire. It was Abraham Lincoln who famously said, Don't interfere with any of the Constitution. It is the only safeguard for our liberties. Well, I promise to keep that essential document integrated into our power policy decisions--any one that I make--and I look forward to keeping that shining city on the hill as our Founding Fathers created on this day 223 years ago. I thank you all, and may God bless America.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chair, I would just remind the gentleman that the money you appropriated is already $40 million over what the President asked for and also what the VA asked for. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the Chair. This amendment would increase the amount of funding for grants for construction of States veterans cemeteries by $7 million while reducing funding for grants for construction of minor projects by an equal amount. The VA provides funding for State veterans cemeteries through the grants for construction of State veterans cemeteries program. All pending projects are evaluated by the VA and ranked in order of priority. This is not an earmark program. It is a competitive ranking process. The current priority list shows that there are $121 million worth of projects where the State matching funds are already in place. More than half of these projects--totaling $70 million--are still awaiting Federal matching grants. Yet the appropriations bill we are considering today provides only $46 million for grants for construction of State veterans cemeteries. The first priority for the State cemetery program is to provide funding for the expansion of existing cemeteries. The second priority is for the construction of new cemeteries according to geographical need. The third is for improvements to existing cemeteries. So what this means is that existing cemeteries which require improvements do not receive the necessary funding. For example, my State of New Jersey is home to the BGWC Doyle Veterans Memorial Cemetery. This cemetery is the busiest State veterans cemetery in the Nation. On average, it has seven burials per day. For the past 2 years, the cemetery has had two important improvement projects with State grants in place, but there hasn't been sufficient funding for matching Federal grants. The following States also have a State matching grant but have at least one unfunded project: Tennessee, Minnesota, Kentucky, Alabama, California, Idaho, South Dakota, Hawaii, Maryland, Montana, Virginia, Nevada and Maine. To make matters worse, the State veterans cemetery grant program has been underfunded over the past several years, even though the number of World War II veterans that are needing interments is rapidly increasing. VA and VFW officials at both the State and national level agree that there is a need for an overall increase to the annual budget of the grants to State cemeteries program. In fact, it is one of their top priorities. This bipartisan amendment would increase the amount for this program by $7 million. This amendment would simultaneously decrease by $7 million the amount for the minor projects. However, the construction of minor project account is already fully funded at a level that is $40 million above both the VA and the President's budget requests. Last year, during consideration of the FY10 MILCON-VA appropriations bill, I introduced an almost identical amendment. The only difference was that the amount of increase/decrease was $4 million rather than $7 million. That amendment passed this House by voice vote. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. May I inquire of the time remaining.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. In conclusion, I will end where I started, and that is to say, there is a need for the cemeteries not just in the state of New Jersey but across the country as well. In a bipartisan manner we passed this bill with the support presumably from the chairman last year in a similar manner as we are doing this year. As was stated already, the amount of money that is already appropriated is $40 million more than not only what the White House wants but also what the VA wants. I do find it curious that the chairman is able to come to the floor and cite specifically what programs would be cut when our staff tried diligently through the committee to ask them to identify exactly which ones would be cut and we could never get an answer from them as to what would be cut whatsoever with regard to priorities. Now the chair comes and says, well, this program, this program, and this program will be cut. How can anybody say it's being cut when we're already spending $40 million more than what the VA and the administration is asking for? This is a duty that we owe to our veterans, and we should do it in a proper manner, and we should do it now. We should not be pointing fingers saying that we want a cut from this or a cut from that. We have set out the program this year as we have done in the past. And we should meet that moral obligation.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, it's a little over 18 months since President Obama signed the so-called economic ``stimulus'' bill into law. To say now, as many of my Democratic colleagues continue to do, that this stimulus was somehow a success, that's really an insult to the millions of Americans who are now unemployed and continue to look for work. We've heard repeatedly from our business leaders and economists that one of the biggest impediments to job creation is what this Congress has been doing here every day. I mean, how can businesses be expected to invest and to create jobs when they read in the paper such things that our government is expected to run trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, that banks will now have to conform to 243 new regulations because of that 2,300-page Dodd-Frank bill we just passed, and that next year we will experience in this country the largest tax increase in American history? And, also, the energy prices. Energy prices may skyrocket because of the House-passed cap-and-trade bill. And health insurance premiums, they were promised to go down, but they are going to increase because of the recently passed health care bill. Mr. Speaker, uncertainty is the enemy of economic growth. Thank goodness it's the August recess.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. It was John Adams who once wrote, ``Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge of the people.'' And when I first came to Congress, I resolved that promoting knowledge of the U.S. Constitution would be one of my primary responsibilities and priorities. And to that end, I founded and continue to this day to chair the Congressional Constitution Caucus. I come here to the floor tonight just to say that I'm not alone in this effort in working to preserve our freedoms through education and specifically of the U.S. Constitution. And so tonight I would just like to recognize a group whose mission is to inform America's youth and her citizens about the importance of the U.S. Constitution and the foundation it sets forth regarding our freedoms and rights. The name of this group is Constituting America. And I commend the efforts of the two founders, and that is Janine Turner and Cathy Gillespie. It is these two women, along with Janine's daughter, Juliette, who are trying and working hard to inspire students across this country to learn more about this fundamental, primary document, the U.S. Constitution. And they're doing it by launching the first ever annual ``We the People 9/17 Contest.'' Students had until just last week, that was July 4, to submit either a poem or an essay, a song or even a short film or any other type of creative work. I come here tonight to offer to every one of the participants my heartfelt congratulations for their hard work in this endeavor. This contest, and the creation of Constituting America, really fittingly represents the genius of the American Republic, for we are a civilization that prizes individual freedom, that prizes personal responsibility, continuing education, great innovation and, most importantly, civic virtue. So I thank Janine and Cathy for providing a relevant means to further our understanding of our Nation's values, our history, and our founding documents. The American story is filled with great intrigue and bravery; and remembering its past, remembering and having an understanding of these founding documents of the U.S. Constitution will help secure us as we write the next chapter.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Would the gentleman just agree with this statement, though, that neither I nor, I think, anyone on our side of the aisle take the view that we want no regulation, that we are proposing no reform; that, actually, we have presented a proposal for reform, prior, to the administration, that we do believe we need some reform differing in approach and an approach that we and some believe would end the perpetual bailouts? Would you agree that we just come from a different perspective and just want to have a different proposal?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I rise in opposition to this job-killing continuation of a bailout bill. Earlier, Chairman Frank said he was astonished by our interpretation this is a bailout bill. Well, what is even more astonishing is the fact that this is the same chairman who was here last session leading the efforts in our last bailout bill. And here he is, once again, leading the effort on this bill for a continuation of bailout. What is perhaps even more astonishing than that is that here he stands as the author of the bill, with the 2,300 pages in front of him, holding up and actually reading the bill, and he fails to see that this underlying piece of legislation continues to bail out creditors at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. Just as we saw with the situation of AIG, where the creditors on Wall Street and the creditors over in China and such areas as that were bailed out at a hundred percent, we see the same thing possibly going forward here in this legislation as well. Perhaps that explains to us all why Wall Street is applauding this bill--because they know that they will continue to see the bailouts that they saw in the past. So it is astonishing to see that we're repeating history. Now, I know the chairman will say, Well, this is not going to happen because there is the opportunity for receivership. But the chairman well knows if he looks into the bill that that receivership is not for a day or two--it's for a year or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 years that we can continue to see American taxpayers putting out their money to bail out these failed, risky institutions. It seems that at every turn the Democrats who wrote this bill chose to endow the same failed regulators who failed to foresee the last crisis with more and more power. At every single turn the Democrats chose more government bureaucracy and more government outreach into our economy. And at every turn the Democrats threw up policies that will kill jobs and restrict credit. Now, on the one hand, this isn't surprising. We've seen this all before, when you think about it, whether it was in the area of cap-and- trade or in health care proposals, among others we saw before.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. On the other hand, it is disappointing when you consider the history of the failed efforts in the area of health care or the failed efforts on the other side in the area of cap- and-tax that they haven't learned by now from their past mistakes. Think about it for a moment. Think about what we hear when we go back to our districts. That the American people are delivering a strong message to those of us in Washington willing to listen, a message saying that they do not want a continuation, Mr. Speaker, of the failed policies that you brought to the floor in the past with your bailouts of Wall Street. The American people say that they do not want to be on the hook for the tens--no--the hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out institutions on Wall Street that made bad risks. They want it to end now. And they want to end it today. They want less failed government overage into their lives and into the economy. They do not want institutions yet again created that can look at every single transaction that they make, whether it's at the ATM that the government can now look down into those transactions, whether it's opening up a credit card account someplace that the Federal Government can now look into those transactions, whether it's any transaction whatsoever that you or I make or anyone listening to this speech tonight will be able to make, because bureaucrats, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, will be able to look into those transactions. They want less failed government overage into their lives. They want less intrusions into the economy. What, you ask them, do they want? They simply want more opportunities--opportunities to work and to provide for their families. And they want those opportunities without pushing our country into greater debt. Unfortunately, this bill fails on all accounts.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, like all my colleagues, I believe that financial reform is necessary now. But the legislation that is before us really, which empowers failed bureaucrats through government overreach and unnecessary job killing, is just not the right legislation. First, you know, one of the major fundamental flaws of this 2,300- page bill is the section that basically empowers government bureaucrats with so-called resolution authority to basically pick winners and losers again, to continue that failed bailout philosophy. Now, I know the chairman and the proponents of this bill claim that these provisions are meant to add certainty and stability to our financial system. But when you think about it, when you set up an alternative to bankruptcy for failed firms so that there are now two potential tracks for failed firms to go down, that actually introduces more uncertainty, more uncertainty for the financial markets, for the investors, for the counterparties, for our entire economy because of this bill. And that uncertainty, what does that lead to? It leads to failing to invest and leads to less job creation as well. Furthermore, this section of the legislation gives an alarming amount of power to government regulators and bureaucrats to basically decide the fate of a firm and its creditors. Under this administration, we've seen this before. We've seen the rule of law trampled when the Federal Government bullied into submission secured creditors in the Chrysler situation. In favor of whom? Well, politically favored unsecured creditors. And what is this legislation? This would codify the ability of regulators to engage in similar conduct, further eroding confidence in our rule-based economy. And sending investors where, to this country? No. To overseas, scattering them to other opportunities, rather than here in the U.S. Not only that, but this resolution authority, in codifying a better deal than in bankruptcy for at least some of the politically connected, gives large firms an unfair advantage over their smaller rivals. This then does what? It increases moral hazard by encouraging investment in firms that basically otherwise just don't deserve it. And this is a part of the problem that led to the demise that we have seen in other areas of our economy, talking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the GSEs, which, by the way, are never touched in this legislation whatsoever. Another aspect of the problem with this bill is Big Brother, Big Brother overreach that didn't exist before. This bill creates two new government bureaucracies, including the so-called Office of Financial Research, that will have unprecedented power to track the financial activities of everyone here and everyone in the entire United States. You're taking money out of the ATM, that's tracked. You're trying to set up a new credit card, that will be tracked. Information about any one of your consumer transactions, that will now be able to be tracked and gathered without anyone's approval, any citizen's approval. And it will be monitored by whom? Basically by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats here in Washington with few or hardly any constraints whatsoever on how they're going to use the information or when they're going to use the information. Then there's the section on derivatives, another massive, massive job killer. I joined with Congressman Frank Lucas. We offered an alternative to this bill in the last days that was basically the original House version of the bill. It had broad bipartisan support. Unfortunately, under pressure from Democrat leadership, not a single Democrat supported that House language in the final vote, despite the fact that very same language was originally sponsored by the Democrat Financial Services and Agriculture Committee chairman. The results of all this? Well, the result of that section not being in it means that businesses big and small all over this country which had absolutely nothing to do with this financial crisis will now have a very difficult time to hedge their risks, to guard against future risk, because they will have to pay literally hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars in additional funds to control risks on a daily basis. What does that mean for all of us? More job losses. This bill is a job killer. And it will raise prices, too, for every American across the country, whether you are talking about food prices, energy prices, you name it. How many jobs will be lost? In a recent study by Keybridge, they found between 100,000 and 120,000 jobs will be lost because of this job-killing bill.