Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. There you go, and likewise mine in the great State of New Jersey. Let me preface my comment, the gentlelady from Ohio would like in a moment to speak.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. And the gentleman makes an excellent point, and Steve did as well, just saying when it comes down to what we're doing here on the floor of course very clearly we know whose money we're spending. Some people say does the money come from TARP; does the money come from the energy bill? It doesn't matter which line you take it out of the Federal budget, at the end of the day it all comes out of the taxpayers' pockets. And I encourage us to take a moment to make sure that we do it in an effective way that actually gets the job done, gets the restructuring of the industry and does not put the American taxpayer on the hook.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor having always had an open mind with regard to this whole auto situation, and how we make sure the United States stays strong as a manufacturing country. The chairman of the Financial Service Committee talks about having to move this along very quickly. But oddly enough, it was just last week, I believe, when he was asked by reporters on this and he said, you know, these deadlines that are being imposed are really artificial deadlines. And referring back to the TARP situation, he said, in that situation, even though the deadlines may pass, the sun still did come up the next day. And yet these are deadlines we're facing. And I think what we would ask to look at is how is Congress operating. Let me give you a couple of examples. In July of this year, I think it was, we passed several hundred billion dollars for a housing bailout, and then, after that, we had some hearings on it on how we're going to spend the money. This fall we passed a $700 billion TARP program to bail out the financial industry. That started out as two or three pages. It grew to several hundred pages. It was only today that we finally had a hearing on the oversight, again, on seeing how that money was about to be spent, lambasting the administration for not doing enough. It was just yesterday, for the first time, that we basically had hearings on the GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Again, the government bailed them out to the tune of several hundred billion dollars. Months later we had hearings on it. What is the trend here? The way the Federal Government seems to operate is we appropriate, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars, then after the fact we come back and say, gee, what exactly did we do? I think our side of the aisle is saying, let's take it down a little bit, work a little bit slower, and make sure what we do is appropriate. You know, Steve Moore from the Wall Street Journal did an unscientific little survey. He walked around the Hill and the parking lots in the Hill, and he looked at the cars that the Members of Congress operate. You know what he found out? Two-thirds of those cars are foreign cars, not American cars. So it's interesting that we come to the floor here today and we ask to spend taxpayers' dollars on these cars when the members of their own party----

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Sure, I will yield.

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. 2638, the 2009 Defense Appropriation Bill: 7. Project Name--Advanced Fluid Controls for Shipboard Applications. Requesting Member--Scott Garrett. Bill Number--Amendment to H.R. 2638 (FY09 Defense Appropriations Bill). Account--Department of Defense Appropriations, RDT&E, Navy, Line #35, Shipboard System Component Development Account, PE#0603513N. Requesting Entity--Marotta Controls, 78 Boonton Ave, PO Box 427, Montville, NJ 07045. Description of the Project--Funds will be used to complete the development of shipboard fluid controls using the latest in material technologies--including composites and ceramics--to reduce weight, life-cycle costs, and increase fuel efficiency. Description of the Spending Plan--($2,500,000). Program Management: $50,000. Engineering Labor Mechanical: $100,000. Electrical: $100,000. Assembly Labor: $425,000. Machine Shop Labor: $550,000. Material: $700,000. Testing: $575,000. Total: $2,500,000.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the House recently considered and unanimously consented to the passage of H.R. 7017, a bill to reauthorize the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (DWGNRA) Citizens Advisory Commission (CAC) for an additional year. Both Representative Carney and I believe that this citizen action group serves as an important liaison between National Park Service Officials and park neighbors. Communication is the key to addressing and resolving citizen concerns, and it is clear that residents and park users value the opportunity to respond to DWGNRA decisions and propose alternative ideas. I was proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation and I believe it will improve the communication process between park officials and the local community. The citizens of New Jersey should be confident in the ability of the Federal Government to hear and address their suggestions. The Delaware Water Gap region has a turbulent history, one marked by improper government interference and Federal invasion of the rights of property owners. Realizing this, my predecessor, Representative Marge Roukama, authored legislation establishing a Citizen's Advisory Commission (CAC) in 1988. The CAC was reauthorized for an additional decade in 1998 and has served as a forum for the public to interact with park officials. Due to the combined efforts of various Commission members and park officials, the Delaware Water Gap NRA has increased in popularity and sees millions of visitors each year. These visitors enjoy the beauty of the scenery and the opportunity to participate in activities like hiking, canoeing, and swimming. I am confident that the CAC will continue to play a valuable role in preserving the splendor of the Delaware Water Gap for future generations. The ability of local residents to communicate with Federal agencies has been one of my main focuses and I call upon the Senate to follow the House's example and pass this important legislation.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I am pleased that this week the Senate has followed the House in passing the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, H.R. 6893. This landmark legislation will make significant improvements to child welfare through numerous provisions, including reauthorizing the Adoption Incentive Program and increasing education oversight for youth in foster care. I would also like to recognize Voice for Adoption, an organization that works to improve our adoption policies. There are 129,000 children in foster care who are waiting to be adopted, and many families who wish to adopt. These numbers may sound daunting, but Voice for Adoption positively illustrates the need to adopt through the Adoptive Family Portrait Project. This program promotes adoption by matching Members of Congress with a photo of an adoptive family from their district or State. It has been my privilege to participate in this project for the second year in a row and I have decided to display the photo in my DC office for an entire year. The 2008 theme emphasizes the importance of sibling connections for youth in foster care and adoptive placements. I am honored to recognize the Marino-Cappello family. Sandy Marino and her husband Sam Cappello were moved when they learned about the many waiting children in the New Jersey foster care system. Five adoptions later, they have been blessed with Kirby, who was adopted as an infant from South Korea; Percy, Maya and Violet, who are birth siblings adopted separately as infants; and Helena, adopted at seven months. Caring for medically-fragile, drug-affected infants has stretched the Marino-Cappello family to new limits. They deserve praise for their willingness to provide permanent, loving homes for children in foster care, despite challenges. H.R. 6893 will help families like the Marino-Cappellos to better provide for the special needs of children adopted from foster care. I applaud the passage of this much-needed legislation.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor realizing that there is a problem on Wall Street that will affect Main Street, and I also come here today hopeful, but also realistic. I will not be supporting this bill today, but I know the bill will pass later on because so much has been added to it to get the votes. But I am hopeful then that all the promises that have been made by the proponents of this bill will come true, after we give $700 billion to Secretary Paulson and whoever follows him 2 or 3 months from now. The promise is that the markets will open up and the markets will go up and credit will be free-flowing soon. But I come here also realistic, realistic to know that if you don't tackle the underlying problems, we will be right back in this House again on this floor seeking more money and more reform. Realistic also to know if you don't allow for alternatives, you will not get the best bill. And we know that Speaker Pelosi and the White House were not open to listening to any alternatives, and there were alternatives out there. And realistic also in knowing that if you fail to investigate earlier enough, these problems will come up, as they have. Back in the spring of this year, we, my Republican colleagues, asked for investigations on this matter, and we were rebuffed, being told by the chairman, ``I do not think it is necessary that we have hearings on the soonest possible date.'' Madam Speaker, I come here not in support of this bill, but in support of doing something, in light of the remarks of economist Robert Shimer, who said, ``The U.S. has long been a beacon of free markets. When economic conditions turn sour in other countries, we give very clear instructions on what to do; balance the budget, maintain free trade, the rule of law, and do not prop up failing enterprise.'' He said it. I agree with him. That has always been the U.S. approach, and I believe it is the correct approach. But when the United States ignores its own advice in this situation, we reduce our credibility of this stance. Rewriting the rules of the game at this stage will therefore have serious ramifications, not only for the people of this country, but for the globe and the world as well. You see, Madam Speaker, the social costs of this are far, far greater than the $700 billion that we talk about today.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the House recently considered and passed H.R. 6646, a bill that would require the Secretary of State to provide Congress with detailed briefings on any recent discussions conducted between the United States Government and the Government of Taiwan and any potential transfer of defense articles or defense services to the Government of Taiwan. I was proud to cosponsor this legislation, which I hope will end a reported freeze on arms sales to Taiwan. The U.S. and Taiwan have enjoyed a positive economic and political relationship for several decades and it is our duty to make defense articles available to our allies, especially in the Asia Pacific region. The U.S. Taiwan Relations Act states in Section 2(b)(5) that ``it is the policy of the United States to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character.'' The same Act specifies in Section 3(b) that Congress has a role in determining the defensive needs of Taiwan. Furthermore, Section 3(b) also states that any determination ``shall include review by United States military authorities in connection with recommendations to the President and the Congress.'' Yet the administration has not reported any recommendations to Congress nor explained why arms sales to Taiwan have been delayed. Since Taiwan's legislature passed its arms budget last year, further inaction by the administration is unnecessary. As twenty-four Members and I wrote in a letter to President Bush on July 31, ``A secure and prosperous Taiwan requires the means to provide for its own self defense and the ability to engage its neighbors without fear of military intimidation.'' If we are serious about Taiwan's security, we must continue to permit the judicious sale of defesive weapons to our key ally. H. Res. 6646 provides a framework for maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait by requiring the administration to consult with Congress regarding its arms transfer policy. I applaud the passage of this much-needed legislation.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the House recently considered and passed H.R. 7112, a bill that expands the Iran Sanctions Act and authorizes state and local governments to divest from certain companies that hold Iranian assets. The timing of this legislation could not be more appropriate. This past week, the president of Iran visited the United Nations in New York City and gave two addresses. Not surprisingly, he took advantage of the platform and condemned ``a small but deceitful number of people called Zionists'' for using their influence in Europe and the U.S. in ``a deceitful, complex, and furtive manner.'' He also referred to ``Zionist murders'' and accused Jews of having an ``underhanded'' role in the crisis in Georgia. But President Ahmadinejad didn't limit his attacks to Israelis. He boasted that ``the American empire. . . is reaching the end of the road.'' Clearly, Tehran has malicious intentions and especially detests the United States and Israel. That's why H.R. 7112 is critical to improving our national security and stability. While Iran points out alleged flaws in American and Israeli policy, it continues to defy the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions, and International Atomic Energy Agency inspections. Of course, Iran claims to be enriching uranium for energy use, but U.N. inspectors have found elements that are constructive only in weapons. If Iran did indeed develop a nuclear bomb, the repercussions would be felt throughout the region, including in Iraq, India, Pakistan, Turkey, and Israel, as well as in the U.S. Since Iran is already supplying weapons to terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas, it is important that we act now to prevent the sale of sensitive material to Tehran. Finally, I would also like to mention another bill that recently passed the House: H. Res. 1361. While this Resolution rightly condemns the anti-Semitic language of the 2001 Durban Conference (Durban I), I urge my fellow Members to take the next step and support my legislation, H.R. 5847 or the United Nations Durban Review Conference (Durban II) Funding Prohibition Act.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa). (Mr. ISSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I came to the floor this week, and, America, I said, you should be concerned about what Washington is about to do. Last night I came to the floor and I said you should be alarmed about what Washington is doing because of the lack of deliberation. Today I come and say, America, you should be outraged about what Washington is about to do because Washington is not listening to you. Whether you are Republican or Democrat, our offices have been hearing phone calls, 10-1, 100-1 against this proposal. But Washington is not listening. They are going ahead with the proposal as well. There is a problem. We recognize the problem. We must work on it now. But we should not go for the solutions to that problem to the same people who have brought that problem to us. We should not go to the administration, who has brought this problem to us through their actions in the past; the Federal Reserve with their roller coaster interest rates from 2001 to 2004, 6 percent to 1 percent down; and then 2004 to 2007, 1 to 5 percent up; bubbles and bursts from the Fed and their false promises with Bear Stearns and AIG and GSEs. Nor should we turn to the Democrat leadership that has signed on to this bill; that Democrat leadership who has given us CRAs in the past that has led to the meltdown in the subprime market. Nor should we turn to the Democrat leadership who has blocked reform in the past to these GSEs and unbelievably say they will block any reform in the future to the GSEs. No. The stakes are too high to turn back to those who have brought us the problem in the first place. We should look for new solutions. And there are solutions. But I will close on this, Madam Speaker. The noted University of Chicago economist, Robert Schimer, tells us that the U.S. has long been a beacon of free markets in the world. When economic conditions turn sour in Argentina or Indonesia, we give very clear instructions on what to do: Balance the budget. Cut government employment. Maintain free trade and the rule of law. And don't prop up failing enterprises. Those approaches by the U.S. are correct. But when the U.S. ignores its own advice in this situation, it reduces our credibility in the future. Rewriting the rules of the game at this stage will therefore have serious ramifications not only for the people in this country but for the future of the globe. The social cost is far, far greater than any $700 billion.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Statewide Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of New Jersey (SHCC). To honor this organization, the State of New Jersey has designated October 13 through October 19 Hispanic Business Week. The health of the Hispanic business community is vital to maintaining the strength of the New Jersey economy. This year, the Statewide Hispanic Chamber of New Jersey is celebrating 19 years of service and commitment on behalf of the growing small business community. They have positioned themselves as number one out of the top 50 Chambers of Commerce of the State of New Jersey. I also want to recognize Daniel H. Jara, founding president and CEO of the Statewide Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of New Jersey. Daniel has been listed in the elite group of the State's 2006 Movers and Shakers Most Influential Business Leaders by NJBiz. The Hispanic market represents the fastest growing sector in the United States. In the Garden State, this segment of the population has experienced an 87-percent growth in less than 10 years. This year, it is estimated that there are over 70,000 Hispanic-owned businesses, which support approximately 190,000 jobs and generate $10.5 billion in sales. According to the last economic census, New Jersey has the fifth largest concentration of Hispanic-owned businesses in the Nation. The Statewide Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of New Jersey will hold it 18th Annual Convention and Expo on October 17, 2008. I wish the Chamber success as they continue striving to grow New Jersey's economy.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor, realizing that we are in a severe financial situation in this country on Wall Street that will have a negative effect on Main Street as well. It must be addressed, and it must be addressed quickly. You know, I came to this floor last night, and I spoke to the American public. I said last night that you should be concerned this morning, that you should be very much alarmed by what is going on here. Obviously, Washington is not hearing from you and is not abiding by your wishes. Yes, there is a problem, and yes, also there are solutions, and yes, there is a way to deal with this problem but not by putting the American taxpayer on the hook. In order to get those solutions, we should not go to those very same people who brought us this problem in the first place--those people who tried to block reform in the past. I hear in the news today that there was a deal, that Speaker Pelosi has basically adopted the Paulson plan. Well, I don't know what all of the ramifications of the deal are and who is involved, but I can say this: Those who support and those who used to work for Goldman Sachs will support this deal. Those who have gotten contributions from Countrywide will support this deal. Those who have gotten substantial contributions will support this deal. Most importantly, those who have blocked reform in the past will support this deal. I will not support this deal as it has been laid out so far. If you want to know how to find out more about how we got here, just simply go to YouTube, and put in ``burning down the house,'' and you will get a better understanding of exactly how we got here and why we should not be going back to the very same parties who brought us here with this solution.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentlelady for your comments. And your opening comments were quite instructive. You say we have a problem today. That we all agree on. But we should not be moving forward expeditiously without all the evidence before us so we can make the right decision. It was just the other day that during the course of this week I was in contact with a notable economist who made that point to me as well, that we should have all the data before us so that we can make a correct determination as to what is the right reform in Washington to address the problem on Wall Street. And he referred me to some data. And the data is not mine. It is not his. It is published data from the Federal Reserve. I will just spend 30 seconds on it to put it in perspective. We do know we have a problem. If you talk to most people on Wall Street, they will tell you there is a problem in the credit markets. You have to put things in perspective with respect to where we stood before. If you look at commercial and industrial loans, seasonally adjusted, it goes from July of last year to September of this year, and you will see that leading into this week, actually commercial and industrial loans were at historic highs. And yes, on the other end of the chart it just begins to tip down, the chart shows it goes down just a little bit. And the latest data we have is from I think just 1 week ago. The next data for this week will be coming out. It's probably telling that we can't get this information, quite honestly. I believe maybe only the Federal Reserve may have this information. But for Congress really to act intelligently, it needs information like this. This is why I threw the chart up, because the gentlelady from Minnesota said we should have information. Here is another chart. And I will end on this because charts are hard to follow here. This is commercial paper here of nonfinancial companies, again seasonally adjusted, again from the same time frame, July of last year to September of this year. And you will see where we are, on average at the 190 level, we were peaking just going into this. Now it went down. But you see those spikes going down all the time. On the very end of the chart, pointing over here, there is a little bit of an uptick. I can't tell you what the actual data is conclusively, whether that little uptick then goes up. I doubt it. It probably begins to spike downwards again. It is that sort of information that we would like to have specifically before us so we are not relying on anecdotal evidence. And I don't discount that, or the phone calls we receive from the street or the articles that we receive as well. We do know there is a problem out there. I'm just pointing out, as the gentlelady from Minnesota has said, it would be a lot more beneficial before we start spending $700 billion, or for that matter even $100 billion. Because we may see a so-called ``compromise'' piece of legislation come out that says, American taxpayer, don't worry. We're not going to spend $700 billion to bail out Wall Street. We are only going to spend $100 billion. And now you should thank Washington for only spending $100 billion. So come on board with that. Some of us still have a problem with spending $100 billion on a problem that is part Wall Street's but also part Washington's. If it were ever to again regain credibility with the American people, Congress really has to address a fundamental problem and a fundamental question, and that is to answer to the American public how come it was that for so many years, when the evidence, true evidence, data evidence, coming into Congress was showing us that this housing growth model could not sustain itself, why Congress did not pass legislation to rein it in, to reform the system, and to put into checks and balances in the past? Well again we can go into the details why Congress didn't do that. But to get the credibility back before we move forward on new legislation involving tens or hundreds of billions of dollars, we need to answer that question. With that, I would like to yield the floor to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman. We hopefully will learn from our history that there are no necessary evils in government. And it may well be if the unfortunate compromise comes about, that that is the arguments that will be made by those who propose that, that you just have to suffer a little bit in government expenditures on that; that is a necessary evil. That is when the actual question will come about probably, is when is $700 billion not $700 billion. And the answer that may well be given, well, it is not $700 billion when we pay it out over time; $100 billion this month, $150 billion a couple months from now, $150 billion in January, $200 billion after that; and as the numbers go up, eventually to $700 billion, and maybe even more. Because that is where we stand right now with the administration and the Democrat majority essentially having originally said that there was a deal, and that means the Democrats having signed on to or basically accepted the outline of the original Paulson plan, the Bush administration plan, saying we should spend $700 billion. Anything less than that from their perspective, which we don't just do it at one time but do it over time, to the American taxpayer should be seen as the exact same thing. That is why I said in my opening comments, don't let anyone pull the proverbial wool over your eyes by saying we have ratcheted this down somehow by making a compromise that they are going to spend it in a different manner, because to you and I it is the same thing. Also to our children and our children's children, it will be the same thing, inasmuch as the devastating impact it will have on future economies with regard to inflation, inflation, one of the most onerous taxes of all, as it steals from us without us even seeing it, as the value of our dollar goes down and down and down as the American government prints more and more money to do a bailout. With that, once again I am pleased to be joined now by another leader on this issue, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, we come to the floor tonight to speak about an issue that has eclipsed all other issues, that has been in the media and on the public's minds of recent date, and that, of course, is the financial situation that the United States currently finds itself in. As we go through this evening, we will talk about deals or no deals, the underlying fundamental problems that the situation has brought us to this point, who and how we got here, what was the makeup of the market and the Fed and the Treasury that may have helped to facilitate the problems that we face today. And, finally, what are some of the solutions that are potentially out there that can move us from where we are today to a more stronger and safe economy? I'll just start for a moment, before I yield to some of my colleagues who have joined me, to suggest to the American public that tonight they should be concerned, not just about what is occurring on Wall Street, but what is occurring right here in Washington, D.C. as well. With regard to the situation on Wall Street, although as difficult as it may be, I have, deep down inside of me, the utmost faith in the American people and the American worker and the America businessman that, when faced with this challenge, that they will be able to overcome it and to strive and make a stronger economy tomorrow that will be beneficial for our farmers, for our families, for our manufacturers, for our economy throughout the United States. And yes, there may be some need, as we will discuss, for the intervention by Washington, but the reason why I say that the American citizen should be concerned tonight--not so much about Wall Street, but about Washington--is what may come out in the form of legislation tonight--or in the next day or the day after that. Because, you see, we are being asked to sort of rush through this process, where as normally we would come to this body and maybe spend hours upon hours debating whether we should spend a million dollars on this bridge over in this State or a million dollars in this program in that State. And we will go through committee hearings and markups and subcommittees and the like and then finally get to the floor of the House and pass it here. And then it will go over to the Senate, and it will go through the same arduous process of subcommittees and full committees and markups, and then to the Senate floor, where they will have debate on it infinitum. And maybe even then we'll go to conference committee and come back here to the House where we will have to discuss the issue all over again. And that may be only for a matter of only a million dollars or two. But what we are talking about here is potentially spending $700 billion, and we're being asked to basically decide that issue in a matter of hours. Mind you, we may, hopefully--as the optimist as I always am--get just the right answer. But the reason I say the American citizen should be warned is that history does not indicate that. And many times, in the rush to judgment, when we are pushed to make a decision at the end of the day, at the end of the week, at the end of a session when a crisis is looming over our heads, we are sometimes pushed in the wrong direction. And I would also ask the American citizen to consider this; you know, the overwhelming calls to our offices I think across the board, across both Democrats and Republicans as well, would say that they have been opposed to spending $700 billion of the American taxpayers' dollars to bail out, if you will, Wall Street. I would just advise the American public, as a plan finally does come through the process and is passed through this House and the Senate, I would advise them to look over it very, very carefully when they are told that this is not the same Paulson proposal, that the American taxpayer is not going to be on the hook. I don't know what that proposal will be--as negotiations are going on literally as we speak--but look at it very carefully to see that the proverbial wool is not being pulled over all of our eyes, and that we ultimately, and our future generations, our children and our grandchildren, will be held responsible for paying the debt. I hope that's not the case. I remain optimistic that we can work out a solution. And the House Republicans have actually proposed such a solution that would not put the American taxpayer on the hook. And we are willing to work with our Democrat colleagues across the aisle to make any changes or additions or alterations to that so that it can be palatable to all parties in both Houses to get through the process, but let's see how the final end result is. And with that, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for joining us and also for your leadership on this crucial issue, perhaps as others have said, one of the most crucial issues we in Congress will ever vote on. As the lady as said, as the speakers before have as well, we recognize the severity of the problem on the U.S. economy, and the global economy as well. We recognize that some action by Congress is necessary, but we suggest that the proposal that has been proposed by Secretary Paulson and ostensibly supported by the Democrat majority is the wrong proposal. Therefore, we have stepped up to the plate and suggested a House Republican proposal. It is not simply us, we here in the House Republicans that suggest that the Paulson-Pelosi proposal is not the way to go. In my hand here is a list of, I think, several hundred economists, 192 economists from around the country, who reviewed it and expressed their view and, very briefly, they say we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson to deal with the financial crisis. ``We see three fatal pitfalls in the current proposed plan. One, its fairness, the plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayer expense. Two, its ambiguity, neither the mission of the new agency, nor its oversight are clear; and, three, perhaps most important, it's long-term effects, if the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation.'' I know the President heard those remarks, it was reported on ABC. When he saw this, he said, ``I don't care what someone on some college campus says,'' ABC reports. Instead he says he trusts his Treasury secretary. Well, quite candidly, as a representative of Congress, I trust what my constituents are saying about this situation. They realize it's an important matter. They realize it's a tightening of the credit markets. They realize that something must be done, but they also realize, as the economists do, that we should not be putting this on the backs of the taxpayers, but, rather takes gentlelady from North Carolina suggests, come up with an alternative proposal where the Wall Street players would actually be underwriting the cost of the proposal. As the gentlelady has put into the record and outlined it, in essence what we are doing there is setting up a guaranteed fund, if you will, or backing for those mortgage-backed securities. I will just digress on how that would work for 30 seconds, think of it this way. If you are confident in the way that Washington handles your tax dollars today, if you are confident that the way the American government, Washington, handled your tax dollars when it came to Katrina, if you are confident with the way that Congress handles your tax dollars when, year after year, we can't balance our budget like the American family has to balance their budget. If you are confident in the way that the American government in Washington handles your tax dollars when we run deficits of $100 billion, $150 billion, then $200 billion and $300 billion, now over $400 billion. With this, of course, on top of it, would be over a trillion dollars. If you were confident with the management of the assets of the American government over the past years, then you should be absolutely confident that we would be able to set up an agency, either external to the Treasury or within the Treasury, to be able to handle $700 billion of mortgage-backed security, and that would mean, on the back side of those, all the assets of those foreclosed properties that would possibly come from that as well. Somebody on a TV show earlier said well we did it with the RTC, and Secretary of the Treasury Paulson said, well, this is not like the RTC. But in a the way it is. We were handling those assets. At some point along the line I had to remind the commentator on the program with the RTC, it ended up costing the taxpayer around 127 to 147 billion dollars, which in today's dollars is around $220 billion. Here we are talking about $700 billion. If you are confident the American government can do this better than anyone else, then support either the initial Paulson-Pelosi proposal or any hybrid or compromise from that that still involves that. But if you are not so confident, if you have a question of the ability of Washington adequately handling those dollars, and if you have a question on how this may impact upon the economy and the monetization of that debt and the rise in inflation that may have followed it this year. But next year, if the production in this country does not increase, then you should be looking for an alternative, and that alternative is just what the lady from North Carolina has raised. As I started my comment, I said, let us therefore not look to those who have brought us to this point in the first place, whether it be the Federal Reserve, with the loose lending policies that they have had for years, or the Congress who refused to step in, as I said, when evidence indicated that had there was a problem in the housing market, that a bubble was coming, that there was a problem with the GSEs, that's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but Congress refused to act. Let's not go back to those individuals who brought us to that particular point for a solution, let's maybe think out of the box and look for a solution. Another economist recently was published on this matter, to address more of the global issue, the larger issue. I will read from this, he is Chicago economist Robert Schimer from the University of Chicago. He States, as follows, ``Let me mention one other issue that I take very seriously. I recognize that this might not matter much to my Congressman, but in my view it may be the most important issue for global welfare. The U.S. has long been a beacon of free markets. When economic conditions turn sour in Argentina or Indonesia, we give very clear instructions on what to do: balance the budget, cut government employment, maintain free trade and the rule of law, and do not prop up failing enterprises. Opponents of free markets argue that this advice benefits international financiers, not the domestic market. I have always believed (at least since I began to understand economics) that the U.S. approach was correct. But when the U.S. ignores its own advice in this situation, it reduces the credibility of this stance. Rewriting the rules of the game at this stage will therefore have serious ramifications not only for people in this country but for future of global capitalism. The social cost of that is far, far greater than $700 billion. So I end where I began, the social cost of our adopting a program, on this country, and our children and our future generation will be far, far greater than anything we can imagine if we do not do it right.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman. And hopefully, Members on both sides of the aisle will be keeping their heads as we go through the debate and the seeking of a deal on this, and a deal that, at the end of the day, is a benefit to the taxpayers of this country. While we try to seek out that debate and try to seek out the solution, one axiom that we should probably go by is ``Do not go back to the same people who brought you this problem in the first place.'' And I will speak on that in a little more detail to take a look at who it was actually that brought us to this problem. I know some people are pointing their fingers exclusively at Wall Street on this, and clearly they have some blame to lay there because, for various reasons, executives and otherwise made truly imprudent decision making, maybe it's in part because they really did not have the information on hand, maybe it's because of lawsuits in the pasts when analysts were pushed out of the Wall Street, out of the cell side of the equation, or maybe it's because with all the Ph.D.s and what have you brought in and brought in all the new modeling on Wall Street and what have you, that made it almost impossible for the CEOs of these investment firms and otherwise to really know what it was exactly that they were buying down below. Whatever the excuse, whatever the reason, there is some blame to be laid at Wall Street, to be clear, but we also have to look to see where some of that blame lays here in Washington, D.C. And that's why I said, do not return to those who brought us here. And if you want to look to a place where you can get a little bit of information about how we got here, as we're all done here listening to this program right now, our speakers here on the floor, I went to a place earlier today--or somebody sent this to me as an e-mail, and it was an e-mail for a YouTube site, and it's called ``Burning Down the House.'' And it's a 9\1/2\ minute YouTube presentation done with music and what have you that gives you a nutshell explanation of exactly how did we get to where we are in the first place. So I recommend people to go to YouTube's ``Burning Down the House'' and they will be educated on it. But right now we're going to be additionally educated by the young lady from Minnesota. I yield such time as she may consume to Mrs. Bachmann.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to follow the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and address the issue of the bailout. She started her talk with deal or no deal. There was talk in the media that there was a deal. We heard from Senator Dodd and the chairman of our committee and other leaders on the other side of the aisle yesterday that there was a deal. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter was that there may have been a deal between themselves and the White House, there was no deal obviously to bring the bill to the floor, or at 8 or 9 at night, we would have seen the Speaker of the House bring the bill to the floor. That is evidence of the fact that there never was a deal. We do know the fact is we have a serious problem in this country, a problem that must be addressed now, a problem which requires both sides coming together to try to find the solution to the problem. As the previous speaker said, there are alternative solutions on the table, solutions that economists and business schools across the country have come behind and said can be the credible solution and one which would not put the taxpayers of the country on the hook. I would suggest that one way of coming to a solution is to decide that we are not going to go back to those same people who helped bring us to this problem in the first place. One of the underlying problems that brought us to this situation is the fact that there was easy money in the economy for too long a period of time. From 2001 to 2004, interest rates slid from 6 percent all of the way down to 1 percent of the Fed's fund rate. There was an expression used of the Greenspan put, if you will, as far as trying to boost the economy and Wall Street all during that time. Then that was followed from a switch turnaround from 2004 to 2007 where the interest rates shot up from 1 percent up to 5\1/2\ percent. Let me suggest to you that those higher interest rates have been reflected in the housing market today, and will be potentially affected due to a lag time to other sections of the economy later. And that is another reason why we should not engage and support a measure as has been proposed by the White House and the other side of the aisle of spending $700 billion or anywhere near that amount of money that would put the taxpayers on hook because we can anticipate future problems due to that tightening up of the credit market by the Fed. Now, another area where we should not go back to the same people who helped bring us to this problem are those very same people who helped exacerbate the problem by their misregulation of the GSEs. The GSEs, what are they? They are your Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Those entities that supply the credit for about half of the mortgages in this country were allowed to grow out of control and to grow too large to fail and to grow to such an extent that there was systemic risk in this country and in the marketplaces that brought us to where we are today with the crisis we are facing. Now, this is something that was not unpredicted and not unforeseen. Our own administration came to this Congress in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, in their budget requests and elsewhere, making pleas to this Congress to try to put in some regulation. ``World-class regulators'' is what they called them. Secretary Snow came to the Financial Services Committee and made that request and said we should have regulation. However, we were thwarted on every front. The current chairman of the Financial Services Committee was one who stood and said we should not do so. I went back and looked into what the record of this was in 2005 to see what my position was on it and to read what I said on it. At that time in 2005, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) suggested that we could begin the process of reining in the GSEs so as to avoid systemic risk in this country with regard to them and avoid a future crisis. He put in an amendment to the bill to provide and to prevent systemic risk. I came down to the floor to support the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) in his amendment. At that time, I said that I rise in support of this legislation which strengthens the language with regard to portfolios and GSEs. I indicated that GSEs claimed that they are shock absorbers. This line is somewhat ironic today. The GSEs claimed back in 2005 that they were shock absorbers to the system and that one of the main reasons that Fannie and Freddie claimed they should not have portfolio limits was that they provided a stable means of support for the residential financial market in times of crisis. How ironic that they were claiming that they could be of help in a time of crisis when, in fact, they are what have now brought us to this time of crisis. Back in 2005, Fannie's CEO, Dan Mudd, testified: ``Our mortgage portfolios allow us to play a shock-absorbing function for the finance system during times of potential difficulty.'' Well, there is no function that they're serving now except that they are causing the difficulty. This week, they said Freddie's president, Eugene McQuade, was quoted as saying: ``The enterprises provide a source of stability to the market, mortgage, finance system.'' With that, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to conclude by saying that the problems that the GSEs have brought us to today--although we were warned by the administration and although many saw it and many people from this side of the aisle--were because of the failure to implement those regulations on a timely basis. We'll discuss this further at a later date.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. As the gentleman just explained, the dilemma that we are in and where the proper recourse or result should go to at this point and what the solution that has been presented us is not the correct solution, and that alternatives such as allowing the free market to develop, lowering taxes on capital gains and the like, allowing the private sector to develop an alternative, which has already occurred through the RSC and other forms here in the Republican Conference, is perhaps the better avenue to pursue. Let me, though, take the next 3 or 4 minutes to answer the question that many in the American public are asking tonight, how in the world did we ever get here? Well, many financial analysts will tell you that the underpinnings of the problems that we are facing today in the credit markets on Wall Street that are affecting the homeowners on Main Street go back a number of years and apply to the situation with the GSEs, that is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And the suggestion is that had they been appropriately regulated over the years, we would not be in this severe financial crisis that we are in today. So who was raising those red flags years ago to say what should have been done? Well if we go back, let's see, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 years to 2001, in fact it was the Bush administration that began raising some red flags. In 2002 in their budget request they declared that the size of Fannie and Freddie is ``a potential problem'' and could cause financial trouble and either one of them could cause strong repercussions in the financial markets. That was back in 2002. 2003 is when I joined Congress and served on the Financial Services Committee. I immediately began to call for a step-up in regulations of Fannie and Freddie. The White House was at the same time doing the same thing. They said in 2003, the White House was warning about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that they needed an upgrade in what we call world-class regulation to address something called systemic risk, a risk that could spread beyond just the housing sector. In the fall of 2003 the administration was pushing Congress hard to create a new Federal agency to regulate and to supervise both Fannie and Freddie, these government- sponsored entities. They and I and other Members from our side of the aisle said that we need a strong world-class regulator to oversee their operations of their safety and soundness. As a matter of fact, I recall a hearing when the then-Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary Snow, came in. And he made that point as well. But I also remember him getting a lot of pushback from both sides of the aisle, but also from the gentleman who is now the chairman of the Financial Services Committee. It was back on September 25, 2003, when he was in the minority at that time, but he is now the chairman of the Financial Services Committee today, Barney Frank said ``there are people in the country who are prepared to lend money to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at less interest rates than they might get elsewhere. I thank those people for doing that. I must tell them that I hope that they are not doing that on the assumption that if things go bad, I or my colleagues will bail them out. We will not.'' Well the legislation that has come through in July did exactly that, bailed them out to the tune of over $200 billion. The legislation that the gentleman who just came before me just spoke about will be bailing out the financial industry to the tune of $700 billion. Mr. Frank goes on to say, ``I think it is clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are sufficiently secure so they are in no great danger.'' Well of course we see what has happened to them. We just had a hearing on them today. And they are now in conservatorship. They were in great danger. They were in danger of systemic risk, which has eventually brought them down. He also said on that day, ``I don't think we face a crisis. I don't think we have an impending disaster.'' We all just heard the President of the United States on TV last night. He described the crisis that the United States is in right now. Whether you call that an impending disaster, whether we take action or not, I don't know whether Mr. Frank would say or those who pushed back to Mr. Snow, who pushed back to the administration, who pushed back to those of us on this side of the aisle that said we need to move forward and try to address the issue of systemic risk. Unfortunately those efforts did not come about. We never got the world-class regulator in over the GSEs until it was too late. And now we are left with the situation at hand. The gentleman who came before spoke of the dilemma that we are faced with, a Hobbesian choice of sorts is the way it was presented last night: Either you do this or everything will fall apart. Well we suggest that there is an alternative to the proposal that the administration has proposed. We humbly suggest that alternative should be considered in a thoughtful and thought-out process, not one that is a rush to judgment, not one that would put the American taxpayer on the hook, one that would ask the private sector to take their lead and take their step in the process as well. We would ask for the time in order to engage in the process.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Conference guidelines, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding projects in my district that received funding per my request as part of the amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2638. 1. Project Name--Landing Craft Composite Lift Fan. Requesting Member--Scott Garrett. Bill Number--Amendment to H.R. 2638 (FY09 Defense Appropriations Bill) Account--Department of Defense Appropriations, RDT&E, Navy, Line 35, Shipboard System Component Development, PE#0603513N. Requesting Entity--Curtiss Wright Flow Control/Engineered Pump Division. Entity Address--222 Cameron Drive, Suite 200, Phillipsburg, NJ 08865. Description of the Project--Project supports design, development and manufacture of prototype composite material lift fans for application on current and next generation Navy landing craft vessels. This initiative addresses a persistent problem the Navy has been having with current generation metal lift fans, which are now replaced on average about every 2-4 months due to corrosion, wear and tear. Utilization of this composite material technology in current and future generation landing craft lift fans would result in maintenance savings and will increase the ship availability, critical in an ever-decreasing fleet budget. Description of the Spending Plan--($1,000,000).

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, when the United Nations General Assembly met earlier today, the Secretariat considered a request by several of Taiwan's diplomatic allies. These countries asked the United Nations to allow the Republic of China (Taiwan) and its 23 million citizens to have meaningful participation in the activities of the specialized agencies of the United Nations. By excluding 23 million people from participation in UN-sponsored activities, the UN is effectively treating the people of Taiwan as less than equals when compared to citizens of other countries. The people of Taiwan enjoy the benefits of living in a country that has free elections, yet it is certainly unfair for them to be denied access to agencies such as the International Civil Aviation Organization. In this global economy, no country and no people are an island. Information travels fast, epidemics spread equally fast. For instance, without membership in the World Health Organization, Taiwan is an overlooked area in the global epidemic surveillance network. Continued exclusion will only harm the international community. Furthermore, Taiwan has the world's tenth largest shipping capacity, but it has no access to the meetings of the International Maritime Organization and can't acquire first-hand information. There are many other instances of the impracticalities of banning Taiwan's membership in the international society. I am disappointed that the People's Republic of China again blocked Taiwan's request. Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou has taken a number of steps to improve the relationship with Beijing, including permission of direct weekend charter flights between the mainland and the island. It is time for the People's Republic to reciprocate by granting Taiwan the ability to join certain UN agencies.