Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentlelady for her shepherding this through. She should get a gold star for all of her work on the floor today. I also thank the Chair and the ranking members for helping facilitate this bill going through committee and now coming to the floor today. As was already indicated, today, September 17, marks a very important anniversary, the signing of our Constitution 221 years ago. Our Founding Fathers in this country came together in an attempt to form something, form a more perfect union, to establish justice and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity. I'm honored to be the sponsor of this resolution, which recognizes those 39 extremely brave men who gave all they had in signing our Nation's founding document. Too often, we forget not only the names of these men but the challenges that they faced and what they put at risk when they came together to do this. For example, our Founding Fathers originally met in Philadelphia to rework the Articles of Confederation. That was the document, you see, which had governed the country after the time of the War of Independence, and really, no one was expecting them to draft an entirely new system of government. And yet, that's what they did, and none of them were certain at that time that this new document would be ratified at all, and I doubt they even recognized the ingenuity of their final product. Yet today, here we are over 200 years later. I think we really take our system for granted and I hope this resolution in some small way will help remind us that the Constitution is a profound document. Our prosperity today and over the 200-some-odd years is built upon the stability of the Constitution. And our posterity to the future has to thank the liberties and freedoms that are set forth and guaranteed in this document. We see other nations around the world have followed in our footsteps by promoting the principles found in our U.S. Constitution, and although it's already been pointed out the U.S. Constitution is a relatively short document, the Founders really get too little credit for their clear and clever direction in it. They intended to set up a Republic of essentially sovereign, self-governing States, with a very small and central but limited government, operating under clearly defined, and as they say, limited powers. It was James Madison who wrote in the Federalist Papers at No. 45 that: ``The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.'' Every time any Member of Congress comes to the floor and they take out their card, about to vote on a particular piece of legislation, they should do what we're doing right now, and that is to reflect upon the U.S. Constitution. And they should be asking themselves is what they're about to vote on constitutional. The gentleman from New Jersey--I'm pleased to see him on the floor with me tonight--raised some of those very same questions. And in light of his comments, I guess we should all have raised those questions last night, as well, as we dealt with the energy package in legislation that came through this House, because, as I indicated a moment before and as, actually, the gentleman from New Jersey already indicated, we were breaking away from Britain at that time to provide the liberties and the freedoms here for the respective States in this country through the War of Independence and then established here in the Constitution. So, too, did our Founding Fathers intend those rights would, as they indicated with Federalist No. 45, remain with those States. What we did last night was abrogated those rights, took away those rights from them, from the respective States, to a very basic source of income and power to those States, to direct what should become of their futures with regard to an important issue such as energy. Legislation that we did last night put on severe restrictions as to the 50 States, at least our coastal States, as to what they can do and what remuneration they might see if they did take particular action with the developing resources, in this case, energy resources, within their States. And so although a lot of the discussion yesterday was on the political ramifications and some of the discussion was on the environmental ramifications, I'm not sure that there was any discussion on the constitutional implications of what was done yesterday and whether we, as Members of Congress, as we took our card and put it in there voting ``yes'' or ``no,'' were considering whether we had the constitutional authority actually to take those rights away from the people that we represent back at home in our respective States, whether we had the constitutional authority to say to those States, no, we're prescribing, no, we're placing limits on your ability to have freedom and prosperity for this generation and future generations, as well, by the limits Congress is placing on them. As the founder and chairman of the Constitution Caucus, I urge my fellow Members here in Congress today going forward then to renew our dedication to faithfully fulfilling our responsibility to the U.S. Constitution. Likewise, I encourage all Americans to take the time today and throughout the rest of the year to reflect upon this important doctrine, to reflect upon the U.S. Constitution, to ensure that freedoms set forth in it, the rights that are set forth in it, are preserved today and for our posterity.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman. I rise to oppose this legislation which is really unfair and unjust to the people of the State of New Jersey. I say so because it perpetuates an unfair system to our State, our State made up of commuters, because it does not change a system where in fact we do not get back a dollar on a dollar. Our commuters only get back pennies, 87 cents on a dollar in the current system, and this perpetuates that system. See, New Jersey is a commuter State. Whether you work or play, you have to rely on your car or truck to get around, and you're being attacked both from our State capital and in Washington, D.C. You're being attacked by our State capital by perpetual toll increases from High Point to Cape May, from Alpha to LBI, there are always threats of higher taxes there. And in D.C., we're under attack as well for the failure of this Congress and this Democrat leadership of passing an energy package. With gasoline at $3.50 a gallon and diesel at $4 a gallon, where it costs over $1,000 to fill up your truck to get to work or to get to school or elsewhere, New Jersey commuters are consistently being attacked by a system out of control in our State capital and our national capital as well, and that is why I stand here opposed to this legislation until we change the existing system of funding for tax administration.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding. It appears that we're on the same page on this, but let me just make this one suggestion: While the 250 positions are out there and while there's a waiting list out there for that group, there's also, as I've suggested, around 200-some-odd projects or more, actually, over half of which are on a critical category 1 list. So we have two important lists that have long waiting lists that have to be addressed. My suggestion is that, if this were to pass and if we were to reduce the funds by $18 million, there's nothing in the amendment that says to the administration take the $18 million out of this over $1.4 billion line and take it from the 250. You and I would have to agree that they must be able to find some other area to take it from than these 250.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I often come to the floor, and I often preface my remarks when I have an amendment, saying that I come to the floor tonight with a commonsense amendment. Quite candidly, I think that is more than apropos when I speak about what I'm here to speak about tonight. My amendment simply does this: It seeks to increase the funds for State veterans homes, and it does so in the amount of $18 million. From where does it get the money? Well, it does so by reducing the administrative expenses by a mere less than 1 percent, and that's a critical number, less than 1 percent. We believe that within that over billion dollar line that there is more than enough aptitude for going in and for finding less than 1 percent of additional funds that we could take out and put to a worthy cause such as toward our State veterans homes. Today, there are 126 State extended care facilities. They're extended across all 50 States and in Puerto Rico as well. These veterans homes care for nearly 30,000 of our Nation's heroes. The number of veterans requiring care will continue to increase as servicemembers return from Iraq and Afghanistan. Currently, there is a backlog, a huge, extensive backlog of projects waiting for funds. Now, many of these projects on this waiting list are critical for providing veterans with a healthy and secure environment. In fact, of the almost 200 projects waiting for Federal funds, nearly half of them are classified as priority 1. I believe it is our duty to see that these facilities are able to provide the highest quality of care for the lives of those who have made the sacrifices for our Nation. After all, you can't really just call these things ``institutions'' anymore. These really are the homes where our veterans will spend out the days of their lives. The staffs of these homes work hard to honor our veterans and to ensure that their last years are spent in comfort. I've had the pleasure now of working with folks back at the Paramus Veterans Home in my district in Bergen County, New Jersey. I've frequently visited with them and with their relatives who would come and visit, and local veterans organizations around the area would also come in, and they would work with them. These service organizations have worked hard to raise matching funds for these types of essential projects at these facilities. Likewise, they do across the Nation and, I'm sure, in each of your districts as well. I would also like to make one other point. That is, in the Senate bill, in the Senate MilCon-VA Appropriations bill, they designate $1.779 billion for general operating expenses while the House version designates $1.801 billion. So we appropriate a little bit more than the Senate does. So that 1 percent cut from the appropriations line for the general operating expenses would still leave more money in the final version of the bill than the Senate version currently has. We know we have different numbers here so that, when it gets to conference, those numbers have to come into an equilibrium of some sense. We're up here. The Senate is over here. This will bring us closer to that equilibrium. In addition, our colleagues over on the Senate Appropriations Committee have approved $250 million for the State veterans homes while the House budget only puts in $165 million. So my amendment would simply reduce this discrepancy by increasing the funding for State veterans homes by $18 million. In other words, we're in the House at $165 million. The Senate is at $250 million. We're just trying to bring the House number up a little bit closer to where the Senate is, which probably will happen once it gets into conference committee, because those numbers have to work together. So I'm just suggesting that a tiny, less than 1 percent cut in the administrative operations would allow us to provide our country's heroes with a better quality of life, and I think that's what we owe all of them. I hope that we can find a way to work together across the aisle to honor our vets and to make sure that they receive excellent care in all of their facilities. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Would the gentleman yield at this point?

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. He said, ``I'm not going to bail them out.''

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the American taxpayer today should be alarmed. No, he should be outraged. The taxpayer is being asked to be put on the hook for $5 trillion, the largest increase ever in U.S. history. A blank check is being given to be written by this administration. $800 billion is being asked for an increase in our debt limit. The CBO even says $25 billion potentially on the hook just to the year 2009. Experts have pointed out what this all means to you and I, the taxpayer, higher costs, higher inflation, and, of course, the prospects of ever higher taxes as well. We here today are crossing the Rubicon. Just as Caesar crossed into Rome, so too are Secretary Paulson and Chairman Frank, locked arms together, to cross the Rubicon and into that uncharted morass of socializing the loss and privatizing the profits. As the people yelled back then in those days, there is no turning back. So here we are today. Are we to stand here today and listen to those same people who brought us to this precipice and now ask us to join with them as we jump off? Yes, that's what we are being asked to do. I would note today in the Wall Street Journal, Paul Gigot writes that back in 2003 that the head of Countrywide was yelling at him and others as well, saying that we don't understand the markets and mortgages and whatnot, and there is no systemic risk with the GSEs. Well, Chairman Frank and others said the same thing, that we just don't understand and not to worry. There are only a few people in those years that stood up, people like former Congressman Richard Baker who said that there would be a problem down the road. I joined Richard Baker and others saying we must be doing something back then, sever the link to the Federal Government, end the $2.5 billion credit line, end the influence of buying, $200 million by lobbyists, by these entities, using their influence to make sure that no reform could get done. We tried to pass legislation that would give us just basic reform, but all those initiatives were stopped at the very brink. Also during that time, Chairman Frank told us that this would not happen.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman. I rise to the floor to oppose this rule and to also oppose the underlying bill, a bill that would, as the hurricanes that are going across this country, devastate this country financially and put the American taxpayer on the hook, not for $10 billion, not for $20 million, we're upwards to $5 trillion. I commend the hearing that we had last night on this bill, which was over 1 hour. That's an hour more than we've had any discussion whatsoever on this potential of putting the American taxpayer on the hook for $5 trillion. Chairman Frank did not hold one single hearing to discuss how this would impact the American public nor the American financial system; hearing after hearing that we held on all sorts of other things, but never could we get to this topic. In fact, the chairman last night called ``nonsensical'' the idea that the American public could be put on the hook for upwards to $300 billion. Well, remember this; that was the same chairman, unfortunately, who told us 5 years ago and 3 years ago and 1 year ago, nonsensical was the idea that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could ever fail. In fact, that's the same chairman who told us that he would never support the bailing out of the GSEs. In fact, if I looked into the transcripts of our past hearings where the gentleman from Massachusetts spoke, he said repeatedly, ``I would never support the bailout of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or the GSEs.'' Well, sir, here we are today, upwards to a $5 trillion bailout for the GSEs. In fact, this will make the savings and loan scandals of a few years ago pale by comparison. And I remind the American public, how did that unfold? First, it was a $10 billion request to the American taxpayer that they used to bail out the savings and loan. Then it was $50, $70--finally, $200 billion plus was asked for the American taxpayer to bail out the American savings and loans in this country. That's the exact same thing that's potentially going to occur here today as we bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for their exclusively bad decisionmaking.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentlelady from Ohio for supporting this measure to make sure that this rule does not pass and that the American taxpayer is not put on the hook for $5 trillion.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I appreciate the additional 15 seconds, and I would yield those 15 seconds to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I rise today in recognition of an organization that is influential in the lives of millions across this Nation and around the world. Since 1968, the Special Olympics has celebrated those who triumph in the face of adversity and achieve victory despite insurmountable odds. This organization recognizes the ineffable beauty of human life and emphasizes the dignity of people with intellectual disabilities. In 1968, Eunice Kennedy Shriver founded the Special Olympics in honor of her sister, Rosemary. The first games were hosted at Soldier Field in Chicago, and featured over 1,000 participants from the United States and Canada. Since that time, the Special Olympics has become one of our Nation's greatest exports, serving 2.5 million athletes in over 180 nations and offering year-round training and competition in 30 Olympic- type winter and summer sports. The Fifth District of New Jersey holds two major venues of our Winter Games each year: Campqaw in Mahwah features cross country skiing and snowshoeing, while Mountain Creek in Vernon holds alpine skiing and snowboarding. Earlier this year, I was honored to have John Rosati, a Special Olympics participant from Mercer County, visit my office. In addition, I would like to recognize one of my own constituents, Kelley Sue Martin of Closter. Not only does she compete in alpine skiing, bowling, and track and field, but she also serves as a spokesperson for Special Olympics New Jersey and speaks at community and fundraising events throughout the state. As the Special Olympics celebrates its 40th birthday on July 20, I join my colleagues in recognizing the indelible impact left by this exceptional organization. Over the past four decades, the Special Olympics has been an effective catalyst for social change. Special Olympians develop improved physical fitness and motor skills, greater self-confidence, and a more positive self-image. Participants grow mentally, socially and spiritually. They exhibit boundless courage and enthusiasm while enjoying the rewards of friendship and discovering new abilities and talents. Few creeds sum up the American Spirit better than the oath of the Special Olympics: ``Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt.'' I applaud the Special Olympics for providing an arena for athletes to follow this creed.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me, and also appreciate the gentleman for heading up this special order tonight to once again point a finger and a focus on the importance of the discussion of energy. And more important than that, to actually move some legislation through this House before we go into a recess during the August break. I will be brief because other colleagues would like to speak. I come, as I said, from the State of New Jersey. This past week I had an opportunity to be on some forums with some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle where this was an issue that was discussed. One of the points that I made, coming from the State of New Jersey, is just how important it really is that Congress do something with regard to energy and the high price of energy production and supply in this country. Let me give you a few statistics from an independent source describing the State of New Jersey and our costs of energy. New Jersey consumes 3.4 percent of the Nation's energy. That is 13 percent greater than what the State's share should be based on the State's share of the Nation's population and employment. And that is possibly because New Jersey is one of the most densely populated States. It has been a manufacturing State and otherwise, and for that reason we do draw a high amount of energy for our State. Currently the State of New Jersey spends nearly $130 million annually on energy for its various State facilities alone, not talking about private and everything else out there. Furthermore, an economic survey points out that New Jersey business owners reported that many are concerned, and this is obvious, over rising energy prices. Forty percent of business owners state that over the next 6 months, higher energy costs will have the greatest impact on their business, up sharply from around 20 percent last fall. And because of the higher cost of energy, 43 percent of New Jersey business owners plan to pass along that portion of the cost in the form of higher selling prices to their customers, up from around 30 percent last fall. So that means on top of the fact that we in New Jersey are paying more at the pump, and on top of the fact that home heating costs will go up dramatically in the area of fuel oil. As a matter of fact, the statistics on that are that New Jersey relies more heavily on petroleum and natural gas for home heating, with 86 percent of single-family homes heated by natural gas and oil compared to the national average of 68 percent. I raise that point to point out that in my little forums that I was on with other Members from the other side of the aisle, they said, look, we really can't drill our way out of this. Petroleum is not the solution. Natural gas is not the solution. Conservation and alternative fuels are the solution. Well, I half agree with them. I half agree with them because yes, conservation is certainly one of the solutions; and alternative fuels is certainly the other solution. But it is really a three-legged stool as opposed to a two-legged stool, and that third leg of the stool is additional production of energy here at home in America. Why this is a controversial topic in the State of New Jersey is because we are a coastal State. I enjoy the New Jersey shore as much as the next guy from New Jersey; and hopefully I will have some time to enjoy the Jersey shore sometime during this August break. But while you sit on the Jersey shore, and this is something that the gentleman from the other side of the aisle whose name shall remain nameless at this point, was factually incorrect about. As you sit on the Jersey shore, if we are successful as Republicans in this House, and that is to pass legislation as the President has just lifted his executive order just 48 hours ago to allow for drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, which means deep-sea exploration, and I always say offshore is a misnomer because offshore means you are sitting on the shore and actually seeing it. And that is what my colleague on the other side of the aisle said. He said if we build these rigs, you will be sitting on the shore enjoying your pretzel and your soda and seeing them. That is factually incorrect. Every piece of legislation that I have supported, and I know the gentleman from Georgia has also supported, has said that we will be doing deep sea exploration, using 21st century technology in the most prudent and environmentally sensitive manner as you can possibly do, and they will be, at the minimum 50 miles, and a maximum up to 200 miles offshore. We all know that if you sit on the Jersey shore, you can't see any further than 20 miles out to sea because of the curvature of the earth. The bottom line is whatever we pass here, it will not be seeable from the Jersey shore. It will not have that detrimental effect on the shore nor on one of our biggest industries, which is tourism in the State of New Jersey. So I am proud to be one of the few Members of this House from the New Jersey delegation to say that we must do everything possible to bring down the cost of energy for our small businesses, our industry, and our homeowners, for the price of gas in the summer and home heating fuel in the winter, and we must do that by conservation, alternative fuels, and more production of American energy here at home as well.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the outstanding artistic talents of high school students from around our nation who have participated in the 2008 Congressional Art Competition: An Artistic Discovery. For the past 27 years Congress has had the distinct pleasure of hosting this nationwide competition. I am very proud of the students who have participated in this competition, and I would like to specifically recognize the finalist from each of the four counties that make up New Jersey's Fifth Congressional District: Kaitlin Surdoval of Warren County, Megan Dreisbach from Sussex County, Kaitlin Cibenko from Passaic County, and Megan Sherlock from Bergen County. Of these four finalists, Kaitlin Surdoval placed first for the entire district. Her outstanding artistic talent is truly remarkable and I am proud that her art will be displayed for the upcoming year here in our nation's capitol, representing New Jersey's Fifth Congressional District. I am also pleased to recognize the hard work of the Art Societies that have been so instrumental in the organization and judging of the Competition in my district: the Sussex County Art Society, the Sussex- Warren Art Society, the Ringwood Manor Art Association, and the Bergen Museum of Art and Science. In addition to the tremendous support of the art societies, citizens and businesses around the fifth district have been wonderfully supportive of the Art Competition and Kaitlin Surdoval. I would like to recognize James McCracken of the House of the Good Shepherd, Michael Alfone from the Borough of Ramsey, and Sal Risalvato of the New Jersey Gasoline-C-store-Automotive Association for their generous donations to assist Ms. Surdoval with her travel to Washington, DC for the celebration of the culmination of this year's Competition. I am very pleased to be able to support this Competition which brings together so many citizens of the Fifth District to celebrate our talented youth.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate the Knights of Columbus of Dumont-Bergenfield St. John's Council, No. 1345 on their Centennial Rededication. St. John's Council No. 1345 is the fourth largest council out of 300 councils in my home State of New Jersey. Chartered on June 28, 1908, this council has been serving our community while faithfully upholding the Knights' founding principles of charity, unity, and fraternity. As a fraternal and charitable organization, part of the world's largest lay Catholic organization, the St. John's Council No. 1345 has given over $1.2 million dollars and has provided over five hundred thousand hours in service to those in need. This group is to be commended for providing 100 years of funding and manpower not just locally in northern New Jersey, but also in service to charitable activities nationally and globally. As the St. John's Council No. 1345 gathers to mark their centennial year, I rise in tribute and to say thank you for their contribution to making north Jersey such a fine place to live, work, and raise a family.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I appreciate the gentleman for hosting this special hour tonight and also very much importantly for all of your work all over the years on this very important issue. And this issue really does strike at the heart of my constituents back in my great State of New Jersey whether it's from my home County of Sussex County, where over 60 percent of them have to commute out of the county every day by car, or Warren County or Bergen County where a host of so many commuters are being hard hit by this hard energy crisis that we're facing right now. I join with my friend from Tennessee where--I don't come to the floor to blame anyone because the American public simply wants the Congress to come up with answers to the problems that we are all facing back in our district. And I think really when you get right down to it, it's not that complicated in one sense to take a look at the various policies or ideas out there. It's easy, I think, one way to tell whether a good-- whether a policy is a good energy policy or not. All you have to do is look at three things: supplies, cost, and security. A good energy policy is a policy that will do what? It will give you more energy. More supply. A bad energy policy will give us less supply. A good energy policy is one that will lower costs for Americans. A bad energy policy is one that is going to continue to raise or escalate costs, meaning that American families are going to have to have less money for their food, housing, education, and so on. And thirdly and finally, a good energy policy is one that will make us a stronger, more secure America. A bad energy policy is going to be one that makes us less secure, less independent of foreign, unstable regimes like Venezuela and overseas and Saudi Arabia and places like Russia and the like. So why don't we take a minute to see what has, quite honestly, the other side of the aisle proposed for us. I have in my hand right here, the Democrat plan to lower gas prices. You may recall that when Democrats were campaigning for the 110th Congress, they said that they had a commonsense solution to lower the price of gasoline and energy for the American public. And we are now 18 months, I think, into the 110th Congress. And, well, there is absolutely nothing in the Democrat's plan. Their commonsense solution, and that's why we're so eagerly awaiting it, and that's why we, on this side of the aisle, come to the floor every night to hammer home the point that something must be done. But we can look to see what has occurred over the last 17 months, 18 months of the 110th Congress now that the Democrats have been in charge of dealing with energy. On these three points: on supply, on cost, on security. On supply. As I stand here tonight, as was already indicated from the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 85 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf where our energy supply comes from, natural gas principally, but oil as well, it's basically locked up off limits to us for further exploration even determining what is actually out there. There was legislation to do that just to say what's out there. Let's find out the information. Off limits to us. Deep sea exploration. Over 100 or 200--200 miles off sea totally off limits right now. Eighty-six billion barrels of oil, 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas could be at our disposal to give us greater supply, but it's not. Oil shales In the Midwestern part of this country. Oil shales were reported in the paper just today as it was going through committee and will be coming to the floor later on, proposals to keep that off-limits as far as greater supply for the country. Let me give you some quick little number here. U.S. has two trillion, that's with a ``T,'' two trillion barrels of oil that effectively are involved here. And to put that in perspective, from 1859 from the first days that oil was pulled out of the ground to today, one trillion barrels of oil has been used. And we have basically two trillion barrels over there that we could basically be getting in economically viable ways. Supply has not been addressed, unfortunately, during the 110th Congress by the Democrats. Costs. Well, when they were campaigning for office, I know in my district you could buy gasoline for $1.80. Now, of course, it's up to $4, doubling the price, and that's hurting the American family. What else has occurred during these last 17 months? Four times legislation has come through this House that would raise taxes on energy costs. And who actually pays those taxes at the end of the day? You and I do at the pump or any other ways where we buy our energy. And finally, there are still proposals, believe it or not, from the other side of the aisle that want to put more taxes on us like 50 cents-a-gallon gasoline taxes has been proposed by Chairman Dingell. So the next time you go to the pump and you're paying around $4 bucks per a gallon of oil, just remember the other side wants to add another 50 cents; and there is another proposal for a nickel as well by Chairman Oberstar. So 55 cents more if they have their way in taxes. Finally on security. Well, right now this country imports around 63 percent or is dependent upon foreign oil. Places like Saudi Arabia, places like Venezuela, places like Nigeria where they have so many problems, Down south in South America as well; and that number continues to grow for the reasons I have just stated. Gasoline. We have not built refineries in this country so now we are like many countries across the globe. We have to import gasoline, 10 percent of our consumption of gasoline is coming into this country, which makes us a less secure Nation because we do not have our own supply of refineries right here at home. Let me move off of what we're doing here on the floor to an outside source to look at this. And the Investors Business Daily has taken a look at this issue. And what they said is this. They said just going back a couple of years, under the eight Clinton years alone, U.S. oil production declined 1.3 million barrels per day, or 19 percent, while our foreign imports increased 3.5 million barrels a day, or 45 percent. During President Clinton's time, he vetoed legislation that would have increased legislation that would have increased production of our own vitally needed oil supply, not only for Americans but for our national defense emergencies as well. The article goes on to say--it poses this question. So were the Democrats and Members of Congress together merely short-sighted with only a few having any real business experience, or were they just ignorant about economics, the fact that the law of supply and demand determines the price of oil commodities such as oil, steel, copper, and lumber? Or were they utterly irresponsible and incompetent in their actions that led us to become dangerously dependent on increasing oil imports from foreign companies? We think, it says, we think it was all of the above. The unintended consequences of the Congress Members' poor judgment and meddling micromanagement of U.S. energy policy is that they actually hurt most of the people that they profess to help: the average American consumer, lower-income workers, and those in the inner cities who can't afford an extra $100 a month to drive to and from work. So that, ladies and gentlemen, is the dilemma we face here in the 110th Congress on a proposal, on plans that do not address supplies, costs, and energy. And that is why I so commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania for the solutions that he's offered over the years as well and his legislation that goes to the issue of supply to increase the amount of energy that the American consumer can attain, to lower the cost of energy for the American family so that they have more disposable income for other needs, and to increase national security to strengthen America to make us more independent of these volatile countries. And with that, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, today, the Woodcliff Lake Police Department will hold its D.A.R.E. graduation ceremony with the students of Dorchester School. The young people participating in this important program have made a commitment to say no to drugs, underage drinking, and gang violence. They have done this with the support of their principal, John Fierro, Chief of Police Anthony Jannicelli and D.A.R.E. officers Chad Malloy and James Foley. Drug Abuse Resistance Education, or D.A.R.E., began as a small program in Los Angeles in 1983. Today, it is implemented in more than 75 percent of our Nation's school districts and in more than 43 other nations. This program allows children to defeat the negative cultural influences that they are challenged with daily by opening the lines of communication between law enforcement and youth and empowering them with confidence and courage to say no to drugs. I am proud of the young boys and girls who participated in this program in Woodcliff Lake, and I would like to recognize them all for taking this step toward positive citizenship: Christopher Acciardi, Nicole Alberta, Naseeb Ally, Max Aronson, Maryanna Arundel, Noah Bardach, Albert Barragan, Alexis Bernstein, Zachary Bernstein, Christopher Blake, Nicholas Bonnett, Alexandra Castiel, Marc Castrillon, Karen Choi, Ellen Drennan, Matthew Evans, Mackenzie Evans, Brandon Fazal, Rachel Fisher, Brandon Friedman, Keith Gliksman, Michael Goldstein, Ian Groh, Erica Grunfeld, Alexandria Guo, Karin Hadadan, Ashley Hahn, John Henrich, Gianna Hroncich, Ari Jigarjian, Brigitte Josephson, Avantika Joshi, Senyoung Kim, Chelsea Kirnum, Kathryn Klecanda, Katarina Kokkosis, Saniya Kumar, Morgan Landman, Justin Lane, Adam Lefkowitz, Brett Levine, Hanna Levy, Sophia Logothetis, Tomasso Lombardi, Chloe Mann, Brian Marolda, Samantha McGovern, Kayla McGraw, Alexander Meleniak, Celine Mileham, Vernice Miller, Nicole Miller, Daniel Miller, Cole Moran, Melissa Nachbaur, Vicky Patel, Thomas Patire, Jordan Perez, Noah Personette, Alex Pettie, Lianna Port, Austin Rahmin, Richard Rebori, Peter Rubenstein, Rachel Samitt, Mihir Sangoi, Maximillian Sarbu, Devin Sargent, Maya Scharf, Alexa Schecter, Connor Schultz, Kyle Schultz, Shunpei Seki, Isabel Sella, Julia Shin, Jacqueline Skene, Alana Smolinsky, W. Maxwell Song, Margo Spector, Constantine Stavrianidis, Alexander Todfield, Sere Tonuzi, Natalia Torres, Christopher Toto, David VanPelt, Apoorva Vasireddy, Harrison Weinfeld, Noah Winston, Rachel Yannelli, Vincent Yannelli, Josephine Yao, Christopher Zariello.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman. I rise today to voice my opposition to the underlying bill, as well as the underlying unfairness that's contained in it. But before I speak about Title I, which does contain the opportunity to use taxpayers' dollars to insure up to $300 billion worth of new mortgages to bail out the Nation's banking industry and homeowners, those who made irresponsible decisions, I want to briefly discuss other parts of the bill. The chairman has been routinely criticizing the administration for failing to do anything, he says, to address the current housing problems facing the Nation, but you know, this administration has been calling for the last couple of years for FHA reform and new regulations for the GSEs. However, the new Democrat majority in the House and the Senate has been unable to pass these important measures. You know, when you think about it, who knows how many people we could have already helped to stay in their homes and keep out of foreclosure if the Democrat leadership would have only forged an agreement already and passed those previous bills. It is unfortunate that due to the refusal of the distinguished chairman and others in the majority to temporarily forego some of their pet projects, such as the housing slush fund for ACORN and La Raza and others, that these two important reforms have been held up now for the last year-and-a-half. And now, with this new housing omnibus bill before us, the chairman has once again refused to compromise, I say, in good faith with the administration or the minority side and has included such pet projects once again. And as an indication of the majority's unwillingness to substantively compromise, the administration has issued a veto threat to this bill. Over the last 6 months, the administration and HUD have been working on a program, the FHA Secure. It's to try to help American families who are in the right house but maybe not in the right mortgage to stay in the house. And this program has recently been expanded upon and has to date helped thousands of Americans to be able to stay in their homes. But now our distinguished chairman and Democrat leadership are proposing a plan that is really financially risky. It rewards irresponsible behavior and it mandates a loosing of FHA underwriting standards, and this is important, that would put taxpayers on the hook. So, when the chairman put together what I say is an ill-conceived plan, he noted originally that it would help up to 2 million homeowners. Well, unfortunately when CBO scored the bill, they determined it would only help 500,000, and that's the same amount they have oft criticized the administration plan is projected to help. So you'll excuse me if I find it a little hypocritical here that those who believe that the administration's plan isn't going to provide adequate help to struggling homeowners but that this new plan, which is forecasted to help the exact same number of people, is somehow the perfect cure-all. Now, the bill before us for consideration goes much further than this. This bill actually pays people to stay in their houses. It would give every homeowner who was in trouble and participates in this program a 10 percent equity stake in their home. Normally, depending on the specifics of your loan, it could take you or I 3 or 4 years for a homeowner to make enough payments for you to get a 10 percent equity stake. Now under this bill, we're just going to give those people who are having trouble making their payments. You know, I know things are bad in the mortgage markets right now, but are things so bad that we actually have to pay people to stay in the houses? Where is the fairness in that proposal? The distinguished chairman acknowledged during the committee consideration that maybe this bill isn't fair in that sense. What about the person who has been patiently sitting on the sidelines over the last several years, saving up, waiting for these unsustainable high housing prices to come down to reality, come down to earth? They've been paying their rent every month, building up no equity whatsoever. What about those people? We're now rewarding someone else who has undertaken an irresponsible loan and bought something, frankly, they just couldn't afford. What about the person who took out a loan 3 years ago and he's been scraping by, struggling just to get enough money from every paycheck to paycheck to afford their mortgage and, I say, attain their 10 percent equity over 3 years? Now, again, with this bill, we're just giving that equity away to people who didn't save, didn't decide they would live within their means. Some say the reason this provision is needed is that it will encourage people to stay in the houses. I believe, quite frankly, the possibility of being kicked out of your house is incentive enough to try to stay in your house. I don't have a problem with trying to help people, and this side of the aisle is trying to do it as well, to stay in their homes, but I do have a problem with facilitating arrangements in which they are given a 10 percent equity in their home with a mortgage that is insured by the Federal Government, and that means the American taxpayer. Our distinguished chairman was quoted in the paper the other day, ``We have done as much as possible to respond responsibly with the public policy.'' However, the legislation before us completely disregards borrowers' payment histories and credit scores when considering eligibility for this program. Borrowers could have missed the majority of their monthly payments over the life of the loan, yet these borrowers would still be eligible for a government-backed mortgage--and taxpayers would be on the hook. An amendment was offered during the committee process to rectify this and it was soundly defeated by the Democrat majority party. I have also heard a number of members on the other side of the aisle mention today their concerns about the Federal Reserve bailing out Bear Stearns to the tune of $29 billion. However, none of the members complaining or any democrats for that matter choose to sign onto any of three letters I and a number of my Republican colleagues sent to Chairman Frank, Secretary Paulson, and Chairman Bernanke noting our strong concern. For the last 17 months that the Democrat majority has been in charge, the Administration has been asking for a number of housing reforms from Congress, none of which have been delivered. Now, they want to say the Administration has idly sat by and watched as the housing turmoil has continued to increase, while it is actually the Democrat congress that has yet to pass significant housing reforms that could have provided the Administration with the much needed tools to begin easing us out of this housing downturn. The Chairman states that this a grand compromise between the different groups involved in the discussion, but the only compromise I can see is the one between he and his party, the big banks who made unsound loans, and the special interests and trial lawyers that stand to benefit.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Just for one question. With regard to your initial comment with regard to the FHA reform and the GSE reform, my comment saying that it hasn't been done, isn't it true that we're 17 months into the year under Democrat leadership? Have those bills passed this House and have those bills made it to the President's desk?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I find it amazing and amusing that the chairman raises how many Republicans signed onto the two letters when, in fact, it evidences the fact that zero Democrats signed onto that letter and zero Democrats have done anything with regard to Bear Stearns for the last 2 months since this occurred. If there was even one Member from the other side of the aisle from the committee, when we invited the entire committee to sign onto it, I think the chairman would be in a stronger position, but he is not because none of them signed on then. And even earlier this evening, when I invited them to sign onto an addition to it, none of them have come across to sign onto it. Secondly, I find it amusing when the chairman's response in the letter was that he has more confidence in Bernanke and the Fed than we do. So if your question is that we did not point out that there were problems with it, your response points out that--as I've said, I'm not quoting because I cannot get a copy of the letter back here--you had more confidence in the decisions and in the actions of the Fed and the administration. So if you had more confidence, maybe that explains why 2 months after the action we are still asking for the chairman to hold a hearing on the matter, and here it is, 2 months later, all we are getting is rhetoric from this side of the aisle.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentlewoman for the time. Madam Chairman, I come to the floor optimistic inasmuch as I have heard, I think, where maybe five or six Members on the other side of the aisle raised the issue of exactly what transpired with regard to Bear Stearns and that circumstance some 2 months ago. I come optimistic but at the same time somewhat perplexed because, as I say, this did occur with regard to the Federal Reserve some 2 months ago, and immediately thereafter my office contacted the full body of our committee, both Republicans and Democrats, saying should not our committee be investigating what transpired there? And we extended a hand to the other side to say let's do two things: First, let's contact the Federal Reserve and Secretary Paulson to raise the issues that are now being raised at this belated date by the other side of the aisle. We came through at that time with a list of upwards of nine pertinent questions, questions such as, the SEC states that it monitored Bear Stearns' capital and liquidity positions on a regular basis and that levels of both capital and liquidity appeared adequate right up into the week of March 11, but given the subsequent rapid deterioration in Bear Stearns' financial condition, does the SEC have the capacity and authority it needs to assess these risks? Secondly, why wasn't the loan made in a traditional manner? If, as stated in President Geithner's testimony to the Senate Banking Committee that the Federal Reserve did not have the authority to acquire interest, what authority does it have now? These were the questions that we were posing that should have been answered several months ago. We extended the opportunity to the other side at that time to join with us in this letter to make this investigation. Oddly enough, at that time no one on the other side of the aisle found a need to do so. Also what is odd with regard to the investigation in this matter, the committee of jurisdiction looking into what the Federal Reserve did would be the Financial Services Committee. Once again, our side of the aisle suggested to the chairman that we should be delving into the issues that the other side is raising tonight, belatedly. We extended the opportunity to send a letter to Chairman Frank, with signatures of most Members on our side of the aisle to the chairman, saying should we not be looking at these issues, these nine issues that I just referenced before to the Federal Reserve and also Paulson? Should we not be looking into this in Financial Services? Two months ago no one from the other side of the aisle saw it as pertinent. Tonight, as we go into it here and from the rhetoric that comes to the floor, they all say that they are interested in examining what the Federal Reserve is doing. That's why I say I come to the floor optimistic and a little bit happy because now I believe that when I leave the podium tonight, I can go to the other side of the aisle and I will be more than happy to do two things: To make an addendum to our questions to Secretary Paulson and the Federal Reserve and to make an addendum to Chairman Frank to say that in both cases we should be investigating it and that we would ask that Chairman Frank schedule hearings forthwith, immediately, so that we can go into the matters that you are raising and that I have raised as well to see what authority the Federal Reserve has to conduct these activities.