Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, actually at this time I'd just like to put into the Record the letter that was signed by Members from our side of the aisle to Chairman Frank back on April 7, which would have been a month ago now, requesting an expedited hearing with regard to the Financial Services situation with regard to the Federal Reserve and the Financial Services hearing. Also, I will put in the Record a letter dated April 16 to Secretary Paulson from the Department of Treasury and Chairman Bernanke of the Federal Reserve as well, itemizing the nine particular questions with regard to their authority and activity; and also the letter in response dated April 14 from Chairman Barney Frank with regard to not setting forth a date for any hearing going forward. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, April 7, 2008. Hon. Barney Frank, Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Frank: We are writing to respectfully request you hold a hearing of the full Financial Services Committee regarding the recent collapse of the investment bank Bear Stearns and the subsequent actions taken by the Federal Reserve to facilitate Bear Stearns' sale to J.P. Morgan Chase. These steps have had an immediate impact on the financial markets and are also expected to have a long-term effect on our financial regulatory structure. For the first time since the Great Depression, the Fed voted to open its discount window to primary dealers. While this authority has been available to the Fed since 1932, the decision to use it at this time has raised questions about whether and when the Fed should intervene to help a particular industry or firm in the name of market stability. With the Fed approving the financing arrangements of the sale of Bear Stearns to J.P. Morgan Chase as well as guaranteeing $29 billion in securities currently held by Bear Stearns, the Fed has possibly exposed the American taxpayers to unknown amounts of financial loss and established a precedent that could lead to future instances of companies in similar financial trouble expecting the same assistance. These extraordinary actions have raised a number of complex and multifaceted questions. As members of the committee of jurisdiction over our nation's financial markets and the regulatory bodies that oversee them, we feel it is imperative to have a full and public vetting of this unique situation. Therefore, we strongly urge you to convene a hearing on this subject of the Financial Services Committee on the soonest possible date. Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, today, I join with citizens around the world to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day. On this day, we honor the European Jews who retained their human dignity in the midst of extreme suffering, and in many cases, offered passive resistance. Some Jews opposed the Third Reich through participation in underground forces. In Warsaw, many banded together to fight the Nazis in the ghettos. Others used what meager means they had to preserve their culture. The U.S. Holocaust Museum, located just a few blocks from here, displays artwork and poetry created by Jews imprisoned in concentration camps--evidences of the prisoners' courage and resilience. The genocide remains one of the darkest stains on the history of humanity and a testament to the strength of the Jewish people. As both a Member of Congress and a private citizen possessing a strong faith, I vow to always remember and respect those who suffered such a tragic fate.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Constance Mierendorf and to celebrate her inauguration as the first female President of Sussex County Community College. Constance Mierendorf brings a wealth of experience to this position as a teacher, academic leader and innovative small businesswoman. Dr. Mierendorf holds a Ph.D. in English from the University of Nebraska at Lincoln; earning her Bachelor and Master degree in English from the University of Nebraska at Omaha. She also holds certificates for secondary teaching and teaching English as a second Language. Her post- graduate work includes coursework at Harvard University's Institute for Educational Management. Dr. Constance Mierendorf comes to the Presidency of SCCC from Raritan Valley Community College, where she held the position of Vice President of Academic Affairs. She held the same position at Santa Fe Community College in New Mexico, and was also a faculty member and department chair at Minneapolis Community and Technical College. In addition to her education background, Dr. Mierendorf brings considerable business expertise to the College. She worked as a corporate trainer to Chief Executive Officers of several Fortune 500 companies and was a partner and business manager for Mierendorf Productions, a three-time Emmy Award winning documentary film company. Sussex County Community College is a true gem of the Fifth Congressional District. It currently serves more than 3,500 credit and 1,700 non-credit students each year. SCCC is ranked 11th in the country, as the fastest growing community college of its size, with a 43-percent increase in enrollment over the past 5 years. I am confident Dr. Mierendorf will continue to raise the bar of SCCC's educational standards. I commend Dr. Mierendorf on her appointment as the President of Sussex County Community College. I wish her all the best as she embarks on this opportunity and congratulate her on this remarkable accomplishment.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I appreciate your hard work on this initiative so that, as I say, when we go back to our constituents and one of those bills comes up in the future, and it will come up, when it's laden with additional spending, I'm not talking about earmarks or proverbial pork barrel spending, I'm talking about just legislation, that appropriation for dollars going to some other duplicative-type programs that you mention out there that we, you and I and the rest of us who are in agreement on this issue, can go back to our constituents and say, I voted the right way. I voted to eliminate those programs. I voted to downsize those programs. I voted to make sure that all we have left standing are those things that the Founders would agree with and that the programs and the agencies and the services that the public desires and demands and it's within the confines of the Constitution, and they're getting it done in an effective and efficient manner. So I appreciate your taking the bold step to accomplish that, and we're behind you on that. Now, if we can get the support on the other side of the aisle and move this legislation, we will be even further down the field than that. We're joined again by the gentleman from Utah to join us in this discussion on the Constitution and more specifically, on the Brady bill with regard to the sunsetting these wasteful, duplicative unconstitutional initiatives that the Federal Government is wanting and ripe to continue but for the fact that we have legislation like this. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Utah. And the gentleman makes an interesting point when he says to educate takes only to excite the mind and the imaginations and, of course, that is what happened some 200-plus years ago in this country when our founding fathers came to this land and excited the imagination that a new form of government never conceived by any human in any portion of the world ever before, and that was, we've seen today, in the U.S. Constitution. You know, that document today, for a lot of people is just a historical document and nothing more than that. And to many citizens the Federal Government is nothing more than a problem solving institution of government. However, the founding fathers delegated only a few specific powers to us here in Washington, to the House and the Senate and the White House, few specific powers, and they are in numerated in the Constitution. The remaining political powers were reserved for the States and the local governments and the people specifically. So tonight, I'm joined by my colleagues, Mr. Bishop who will speak again in a few moments, and Mr. Brady from Texas who'll try to focus on one aspect of trying to revert the government to what the founders intended in the first place by focusing on the inefficiencies and the waste that occurs when the Federal Government oversteps its bounds that were set forth in the Constitution. And we come here not simply to complain about the situation. No, and that's why I'm pleased that I'm joined by Mr. Brady, because Mr. Brady comes here with a solution to the problem as well, and he does so in the form of the Federal Sunset Act, which would help our country, in essence, return to the limits originally intended by our founding fathers. So with that I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for raising these points. He takes the lead from the gentleman from Maine from the other side of the aisle who had just previously done 5 minutes talking about the energy situation. Let me follow up along those lines before we talk about the sunset bill we want to talk about tonight. I agree with the gentleman from Georgia that our Founding Fathers would be rolling their eyes and turning over to the proverbial grave if they were ever to look to see the size and scope and depth of regulation of the Federal Government, a far cry from what the Founders ever intended as the appropriate role of government in people's lives. They did, as the gentleman from Georgia said, put a significant weight and value to that of private property rights, and they did believe that private property was just that, something to be held by the private citizen and not by the government, whether it is the State or Federal, but specifically here on the Federal level. The gentleman from Maine was making the observation that something needs to be done with regard to the fact that our citizens back home, our constituents back home are aggrieved by the high price of oil, whether it is the gasoline for your car or for the diesel for your truck, or home heating fuel if you are in the northern States such as myself. The gentleman from the other side of the aisle on the majority party would suggest that the answer comes from the Federal Government. I would suggest that the answer, as far as the Founding Fathers would believe, the answer comes from the private sector, would that the private sector have a free hand and free rein in order to address the problem. But as we stand here right now, 85 percent of our natural resources in this area of energy offshore of this country are tied up, locked up, if you will, unobtainable for all of us to use as was intended; 85 percent locked up, unavailable for us to be going to get, either oil or natural gas. So we are paying the price for that. So when the gentleman from Maine from the majority party says that the administration is at fault here, I had to sit and scratch my head and try to remember who is running this House, and which party is running the Senate as well. And of course we know the answer, it is the Democrat Party. This is not a partisan issue I'm raising here. I think everyone from this side of the aisle would like to extend a hand to the other side of the aisle to try to work together and come to a resolution on this issue. But if the way that they take is to point blame and blame the President and the Bush administration and the like, that's not going to bring us to closure. That is not going to bring us to a solution satisfactory to the American public. We need to work together on this. Likewise, we are not going to get to that solution if all we have is empty promises. I remember all too well a little over 2 years ago, in the 2006 elections, when the, then they were the minority party, but the Democrat Party was saying that they had the solution. They had the answer to the oil problem and the oil crisis and the price of gas at the pump, and if they were elected, they said, and they were put into the majority power, they would be able to give us that solution and that plan and bring us to a better day. And if you think back to where it was and what they were saying was so terrible at that time, well, gas at that time was like $1.90 or something like that. It was just approaching, it hadn't quite gone over $2 a gallon at the pump. But they said elect them and they'd have a solution. Well, here it is in April, 16 months after they've been in office, and we are still waiting for that solution. We are still waiting for that answer to come down the road, to be handed to us so that we can all get behind it in a bipartisan manner and answer that the challenge that the American public gave to us, how can we solve this problem. Because the American public, I think, would be more akin and in tune with what the founders would say. The American public would say, to solve this problem you must release the abilities and the entrepreneurial spirit and the great ideas of the business person and the landowner and the private property owner and those who own renewable and other energy sources to be able to develop those and allow them to come into the marketplace. But that is not happening yet, so long as the other side of the aisle refuses to give us whatever their solution or their plan is that they told us about some time ago, nor is that about to come about so long as the other side of the aisle simply comes to the floor and casts aspersion on the Bush administration or whoever's in the White House at the time and says it's all somebody else's fault, rather than really grappling with the issue and trying to come to a solution to it. There are solutions to it. There are free market principles. They are principles that our founding fathers would have enjoyed and appreciated and applauded as they crafted the U.S. Constitution, and that's what we should be embracing today, so that we can go home to our constituents, so the gentleman from Georgia, who said he's somewhat embarrassed to go back to his constituents and say this is what is happening now in Congress as Congress fails to deliver on its promises. We should be able to deliver, if not on our promises, then on the promises on the other side of the aisle and to address this solution in a bipartisan manner and get the job done in the manner that their founders would have intended. Now, I believe that the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) had another point on a different issue. The gentleman, I am pleased, has just joined us, from Utah. And before we get to the topic that we came here tonight, which was to discuss the issue of the Brady bill, which is the bill dealing with the Sunset Commission and how the Constitution ties into that topic and why the founding fathers would applaud the ideas that Mr. Brady has given us as far as addressing the over-running government that we have, the gentleman from Utah has joined us, Mr. Bishop, to fill us in on the issue dealing with NASA.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) for being on the floor tonight and also for the subject, for introducing this Federal Sunset Act, an act which would, as he said, return our country and our government to the intent as set forth by our Founding Fathers. And when you think about it, in light of the extremely high taxes and even higher deficit, the time for greater efficiency in government couldn't be any greater than it is today. The American worker is handing far too much of his or her hard-earned money, his paycheck each week over to the Federal Government only to see it wasted in layers of bureaucracy, red tape and so on. I think you quoted Ronald Reagan before when you said that a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal thing that we'll ever see on Earth, but regrettably, longevity truly has nothing to do whatsoever with a program's effectiveness or efficiency or usefulness to the American people. Just because it's been around a long time doesn't mean that it's good. Now, the background for the idea of a sunset, as the gentleman from Utah said, comes from the States, who are usually on the cutting edge because they are the laboratory of experimentation. And the sunset takes its name from the sunset laws used by many States to provide for a periodic review of the efficiency and effectiveness of the agency operations and their policies. It was back in 1976 that Colorado was the first State to implement a sunset. And at the State level this process has saved the taxpayer hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. And it has also reduced the size of government at the same time. And simply how it works is that each and every Federal agency must justify its own existence, and not its existence from the time that it was created, which may have been 100 years ago or 80 years or 60 or 40 or even 10 years ago, but its existence today to the consumer, which is the taxpayer, constituent. And then after a thorough evaluation, the commission recommends to Congress that an agency be reauthorized, streamlined, consolidated, or in some cases, maybe even eliminated. So why is that a great idea? It's a great idea because, as we said before, the Federal Government is just far too big, too fat, too wasteful. And especially now, in a time of war, in a time of deficit, don't we need every single dollar to really count, to be accounted for and to go for what is necessary? And a Federal sunset law is truly a proven way to abolish those obsolete Federal programs, eliminate duplication, and hold every agency accountable to the taxpayer. You know, it's no secret that there are many Federal programs that are simply not serving the American public. And these are the programs that have outlived their purpose, duplicated other programs, simply waste taxpayer dollars by diverting dollars away from real priorities and into what you might want to say is a black hole of ineffectiveness, which is what we see in Washington. And I think Mr. Brady said it, a taxpayer now works up to 113 days out of a year just to pay for his share of the Federal Government's spending of ineffectiveness. Unfortunately, these programs survive anyway. And they survive because of special interests, these cottage industries that grow down here that live off the taxpayer earnings. But you know, Madam Speaker, we're not here to represent any of those special interests. We are here to represent the mothers and fathers who could be at home with their children instead of working an extra shift so that they can make their contribution to this bloated bureaucracy that we call Washington. With a Federal deficit in the billions of dollars and with taxes that are too high and too unfair, we must do everything we can to ensure that our Federal spending is as limited as possible and most efficient as possible. And with that, let me just make one additional point. The idea and why we come to the floor now and why I commend Mr. Brady so much for his work on this is that the Federal Government was intended to be limited by the Founding Fathers, and this Sunset Commission would give us the opportunity to revisit that issue. I often say that when we vote on a bill, specifically on appropriation bills or authorization bills, and as we take out of our pocket the little card, which is our voting right, we should ask ourselves whether or not we have the constitutional authority to be voting yes on that spending or authorization bill. And in order to know whether we have that authority, we should be looking to the U.S. Constitution. Now, what this Sunset bill would basically force us to do is to look to see whether we actually have that authority and make each one of those Federal bureaus and agencies and departments and so on and so forth, whether they have that specific authority to do what they have been doing for 20 or 40 or more years, and whether, therefore, they should be eliminated or continued, or not. There have been different perspectives on whether or not these agencies should have the authority. And what we would have to do in this instance is take a look at what the Constitution says. One area we look to is article I, section 8, which basically would set out for the Congress, as they review these agencies and as we should really be looking at any time we look at any piece of legislation that comes before us, and this sets forth the enumerated powers of the Constitution and the powers here in Congress. There are a couple of views on how this is interpreted, but both of them are basically a limitation. Enumerated powers means that if it's listed in the Constitution, they are enumerating, they are listing certain powers that we have the right of. And therefore, the converse of that is if they are not enumerated, if they are not listed, then, therefore, we do not have the power to do so. And therefore, if there is an agency that does not have the specific powers to conduct its activity, that program should be eliminated. Now, the one view most strict on this, of course, was James Madison, who repeatedly argued that the power to tax and spend, which is what we're talking about when we're talking about appropriations or authorizations, did not confer upon the Congress the right to do whatever it thought was best in the interest of the Nation, but only to further the ends specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution. So you have to look either there or someplace else in the Constitution. The second view on this, of course, is a little bit broader, but still pretty limited, and would still fall under this bill as far as a review under this bill as to what we should be doing here. And that simply says, does the agency, the bureau's activities, does it contain its own limitation, namely, that spending under this law be for general use, that is, national welfare, not purely for local or regional benefit. And so here what the founders were intending to say is if it's general use, general welfare, does it apply across the board to the benefit of everyone? Now, when we do this, and if this legislation were to become law and we are able to systematically look at each and every agency, I think we would find that much of what we appropriate our dollars for, the taxpayers dollars for does not meet either one of these tests. It is not simply a power that is being enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution, nor is it for the general use of the entire country. And when you look for the definition of the general use of the entire country, we can look again to see how the founders interpreted that when they passed in the First and the Second, Third or Fourth Congress as to how they interpreted it. You know, in the very First Congress of the United States, they looked at an example to make an appropriation for a loan to a glass manufacturer. That piece of legislation failed in Congress after Members expressed the view that such an appropriation would be unconstitutional under article I, section 8. Likewise, under the Fourth Congress, they did not believe the power to provide relief for citizens of Savannah, Georgia after a devastating fire destroyed the entire city; likewise, outside the purview of the Constitution. Whether we are talking about restrictions under this provision or otherwise, the sunset provision would give Congress in the future the opportunity to review each and every agency to make sure that it is operating within the confines of the Constitution as intended by the Founding Fathers, and that it can only be a good thing at the end of the day for the U.S. citizen. With that, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I come here tonight, as we do every month or so, to begin another session of the Constitution hour. Members of the Congressional Constitution Caucus basically use these opportunities to emphasize to our colleagues and people across the Nation the necessity of ensuring that our government is operating under the intent of our Founding Fathers. Specifically, we look at the 10th amendment which affirms that the authority over most domestic issues belongs to the States, either directly or through their political subdivisions, and to the people therefore themselves. Actually, the exact wording of it is that all powers not specifically delegated to the United States Government is retained by the people or the States respectively. So we come to the floor as we do every month or so to bring this point home, to educate the Members of Congress, and to have a discussion on the constitutional merits of what we are debating here in the week before and after. In a little while we will look at a piece of pending legislation, a sunset bill, as it were. But before I do that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. And I thank the gentleman from Texas. I thank the gentleman from Utah as well for being on the floor, and for both your leadership on this issue.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for taking the lead on this issue, not only in this session of Congress, but in the past session of Congress as well where I have been a proud cosponsor of your legislation because it goes a long ways to, what was that phrase that Barry Goldwater used when he came to Washington the first time? He said, I did not come to Washington to streamline government or make it more efficient. I came to Washington to eliminate it. And that's what you're trying to do as well with the intent of the legislation is define those areas of government that are extra-Constitutional, outside of the bounds of the Constitution, find those portions of government that are wasteful, duplicative and the like and to basically eliminate those so that the Federal Government can appropriately focus its attention on those areas that it's supposed to and then get that job done so that you and I can go back to our constituents and say that we are fulfilling the role of the Constitution and we are doing it in a Constitutional manner. I will yield.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today we mark the 93rd anniversary of the onset of the Armenian genocide. It is on this date that the Ottoman officials captured more than 200 Armenian intellectual leaders and placed them in prison. Unfortunately, these actions were only the beginning of the Ottoman-led atrocities against the Armenians. During the following years, at least 1.5 million Armenians were arrested and compelled to march hundreds of miles to what is today the Syrian desert. And along the way, prisoners of all ages endured hunger, thirst, rape, sexual abuse, and other forms of torture. While it is difficult for us to commemorate these terrible acts each year, we must continue to remember those horrors that can occur when governments persecute citizens based on ethnicity or religious affiliation. We often hear those words of George Santayana's famous quote that, ``Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' And these words are ringing true today as well. Already, there are those who deny that the Armenian genocide occurred despite the vast evidence to the contrary. Meanwhile, our generation has seen its own mass murders occur in Rwanda and Sudan. So, I urge my colleagues in the majority to bring House Resolution 106, which commemorates these atrocities that occurred only a few generations ago, to the House Floor for a vote. Now is the time for America to officially ensure that U.S. foreign policy reflects sensitivity concerning human rights issues. Just yesterday, I had the privilege of meeting Alice Khachadoorian- Shnorhokian. Alice is a resident of Mahwah, New Jersey, which is a town in my district. Alice was born in Turkey in 1912 to a successful, respected Armenian family of eight. And when Turkish officials ordered Armenians to denounce their faith and nationality, she and her parents refused. As a result, her family was rounded up and ordered to march into the desert. Alice and her brother were too young, of course, at that age to walk, so her parents had to put them in boxes on either side of a donkey and march into the desert. When they arrived in Aintab, her mother befriended their Turkish neighbors, and these neighbors ultimately enabled them to get a permit which allowed Alice and her family to escape. Alice moved to the United States in 1980, and became a citizen of the U.S. just 5 years later. And, as a survivor, she says she wants to, ``see justice so that the words `never again' become a reality.'' So, while I am a Member of Congress, I will always remember Alice's words and her wish. We must fully recognize the friendship with our allies in Turkey today, but we cannot change nor should we forget the past. I hope that there can be some reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia, and that a proper acknowledgement of the crimes of the past can now allow them to move forward into a future of peace and also of mutual understanding.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the bipartisan Congressional Prayer Caucus, as we do each week, to formally acknowledge the importance of prayer in American life and history. Today I remind my colleagues, constituents and country of our need for prayer by reading a portion of a proclamation by John Hancock 220 years ago in 1783 while he was Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He said, ``It has been the laudable Practice of this Country, to open the Business of the Year, by setting apart a Day for Religious Exercise, thereby to implore the Blessing of God upon all the Undertakings of his People. ``He hath been graciously pleased to hear our Prayers. At such a Time then, it is peculiarly fit and becoming for us as a People, while we express our Gratitude to Almighty God for his numerous and unmerited Favors, to humble ourselves before Him for our manifold Sins, and to profess our entire Dependence upon his paternal Care, beseeching Him to give us his Grace that we may be able to improve his Mercies to his Honor and Glory.''

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the ranking member for all of your work in the area of education. I think the chart at my left points out the dilemma that the previous speakers have been making. This chart shows the involvement of the Federal Government with regard to dollars, and it also reflects the issue with regard to their involvement with regulation and the like. From 1966 up to 2000, as the Federal Government became more involved, dollars spent increased. And as the years have gone on, what is the result of that, basically a flat or no increase in education. Two points, one point on the issue of accountability, and the other on new approaches. In the area of accountability, the question we have to ask is accountable to whom? The gentlewoman from Illinois made my case for me when she said that she was concerned about her kids and therefore she decided to run for the local school board. I would suggest that the best place to get accountability is just as she did, locally, from the local school board, teachers, principals and the like. If you ask most parents who is a local teacher, they will know. If you ask who is the local principal, they will know. Ask most parents who is the Secretary of Education in Washington or the bureaucrats down here making the rules, they unfortunately will not have a clue. And yet what we have been doing over the last several decades is having them have greater accountability and responsibility than the teacher and the principal. The second point is the approaches. I agree with the ranking member on this in that it is great that we have so many new approaches tried in schools across the country. The problem is when you get to a Federal level, two things happen. Sometimes you potentially nationalize some of these, and that is good if you pick out the good ones. But if you happen to pick out some of the bad ones, such as whole language in California, and that had a dismal track record and result, you can end up having a terrible effect on the entire national education system. My second point is, and the ranking member made a good point on this, Washington doesn't move as quickly as local school boards. Sometimes it takes 5 years or more to reauthorization and even more years to get something done in the district. We can move more quickly at the end of the day. I conclude with this. Accountability to whom, it should be accountable to the local teachers and the principals, not to somebody in Washington. New approaches, it is better to be done locally. And as we move forward and move to reauthorize No Child Left Behind, I just throw out a modest, simple proposal, allow those States who need the Federal Government to tell them and dictate to them how to run their schools and so forth to stay in No Child Left Behind. But allow those States who have parents or community leaders or principals who feel that they can get it done by themselves without the Federal Government, allow those States to opt out, but also to keep their own tax dollars in that State so they can decide how their education money will be spent.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise now to honor an ally who has stood with us in the global war on terrorism. An ally who knows what it's like to fight for peace and for freedom. An ally that continues to pursue liberty even amid increased threats. That ally is Israel. A millennia ago the Israelites providentially escaped from captivity in Egypt. That event is remembered this week as Jews around the world celebrate Passover. Yet their struggles, of course, did not end after Moses' leadership. Less than 10 decades ago, Israel was one of the most violent spots on the planet as various governments sought to destroy the fledgling nation. Today, just 60 years after its establishment, Israel has prospered and contributed to the economic, scientific, medical, and agricultural success of nations both in the Middle East and around the world. I am a proud cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 322, which recognizes the 60th anniversary of the founding of the modern State of Israel, and it reaffirms the bonds of close friendship and cooperation between the United States and Israel. Tonight I also want to recognize Israel's achievement in one particular area as well, and that is agriculture. And maybe it's fitting, with Earth Day here, this topic is especially relevant. Israel is 60 percent desert, and yet scientists have found innovative farming methods that have allowed the desert there to bloom. Not only has Israel shared its newfound knowledge with the United States, but they have also shared technology and techniques with other nations which contain desert regions. For example, the world's first surface drip irrigation system was developed in a Kibbutz near Beersheba in the 1960s. It was after an Israeli water engineer noticed a hedge that was noticeably different, healthier and taller. The man, Simcha Blass, used his discovery to create an irrigation device that uses friction and water pressure loss to leak drops of water at regular intervals. So today fruits and vegetable growers in many dry areas around the world use this drip irrigation method thanks to Israel. In addition, scientists in Israel have developed genetically modified, disease-resistant fruits like bananas and peppers and other crops. These fruits and vegetables help expand the world's supply of food and maintain low prices at grocery stores here and abroad. Since the 1970s Israel has partnered with the U.S. in several joint scientific ventures, including the Bi-national Agricultural Research Development Fund, BARD. This group basically focuses on enhancing agricultural productivity. Israel has also pioneered advances in desalination. It was in Eilat, an arid city located at the intersection of the desert and the Red Sea, and it used to be a really barren settlement due to shortages in the water supply. Back then visitors had to bring their own water and wash their laundry in buckets. But today residents own swimming pools, plant flower gardens, and relax in shaded, grassy yards. It is due to desalination, and now the city is self-sufficient in maintaining its own water supply. Desalination, which turns seawater into freshwater by separating salty compounds from water molecules, is now being considered here in the U.S. in places like Georgia and Texas and Florida. And according to the International Desalination Association, desalination makes up more than half of the freshwater used in the Middle East and North Africa, again thanks to Israel. Clearly, Israel has demonstrated expertise in agricultural innovation. And as representative of the great State of New Jersey's Fifth District, which is home to many small farms, and New Jersey is called the Garden State, I appreciate Israel's agricultural developments and its willingness to disseminate research and to share that across international boundaries. So I conclude simply by saying I salute Israel on its anniversary and its many achievements, and I thank that nation for making that nation what it is and for making the United States a better country as well.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Well, it's been reported in the press that the Democrats have horrifically failed as the majority in Congress of getting almost anything done. You know, they made promise after promise to try to help the American people and, to no surprise really, most of those promises are now broken. This is evident by the fact that there's been a dramatic increase in the price of oil that we all have had to suffer and go through. Some people now call that the ``Pelosi Premium.'' Before taking the majority, the Democrats vowed that they would address this issue and, more importantly, that they had a plan. Well, here we are 16 months into this administration of this Congress, where's the plan? Now I was on the floor just last week. At that time the cost of oil was about $115 a barrel. This week it's approaching $120 a barrel. $5 increase in just 1 week. Where is it going to be a week from now or a month from now or the summertime? I can only guess. I can also guess as to when are the Democrats going to make the American people and their family budget a priority, as opposed to these other things we've been doing on the floor? We really can't afford to keep on paying these skyrocketing energy prices and gas prices. If only the majority weren't so occupied with their special interest spending and earmarks, we would be able to focus on the energy problem.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I come today to the floor to point out something that's really already been pointed out in the press, and that is, as they say, that the Democrats, unfortunately, have horrifically failed as the majority party getting most anything done. Now, they made promises after promises to help the American people, and maybe it's no surprise that most of those promises have come to naught and have been broken. This is most evident by the recent Democrat budget. It includes a massive $683 billion tax increase which only further burdens our children, kills jobs, hurts small businesses, and basically just punishes the American family. And worst of all, this budget was created to finance wasteful spending and the special interests here in Washington. So what happened to all of those promises of cleaning up Washington and cutting spending? Well, it seems they simply got lost in the shuffle of all of their spending taxpayers' dollars.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, the previous gentleman was most accurate in his portrayal of what the problem is. Let me just dig into it a little bit more. Again, as I said before, I support the ideas of the amendment that we are discussing right now in the underlying legislation. My heart just goes out for my constituents at home who may not be able to enjoy the benefits of such, the beaches of the great State of New Jersey and others along the eastern seaboard, simply because, a very practical matter with the high price of energy, the high price of gas, they simply may not be able to afford to get there. I think I saw it in some news report the other day, how it was characterized, the point that I made earlier and the previous gentleman just made, as the chart just shows, the lack of a plan to deal with the energy problem in this country by the Democrat majority has brought us in this 110th Congress, this huge spike, this huge increase in the price of oil. As the gentleman explained, it went from $58 per barrel of oil now up to $113, almost $114 per barrel of oil. The paper I think I was reading the other day, I heard it someplace, was this can most appropriately be called, not a Democrat problem, a premium that we are paying for the price of oil. Perhaps, appropriately, the paper called it the Pelosi premium because it comes during the time of this Congress headed by the Democrats. The previous gentleman from Georgia was saying that, and he laid out very eloquently, that the other side of the aisle had campaigned on, and the Speaker said frequently they had a plan. Well, would that it be that they actually had a plan and began to implement that was beneficial, that would be beneficial, but they have had some sort of a plan. I have to point this out to the gentleman from Georgia. They have had some suggestions as to what we can be doing with the price of gasoline. Let me just run through a couple of them. One of their suggestions to deal with the price of gasoline was a 50-cent increase per gallon Federal gas tax, which was proposed by the Energy and Commerce chairman. So we are already paying $3.50 or so for a gallon of gasoline at the pump. The Energy and Commerce chairman said how do we deal with that issue? Let's add a 50-cent increase per gallon Federal gas tax on top of that. That's one part of their plan. The second plan the other side of the aisle, the Democrat majority proposed to deal with the high price of energy, was a $150 million war surtax. That was under a plan proposed by the Appropriations chairman, David Obey. We are already paying a high price for gasoline, we are already paying a high price for diesel, home heating fuel. Let's add insult to injury and add a $150 billion war surtax on top of that that you and I would have to pay. Was that the end of their plan? No, they had a couple of other ideas. Defense Appropriations Chairman John Murtha and Representative Jim McGovern said low- and middle-income taxpayers should have to pay 2 percent added to their tax bill while higher income taxpayers would take an additional 12 to 15 percent added tax as well. There again, how do you deal with this problem, higher taxes. Finally, a final proposal to deal with this situation from the Democrat majority, a 5-cent increase per gallon gasoline gas tax was proposed by Representative James Oberstar to pay for infrastructure. This proposal, as you may recall, would raise the Federal gas tax to 23.4 cents a gallon from the current 18.4 cents. This was made last summer. So every proposal that they have had suggested, every proposal that we have heard from the Democrat side of the aisle to deal with the energy crisis in this country, to deal with the fact that energy costs for a barrel of oil going $58 up to $114, their solution to the fact that we are paying $3.25, $3.50, $4 for diesel, their solution so far has done nothing to lower the price. It has done everything to raise the price. To add insult to injury, their proposal is to add even more by adding additional taxes and surtaxes on top of that. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the Chair. And I appreciate the gentleman from Tennessee having come to the floor a moment ago to address this energy and the like. To be honest, that's the only way that we are going to be able to find solutions to these major issues that we need to address, whether it is the Iraq war situation, or this major issue of energy costs in this country. Obviously, we have been able to find common ground when it comes to, I would catch it, slightly less significant issues dealing with beach quality and what have you. Now if we can find that same comity when it comes to the Iraq war and energy, then we'll be moving in the right direction. That being said, the gentleman can't disagree with some of the facts that have been set out here for the last evening, and this will probably be my last comment for the night; and that is that the Democrat majority, prior to becoming the majority, did point out some problems with regard to energy prices prior to coming into the majority. And the gentleman from Georgia went through a litany of quotes from Democrat leadership citing the problem, and making a promise that the Democrat majority had a solution to those problems. I'm eager to see what those solutions are. I would like to extend a hand across the other side of the aisle to work with them, if those solutions were ever forthcoming. As I indicated in my last comments, the only proposals that I've seen so far from the other side of the aisle have been restrictive or increasing to the cost of energy. They were the two or three tax increases that I ran through before, the 50 cent increase per gallon gasoline Federal gas hike proposed, the $150 billion war surtax or the 5 cent increase per gallon tax hike, all proposals from the other side of the aisle. None of those things will lower the cost of energy. All of those things will raise the price that you and I and everyone else have to pay at the pump. What we may want to do is look to see what other countries are doing with regard to energy costs in general. Let me just run down real quickly some of these. Over in China, three or four things. One, China has expanded its natural gas infrastructure by constructing pipe lines. Unfortunately, the Democrats have opposed natural gas production in this country and natural gas infrastructure improvements in the country in general. And the chart that we had up previously showed that as far as offshore. Secondly, China is rapidly expanding its refining capacity. Unfortunately, Democrats have repeatedly voted against expanding America's refinery capacity. I don't think we've had any new refineries built in some several decades. Thirdly, China is ambitiously developing its nuclear power energy which plans to spend $50 billion on 30 additional nuclear reactors within the next 15 years. Again, unfortunately, Democrats consider the notion of increasing nuclear power generation in the U.S. basically as off the table. And finally, China's planning on constructing many new large scale hydro electric projects over the forecasted period, including an 18.2 gigawatt Three Gorges dam project which is expected to come in in 2009. Again, unfortunately, Democrats have actively opposed new hydro electric power plants here in the United States. So I will end where I began. The gentleman said that we should be concerned about how much money is going to Saudi Arabia and Dubai and all of the things that they're able to build with that oil. I agree. I wish all of our American tax dollars and American gasoline dollars that we pay at the pump weren't going overseas. But right now, 63 percent of our energy sources are dependent on foreign sources of energy and growing more every year. What we need to do is make America more self-reliant when it comes to energy. You do that by what we've talked about all evening. Don't tax it, don't raise the cost of production, don't restrict the production here in the United States, don't restrict the ideas of new efficient energy alternatives and the like, but allow it to grow using ingenuity of Americans insight and entrepreneurs, so that we do not have to be more dependent every day on foreign, unreliable sources that are a threat to this country, are a threat to our national security, and put our young men and women in harm's way on the points with regard to war, as the gentleman from Tennessee was pointing out. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the comments by the sponsor, and I support the commonsense approach to this amendment as well. Coming from the great State of New Jersey, who has had when it comes to beach issues over the last 20-some odd years, during which time I had the privilege of serving in the State legislature and had to deal with some of the same issues that are being dealt with right here and now, I appreciate what is being done this evening with regard to realtime recovering and realtime information coming in. New Jersey, I think, is literally on the cutting edge of this information right now. New Jersey is on the cutting edge, having addressed these issues over the last decade, and I appreciate what is being attempted to be done for the rest of the country as well. That being said, I just want to reiterate my point that I made earlier this evening that here we are back in Congress again this week, and a lot of people are asking me back in the district, what are some of the major issues that you will be working on when you return to Washington this week? At a town hall meeting and discussions back over the weekend, I gave them a breakdown, this being one of them. And they asked me, wait, you are going to be talking about beach issues? You are going to be talking about some of these other suspension bills we had earlier in the week and I anticipate having later on in the week? But each time, no matter where I was, my constituents asked me the same question: Well, when is Congress going to begin the debate, when is Congress going to begin the discussion, whether it is in committees or on the floor or elsewhere, to try to address the problem that is really hitting us the hardest here back at home in the Fifth Congressional District, that is the top of the State of New Jersey, the issue that is hitting us the most in the pocketbook here in the great State of New Jersey? And, of course, what they were referring to is the price of energy. We have just gone through a little bit of a cold snap in the State of New Jersey, as other parts of the country have as well, so for that reason we have seen the use of home fuel oil go up, naturally. It is a scary thing now when you see the delivery truck come to your house to deliver oil to fill up your oil tank, because you know as soon as that man is done delivering that 100 gallons or 250 gallons to your tank in your basement or in the ground or what have you, he is going to hand you a bill at the end of that delivery, and that bill can wipe out your savings for the week, wipe out the dollars that you may have planned to set aside to buy food, to buy medicine, to pay other expenses you were looking forward to have to spend that week. So the people are asking, when are we going to be doing something? Unfortunately, we are still not doing it right now. Here we are, 16 months into a Democrat-controlled Congress, and still nothing has been done about it. I refer back, just to give a little element of time to all this, to the chart I have right up here in front of us, to the fact that we do not have a Democrat energy policy to try to address these seminal issues, major issues that are affecting us. Take a look at what the prices are and the result of not having an energy policy to address this. As this chart shows, the price of a barrel of crude oil when the Democrats came to power just 16 months ago was $58.31 cents a barrel. Fifty-eight bucks a barrel. Here we are less than 2 years later, a year-and-a-half later, and the price of a barrel of crude oil today is $113 a barrel. It is because of that huge increase in the price of the barrel that you and I have to pay so much when that man comes to deliver the fuel oil for our house or when we go down to the gas station as well. Fifty-three cents on the dollar when you buy gas at the gas station or are buying fuel oil for your house is the price of crude oil. So when you wonder why it is that you are paying so much at the pump or you are paying so much for delivery to your house, it is because it has gone from 58 bucks to 113 bucks. Not over the last 10 years. Not over the last 6 years, or something like that. Not over the period of time when the Republicans were in control. No, not over that entire span of time. But just in the last 16 months under Democrat control we have seen the price of fuel oil spike and go through the roof. The result of that has been what? The result has been, besides the fact that you now have to spend most of your money going to your fuel costs, the price also has translated into a ripple effect on the price of food, so when you go to the food store, those are through the roof. It has a ripple effect with regard to the overall economy, and so that is why Alan Greenspan was on TV just about 2 weeks ago now saying that he too is agreeing with other economists in this country saying we have entered into a recession. So if you remember back how strong the economy was, how strong Wall Street was just about 18 months ago, now we see under the Pelosi premium of no energy policy, the result is what you see today.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I come to the floor in appreciation of the underlying intent of both the amendment and the underlying bill as well. But I am mindful of the fact, as I come from the great State of New Jersey and as we think about the issue at hand, and that is our beaches and the shores generally, I was just talking with someone recently that due to the high cost of energy and the high cost of gasoline, a lot of my constituents, quite honestly, won't be able to even enjoy the Jersey shore this summer, to ``go down below,'' as we call it, down to the Jersey shore to enjoy it and enjoy whatever improvements that this amendment, which I support, and the underlying bill, which I support, would bring to us. So the point I just want to spend a moment on is the fact that while we debate these tertiary issues, the fundamental issue that folks back in my district are concerned about is how are we going to afford in the first place to get about our State of New Jersey, to get to the shore, to enjoy our vacation, to enjoy the beaches if Congress is not doing anything whatsoever to address the high cost of gasoline and to address the high cost of energy in the State of New Jersey and the rest of the country as well. Here we are now in the ides of April, the middle of April. This is about, let's see, 12, 13, 14, 15, the 16th month now into this, the 110th Congress under the Democrat leadership. And we have to ask ourselves one seminal question, one basic question: What has the 16th month of Democrat leadership brought us in a whole host of areas? And I will get to the energy issue in a minute. Well, we see in the area of food prices, my constituents also tell me that the price of food, when they go to the A&P or the grocery stores every day, whatever the store is, are going through the roof. The housing crisis. We will go to any committee here. I serve on the Financial Services Committee. We know we are in a terrible housing crisis right now, a subprime crisis affecting credit markets across the country. Fuel costs I have already mentioned. A recession. You know, for the first time in years, we're talking about an economic recession. For all the time that the Republicans were in control of this House and in control of this government, we saw that they were in booming economic times. Sixteen months now into the 110th Congress in a Democrat leadership, off the map on food costs, housing costs, into recession. If that has happened in 16 months, we wonder what will happen if they have another 16 months. So I would ask whether this Congress could do what my constituents are asking us to do. Maybe address these issues such as beach issues and where we can go on vacation, but can we do those after we get to the more seminal issues, the more fundamental issues, issues that strike at the heart of where America is living right now, issues that strike at, well, their pocketbook and where their money is really going to right now, and that is energy costs. The other day I just drove out in my driveway of my house. I went down to the main road. And there at the gas station, the price of a gallon of diesel fuel was $4 a gallon. Amazing. $4 a gallon. That means that truckers--those same truckers who have to get down to the Jersey Shore to bring supplies and what have you for vacationers who want to enjoy the beaches and what have you--truckers, I am told, have to spend upwards of $1,000 to fill up their diesel tanks in their trucks to get about our State. New Jersey is a commuter State. New Jersey is a hub State, a transportation State. Unless Congress is ready to commit itself to really fundamentally look at the underlying causes of the high cost of energy, of the high cost of gasoline, of the high cost of diesel fuel, unless we are ready to work across both sides of the aisle on these issues, these other issues will come to naught, will be of little importance to my constituents if they are stranded at home, if their husbands or their wives don't have jobs because they can't afford to put gas into the car or diesel into the trucks. So I just come to the floor to raise these issues now and ask that, as important as these beach issues are, can we not really begin to address what the constituents are addressing? Later on in the evening, I would like to say that there are some solutions, there are some solutions that the American public would like us to begin to address. There are some answers to the fundamental reasons of why the price of gasoline and diesel fuel is going through the roof. There are some basic changes that Congress, this Congress, could be making right now to the energy supply in this country that would help to drive down the cost of energy in this country so that Americans, families in my district and in yours, will be able to address this problem and not have a problem of high energy cost anymore.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today as a member of the bipartisan Congressional Prayer Caucus to formally acknowledge the importance of prayer in American life and American history. Today I am honored to launch the first of what I hope will be weekly reminders of our country's need for prayer. I do so by reading a proclamation given by President Ronald Reagan in 1983 when he said, ``From the birth of our Republic, prayer has been vital to the whole fabric of American life.'' As we crossed and settled the continent, built a Nation in freedom, endured war and critical struggles to become a sentinel of liberty, we repeatedly turned to our Maker for strength and guidance in achieving the awesome tasks before us. Whether at the ordeal of the Revolutionary War, the stormy days of binding the 13 colonies into one country, the Civil War, or other moments of trial over the years, we have turned to God for His help. As we are told in II Chronicles 7:14: ``If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.''