Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield myself 4 minutes at this time. Mr. Speaker, the American public truly should be outraged when they read the front page headlines nowadays with regard to bonuses and pay. In The Wall Street Journal today, it's a bank bonus tab of $33 billion. You have to read the second headline, though, to realize that the $33 billion is going to the banks that received, basically, the taxpayer bailouts. The bottom line on all of this is that there is nothing in this legislation that would have prohibited this from going forward. Now, the other side of the aisle on the floor today repeatedly says, Well, the Republican side simply has no alternative; it is just the party of ``no.'' Well, we know that that's not true. On the legislation before us today, with regard to executive compensation, both in committees and through Rules, the Republicans have proposed a number of substantive proposals, which I'll go through right now, which would address the underlying problems that we're trying to address here. So, if you will permit me, I will now address the three or four main points in this substitute which would get at these points that, I think, outrage America with regard to compensation but which do so in a fair and just manner. Firstly, in the underlying bill, it allows for a non-binding shareholder vote on executive compensation every year. We propose instead that such vote should occur every 3 years. Why is that? All the expert testimony we've heard so far says that Wall Street focuses too much on the short term--on the year, on the 6 months, on the three-quarters or on the end of the quarter. Why then when compensation packages usually go longer than 1 year, usually go for 3 years, would we be requiring a vote that would once again refocus the attention on 1 year, a short period of time, as opposed to being in line with the 3-year longer time frame? So we suggest that a 3-year vote would be much more appropriate than a 1-year. Secondly, as to the shareholders and whom we trust with these decisions, we suggest, if we are going to trust the shareholders to be making these decisions, should we not also trust them to make the decision as to whether or not to have such votes on executive compensation in the future? So our amendment would suggest that a substitute would allow for a two-thirds vote of shareholders to opt out of the shareholder triennial advisory vote if they are so inclined. We know that this has been a position taken by a number of institutions and companies in the past because they've said that we do not want to have such power, that we do not want to involve ourselves in such decision-making. We know that it is right now as well because we have a letter from the United Brotherhood of Carpenters which points out the very real reason of why this is. You know, they hold something like 3,603 different companies in their portfolio. They said if they were going to have to make this decision either every 1 year or every 3 years--and considering the due diligence that they would have to engage in--this commitment would be a severe challenge to their fiduciary responsibilities. So, if they want to opt out of this, shouldn't we give them that ability if two-thirds of the voters decide to do so? Thirdly, State law. The other side of the aisle speaks about State law and about hypocrisy on this issue. Should we be preempting State law in this situation or, as to those States that have already engaged in this area, should they not be able to speak up and have their voices heard and not be preempted by the Federal Government? Fourthly, and most importantly, is section 4. This section goes well beyond what the administration has already talked about. The administration says they do not really like what this section is in the bill and that they did not propose this section. So our substitute says that we should be deleting section 4 of the bill, which would allow government bureaucrats rather than shareholders. The bottom line on this one is: Who is it that the other side really trusts to make these decisions? Is it the shareholders, as we saw in the first three sections of this bill, who would make the decisions, and that we would suggest they should be in the position to make the decisions, or is it the bureaucrats whom they think should be able to make these decisions? Is it the same bureaucrats, in the past, over at the SEC, who totally missed the whole Madoff situation, who should be making decisions as opposed to the stockholders? Is it the same bureaucrats who were the regulators for AIG and who totally missed that situation? Is that who they trust instead? So we would suggest all four points are substantive amendments to this, and we would appreciate their consideration. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. In a few moments I'll be submitting an amendment to this bill, but before I do that, I just want to talk about someone else's comment on this bill. This is Nell Minow of the Corporate Library, someone who has been influential and involved in this issue for some period of time, as you may know, someone who no one would consider a conservative on this issue. And she just did a blog on this recently where she says, The House Financial Services Committee has recently approved this legislation. She recognizes why this is coming up, and she says, The impulse is understandable, but the standard is unworkable. What does inappropriate mean? What, while we're at it, does risk-taking mean? And the most terrifying question is, who gets to decide what they mean? Chairman Barney Frank warned earlier this month, she reminds us, and he did so again just recently, that recent news of compensation of Wall Street shows that some financial leaders yearn for the stirring years of yesteryear, and demonstrates a need to adopt legislation on executive pay. But it's a question of empowering the shareholder to decide the question of appropriate level of pay and not by the regulators. She concludes by saying, Who is in the best position to evaluate and respond to badly designed pay packages? As someone who is very proud of 8 years of serving in government, she says she has the most utmost respect for politicians and bureaucrats, but she also recognizes their limits. The government, therefore, should not be micromanaging pay. Instead, and this is what Republicans suggest, remove the obstacles that currently prevent oversight from those who are best qualified and motivated to manage the risk, the shareholders.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining and who will be closing?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss one aspect of health care reform that, unfortunately, has not received a lot of attention by the Democrat majority. That is the issue of medical liability reform. Recently, I spent a couple of days in my district in New Jersey touring hospitals, physician group practices, and long-term care facilities. When talking to the physicians at these facilities, I asked them, ``What issue would you most like to see addressed in health care reform legislation?'' In every single facility I visited, medical liability reform was either at or near the top of the list. We know that the surge in malpractice lawsuits over the past 30 years has had a profoundly negative impact on the practice of medicine. And while, obviously, I feel that patients should be compensated for gross negligence by physicians, there is little doubt that our current tort system is broken. More than 60 percent of liability claims against physicians are dropped, withdrawn, or dismissed without payment. In 2007, the average cost of defending these claims was $18,000 per case. This has pushed the cost of liability insurance through the roof. The American Medical Association (AMA) has listed my home state of New Jersey as a ``crisis state'' for medical liability. Doctors face liability insurance premium increases that far outpace the already high rate of medical inflation. Some high-risk specialties, such as obstetrics or emergency, face annual premiums of over $100,000 per year. According to a survey conducted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the lack of affordable liability insurance forced 70 percent of OB/GYNs to make changes to their practice. Liability concerns also forced between seven to eight percent of OB/GYNs to stop practicing obstetrics. But more important than the direct costs of our tort system are the indirect costs. One pediatrician I spoke to said that he would ``just like to practice medicine without feeling like a lawyer was looking over my shoulder all the time.'' The anxiety that our physicians face from confronting potential lawsuits seriously affects the doctor- patient relationship. Additionally, it drives up the cost of health care by encouraging the practice of ``defensive medicine.'' The AMA estimates that defensive medicine adds somewhere between $84--$151 Billion per year in health care costs to our system. As another doctor I met with said, ``I can waste money like you've never seen. When someone comes into my hospital and needs treatment, I can order every test, every procedure known to man, simply to protect myself from a lawsuit.'' Even President Obama, in his recent address to the AMA has admitted that medical liability is a serious issue. But despite the support of the President, the medical establishment, and the overwhelming majority of Americans, of the 1,018 pages of H.R. 3200, the America's Affordable Health Choices Act, there is not a single page on medical liability reform. Madam Speaker, this issue is simply too important for us not to address. Any serious attempt to reform our health care system must reform medical liability.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3326, FY 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act: 1. Project Name--Lightweight Munitions and Surveillance System for Unmanned Air and Ground Vehicles Requesting Member--Scott Garrett Bill Number--H.R. 3326, FY 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act Account--RDT&E (Army), Shipboard Systems Component Development Requesting Entity--Imperial Machine & Tool Company, 8 West Crisman Road, Columbia, NJ 07832 Description of the Project--The Hybrid Projectile program's goal is to produce low-cost guided munitions capable of reaching targets faster than a traditional UAV. These munitions will be more efficient and effective than current guided projectiles of the same caliber with larger payloads and the ability to change targets or be recalled mid- flight. With additional taxpayer funding, current early phase research can be accelerated, completed, and transferred to other caliber weapons. The Hybrid Projectile program will offer a wide range of forward-looking, advanced weapons and surveillance capabilities to not only Army personnel, but also members of all branches of the Armed Services. Description of the Spending Plan--($4,800,000) $900,000--Design/Study: Design and study costs are associated with the intense engneering and drafting of the various hybrid projectiles. Imperial dedicates personnel solely to this project. $1,100,000--Personnel/Salaries: This cost is for the salaries of employees at Imperial Machine & Tool Co. and subcontractors (if required) that will be working on the program for FY10. $800,000--Equipment: Equipment purchases are associated with hardware and electronics necessary to continue development of Hybrid Projectiles. Imperial Machine & Tool Co. owns state of the art manufacturing equipment. Therefore, there are no capital equipment purchases necessary. $2,000,000--Manufacturing: This allows for the advanced manufacturing of hybrid projectiles through novel machining practices and cutting edge technology. Total--$4,800,000. 2. Project Name--Landing Craft Composite Lift Fan Requesting Member--Scott Garrett Bill Number--H.R. 3326, FY 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act Account--RDT&E (Navy) Weapons and Munitions Advanced Technology Requesting Entity--Curtiss-Wright Flow Control/Engineered Pump Division, 222 Cameron Drive, Suite 200, Phillipsburg, NJ 08865 Description of the Project--This project will support the design, development, and manufacture of two sets of prototype composite material lift fans for application on current and next generation Navy landing craft vessels. The initiative will address an ongoing problem the Navy has been experiencing with current generation metal lift fan blades that have to be replaced every few months at a cost of approximately $1.4 million a year. This technology will extend the life of landing craft lift fans, reducing failures, maintenance, and life cycle costs. The proposed fan improvement utilizes state of the art composite materials, fiber-reinforced matrix composites. Similar composite materials have proven themselves in pumps used in sea water applications onboard U.S. Naval Ships. This funding would complete the development of landing craft composite lift fan initiated in FY09, providing final design and production ready capability to replace current generation landing craft lift fans. Description of the Spending Plan--($1,500,000) $750,000--prototype installation on Navy LCAC $525,000--US Navy testing of prototype on LCAC $225,000--final design modifications as identified in testing Total--$1,500,000.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, in an interview in The New York Times earlier this year, President Obama discussed the difficult decision that he and his family faced to replace his grandmother's hip after she broke it after she was terminally diagnosed with cancer. In that interview, he said, ``Whether, in the aggregate society making those decisions to give my grandmother or everyone else's aging parents a hip replacement when they're terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult decision. There is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place.'' With all due respect, Mr. President, I think that this is a conversation that would be best left between the doctor and the patient. We don't need a government plan. We don't need government bureaucrats standing in the way of this relationship. We don't need them out their rationing out what care is best in this relationship. And so I, for one, reject the idea that government bureaucrats will make better decisions about health care than the doctors and the patient. So any proposal that seeks to ration care in such a way should be opposed, and I will do so every single time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3293, FY 2010 Labor-HHS Appropriations Act, 2010: Project Name: Health Education and Professional Development Center, NJ Requesting Member: Scott Garrett Bill Number: H.R. 3293, FY 2010 Labor-HHS Appropriations Act, 2010 Account: Health Resources and Services Administration, Health Care- Related Facilities and Activities Requesting Entity: Warren County Community College Foundation, 475 Route 57 West, Washington, NJ 07882 Description of the Project: Funds will be used to provide jobs and classroom facilities for associate degree programs in health sciences and to support nurse graduates Description of the Spending Plan: ($350,000) $350,000 is for the construction of a new Health Education Center and to expand a parking lot to accommodate student parking Project Name: Aging-in-Place in Northern New Jersey Requesting Member: Scott Garrett Bill Number: H.R. 3293, FY 2010 Labor-HHS Appropriations Act, 2010 Account: Administration on Aging, Title IV Requesting Entity: UJA Federation of Northern New Jersey, 50 Eisenhower Drive, Paramus, NJ 07652 Description of the Project: Funds will be used to enable older adults to safely and securely age in place and remain independent Description of the Spending Plan: ($200,000) $200,000 is for Congregational Nursing & Social Worker programs and In Home Services Project Name: Newton Memorial Hospital Tower Planning and Design, NJ Requesting Member: Scott Garrett Bill Number: H.R. 3293, FY 2010 Labor-HHS Appropriations Act, 2010 Account: Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Health Facilities Construction and Equipment Requesting Entity: Newton Memorial Hospital, 175 High Street, Newton, NJ 07860 Description of the Project: Funds will be used to construct a five- story Tower on the Hospital's main campus to enable the hospital to better accommodate the community, which has grown beyond what the current hospital's facilities can provide Description of the Spending Plan: ($300,000) $300,000 is for planning (environmental incl.) and design

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support for the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Frelinghuysen, to require that the FAA restrict the use of any funding for the implementation of the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia metropolitan area airspace redesign. I have no issue with improving the quality of air travel; I agree that flight delays are a serious problem, particularly at New York-area airports. I simply want to ensure that a fair and appropriate balance is reached between the quality of flight in the air and the quality of life on the ground. For many years now, I have fought the FAA on its current plan to redraw the airspace over New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. It would redirect thousands of flights per year over the houses of many of my constituents. This increased aircraft noise affects peoples daily lives in many ways. It is more than a nuisance. Aircraft noise can adversely affect children in schools; the elderly in nursing facilities; and families in their homes. Additionally, these homes may decrease in value as a result of this aircraft noise. Proponents of the airspace redesign have long maintained that it is necessary to redesign the airspace because a significant portion of the delays in our national airspace derive from the tri-state area. We have long maintained that redesigning the airspace in the way the FAA is proposing would have very little effect on delays but would adversely affect the lives of thousands of people. There is still time for the FAA to achieve a balance in this process between the needs of those in the air and those on the ground. This amendment would force the FAA to delay implementation of the redesign plan and find an alternative that would achieve a better balance between competing interests. I strongly support the gentleman's amendment, and urge its adoption.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today thrilled that the majority has finally decided to focus on their own recklessness, their out-of-control spending. So by bringing a statutory PAYGO bill now to the floor, we can definitely now conclude that, if they were left to their own devices, the Democrats would run this country's finances into the ground. I think it's basically an admission of guilt on their part that they simply cannot help themselves. Frankly, I find it a little disingenuous that the majority is now raising the banner of fiscal responsibility, after hearing on this floor that the Republicans were the ones who were reckless when we were voting against their $800 billion stimulus bill. It's a little hard to listen to their calls now for spending restraint 4\1/2\ months after the Democrats passed, and the President signed, a $410 billion omnibus appropriation bill that contained over 9,000 earmarks. So, lest we forget, earlier this year the House Democrats rammed a budget through this Congress that would double the national debt in 5 years, triple it in 10 years. This is spending that is already on the books, and PAYGO will do absolutely nothing to stop it. Furthermore, their proposal now is seriously flawed. First of all, it only applies to increases or reductions in tax rates and any new or expanded entitlement programs. It basically does absolutely nothing, nothing to address the tidal wave of entitlement spending that we all know is coming in the very near future. It also does absolutely nothing to address the waste, the fraud, the abuse of the taxpayer dollars that we have seen through the discretionary appropriation process. So, basically, enacting their PAYGO at this point is really a little bit like closing the barn door after the horses have all gotten out. Still, in conclusion, I want to come to this floor and say that I applaud the Democrats for their newfound interest in spending restraint. And if we truly want to do this and work in a bipartisan consensus on this issue, then I think we will achieve what we all seek.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this year, the administration and Speaker Pelosi had this House pass a 1,500-page stimulus bill which no one in either body was able to read before they passed it that spent $800 billion which we did not have, all because they promised that it would create new jobs. In fact, they said it would actually either create or save 2 to 3 million new jobs. Their economic policy adviser at the White House said it would mean an immediate start of creating new jobs and eliminating losing jobs. Even Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was on the floor saying this would be an immediate jolt to the economy, the immediate creation of jobs. Well, it is 5 or 6 months later, and where are we? I just heard from Chairman Bernanke. He says he can't assess where we are right now. But if you look at the numbers, if you look at the chart that I have here, the Democrat projection with stimulus had we done something was here. What actually happened, we have seen as far as jobs, more job losses, more job losses, more job losses, February, March, April, May and June, more job losses. We have lost several million jobs since the stimulus was passed. The administration misread the American economy. The administration misread the American public. The American public knows that we need to go in the right direction. We spend too much, we borrow too much and we tax too much.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, back in January of this year, this administration issued a report called, ``The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,'' the stimulus. This study said that ``a key goal of the administration is that it should save or create 3 million jobs by the end of 2010.'' When this Congress passed the stimulus and spent $800 billion, they said, We will start adding jobs rather than losing them. As a matter of fact, Majority Leader Hoyer said, There will be an immediate jolt in jobs. This will be creating jobs immediately. Let's see, it has been 5 months since the bill passed. Here is a chart. The blue line shows what they predicted. The red line shows the loss of jobs that actually occurred. Millions of jobs have been lost despite their spending $800 billion of the taxpayers' money. And now Vice President Biden has the temerity to say, Well, we misread the economy. Well, do you know what, Mr. Speaker? Every single Republican did not misread the economy. That is why every single Republican voted against that $800 billion stimulus, because we knew that it would spend too much, that it would borrow too much, and that it would eventually tax too much of the American taxpayer.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3183--Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010: 1. Project Name--Greenwood Lake Watershed Restoration, NY & NJ Requesting Member--Scott Garrett Bill Number--H.R. 3183, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 Account--Army Corps of Engineers, General Investigations Requesting Entity--Greenwood Lake Commission, 26 Rocky Point Rd, P.O. Box 83, Hewitt, NJ 07421 Description of the Project--Funds will be used to restore water quality and recreational opportunities to the lake by removing hazardous debris. Description of the Spending Plan--($100,000) $100,000 is for the final removal of stumps and similar hazardous debris from the Greenwood Lake bottom. All preparatory work has been done. Total--$100,000

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Before the gentleman sits down, I wanted to say thank you to the gentleman on the area of cemeteries and dealing with our heroes in the past for the work we have done together here, and the comments he made years ago in the Budget Committee dealing with the situation of spouses of our veterans as well and making sure that they are adequately taken care of as well. Besides this matter that is before us today, I just want to say thanks for your work in those areas as well.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. My amendment seeks to increase funding for the Grants For Construction of State Veterans Cemeteries account by $4 million and decrease funding for the Grants for Construction, Minor Projects account by $4 million. I have met with a number of veterans in my district for a period of time, and one of the topics we have discussed at length was funding for our veterans cemeteries. There are basically two types of veterans cemeteries: Federal and State. When the original Federal cemeteries began to run out of room, the Federal Government created an optional program, the State Cemetery Grant Program that is administered by the Veterans Administration. The Veterans Administration provides funding for State Cemeteries through this grant program. And all pending projects are evaluated by the VA and ranked in priority of order. This is not an earmarked program. It is a competitive type and ranking process. The current priority list, however, shows there are $151 million worth of projects where the State matching funds are in place and ready to go. In other words, there are at present more than $150 million worth of unfunded State Cemetery Projects waiting for the Federal matching grant. Yet the appropriations bill that we now consider provides only $42 million. Of course the very first priority for the State Cemetery Program is to provide funding for new cemeteries and existing cemeteries that are in need right now. However, this means that many cemeteries which require expansion, and improvement projects will not receive the funding if we keep it at the current level. To make matters worse, the program has been underfunded for years even though the number of World War II veterans needing interments will increase rapidly. My State of New Jersey is home to the BGWC Doyle Veterans Memorial Cemetery. This cemetery has two improvement projects that are waiting for Federal funding. I communicated this with several VA officials in New Jersey, and they agreed that there is a need for an overall increase in the annual budget for this program, and my amendment would do just that. My amendment will simultaneously decrease the Grants for Construction for Minor Projects. It basically means we will put the money today for the use of the veterans that need it today and deal later with some administrative changes and costs like that.

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I understand. This is just for my edification. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I appreciate that. I just have a question while we're on the floor, just for my edification. Are there other areas that you would suggest now where the offset should come from?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would add $5 million to the Natural Resources Conservation Service's Conservation Operations Account and subtract $5 million from the Farm Service Agency salaries. More than 80 percent of the funds under the NRCS Conservation Operations Account provide technical support to help farmers and other landowners conserve and protect their land and resources. Currently, there is a significant backlog of requests for conservation assistance, and many farmers are turned away by the USDA when they apply to participate in conservation programs due to insufficient funding. New Jersey, my home State, is one of the most densely populated States in the country, and more and more scarce land disappears every day. Our farmers are eager to share in the cost of protecting our environment, and we must ensure that they have the knowledge and the ability to do so in the appropriate manner. So I would like to commend the chairwoman and the ranking member for their work in attempting to address this important issue. And while I do support very strongly the Farm Service Agency, their salaries and their expense account, under this bill it is slated for a $92 million increase, and with so many of our Nation's farmers struggling to conserve their land and with development rapidly eating up our cherished resources, I believe this is a priority. I will close with this: More than 19 years ago, when I first ran for public office in my State, I believed we were not doing enough to preserve our open space and our farmlands. I believe that this amendment continues to move us now in the right way and towards that goal. I ask all of my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called cap & trade legislation before us. While there are countless reasons to oppose it, including the millions of jobs that are expected to be lost, I wanted to take a moment to speak on the amendment that I offered to this legislation. More than 200 amendments were offered to this legislation in addition to my amendment, and all of them, with the exception of one, was rejected by the Democrat majority. My amendment would have stricken all sections of H.R. 2454 that deal with the regulation of derivatives. This bipartisan effort was supported by six cosponsors, including Democratic Reps. Mike McMahon and David Scott as well as FSC Ranking Member Bachus and several others. Despite lacking any jurisdiction and expertise, the Energy & Commerce Committee added sections to this bill imposing costly new regulations on this portion of our financial services sector. I think we can all agree that a broader discussion within Congress need to take place on these issues, including at the committees of jurisdiction where there is experience and expertise in dealing with them. Just one week ago, Congress received an outline of President Obama's financial regulatory reform plan, which includes suggestions for the regulation of derivatives. The Financial Services Committee has not yet had a chance to digest the President's proposal, nor has it fully debated this issue within the context of broader financial regulatory reform, which will continue to be the focus of our committee's work over the next several months. It is not appropriate to enact language that regulates a portion of the derivatives market, potentially in a manner that conflicts with later consensus on how to regulate the industry at large. Ninety-four percent of the 500 largest global companies use derivatives to manage risk and maintain stable consumer prices. Given the importance of these financial products, Congress needs to tread carefully as it looks at regulatory options for these markets. Over-regulation or improper regulation that might sound good politically could have major unintended negative consequences, not just for our financial markets, but for our broader economy. The sections that remain in this bill that deal with the regulation of our derivatives markets are but one of many reasons to oppose this massive and massively-flawed piece of legislation.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield back my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. More than 19 years ago, when I first ran for public office in the very densely populated State of New Jersey, I believed that we were not doing enough to preserve our precious farmlands and our vital open space. Upon being sworn in as a Member of the House of Representatives 6 years ago, I continued to advocate preserving open space, expanding our recreational lands, and protecting our natural resources. One of the highlights of my time here in Congress was the unanimous bipartisan support for the Highlands Conservation Act which became law back in 2004. I especially want to commend my colleague from Morris County, New Jersey, Rod Frelinghuysen, for introducing that legislation back then and working diligently over the years to accomplish its passage. Our commitment to preserving open space runs deep for us. However, more of our prized open space is being used up in our State and across the country every single day. So I'm pleased that this year, for the very first time, the Highlands Conservation Act was included in the fiscal year 2010 budget request. I applaud the President's request for recognizing the importance of the region as well. However, while the Highlands Conservation Act has been authorized from the beginning at $10 million year, the region has so far received only $5.23 million in total over all those years. So I believe that my amendment, which provides simply an additional $2 million for land acquisition, would go a long way towards providing grants for willing sellers. It would help to preserve the remaining open space in the Northeast region and help protect cherished natural resources that are extraordinary environmental and recreational uses. You see, this region is in the middle of one of the most congested areas of the country. Over one-twelfth of the U.S. population lives within just 1 hour of this area. Fourteen million people visit this area every year. Eleven million people rely on it for clean drinking water. And 150 species of special concern are in this area. As a matter of fact, the Forest Service stated recently that it is a ``landscape of national significance.'' So with that said, I also realize that there is an ever-increasing demand for all regions of the country, and that is why we have to make sure that the areas with the highest conservation values and greatest risk are being protected from being developed. Preservation of the Highlands is neither a Republican or Democratic issue. It is a national issue. And that is why I'm proud to say that we joined with 22 of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in a letter to the Appropriations Committee back in April when we requested the full $10 million for this area. I will just add this one caveat note. I do say this: That while working to protect open space, we must also ensure that we have an adequate opportunity for further economic development, especially now in the recession. It is important that we find a balance between protecting our cherished natural resources and promoting a strong economy. So in closing, I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for understanding the significance of the Highlands region. I also would like to thank the numerous conservation groups that have supported this, including the Appalachian Mountain Club, the Highlands Coalition, the Wilderness Society, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Coalition, the Trust for Public Lands, the Friends of the Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge, and the Sierra Club of Northwest New Jersey. Finally, throughout my entire life, I have had the opportunity to take advantage of all the natural resources the Highlands has to offer. I simply want to come here to Congress to ensure that other families as well will have that same opportunity in the future. The critical lands of the Highlands must be protected. And it is our job to do that today. I reserve my time.

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