Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. What did we actually do? Well, it puts language in here which says that there cannot be excessive or unreasonable compensation. Yesterday, again, at Rules Committee, somebody from our side of the aisle and someone from the other side of the aisle asked, What is excessive or unreasonable compensation? And quite candidly, they said they couldn't answer the question. They will leave it to someone else. I'm not sure if that is the right answer to that question. If you're going to have legislation like this, and I don't support the legislation, but if you're going to have legislation like this, you should be doing it the way we dealt with Fannie and Freddie when we had that situation and say, We don't want anybody making more than X, and take the responsibility as Congress and say, We are going to put the dollar amounts in it. This doesn't. This abrogates that to a Secretary of the Treasury who can come up with who knows what? It could be $1 million. It could be $10 million. It could be $100,000. It could be $50,000. We should not be putting this ambiguity in here. It doesn't answer the question. It is just one more way to say that this is a potentially harmful, unconstitutional, retroactive legislation to the overall global climate that we are in today.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. And I also thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, for I agree with him, as most Americans do, with regard to the underlying bill here as far as the apparent excesses, as far as the salaries that some people made when they were underperforming companies. And I share the concern that taxpayers have, and I share the chairman's concern with regard to his overall amendment that he makes to the bill. But the underlying bill here, however, has three or four fundamental problems. One, it is unconstitutional, as some have said; secondly, it has an uncalled for retroactive effect; thirdly, there is this unfairness as we treat disparate individuals within the same company; and, fourthly, there is certainly a harmful impact upon the very programs that our now Secretary of the Treasury wishes to implement. On the unconstitutionality portion, I am unclear, as are outside experts who have looked over this legislation, to see exactly how it is within the powers of the U.S. Congress, as much as we may like to do so sometimes, to simply go in and abrogate contracts that were voluntarily made by willing parties on either side. Regardless of whether the fact is that those companies or those individuals may be receiving Federal dollars or not, whether there is a constitutional ability to do so is a question I think that this body should be addressing and how that can be answered. The second aspect is the retroactivity effect. Some of the provisions in this bill I could probably come to agreement with. But to step in here, after the fact, and say that we are now going to go back, backwards in time and look at those very same corporations who had entered into contracts, had activity prior to their receiving TARP funds or other Federal dollars or investments, capital investments, and now saying, we are going backwards and we will basically open up agreements and open up terms of deals over there and look back on them, seems to be an activity that Congress should not engage in. Prospective is another matter. For companies or banks or other financial institutions that want to engage and receive Federal dollars, absolutely. They should be knowing what the terms of the deal are on the table. And if they accept them today, then those are the deals going forward. But to go backwards in time really raises, as I said before, an unconstitutional aspect. Finally, the unfairness as far as the disparate treatment that you may receive within the same company. I think the basic outrage that most Americans have on this situation is when we read in the paper the multimillion dollar deals or bonuses that people received, especially in those failing companies, and say, How do they receive millions and millions of dollars? Well, this bill addresses that. Fine. But it also addresses that secretary who may be just working there on weekends or part-time or even full-time making slightly over $10 an hour or more. That secretary comes within the confines of this bill too. The custodian or other worker in the business would also fall within the purviews of this legislation. Now the answer might be, well, we are still going to look to see whether their payment is reasonable or excessive. But why we would pick on those individuals who did absolutely no wrong and to say that now Congress is going to be scrutinizing your salaries and see whether or not you were paid far too much for the activities that you did in the company is beyond me. Finally, the fourth portion, harmful. Secretary Geithner comes out, finally, after several failed attempts with his plan on how we are going to get out of this global morass that we are in right now, and how does he want to do it? He and the White House have opened their doors to the free enterprise system, the capitalist markets, and the banking and the financial institutions, as they did this past week and said, Come on board. Work with us as teammates in this. We want to make you partners. Partners? What partner wants to hook up with somebody that if you are successful, there may be other legislation like this that will go in and claw back the money that you made? If you're successful it may be clawed back. And I have heard some people say, If you're unsuccessful, maybe you will be penalized. And I appreciate the fact that the chairman in Rules Committee yesterday said, to paraphrase, he said, Fear not. If it goes through my committee, I would not permit such language to go forward. And I appreciate that. But as the chairman knows, the bill we did, I think it was last Thursday, the 90 percent tax, to the best of my knowledge, did not go through your committee. You and I may have liked it to. But it did not. So we have seen the way this House operates. When the mood drives the Speaker or the majority leader, they can pass a bill through. A 90 percent tax that basically makes the Tax Code the penal code and punishes people for activity that they never realized was unlawful or inappropriate before, did not go through his committee. So to all of the best wishes of the chairman, he unfortunately, may not have that ability to block that provision going forward as much as he and I might wish that he did. So the legislation that is before us still puts that harmful impact upon him. And finally, if I still have some time, we have to ask the larger question, what actually does this do at the end of the day? Is it window dressing? Maybe.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. How are we going to be hit here? Several ways. First, we are going to be hit potentially by losing our jobs. Secondly, we are going to be hit with the new taxes, several thousand dollars on the families for new taxes, if you have a job. And thirdly, the expenses at the store, if you do have a job, and you still have some money in your pocket after your taxes and you're able to go to the store and do some shopping, what are you going to find? You will find that prices are going to be going through the roof. So one, two, three, we are going to be hit in three separate ways because of this budget. Those are the practical aspects. I see the gentleman from Georgia here is nodding.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. And it is from $634 of the $2 trillion in taxes, which is hard enough because that is money out of your pocket. But we also heard the reports today that it could be even more difficult for the American family, the American worker. It could mean American jobs. And they were talking about the fact that one of two things are going to happen here. The first is that the energy secretary made this first observation was something to the effect of this cap and tax will have the effect of having jobs leave this country because the jobs will go to where the manufacturing and the cost of doing business is cheaper. That makes sense. That means your constituents and mine who have a job right now tomorrow will find out that their job just went overseas as well. And later on this week the secretary made the observation, well, one of the responses that we could do, and not that he was suggesting it I don't believe, was new tariffs.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. You don't see it in Washington. And the reason I came to the floor is because you were making the point just as I left the office, the administration is asking it from the American people. The American people have to be responsible in trying to figure out how are they going to live within their means? You were citing the examples of cutting back in various facets of a life. And you were also pointing out the fact that the American people are actually doing a very good thing, and that is increasing their rate of savings. Boy, you don't see that aspect of responsibility here in this budget. And my last point, and then I will yield the floor back to you or to the gentleman from Georgia, is my first point, is that we here in Washington sometimes get into Washington and speak on these things and the global sort of terms on it. And if you're watching that budget meeting, you sort of get the same sense of it. We talk about the fact that now as you look at all the wealth of this country, the GDP, the gross domestic product of this country, you can see the numbers in this budget, meaning that over a quarter of it, up to around 27 percent is basically being sucked throughout all 50 States and sent here right to Washington, D.C., as the GDP, the amount of government spending will be equated to around 27 percent of the gross domestic product.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. That multitrillion-dollar budget.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. And what will that do in the short term and the long term? Well, in the short term they will say, don't worry. That means that you will keep the jobs here in the United States because they won't go overseas because of the tariffs that we created. That is the short term. Obviously, the long-term effect is, as you indicate, barriers will be made in all the other countries, as well, which means when you and I go down to the store and buy products which are imported into this country, manufactured from other places, what is going to happen to the price? It is going to go through the roof.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Yes. And that is a historically high figure. And this is the other funny--I say ``funny,'' but it is not funny. This new administration was always rife for criticizing our past administration for spending too much money, too high of a percentage. But historically, we have been around the 20, 22-some odd percent. And we were around that number in this past administration. Now we are going through the roof on this. But those are esoteric numbers. Those are larger numbers. You can't get your arms around that. But it is the numbers when you talk about your family, when you talk about the cap and tax, $634 billion roughly of that amount, what does that relate to me or to you, your average family?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. And I thank the gentlelady for allowing me to say a few words. And I see also that we are joined on the floor by the gentleman from Georgia as well. And so maybe I will go back and forth and just make some points. I come to the floor because I heard your remarks just a few moments ago, and I thought they were quite eloquent in trying to put in perspective exactly what is occurring here on the floor of the House and what is occurring here in Washington, D.C., our Nation's capital, as Congress goes about its business of formulating and passing a budget and how we can talk sometimes here in Washington in these global terms and esoteric terms, but at the end of the day it is the American public who actually has to foot the bill. They have to reach into their proverbial pocket and see if--oh, there is a couple bucks here--they can pull dollars out and send them to Washington.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Since I'm in Washington, there may be a hand out trying to reach into my pocket to try and grab those dollars. Absolutely. But you make the point that we are, in this country right now, and globally as well, in difficult economic times. Whether you are trying to put a few bucks away for your kid's education and now you realize, gee, at the end of the week when you write your checks, you just don't have that money to put aside, or if your kids are already in college and you say, how am going to make this month's or this quarter's college bill that is due? You just don't know how you're going to do it. I was just talking on the phone before I came here to the floor, honestly, to folks in Upstate New York. And I said, how is the weather up there? They said, it is cold. And you're thinking, well, they have their heat ratcheted up and they are trying to warm their homes and they are paying the fuel costs. Thank goodness that rates have come down a little bit, but not by that much. But the young lady that I was talking to, she was concerned about how she is going to pay her heating bill for the house or the gas to cook the food or the other things they need for her kids around the house. And so we talk about things in global terms, in large terms. And as you know, I serve on the Budget Committee. I have had the honor now to serve on that committee for all 6 years that I have been in Congress. This year, when I served on the committee, this past week we had markup, which as you well know is the process where the Democrats present their budget to us, give us the opportunity to make some amendments to it, make some improvements, and have some give and take. I have to tell you that both the time when I was in the majority and the time that now I'm in the minority as well, this was the most distressing, this was the most frustrating, most unfulfilling process that we had in that committee ever. I recall in both scenarios in the past years that there was a give and take, there was an ability to have some discussion on it. Somebody would say, well, you might have an idea on this area and we have an idea on this area, let's come together and try to reach some accommodation on that. Let's see where there is some agreement where we can work together for the American public. You just didn't see that at all. The meeting started I think around a little after 9 in the morning. We were done there around midnight. So you can count up the number of hours that we were there. We started with somewhere up to 30-some-odd amendments I believe that we had, that Republicans were presenting to the Democrats. And we would say, here is our little slice of our suggestions. And it is not just coming from me. And it is not just coming from the staff. These ideas are coming from our constituents, from Americans across all 50 States, on how to make this budget, this Obama budget, a better budget for America. But not one of those substantive amendments passed. They would not vote for a single amendment that we proposed. They would not vote for a single change, a single alteration, a single--what is that expression, changing a jot or a tittle--they would not allow ne'er a one of those.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Well, there's the rub, isn't it? So many people went into this past election this past November and said we want a new era of bipartisanship. We want to work together. And my gosh, so do I. I want to be able to extend my hand across the aisle and say, here are our ideas. What are your ideas? You didn't see it at all. And it was very frustrating. But larger than that, larger than the frustration is the irony of it all. The Office of Management and Budget from this administration puts out this blue book. And you have to scratch your head and laugh because if you didn't laugh you would be upset. It's called, this is looking at the budget and what have you, it is called ``A New Era of Responsibility.'' ``A New Era of Responsibility.'' And as I looked at that multitrillion dollar----

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the anniversary of Greek independence, which occurred on March 25, 1821. It's been one hundred and eighty-eight years since Greece obtained freedom from the oppressive Ottoman Empire. Like our own American Founding Fathers, the people of Greece fought valiantly to achieve independence from a sprawling empire that treated its citizens like subjects. The Greek revolutionaries also drew much of their authority from European philosophers, much like our forefathers who were motivated by classical and English values. A culture steeped in such a rich tradition, such as Greece, can be celebrated by all Americans. As the birthplace of democracy, Greece has informed numerous self-government efforts across the world. The celebration of Greek independence coincides with a Greek Orthodox holiday, the Annunciation of the Theotokos. Yet Greece's bloody struggle for independence from the Ottoman Empire bears little resemblance to the peaceful appearance of the Archangel Gabriel. The Greeks endured atrocities such as the Chios Massacre, the massacre of Heraklion, and the Destruction of Psara; most of these conflicts were religiously motivated and they highlight the Greek dedication to freedom. After eight years of brutal fighting, the Greek people were finally able to achieve independence. The Treaty of Constantinople was signed in July 1832, giving Greece its independence from the Ottoman Empire. I am honored to cosponsor H.J. Res. 39, which recognizes the 188th anniversary of the independence of Greece. Furthermore, I am pleased that this bill is scheduled to be considered by the House of Representatives today. I would again like to congratulate Greece for celebrating such a momentous occasion. This anniversary is a time to remember the sacrifices of the past, to take pride in your nation, and to look ahead to a future of promise.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. During the last campaign, Hillary Clinton said that she had a million good ideas. She probably never thought that she would be outbid by this new administration that has a million bad ideas that are going to cost American taxpayers literally trillions of dollars. This current budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much. It spends too much, and it's coming up to $2.3 trillion more than the White House even estimated a short time ago. It taxes too much because every hardworking American household across this country is going to see their taxes go up by over $3,000. While they're struggling with paying their bills, their taxes will be rising. It borrows too much because it's going to increase the debt on taxpayers across this country. Right now it stands at about $35,000 per capita. It's going to double in 8 years to around $70,000. You know, Americans were voting for a change. I think at the end they were really hoping for something better than this.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I take back my time. Apparently, the gentleman doesn't know the same rules that he was asking for one of his peers.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Then I take back my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Texas for pointing out that these problems were, in fact, created through legislation, and that legislation came under the leadership of the Democrat House. At this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to our leader, I will yield such time to the chairman if he wishes to answer the question that the gentleman from Iowa asked, which was, how did this language get into the legislation which allowed for these bonuses to go through? He did not answer the question before, but I will yield.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to a gentleman now who also wants to get the money back but also wants to find out how we got to this place in the first place, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry, please.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).