Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mary Ellen Rozzell, former President of the National Association of Professional Surplus Lines Offices (NAPSLO), who passed away unexpectedly on March 3, 2009, while attending a NAPSLO conference in Palm Springs, California. Mary Ellen was a respected, beloved leader. The President of Continental/Marmorstein & Malone Insurance Agency in Paramus, New Jersey, she began working in the insurance business with the Marmorstein Agency some forty years ago. Mary Ellen served as President of New Jersey Surplus Lines Association (NJSLA) from 1989-1990, and was named as NJSLA honoree of the year in 1992 due to her outstanding contribution to the New Jersey Surplus Lines Industry. She also served on the New Jersey Insurance Commissioner's Producer Advisory Council, and with the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation. Her warmth, openness, honesty and good nature made everyone who met her feel immediately comfortable. These qualities served her very well in life, with family and friends, and in her remarkable career where she rose through the ranks with hard work and honesty. She was always prepared for the trials of life and business and the often difficult decisions required by both. She embraced responsibility, expected accountability and never failed those who depended on her. All who knew her benefited by her example. Her family has established the Mary Ellen Rozzell Foundation for AVM Research so that friends and colleagues might contribute to arteriovenous malformation research in Mary Ellen's name. I extend my sympathy to her family and those close to her. She will be missed greatly by everyone she touched.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 62nd commemoration of Taiwan's ``2-28 Massacre.'' On February 28, 1947, the brutal arrest of a female civilian in Taipei led to large-scale protests by the native Taiwanese against the repression of Chiang Kai-shek's Chinese Nationalists, who occupied Taiwan on behalf of the Allied Forces after Japan's defeat in 1945. During the following days, Chiang's government sent troops from mainland China to the island. The Chinese soldiers began capturing and executing leading Taiwanese lawyers, doctors, students, and other citizens. It is estimated that at least 18,000 people lost their lives during the turmoil. During the following four decades, the Chinese Nationalists continued to rule Taiwan under a martial law system that lasted until 1987. The 2-28 event had far-reaching implications. Over the next half- century, the Taiwanese democracy movement that grew out of the incident helped pave the way for Taiwan's momentous transformation from a dictatorship under the Chinese Nationalists to a thriving and pluralistic democracy. In some ways, the 2-28 incident was similar to the ``Boston Massacre'' that occurred in the Massachusetts colony in 1770. Both events launched a movement toward full democracy and helped galvanize a struggle for independence. I urge other Members to join me in commemorating this important historical event.

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 for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 1105, Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. Project Name--Lower Saddle River, Bergen County, NJ Requesting Member--Scott Garrett Bill Number--H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 Account--Army Corps of Engineers Investigations Requesting Entity--U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--New York District Programs and Project Management Division, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10278-0090 Description of the Project--Funds will be used to continue the Limited Reevaluation Report (LRR) for this study. This project was authorized in WRDA 1986, and a full project was designed in the early 1990s, but was never built. Because the designs are somewhat now out- of-date, and many of the existing conditions have changed, the Corps is forced go back and reexamine portions of the original Feasibility Report. Description of the Spending Plan--($526,000) Engineering Redesign With Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Continued Coordination with State and Federal Agencies for NEPA Compliance Plan Formulation Analysis with Economics Update Limited Project Management and Coordination Costs Total $526,000 Project Name--Hackettstown Community Hospital Cancer Center Requesting Member--Scott Garrett Bill Number--H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 Account--Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Health Facilities and Services Requesting Entity--Hackettstown Community Hospital, 651 Willow Grove Street, Hackettstown, NJ 07840 Description of the Project--The project's goal is to add a dedicated Outpatient Infusion Center, located within the Joan Knechel Cancer Center (Radiation Oncology). The addition of this service will help fulfill the goal to have a truly Comprehensive Cancer Treatment Center at Hackettstown Regional Medical Center. The funds will be used to purchase and install the specialized medical equipment and furnishings for these new services. Description of the Spending Plan--($238,000) *Federal Funds earmarked for Hackettstown Community Hospital (dba Hackettstown Regional Medical Center) FY2009 will be utilized for the interior build out of the existing space to become the new Infusion Therapy Center as part of our Comprehensive Cancer Center. Specifically, the funds will be used for the following purposes: Permit Fees: $6,105 Contractor Supervision and Layout of Work Space: $33,855 Casework and Carpentry: $82,221 Roofing Work: $2,220 Doors, Frames and Hardware: $33,061 Aluminum Storefront and Glazing: $19,145 Acrylic Panels: $9,990 Painting: $16,117 Flooring & Ceramic Tile: $46,842 Fire Extinguishers and Cabinets (for Storage): $444 Total Total $238,000 Project Name--Ramapo College Nurse Training Requesting Member--Scott Garrett Bill Number--H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 Account--Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Health Facilities and Services Requesting Entity--Ramapo College of New Jersey, 505 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, NJ 07430 Description of the Project--Funds will be used to purchase laboratory equipment related to Ramapo College's nursing program, which will be supported in their new academic building. Specifically, federal funding will be used toward purchasing nursing lab equipment, academic tutoring and nursing career mentoring programs. Description of the Spending Plan--($190,000) Nursing Lab Equipment (4 bed room with withal relayed equipment) $95,000 Nursing Lab Technology (4 Simulators) $95,000 Total $190,000 Project Name--Life Safety and Security Improvements Requesting Member--Scott Garrett Bill Number--H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 Account--Department of Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Initiative Requesting Entity--Christian Health Care Center 301 Sicomac Avenue Wyckoff, NJ 07481 Description of the Project--These funds will go to improving Christian Health Care Center's life safety and security infrastructure which will serve the elderly and children who reside within and visit our campus every day. These upgrades will also serve local first responders, neighbors and our staff in the event of a true emergency. Description of the Spending Plan--($142,500) Lightning risk mitigation (upgraded fire panels and installation of fiber optic cabling) $75,000 System upgrade to addressable capabilities (wiring replacement between upgraded panels and patient rooms) $67,500 Total $142,500 Project Name--Intermodal Transit Improvements Requesting Member--Scott Garrett Bill Number--H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 Account--Department of Transportation Bus and Bus Facilities Requesting Entity--New Jersey Transit; Penn Plaza East, Newark, NJ 07105-2246 Description of the Project--The funds requested in this application will support the efforts of NJ TRANSIT to improve intermodal transit facilities throughout the northwestern part of the state. Description of the Spending Plan ($712,500) Environmental work: $7,000 Design-in house work: $200,000 Design services: $30,000 Project Administration: $35,000 Insurance: $6,800 Construction: $433,700 Total $712,500 Project Name--Life Safety and Security Improvements Requesting Member--Scott Garrett Bill Number--H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 Account--Department of Justice COPS Law Enforcement Technology Requesting Entity--Warren County Department of Public Safety 1024 Route 57 Washington, NJ 07882 Description of the Project--This project encompasses an upgrade to the radio network for all municipal police departments and county law enforcement agencies throughout Warren County. The county will be installing a new UHF infrastructure for those agencies within Warren County. This will enhance law enforcement officer safety and security and also improve interoperability with other state and out of state law enforcement agencies. This request will cover the cost of mobile and portable radios in each vehicle and for each officer throughout Warren County. Description of the Spending Plan--($1,250,000) Portable Radios $100,000 Mobiles $25,000 Total $1,250,000 Project Name--Delaware Water Gap Land Acquisition Requesting Member--Scott Garrett Bill Number H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 Account--Department of Interior NPS Land Acquisition Requesting Entity--The Nature Conservancy 200 Pottersville Road Chester, NJ 07930 Description of the Project--Funds will be used to acquire and preserve a 91.5-acre tract of land within the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (DWGNRA). This property is a primary target for preservation within the DWGNRA Description of the Spending Plan--($1,000,000) Cost of Land $900,000 (Appraisal, Hazards Assessment, Title and other closing costs) $100,000 Total $1,000,000

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I appreciate the gentleman yielding and I think when you said I would probably agree with you, I do agree with you. Before I describe the types of jobs that they may be creating with this so-called bailout of the economy, you have to ask yourself: what is the definition of a job? We have an idea when somebody says I just got a new job, they have a job, employment, a career that they will be starting next Monday and it will last not just through Monday afternoon but through the next year and as long as they perform their duties and services appropriately as to the requirements of their employer, that they will have a job.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Well, I thank you for the introduction and thank you for yielding as well. I don't know if I can live up to the level as being more informed and better versed than many of my colleagues, but let me just try to make a couple of points here in the next couple of minutes. You are right when you begin by laying out a little bit of a history. And when you do so, what it points out is that really we have been down this road before. Several months ago, we were right here on this floor debating a similar issue, when then Speaker Pelosi said that the sky would fall if we did not take immediate action in the stock market and the credit market and the rest. And of course, at that time we were talking about TARP 1, TARP 1, a spending of $350 billion, because we were in the midst of a crisis, we were told, a crisis that required that there be absolutely no alternatives considered. In fact, the Treasury Department said they looked at other ideas and immediately dismissed them. In fact, when we were not even allowed to have a markup or a hearing on it to consider alternatives, no, they had picked the right solution to the problem that we were facing in the fall and winter of last year, and that was their TARP 1 piece of legislation, and we had to rush it through this body, pass it and have the President sign it. And we did that over my objection, and I believe your objection, as well. At that time we said it was going to solve the problem. But what was the end result? Of course, well, they said if we didn't do it, the stock market would drop about 1,000 points. But by gosh, look where it is now, several thousand points down. And the credit markets, I was just in my office earlier today, credit markets, securitization of housing in the commercial markets, are still equally tight as they were then. That was followed by TARP 2. It was just a week ago Wednesday of last week. We were again on this floor, and again we were told that we were in a panic phase, a crisis phase, if you will, and we had to vote on TARP 2. And what was TARP 2? TARP 2 was an additional $350 billion that would again go to now the new administration with no strings attached. And this is the rub that so many of my constituents are so angry about that basically we are just writing a proverbial blank check here, passing it off to the administration, they can use it for whatever they want, buy toxic assets, buy banks, nationalize the banks. If you saw Speaker Pelosi on TV the other day, she refused to use the words ``nationalization of the banks.'' But in essence she said that is exactly what they were doing, buying up the auto companies. We could have our new Treasury secretary, if he wanted to, he could go out and buy a TurboTax for every American in this country so those people would be able to figure out how their taxes are done and make sure that they pay their right taxes. That is what we basically granted when we passed last Wednesday an additional $350 billion, again, over my objection, and I believe over your objection as well, when that TARP bill went through. And now here less than a week later, we are on the floor discussing an additional $800 plus billion, again because we are in a crisis, we are told, and if we don't move now, it will get even worse. And we were told, again, just as in TARP 1, as in TARP 2, no opportunity for hearing, no opportunity really for input, no opportunity for amendments and the like, so that we were in panic phase. And with that, I would just like to refer you over to an article that was actually in today's ``Weekly Standard'' written by John Stossel, who I'm sure you're familiar with. The headline of that is, ``This Is No Time to Panic.'' And I think that is extremely important to consider. And it lays it out pretty well. The subheadline is, ``our economy has recovered before and we can do so again.'' And what he basically lays out here is just take your time, move in a careful and cautious manner, consider all the alternatives which you were not allowed to do in 1 and 2, and move appropriately and the economy will work its way through with appropriate action in Washington that takes all considerations and input to mind. We didn't do that in 1. We didn't do it in 2. And I think obviously we are not going to do it with the expenditure of $800 billion now. So going forward, we should consider a couple of points. What do the economists say about this? What do some of their own members say about what is about to go on here? Well, the economists, let's talk about that. We had the President come and speak to us today in the Republican Conference, as you said, and I appreciate the fact that the new President came and said he would reach across the aisle and talk to us about these issues. Although I will add the caveat, each time we threw out some alternatives to him and said, well, we might want to improve the bill in this manner or in that manner, I believe for as long as I was in the conference, each time one of those alternatives was suggested to him, he said, well, I would disagree with you on those points, and I really can't accept that amendment or that suggestion as a change. But I do still appreciate the fact that he would come and listen to our talks. While he was there, and other times as well, he said that all the economists side with them on the need for a spending plan right now as they have laid out. And in essence, it is sort of the same argument we have heard before where it says there is no economist on the other side. Well, there are economists on the other side. As a matter of fact, there are pages of economists on the other side of this issue who say that the right action is not the one that is being laid out in this stimulus package. The right action is not to put us deeper in debt. And it is not just economists outside of the mainstream. I can refer you, as well, to economists right in the Obama administration. If you look to an article in the February 9 edition of National Review by Alan Reynolds, he quotes two economists. One is Peter Orszag, who of course is the new administration's head of the Office of Management and Budget. And also he makes reference to Douglas Elmendorf, who is the new Democrat head of CBO. So these are people within the Obama administration who, previous to coming into their administration, or the Democrat side of the aisle, I should say, disagreed with this approach to stimulus with regard to fiscal spending. Let me just quote from the article with regard to Peter Orszag. ``Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin co-authored a 2004 paper with forecaster Peter Orszag of the Brookings Institute at that time, who has now been tapped by the Obama administration to lead the Office of Management and Budget. In that report they argued that `budget deficits which will occur with this bill, decrease national savings which will reduce domestic investment and increase borrowing abroad.' '' Big budget deficits, warned Rubin and Orszag, would ``reduce future national income,'' and this is the important part as well, risk a ``decline in confidence which can reduce stock prices.'' So that is his new OMB director raising those red flags. Democrats' CBO director said the following, and they warn that ``it is critical that efforts to fight a recession'' such as we are doing now ``do not end up increasing the long-run budget deficit and thus harming long-run growth.'' Elmendorf rightly noted that ``the idea that Congress should make legislative changes to tax and spending policies in order to counter the business cycle has fallen into disfavor among economists.'' So there it is right there.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. It looks like the time is coming to a close. And it just makes me think, as someone else said earlier today, there is a culture of arrogance, I believe, in the Nation's Capitol when the thought is that the bureaucrats and the Representatives here in this House know how to spend the money better than the people back at home. There is an arrogance to think that there is elitist--whether it's here or some administrative agency--that they are somehow imbued with special qualities, that their action of spending a dollar will generate more wealth for this country than if you and I or our constituents spend a dollar. And of course we're not really only spending a dollar, are we? We're talking about billions and trillions of dollars. And if this $5 bill was actually a $1,000 bill and I put it right here, how many would I need of those to have a million dollars? Well, I would need four inches of these stacked up here to give to you and then say that you would be a millionaire. And how many of these, if these were $1,000, would I have to have stacked up here in order to say go out tomorrow and spend a trillion dollars--which is just about what the other side wants to do? I would need to have this stack go 63 miles into the air, into the space. That's how much money we're talking about spending. And the arrogance is that we somehow think that we know how to spend it better. How much money are we talking about here? And I will close on this. If you took all the money that Congress or that Washington ever spent on the Marshall plan to rebuild Europe and added that to all the money that this country used to buy the Louisiana Purchase some time ago, and you added that to all the money that we spent in this country to the race to the moon, and you added that to all the money that we had to spend to get us out of the savings and loan crisis, and then you added to that all the money that we spent on the Korean War, and then you added that to all the money that FDR spent on the New Deal, and then you added that to all the money that we spent on the invasion of Iraq, and finally, if you added all the money that we spent on the entire Vietnam War, all those things together would not equal what the other side of the aisle thinks that they know how to spend better than the American taxpayer. And I think the American taxpayer knows how to spend it far better. With that, I yield back to you for closing comments.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, before I speak to the many merits of that piece of legislation, I just want to reiterate another point as to how we got here and what we are getting from the other side. As I mentioned before, the proponents of the bailout bill that we are about to vote on tomorrow would say that the economists are on their side and there are no economists on the other side, and I made the argument that there are a number of economists who support our view, that the way to go is just what you were laying out in the Economic Recovery and Middle Class Tax Relief Act. I should also point out that even within their own conference, there is growing realization that the way to get job creation going in this country is not by rushing a bill through this House without due deliberations, rushing a piece of legislation that is going to put our children and grandchildren in debt. And so I just wanted to point out that our friend from the other side of the aisle and the chairman of the Capital Markets Committee in Financial Services, Representative Paul Kanjorski--who, by the way, just an hour or so ago was trying to make a positive amendment to the underlying bill and was rebuffed in the Rules Committee--this is what he had to say on C-SPAN with regard to his own party. He said, the Democrats, ``have lost our way, and that we shouldn't be pressed by any silly deadlines.'' He went on to say further, ``We need to take our time. And I guarantee you we're going to come back and we're going to have to have another stimulus on top of this. We're going to have another bailout for Wall Street because we are not doing things properly.'' He says, again, ``I think we lost our way in a way. We shouldn't be pressed by these deadlines. You know, what makes the President's Day holiday''--which is where they were initially aiming for--``so important for us to get out of town to get these things done?'' Which just goes to show that there are individuals from both sides of the aisle who realize that when you're talking about such sums of money and when you're talking about such a situation that we're in right now, that a solution is not to be found by rushing to judgment, nor is a solution to be found by putting all consideration to alternatives aside. That's why I commend the gentleman from Georgia to making reference to the RSC, the Republican Study Committee, proposal. Because what this does is to make a realization that the failed policies of the past, as far as economic policy of saying that we can spend our way into a new paradise of the economic situation, history does not prove that. If you think about the Great Depression--which a lot of people are now referencing right now--some of them from the other side of the aisle will make that argument and say, well, what pulled us out of the Depression they'll say was FDR. And I know our new President makes reference to himself with regard to FDR, besides Lincoln. But the other side of the aisle will say that the way to get out of this doldrums is do additional spending such as the New Deal, and that's what they're talking about today is another New Deal. But if you actually study the history of the Great Depression--and I know there is much dispute as to how we got into the Depression in the first place, but I will commend the gentleman from Georgia to an article written by Robert Higgs which makes the case very well that going into the Depression, there is question as to how we got into it, not so much into question is how we got out of it. And how we got out of it was an opportunity by the private sector to make decisions on their own to invest as they wanted to invest, hire people how they want to be hired, and to do so without excessive control by the Federal Government. And I'll bring this all around to your point of why the RSC's bill is so important. During the Great Depression you had the FDR, the Roosevelt administration, setting up a whole alphabet soup of new agencies to regulate the economy. During the Depression, you had excessive government expenditures in various sectors of the economy, all of which made the private sector basically say, we're going to sit back for a little while. We're not going to invest anything because tomorrow, where I invest over here, the government may start regulating in such a way that I can't make a profit; or tomorrow, if I decide to invest over here, the government may decide to subsidize my competitor, so I will not be able to make a profit. So during that time, during the Depression, the investor groups or individuals stayed on the sideline. And it wasn't until the Great Escape, when the Roosevelt administration began to back off, that investors began to get into the market again. The legislation you refer to, the RSC bill, would go in the direction of what came after FDR and during what we call ``the Great Escape,'' allowing for the investor class to say I'm going to invest again. And why are they going to do so? Just because of all those great things that you listed right there. Section 179 expensing. An investor is going to say, I can start investing tomorrow. I can buy this new machine, this new factory, this new truck, or what have you, to hire new people because I can expense it today. I will yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Yes, 7 percent. Now the number on top of that that the majority has just come out with says actually, we are going to get around two-thirds of the money out in 18 months. Think for a second what that actually means. So 18 months from now will be July 2010. By July, we will be having our summer barbecue, and that is when the bulk of this money will be spent. That is not when we need to get the economy going, that is not when small businesses should be hiring new people, not a year or more from this summer, we should be hiring people today, we should be putting people back to work today. So the idea that the majority is saying is okay is favorable, spending money a year and a half from now as the best-case scenario is one that I think most Americans would have a problem with.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. There you go. But what the government means when they say they are creating jobs, and the Obama administration has given us different numbers as to how many jobs, 2 or 3 or 4 million jobs, we don't know how many jobs that they are creating, but a job is when an individual works at least one hour during the course of one week, and that means that they have created a job. So I could pay you to paint my fence in front of my house for an hour, and I just created a job. So we could be creating 2 or 3 million of these jobs under this proposal. But is that the type of job and the type of recovery that Americans are truly looking for? As to what the nature of some of these jobs are, let's look at a couple of them. In Anchorage, Alaska, we have talked about building the bridge to nowhere in Alaska. Here is street lighting. I guess that is putting in light bulbs. That is one job. Intercom upgrades, someone is rewiring intercoms in buildings. Bus replacement. I am not sure how that is getting a job. Also in Anchorage, Alaska, and Alaska does pretty well under this bill, potentially. These are proposals coming from mayors across the country as far as job-ready projects that they can submit to the administration and say let's roll with these programs, Greenbelt Trail resurfacing. I guess that is a job that we are looking to spend money on. Again street light retrofitting. Landfill methane recovery project. In Huntsville, Alabama, they are looking for money to replace bathroom fixtures, software purchases, and replace trolley buses. Down in Pines Bluff, Arkansas, they are looking to buy a fire department ladder. I am not sure how that creates a job, but that is what the mayors are submitting to say they are ready to go, dollar ready, and spend this money getting it out the door. With regard to that, I think the point should be driven home as far as when the money would be spent. The original CBO budget said that only a small percentage of the money will actually go out during the course of this year.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. And I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for your leadership on this issue today and in the past so much and in the future as well. Mr. Speaker, as you know, I also hail from the great State of New Jersey; and tonight I would like to begin tonight by talking about a women who lived there, who had lived there in Tenafly, a town in my congressional district. You may have heard her name before. In fact, she is commemorated in a sculpture located right here in the rotunda of this building. I am talking about Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Ms. Stanton was a leading social activist of her time and a champion of the women's suffrage movement. As a proponent of women's rights, some might assume she supported a women's ability to have an abortion. No. Ms. Stanton actually took the opposite view. In a letter in 1873 written to Julia Ward Howe, who was a prominent abolitionist, she wrote ``When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.'' She called abortion then what it was then and today as well, infanticide. Today, over 100 years later, women, of course, have won that battle of the women's suffrage movement and the right to vote, but we still allow some unborn infants to be classified as simply, with what she called it, unwanted nuisances and to be killed. You know, permitting this hypocrisy is really a promotion, you might say, of age- based discrimination, and I believe Ms. Stanton would be appalled to know that it continues today. After all, murder is a direct violation of the very same rights that she was fighting for back then and as proposed by our Founding Fathers in original documents. You know, as the chairman of the Constitution Caucus, I have pledged to fight for the liberties recognized by our Founding Fathers. But I know, realistically, that we will have tough battles ahead in this term and years ahead on many different fronts. The first skirmish will likely be waged in the executive branch. One of the executive orders that President Bush stated in his Mexico City Policy, and what it does is to ban U.S. funds from going to nongovernmental agencies that provide abortion services overseas. Now, just last week, I joined Representative Lamborn and other Members of Congress in sending a letter at that time to President-elect Obama urging him to uphold that policy when he comes into office. Now, the second combat zone is right here in this U.S. Congress. Now, due to the successful efforts of past legislators, particularly former Congressman Henry Hyde, Federal funds could not be used to pay for abortions. However, Members who support abortions will likely, very likely, seek to erode these key restrictions. Even worse than that, some Members would like to pass something called the Freedom of Choice Act. So today, I have signed a letter to now-President Obama, urging him to withdraw his pledge to support any such legislation. As bad as it is, fortunately, not all congressional clashes are on the offensive. So I applaud efforts of Members who have introduced legislation to protect the health of young mothers and restrict the number of abortions performed here in the United States. Just today, I signed on, and I am proud to do so, of the original cosponsor of Mr. Jordan's bill, which is the Ultrasound Informed Consent Act; Ms. Ros-Lehtinen's Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act; and Mr. Pence's, who was just speaking, Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act. Thankfully, the battle for the unborn is not waged merely here in the Capitol, in the Congress, in the Executive, the walls of the White House, or the halls here of the Congress, or even at the desks across the street at the Supreme Court Justices. The main struggle is fought in the towns and suburbs and cities across this United States. Many Americans strive to promote life by supporting young mothers who cannot afford to raise their child. They do this by adopting children who do not have a home or a parent. They counsel men and women who chose to abort and now experience the very deep depression and regret. Just closing, just yesterday, I thought for a split second that our new President would seek to protect this innocent life as well. As I listened to his inaugural address, I heard him say, and I quote, ``All are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.'' It seems that President Obama really believes that some people are just too young or too small to deserve such rights or privileges. Perhaps the new President should study the position of one of his predecessors, John Quincy Adams. Adams once wrote, ``Americans, ask the Declaration of Independence and it will tell you that its authors held for self-evident truth that the right to life is the first of the unalienable rights of man, and that to secure and not destroy that right, that is the reason the governments have been created.'' So, as I stand here as an elected official in this government, I pledge, along with my colleagues from New Jersey, and across this country, to follow John Adams' footsteps and uphold our basic fundamental right. For without this fundamental right, all other freedoms in this Nation shall perish.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, just before this meeting out here on the floor, I was in my office back in Cannon meeting with and on the phone with constituents back at home discussing the fact of the difficult plight we find ourselves and the economy in in this country right now, specifically with regard to homeowners, the problems that they are having with paying their mortgages and the like, the difficulty overall with the economy, with the rising unemployment rates, the problems in the credit markets and the like. The question they ask, of course, is what is Congress about to do with this situation. The conversation always turns around to what has Congress done in the first place, and, of course, we know what that is. Several months ago, I guess it was in September, this Congress was told by the administration and agreed to by the other side of the aisle that unless Congress acted expeditiously, the sky was going to fall in, and that what Congress had to do was authorize and appropriate $700 billion to bail out the situation. Well, we have since that time spent $350 billion of that sum, and the callers that I heard from from home that I was just referring to before are saying, what did it achieve? What did we accomplish? Unemployment is still high, the housing market is still tight, home prices are still falling, and all that we really did was to bail out Wall Street, is the way some people couch it. The question then comes up, how did we go through that process. I have to tell the people back at home, not in a very transparent and open manner. Quite honestly, it was in a rushed matter. We rushed through a piece of legislation that started out at three pages and then turns out to well over 100, without a single hearing, without a single markup, without a single discussion really in committee as to whether there would be transparency and accountability and the like. Well, sir, now we are about to do the same thing next week, I understand, when President-elect Obama has requested that we spend the next $350 billion, again without the appropriate oversight. So I commend the chairman for taking the step to try to begin to begin the process of providing some of that degree of accountability, transparency and oversight. But I do raise the same question that the people asked me on the phone today that I was talking to: Why are we rushing to judgment on it? Why are we going through it in the same manner, the same failed policy reasons, the same procedural manner that we did before, without a hearing, without a discussion, without a markup in committee, so that both sides of the aisle could come together with their good ideas in order to achieve what the American public wants, to right the economy, to not put the taxpayer on a hook, and to do so that the taxpayer is protected. Why are we doing it in the same failed policy procedure we did in the past without that ability for input? Now, the chairman will say, well, we have ability because the Rules Committee allowed a number of amendments. We will be debating those amendments shortly, 10 or 11 amendments I believe we will have at that point in time. The chairman will agree that is not the best way to achieve what we are trying to for the American people. The best way is to have an open, honest discussion in committee, allow the experts to come in and testify, allow Members from both sides of the aisle to have input, and allow it to go through the committee to get that desired result. That was not done with TARP 1, that really is not being done with TARP 2. So I rise in opposition to this failed policy and procedure that we are doing here today as well. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is interesting to find out that our chairman, who oftentimes berates our side of the aisle for distancing ourselves from our President, now I find that he is already distancing himself from the President-to-be, President-elect Obama. While he is correct while being overly technical about it by saying that it was President Bush who actually filed the paperwork and made the submission to this House and to the Congress in order for the request of the additional TARP funds, he seems to be distancing himself from his party's candidate and his party's and all this Nation's President-elect Obama, for it was President-elect Obama who did go to President Bush and did request that this Congress facilitate the passage of the additional $350 billion. Now, the chairman may not like the fact that President-elect Obama is requesting it. Maybe, quite candidly, the chairman has the same concerns that I do, that President-elect Obama failed to give us a plan, which makes it hard for either one of us, quite candidly, to be able to discuss either in committee or here on the Floor in a rational and logical manner what it is exactly we will be spending the $350 billion on. So I will join with the chairman in being concerned and outraged that President-elect Obama has not given us a plan. But it is concerning that the chairman points to President Bush, when he knows it is President-elect Obama who instigated this in the first place. But I will yield.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I reclaim my time. Thank you. I understand what he said before, but then you have to always point to the words that came after that, and he was alluding to the fact that it actually came to the floor from President Bush when, yes, it was President-elect Obama who initiated it. But for the fact that President-elect Obama initiated it, President Bush, as far as I know, has never made a statement that he would have unilaterally made that request. I have never seen anything in the media, and I may be wrong, but I have never seen anything in the media or otherwise saying that President Bush was about to come to this Congress and ask for those additional funds. It was President-elect Obama, for good or for bad, and I think for the fact that we don't have a plan here, quite candidly, Mr. Chairman, to discuss and debate today, more for the bad than the good that we are coming here without such a plan. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a leader on this issue and more importantly a leader on the issue of reviving our economy in general and in a free market manner which will not put the American taxpayer on the hook.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I first yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the chairman's question. Yes, there is a specific philosophical difference with regard to keeping people in their houses. As we know, both sides of the aisle want to do the best that the Federal Government can do in this area. And the administration has already set up a program, the HOPE program, and taken other actions to try to facilitate those people who are in difficult situations to remain in their houses. But I believe it was Ms. Waters on your side of the aisle that raised the same point similar to what I raised. What do we say to the person who has been on time paying their bills, which is over 90 percent of the American public homeowners, who has been paying their bill month after month after month on time and saying to them, well, you know what? We're going to use your tax dollars to subsidize the people across the street with a program to help them keep when they went over the amount they should be spending on their homes. And that is the philosophical difference that we have. I yield now 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to Mr. Schock from Illinois.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield another 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I have no further speakers, and I would reserve my time until the gentleman from Massachusetts is ready to close.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Colorado said that this amendment will make sure of ``such and such,'' and he listed off a half a dozen things that the bill, or the amendment, will do. The reality is that the chairman will tell him this amendment will make sure of absolutely nothing. Why? Because this amendment will never become law. That's not me saying that. That's what the chairman has said repeatedly as well. It is not going to move in the House and the Senate. It is not going to be eventually signed by the President. Soon, we'll be voting on legislation that will, in essence, allow the next administration to spend $350 billion, and the American taxpayer will be asking us: What did we authorize that $350 billion for? For there was no plan, and there is no plan as we speak here today as to what the next administration will be spending that $350 billion for. Congress should not authorize, Congress should not pass any other legislation until we have the specifics of a plan. We should not do so until we have a plan that will not pick winners and losers, until we have a plan that will protect the American taxpayer, until we have a plan in place and the language before us that will not bail out the banks that made terrible decisions. We should not be moving legislation that will appropriate $350 billion until we have a plan in writing specifically that will not bail out borrowers who knowingly took inappropriate loans. Finally, we should not spend an additional $350 billion as we pick winners and losers and do nothing, absolutely nothing, for the 90-plus percent of American homeowners who have done absolutely everything right and who have paid their loans and mortgages on time and who are now asking: Why are they bailing out the banks and other imprudent lenders? I encourage all of my colleagues at this point in time to vote ``no'' on this amendment that will do absolutely nothing to ensure these protections to the American taxpayers. I encourage all of my colleagues as well to vote such that we will not appropriate an additional $350 billion of taxpayer dollars. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield myself 2 minutes. First of all, I begin by saying I appreciate the sponsor's intent behind the amendment. She and I join in the thought that we need to do all that we possibly can to deal with the terrible situation of the economy right now, and she is right that the subprime issue and the foreclosure issue is at the heart of the housing prices and the heart of the economic crisis that we have right now. The question is, what do we do about it? And the question is, what do we do about it in a manner to help both those people who have been paying on time and also help those people who are perhaps in a difficult situation? The amendment, though, as it's currently written, may have an unintended effect. If you effectively allow for an extended period of moratorium on foreclosure, that may actually have the potential of encouraging people from actually going to the bank to try to work things out. Or maybe it's not encouraging, not just encouraging them enough to do what is appropriate during this period of time. I would ask the gentlelady a question, though. In the form of the amendment, besides the potential policy problems, it would appear that the amendment is flawed technically, and for that reason unworkable. If I look at page 2--and if she would refer to that--it's set up not as a sense of Congress, which, I believe, is the intention behind this bill, but rather as language which would have the force of law. Page 2, section C, ``duty of the consumer to maintain property.'' It goes on to say that any homeowner whose benefit in foreclosure proceeding or sale is ``barred under subsection A,'' and it makes references to other sections of the law. The question is, how can a sense of Congress, therefore, actually have the effect of law? So is this an amendment that maybe has the best of intentions but was drafted in a manner that potentially would have the effect of law even though it is not a law, it is merely a sense of Congress? I would ask, then, in light of the fact that there is both the policy reason that we may agree on but have some problems with but is technically flawed, I would ask that the sponsor would consider withdrawing the amendment at this time.