Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman. As I so often say when I come to the floor, in looking back 16 months, this country has been under the control of the Democrat-led Congress. What has those 16 months wrought? We have higher food prices, a recession now in the economy with which almost everyone agrees, even former Chairman Greenspan, housing prices basically in a free fall down and, of course, energy prices going through the roof. You made a comment about gasoline prices being up to almost $4 a gallon by the summer. Of course, diesel fuel already, in my neck of the woods, the great State of New Jersey, is at $4 a gallon. It amazes me each time I drive past the pump. I don't use diesel. Truckers most often do. Farming equipment on the farms do. Of course, I am amazed that people are still able to make a living. But 16 months under a Democrat-controlled rule here in the House of Representatives, what has it wrought? We have higher food prices, a recession in the economy, free fall of the housing prices and energy prices through the roof, causing hardships for all Americans. I come from the State of New Jersey. When I go home, I just went home for the weekend, and I talked to my friends and constituents back home. They are paying the price, at the pump, at the food store, everywhere, and it's creating a real hardship for the American family. When the American family sits down each week and pays their bills, gets out their checkbook, and say how are we going to pay this month's mortgage payment, this month's rent payment, first they have to pay all of these other expenses. At the end of the week, they realize the money is just not in the checkbook anymore. One of the root causes is the price of fuel. They are probably scratching their heads saying what is the Democrat-led majority in the House doing about it? Where is that plan that you were referring to that the Democrats campaigned on 18 months ago before they took over the majority? Where is that plan during these last 16 months now that they have been in the majority? My constituents wait. You and I wait. In the meantime, let's take a look at the facts. Democrats make all sorts of claims about the price of energy, about the price of gasoline prices. I would like to address just three or four of them. First of all, one of the most frequent things, and you see hearings on this over and over, Democrats will say, well, it's because of America, it's because of those American oil companies that we have skyrocketing prices. Let's get into the facts a little bit about that, though. U.S. energy companies are not even in the top 10 when you look at total proven oil reserves and gas reserves in the entire world. For example, ExxonMobil has less than 5 percent of the stock held by Saudi Aramco. A full 53 percent of the price we pay for gasoline when we go to the pump is related to the price of the crude oil that goes into it, a world commodity. Can Democrats really accuse American oil companies of so influencing prices when they own such a marginally small amount of the total world supply? When we think about it, this is a part and parcel of the Democrat blame America first doctrine here too in energy. Secondly, Democrats say that the U.S. needs to decrease demand for oil. We have to live more modestly, I guess, is what that really translates out to be. It turns out the facts are this, in recent years U.S. American families' demand for oil and all its uses has actually begun to stabilize, and we have seen over a period of time an actual decrease in the amount of use. Meanwhile, world demand for oil has actually increased to 84 million barrels a year. That's an increase of 16 million barrels just over the last decade. While we are willing and able and want to work with the other side of the aisle to come up with ways to conserve fuel, the facts point to the fact that we should not be blaming America first with regard to increased use of oil. But it's the rest of the world that is just increasing their consumption, which is a supply and demand factor. Thirdly, Democrats are off to say that the Americans already have reliable access to energy supplies. Well, when we get into the facts, it refutes what the Democrats are saying. The U.S., as a matter of fact, is the only, the only industrial Nation in the entire world that locks up 85 percent of its open available deep sea energy reserves. Let me repeat that number again, 85 percent of our reserves offshore and elsewhere are locked up. We can't get to them. You and I can't use them today, our children can't use them tomorrow, grandchildren in the future, they are locked up under their plan. Even worse, we have not even built a new refinery in this country for the last 32 years. As a result of these factors, 63 percent of our energy supplies that we should be able to use right here in this country are obtained from foreign sources instead. The Democrat plan makes us even more reliant on foreign sources, those same foreign sources that are unreliable, unstable and oftentimes hostile to the United States as well. Fourthly, Democrats claim that the Federal Government, the bureaucrats here in Washington, must micromanage, if you will, and regulate these American oil companies. Again, what are the facts. The facts are that in 2007, these very same American oil companies and themselves spent $183 billion in new investment. What does that do, that leads to the development of more efficient environmental fuels on the market. Meanwhile, the Democrat majority has voted to raise taxes four separate times just during the 110th Congress. I began my remarks asking what has 16 months under Democrat control wrought when it comes to this country, well, one point there is four separate times taxes have gone up during this Congress. And where does that end up being paid from? Well, tomorrow is April 15, tax day, and we know who pays. It comes down not on the corporations and big business, it is comes down on the consumer. So soaring prices are the result of supply and demand, and the best approach to energy efficiency and cost reduction is one that is market based. The worst approach is no plan whatsoever, which is what we have seen by the other side of the aisle, and a lack of a plan that engages in such rhetoric as blame America first, restrict the development of efficient energy resources that are American based, and the worst plan is to make the United States and the citizens of this country even more reliant on those unstable and hostile regimes. I thank the gentleman for coming to the floor tonight and reminding all of America about the dilemma that we face going in, both in the short term with the family budget today and the future, and the great need we have to have a plan put in place and implemented. I look forward to working with you to achieve such.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman. As we come to the floor now and the Democrats talk about beaches, my constituents in the great State of New Jersey suffer. They are suffering from unrelenting increases in the price of gas, up almost a dollar now since the Democrats took control of this House. So as my constituents suffer from higher food costs, all related energy costs; as my constituents suffer from higher heating costs, all related to energy costs; as my constituents suffer from the higher cost of living in general, again, related to energy costs, all of them should be asking what is it that the Democrat Congress is doing to address this problem? Well, the short answer is nothing really helpful. And the long answer is really potentially driving up the costs even higher. Let me give you two quick points. First, the Democrats have voted four times now, four times, to raise taxes so to make sure the discovering and making sure that America's energy independence is that much harder. Secondly, they have voted now to lock up almost 85 percent of known specific energy resources in this country. What does that mean? What does that translate to the consumer? Again, the Democrats are making it harder for America to become energy independent from foreign oil. Now is the time for all Americans everywhere across this country to ask what is its Democrat Congress doing. The short answer is nothing much. The long answer is potentially driving up the cost for fuel for all of them. Now is, therefore, the time for all of us to come to the floor to work together for a change and to make sure that America can, in fact, become energy independent. Now is the time for Democrats to be working not against the American consumer, but for him instead.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I come to the floor also to speak in support of the Flake amendment. I was in my office almost a half-hour ago now when I saw the debate on the floor and my friend and colleague Mr. Flake was here speaking about his amendment, and I thought I would come down to hear his closing remarks and hear the other side then say that they agreed to the amendment, because I thought, in essence, this was an amendment that both sides of the aisle could reach across and find unanimity and agreement with, if we believed the rhetoric that we heard last year and if we believe the rhetoric we hear oftentimes from the other side of the aisle about their desires to rein in spending, to address the earmark situation problem and to work with Republicans to try to deal with it, as we heard during their campaign to come to the majority, as they have, and now on the floor as well. To my surprise, and perhaps I should not be surprised to find that as of this time, a half-hour later into the debate on a simple amendment to say that we should not be having earmarks in this bill, a bill that never had earmarks before, the other side of the aisle, the Democrat side of the aisle, cannot agree to it. Earlier, when the general debate on this bill was on the floor, I came to the floor and said that in light of all the issues that we are discussing right now, it is amazing we are about to go into the weekend break discussing beaches as opposed to some other fundamentally important issue striking at the hearts and the wallets of the American taxpayers and the citizens of the State of New Jersey as well, one principally which was the high cost of oil. The Democrats have been in charge of this House now for almost a year and a quarter, and during that time we have seen the price of gas at the local gasoline stations go up by almost a buck. You would think that would be something first and foremost that they would be addressing. But, no, they are addressing a spending bill and beaches, as we have before us. Again, maybe I should not be surprised, because wasn't it Hillary Clinton who said that she has more ideas on spending than there are dollars in D.C.? Well, in light of the fact that the other side of the aisle, the Democrat majority, will not even consider to support the Flake amendment, which would try to rein in some of that wasteful, wanton abuse that we see in earmarks here, apparently the Democrat House leadership is taking a page from Hillary Clinton's playbook. They too have more ideas on spending than there are dollars in D.C. to spend. It was just indicated a moment ago, well, this is not the purpose of the bill, to do earmarks. Well, if it is not the purpose of the bill, then it should be an easy lift to support this amendment to eliminate earmarks from the bill. Secondly, someone suggested from the other side, well, if we are going to do it in this one, we should do it in all other bills like this. I agree, and I am sure Mr. Flake would come to the floor as well and say he would put this in any bill coming to the floor, to say we should not have earmarks, and I think he just rose to that point. Finally, the point was made, I think from this side of the aisle, well, it hasn't been done in bills like this before. What a better time than right now? And I commend the gentleman, Mr. Flake for bringing it to the floor. If not now, then when? If both sides of the aisle are as adamantly opposed to abuses of earmarks as both sides of the aisle say they are, why shouldn't they support the amendment by Mr. Flake? Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. And I thank the gentlelady from Tennessee for all of your work on this matter and others as well, shining the light of day on the budget process here in the House under Democrat control of this legislature. That last point, under Democrat control, here we find ourselves 15 months into the 110th Congress under a new Democrat majority in this House, and we have to ask that basic question, What has that Democrat control of 15 months brought? Well, in outside groups in the media, it has been reported this has been one of the most inefficient and ineffective Congresses in passing legislation out of the House and making it to the President's desk and getting it signed, in most people's memory. And that is a bad thing when it comes to trying to solve the problems that are addressing America's families and America's pocketbook as well. I would like to spend my couple of minutes personalizing this budget process from the great State of New Jersey and other residents of my State as well and how it impacts upon them. New Jerseyans are already overtaxed. Just recently, the legislature in Trenton, the State capital, raised taxes. They raised the sales tax, they raised corporate taxes, they raised user fees and what have you. And now there is talk about, in our State, maybe doubling or tripling the tolls on the road, and not to speak, of course, about property taxes which are going through the roof in our State. So New Jersey families are already taxed. What do we see here in the Congress under Democrat control with the budget that they have passed through this House? Well, for New Jerseyans it would amount to around $3,700 increase, a $3,700 increase in taxes on the American family or the New Jersey family. More of their hard-earned money being taken from them and sent to Washington. And what else? Well, another independent analysis, this one done by the Heritage Foundation, shows that folks in my district, the Fifth District in New Jersey, which my district represents, they would lose upwards to 2,000 jobs. So mind you, the budget that the Democrats have passed would do two things: raise our taxes in my State by around $3,700 for the average family, and we would lose 2,000 jobs. All a bad thing now under the Democrat's Congress. So while it may have been one of the most ineffective and inefficient Congresses under the Democrat leadership, they are doing some things all bad. Let me take a moment, if I may, to address three points that went through the budgetary process when the bills came through the committee. If you hadn't been turned on C-SPAN from 10:30 in the morning when the bills came through with the Budget Committee initially until around 1 o'clock the next morning when the bill finally came out, you may have missed exactly what the Budget Committee did under the leadership of the Democrat Conference. Let me touch upon three of them. Democrats proposed their budget. Republicans tried to take a bad bill and tried to make it better with a number of amendments, and I will go through very quickly, if I may, three of those amendments. In each instance, when we took our amendments and said, Here is an idea that maybe would make your bill a little bit better, they voted unanimously, and it shows the bipartisanship is not there in that committee, unanimously against our ideas. First idea. AMT, alternative minimum tax. We suggested that this very harsh tax should be repealed. Remember, it was the AMT started under 1969 under a Democrat Congress, in the 1990s under a Democrat President, Bill Clinton. We Republicans tried to repeal it. He said no. Now we said we have to get rid of this unfair tax that in just a couple of years from now, around 34 million American families would see their taxes go up incredibly. They said ``no'' to our amendment. Secondly, again, Democrats unanimously voted against another amendment that we suggested to their bill with regard to earmarks. We all have problems with earmarks. It made the news heavily in the last months, what have you. We see the waste, fraud, and abuse there. We suggested we could save a billion dollars in earmarks and let's appropriate it over to veterans and for their good causes. That was our amendment. They voted unanimously to oppose it. And finally in the area of Social Security. You would think here is one area that there would be bipartisanship, that they would reach across the aisle and try to get something done. Again, no go. Earmarks, again, was the basis of our areas that we thought we could save some money. There was so much waste, fraud, and abuse with their earmarks. We said, Let's save some of the money there. Let's make sure that Social Security is here for seniors today and for the next generation and next generation. Let's stop robbing from the Social Security trust fund. We put in an amendment to do that. What do the Democrats do once again? Unanimously they voted against that amendment as well. The amendments all went down. The bill passed as the Democrats initially proposed it, in essence, and that bill, of course, is bad for my constituents, bad for New Jerseyans as we will be losing jobs, seeing our taxes go up. So, again, I close where I began, commending the lady for bringing this information to the American public as we work together to make it a better situation. Thank you.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to this, the largest tax increase on the American family in history. The average New Jersey taxpayer under this plan will see their tax increase by over $3,700. That is the second highest increase of any State in the Union under this budget. With property taxes in my State soaring out of control and the high cost of living in New Jersey, the last thing any member from the New Jersey delegation should want to do is to drastically increase the Federal taxes on New Jersey families, as the Democrat budget now does. What about jobs? In an independent analysis by the Heritage Foundation for the Fifth District that I represent, we will lose 2,000 jobs due to this tax increase. So I hope that everyone who is watching this debate will pay attention very closely to see how their Member from their State will vote, because if they vote in favor of this, they will see their taxes go up by around four grand in the future. Last week, the day this budget was passed in committee, we had one of those late nights. It began around 10:30 in the morning; it ended a little after midnight. During that time, almost 30 amendments were tried by our side of the aisle, and almost every one of them was voted ``no'' and defeated by the Democrat side of the aisle. Now, because that debate went so late in the evening, let me recap some of those, which I think was an intriguing debate that we had. I would like to go through and highlight a number of commonsense, good government initiatives that the Democrats voted against on every one. One, Democrats unanimously voted against totally repealing the AMT. Two, Democrats unanimously voted against all attempts to rescue Social Security and Medicare and make these and other programs sustainable for future generations. Third, Democrats unanimously voted against eliminating air-drop earmarks and dedicating $1 billion, that was just indicated, for veterans programs. Democrats also remain committed, apparently, to eliminating the 10 percent bracket for low-income individuals and raising taxes on families by $500 per child and reinstating the marriage penalty and reimposing the death tax. The Democrats also unanimously voted against protecting the Social Security surplus. Instead, what they did, they chose to raid that fund simply to pay for more of their earmarks. Democrats also unanimously voted against strengthening PAYGO. Instead, they preserved gaping holes that allow them to scam the system with the rules that maintain the guise of fiscal responsibility. Democrats also unanimously voted against putting the House Members on record every time they vote to increase the debt. Even more astoundingly, Democrats unanimously voted against their own legislation, a leading Blue Dog reform bill that would have required greater transparency and accountability in the budget process. Instead, what do they do, as with so many other good things, they put this commonsense idea off to another day. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I want the American people to realize and understand that the Democrat members of the committee unanimously voted against all the proposals I just mentioned. They had the chance to improve this legislation. They refused to do so. And I encourage all of my colleagues to vote against this terrible budget and the largest tax increase burden on the American family.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, as a member of the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Affairs, I am proud to congratulate the nation of Greece on the celebration of the 187th anniversary of independence. Ancient Greece is commonly thought of as the foundation for Western civilization. The Roman Empire borrowed much from Greek culture, including politics, philosophy, art, architecture, and language; and subsequently spread these ideas throughout Europe. However, the country often thought of as the ``Cradle of Democracy'' was conquered and governed by various empires for centuries. On March 25, 1821, the Greek people rose up against Ottoman oppression and declared their independence. The Greeks later became the first ethnic group under the Ottoman Empire to gain independent sovereign power. America's early Founding Fathers adopted the concept of federalism, an idea influenced by the ancient Greek ``city-state,'' a small region ruled locally, but within the framework of a larger cultural area. The United States has been proud to stand with the people of Greece as they confronted oppression, solidified their democracy, and became part of the vibrant European economy. Both of our nations understand that even after independence is gained, it must be carefully guarded. Brave citizens must be willing to sacrifice their lives in order to protect liberty. Just as the U.S. and Greece have struggled to survive after the initial moment of independence was earned, we must continue to foster the causes of freedom and democracy. Again, I congratulate the Greek people on this historic celebration. This anniversary is a time to remember the sacrifices of the past, to take pride in your nation, and to look ahead to a future of promise.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate the borough of Ramsey, New Jersey, on its centennial celebration. Today, March 10, is the 100th anniversary of the incorporation of Ramsey. Ramsey is located at the foothills of the Ramapo Mountains in northeast New Jersey and covers 5.9 square miles. Dutch, English, Scottish, and German settlers were among the first colonists to live in Ramsey. The Old Stone House was built as a Dutch colonial farmhouse in the 1700s, and it is still preserved today. A gristmill was erected in the mid 1780s, and six decades later a railroad station was assembled-- both brought commerce and development to the area. Ramsey quickly became known as the strawberry capital, due to the large amounts of strawberries grown in the region and then shipped to other States. Today, Ramsey is the site of six churches, three parks, four public schools, and a public library. Several scenes from The Sopranos episode ``The Happy Wander'' were shot at the Maple Shade Motel, and Ramsey was also a setting for scenes from the 2006 film World Trade Center. Several notable Americans have resided in Ramsey, including Ryan Grant, running back for the Green Bay Packers; Danny Aiello, a stage and film star; and Ryan McGinley, a photographer. Perhaps the most distinguished resident to call Ramsey ``home'' was Army Master Sergeant Charles Ernest Hosking, who received a Medal of Honor for self-sacrificially saving the lives of several of his commanders during the Vietnam war. The borough of Ramsey is rich with historical, cultural, educational, and recreational institutions. For 100 years, Ramsey has been the cherished residence of many Americans. It is my hope that the borough of Ramsey will continue to be a vibrant community for many years to come.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize four individuals who have been named by the Ramapo College Foundation Board of Governors as the 2008 Distinguished Citizens. This honor highlights their personal and professional commitment to advance higher education and their significant service to the community. James E. Jaworski, Esq.; Patricia B. Shrader, Esq.; Drew Nieporent, and Edward P. Wallace, Jr. each support Ramapo College in their own unique ways while exemplifying the school's commitment to high standards of educational excellence. In addition, these individuals are recognized for their dedication and unfailing commitment to our community. Our communities are only as strong as the people and organizations that are willing to put their time, effort, and energy into building them. I applaud Ramapo College for honoring these individuals and, in doing so, the true spirit of community that helps to make our country a symbol of strength and hope worldwide. Ramapo College of New Jersey is located in Mahwah, New Jersey. Designated as ``New Jersey's Public Liberal Arts College,'' Ramapo is a comprehensive institution of higher education whose faculty and staff dedicate themselves to the promotion of teaching and learning within a strong liberal arts based curriculum. Its curricular emphasis includes the liberal arts and sciences, social sciences, fine and performing arts, and the professional programs within a residential and sustainable living and learning environment. It is an honor to represent such fine people and institutions in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, today the United States Congress will stand up for the people of Israel by sending a message to the terrorists and also to those countries that aid them. Rocket attacks and intentional violence against innocent civilians will not be tolerated. Israeli communities like Sderot and Ashkelon have sustained terrible, egregious damage, and the citizens have suffered from serious injuries, even fatalities. I should point out that oftentimes Palestinians as well, those who do not support the violence, are also victims of the crossfire. It is time that this brutality come to an end for all people. Passing this resolution today truly is just a stepping stone to help end those egregious, aggressive acts of Palestinian terrorists and ensuring that innocent civilians in Israel can live together and live peacefully. It is violent Palestinian groups and terrorist organizations that must be held accountable for their horrific acts. Organizations such as Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and the Popular Resistance Committee, the PRC, need to understand that when they attack the people of Israel, the United States and other countries and the U.S. House of Representatives will not remain silent. Unjust actions like this must not go unpunished. Today, we have a gentleman from one of those communities, Sderot, with us here in the House, in the House galleries. If he was here on the floor with us, he could share with us the life-and-death circumstances that he and his family and his neighbors and his community experience on a day-to-day basis. As we are here on the floor of this House, in the safety of this city and of this community and of this country, we have to think about the men and women, think about the children who are back there right now, the children who, for all we may know, are in their safe rooms cowering, wondering when the next attack may be coming. Many of those members of the community have already made the decision that it is just unbearable to live under that threat, under the constant pressure of not knowing when the next attack, when the next missile strike will come. And upwards around 20 percent of the country or the community has left, fled the area to safer havens, wherever they may be. If this was an incident occurring in our country, along the borders of the United States, would we sit idly by while our neighboring country or the terrorists within that were lobbing rockets into it, into our territory? I think not. It is for that reason that it is so unfortunate that other portions of the world community, parts of the U.N., have condemned Israel for taking defensive measures such as they have here. I come to the floor today with my colleagues as well from both sides of the aisle and I appreciate the bipartisan support, to say, who will condemn the attackers? Well, Mr. Speaker, I will. We will. This House of Representatives will, and this country will. Rest assured that I will continue to ensure that the Islamic radicals are held responsible for launching these vicious attacks, and also that countries like Iran, Egypt and Syria, which support terrorists and allow this activity to continue, should be held accountable as well. I will join with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to continue this fight until the global community joins in with the U.S. in condemning terrorism and its violent acts.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I am proud to congratulate the Republic of Korea on the 89th anniversary of the March 1 Independence Movement against Japan's colonial rule. It is especially fitting for Americans to join Koreans in celebrating this day. Many believe that the Fourteen Points, outlined by U.S. President Wilson at the Paris Peace Conference, helped to inspire the Samil Movement to protest against the restrictive Japanese government. On March 1, 1919, hundreds of Koreans participated in peaceful rallies to promote liberation. Some were upset by the burdensome taxation system that often led to famine or slavery. Many Korean Christians, including entire churches, protested the strict religious regulations enforced by the Japanese. Across the country, nationalist leaders simultaneously read the independence declaration out loud in public. These readings motivated thousands of demonstrators to join the cause of freedom, and the movement grew. The Japanese responded by killing thousands of protestors. In at least one case, Korean men were driven into a church and burned alive. However, it took the Japanese 12 months, and the assistance of the army and navy, to quell the uprising. In the end, the Japanese government was forced to adopt more lenient measures. The United States has been proud to stand with the people of the Republic of Korea as they confronted oppression, solidified their democracy, and became part of the vibrant Asian economy. Even after independence is gained, it must be carefully guarded. Brave citizens must be willing to sacrifice their lives in order to protect liberty. Just as both of our nations have struggled to survive after the initial moment of independence was earned, we must continue to foster the causes of freedom and democracy. Again, I congratulate the Korean people on this historic celebration. This anniversary is a time to remember the sacrifices of the past, to take pride in your nation, and to look ahead to a future of promise.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for yielding, and I also very much thank her for organizing this Special Order, to be able to have the opportunity to come to the floor tonight. As we have said, the bottom line up front, how much we take in and how much we spend. The American public must sit home and watch this and read the papers and live in a frustrated state, realizing that so much of their hard-earned money comes to Washington, and what we have here is a Byzantine system of archaic rules and what-have-you wrapped around policy statements, what-have-you, that the American public doesn't oftentimes get a clear picture to understand just where their dollars go. And that's what the purpose is here tonight and in subsequent weeks I believe as well, to try to remove that shroud of mystery behind the system that we have here, to shine the light of day, as we are oftentimes saying, on the budgetary process, to give the American public a clear picture of exactly where their dollars go to. And we do this with not just an educational point in mind or a goal but to also allow the American public and the voter and the taxpayer to be in a better posture to decide among themselves just where they want their Government to go in this election and future elections and of course over their lifetime as well. It was just this past week when we were back at home in the district work period and I was able to sit at my dining room table. Around this time of year, April 15 is coming up, tax time, and my wife said now is the time to start getting the paperwork out, Scott, and begin to look at it and getting all the stuff you need to send to the accountant to do our taxes, because I had given up, quite candidly, years ago trying to figure out myself, as I imagine most Members of Congress have, to try to figure out the Byzantine Tax Code that we have created for the American public as well. So I began the process of collecting all my documents. And, of course, some of those are some of the basic ones, like your W-2 to show you how much you've earned over the last 12 months, over the last year. And then there's one of those little boxes, I think box 8 or 9 on there, that also begins to show you just how much money has been taken out of your paycheck week after week. You don't see it so much, especially nowadays because so many people have direct deposit and it goes right into their checking account or bank account. You don't see how much is actually taken out. But at the end of the year you sure do. At the end of the year you get that W-2 and you look at that box, and I say, oh, my gosh, that's how much money. In payroll taxes and income taxes, you put them out all together, and it's in the five digits for a lot of middle-class Americans. I come from the great State of New Jersey where middle-class America lives and works hard to make a paycheck and pay their bills. They would be astounded if they looked at their W-2s, as I did and maybe you should as well, to see how much taxes are taken out and sent down here to Washington. The Government took in $21,992, almost $22,000, in household taxes. Now, mind you, those $22,000 are all household taxes. I believe that also includes payroll taxes alike. So your income taxes and payroll taxes, $22,000. The government spends $24,000 per household. So that's very easy math, and it's basically telling us that we are engaged in deficit spending. But look at that number: $22,000 taken out of the average middle-class American's paycheck. When the average household income in some parts of the country is around 40-some-odd-thousand dollars, half of that money, figuratively speaking, is going in taxes. I know it doesn't come out of that tax rate for that particular family, but that's enough for some Americans to live on entirely in certain parts of this country with a little bit of assistance on the side. And that's how much is being paid per household in U.S. taxes. For some of us, we think that's just too much. The numbers have been projected with a little bit of varying degree of certainty on this, but on average the American household, the American family, a middle-class American works starting on January 1, just a month or so ago, and works all the way to sometime in mid-May just to pay their Federal taxes, State and local taxes as well. And then if you want to add onto that all the burden and the costs of all the Federal regulations and everything that also is a burden on us as well, you have to work almost all the way until sometime in the summertime, the beginning of July. So think about that. You're working almost the entire half of the year just to pay your taxes and the burden of the Federal, State, and local Governments. And where do those dollars go? Well, that's something that we're talking about here. On average, first of all, the burden falls around 18.3 percent of GDP. What does that mean? The historical average of all the revenue coming into the Federal Government from the 1960s all the way up until the present time varies up and down, some years more, some years less. But on average as a percentage of GDP, it's around 18.3 percent. Now, what this means is that at certain times the tax rates and the burden on the American family is greater than others; sometimes it's less than others. But we're here to point out where those dollars go and what can we do to make sure that that tax burden does not continue to creep up higher and higher and higher so that the American family sees even more of their tax dollars go to that level and to purposes that they can only fathom a guess at. If you have listened to the debate on this floor in past times, you've heard talk about earmarks and waste, fraud, and abuse. Earmarks are part of the problem, but they are only a small, small percentage of where our tax dollars go. The gentleman who was just speaking before spoke a little bit about the entitlements, Medicare and Medicaid, a much larger percentage. Let me fall someplace in between. As I sat there at my dining room table looking at the double-digit numbers as far as what my family has to pay in Federal taxes, I realize, as most Americans do, that we have an obligation to pay taxes into our Federal Government to provide for such things as national defense and homeland security, and we don't begrudge the Federal Government for any of those things. But as I also sat back, being a Member of Congress, knowing about the waste, fraud, and abuse and the unnecessary expenditures, that's when I and middle-class America begin to be concerned. For example, nobody has to think back too far about all the dollars that we spent mistakenly in the area of Hurricane Katrina and the waste in portions of that spending. I had folks sitting in my office who did independent investigations on Katrina to see where those dollars were going to. Granted, there was a lot of necessary cost down there. But the waste, fraud, and abuse down there is telling. Fraud related to Hurricane Katrina spending is estimated to top $2 billion. One of the areas that the investigators who spoke to me were talking about was the debit cards, debit cards that were issued repeatedly to the same people. That means over and over again, even though they should have applied and qualified for one, in some cases debit cards and checks were being sent out to people regardless of need. In other cases, cards being sent out to people even though they did not live in the area, to be used for all sorts of things, from a Caribbean vacation to NFL tickets and so on and so forth. Likewise, auditors discovered that 900,000 of the 2.5 million recipients of emergency Katrina assistance provided false or duplicate names, addresses, and Social Security numbers. And the interesting thing there, and I will make this last point on Katrina, is that even though the fraud investigators found out about this and they told FEMA about it, FEMA continued to issue those cards. The other side of the aisle sometimes makes the case with regard to corporate welfare, and I agree with them. The Federal Government spends too much of wasteful money with regard to corporate welfare as well. According to some statistics, Washington spends $60 billion annually on corporate welfare versus $43 billion on homeland security. So note that we are spending more money on corporate welfare to some of the largest corporations in this country and the world than we are on homeland security. Likewise on corporate welfare, the Advanced Technology Program, which sounds like an admirable program, spends $150 million annually subsidizing private businesses, and 40 percent of that money goes to Fortune 500 companies. So as middle-class America sits at home saying, where are my tax dollars going, that's some of the places where it's going. I will yield back and maybe speak again in a moment on some other points. But let me just close on this: I have the honor and privilege of serving on the Budget Committee, the committee in which we have the opportunity to sit back and look at the entire Federal budget, the big picture overview, and I have had the opportunity to do this now for 5 years. And during that time, many of these examples come before us; and during that time we have, let's call it, partisan differences from the other side of the aisle and ours on what we should be doing about it. But mind you, in the 5 years that I have served on this committee, the 5 years that I have served in this House, not one time do I recall anyone from the other side of the aisle suggesting that the solution to taking the burden off middle-class America is to reduce their tax rate and to do so by actually reducing tax expenditures. On the contrary, everything I have seen over the past 5 years, and as has been pointed out by the gentleman from California right now, has been in the opposite direction, an increase in Federal spending and, as we have seen now with the mother of all tax increases, an increase of the tax burden on middle-class America as well. Those are the points that I believe the American public has got to understand. As they pay their taxes April 15, where are their tax dollars going? It's going to, if the other side has its way, increased Federal spending on programs like these and other programs as well and an increased burden on middle-class America, things that those on this side of the aisle vehemently oppose and are doing our best to rein in.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 100th anniversary of Westwood United Methodist Church and to pay tribute to the legacy of community service that has marked that parish since its inception. On February 10, 1908, twenty people first organized the parish as the First Methodist Episcopal Church of Westwood. The first services were held almost two weeks later in Odd Fellows Hall in Westwood. As the church grew, a sanctuary and parish building were built. The original sanctuary, which is now a part of the education wing, was built in 1913. The sanctuary now in use was dedicated in 1960. Community service has always been a cornerstone of Westwood United Methodist Church's mission. Longtime member Ada Hampton helped to organize the Westwood Area Clergy Council and Westwood United Methodist Church has been an active participant since its inception. The parish worked with other community congregations to establish the Westwood House for Senior Citizens. They established the Family Food Cupboard and actively support the Helping Hand Food Pantry in Hillsdale, including through their September Food Drive. The Church regularly opens its doors to area self-help groups, like Alcoholics Anonymous. Gamblers Anonymous, and Alanon. And the Church has offered its facilities to the community as a crisis center in the event of a catastrophic emergency. The Church has recently opened up a not-for-profit thrift shop to support charitable work. Westwood United Methodist Church has also been a longstanding, strong supporter of scouting, having been home to Troop 47 for over 80 years. The Twin Valleys District of the Northern New Jersey Council often looks to the Church for a meeting and event location. During the holidays. Westwood United Methodist works with the Bergen County Division of Youth and Family Services to brighten Christmas for less fortunate children through Operation Santa Claus. They work with the Inter-Religious Fellowship to provide meals for the homeless as well. This parish provides a tremendous public service beyond its own church community and I commend them for their good works as they rededicate themselves to another century of service.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the SINAI Schools, which provide a fulfilling environment for meeting the unique educational needs of children and young adults with learning and developmental disabilities. Since 1982, the SINAI Schools have provided both Judaic and secular studies for individuals with a wide variety of special needs. Their elementary schools, high schools, and adult programs have earned praise from local leaders, parents, educators, and students alike. They are the only Jewish day school accredited by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools. The SINAI Schools tend to more than just the education of their students, they also care for their psychological and emotional well-being. SINAI Schools depends on a tremendous cadre of active community leaders to maintain the unparalleled excellence of their programs. This weekend, at their annual benefit dinner, they will honor eight of these supporters who have dedicated so much of their time and energy to ensuring that all people receive the quality education that they deserve: Moshe and Arianne Weinberger, Teaneck, New Jersey; Mendy and Nomi Schwartz, Teaneck, New Jersey; Jason and Chani Teigman, Englewood, New Jersey; and Peter and Carol Weissman, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. All of these individuals have demonstrated not only a strong commitment to education, but as active participants in their congregations and community groups like their local little leagues and volunteer ambulance corps they have also demonstrated real dedication to their heritage and their community as well. Such commitment is the backbone of our society, and I join the families of the SINAI Schools in commending these individuals this weekend.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the House is considering H. Res. 947 today, congratulating Lee Myung-Bak on his election to the Presidency of the Republic of Korea. I was proud to cosponsor this resolution and I join with my fellow Members in wishing him well during his time of transition this month. When Lee Myung-Bak is inaugurated on February 25, I am confident that he will do much to broaden the longstanding relationship between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America. In the past month, he has already met with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, as well as several members of the President's Cabinet and Members of Congress. President-elect Myung-Bak is well-qualified to assume his new role. He earned a B.A. in Business Administration at the Korea University and later served as a Visiting Scholar at George Washington University here in Washington, DC before being awarded two Honorary Doctor of Economics degrees. Additionally, President-elect Myung-Bak's past professional experience has honed his vital business, diplomatic, and political skills. For 15 years, he was the CEO of 10 Hyundai Group affiliated companies. He then served as a National Assemblyman from 1992 to 1998 before being elected Mayor of Seoul in 2002. I applaud President-elect Myung-Bak for expressing his commitment to free market policies that encourage both foreign and domestic investors. I look forward to the ratification of the United States- South Korea Free Trade Agreement and I welcome his proposed plans to reduce trade restrictions and lower tax rates. Furthermore, as the Republic of South Korea assists in negotiating Pyongyang's denuclearization, I urge the President-elect to closely integrate U.S. and Japanese initiatives related to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Today, I join my colleagues in congratulating President-elect Myung- Bak, and I wish him, his wife and four children success in the years ahead.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, a little over a year ago, on January 19, 2007, Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink was murdered for reporting on the Armenian Genocide. The first anniversary of his death should serve as a reminder of the ongoing need for improvement in Turkish-Armenian relations. Hrant Dink worked as the editor of ``Agos'', a bilingual paper designed to reach both Turks and Armenians. He was an outspoken advocate of democratic change and freedom of speech. While Turkish officials rightly condemned the political killing, Turkey has not yet repealed Article 301 of the Turkish Penal code, which makes it illegal to discuss the Armenian Genocide. This law, which criminalizes free speech, hampers Turkey's efforts to restore their relationship with Armenia, a goal the Turkish government claims to desire. Hrant Dink's death was more than an assassination; it was an attack on the principle of free speech. Turkish officials should use the anniversary of his death as an opportunity to restore open communication between the citizens of both countries. Lasting reconciliation must be built on uninhibited dialogue and Turkey can begin building the road to restoration by recognizing the Armenian Genocide. We remember the legacy of Hrant Dink by encouraging Turkey to tolerate democratic freedoms and rebuild their relationship with Armenia.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to three men who have together given nearly 160 years of service as firefighters in North Jersey. This weekend the Knickerbocker Hook & Ladder Company in Closter, New Jersey will honor these men at their golden anniversary of service. Knickerbocker Hook & Ladder has served the people of Closter since 1893. And, these men have been a part of nearly half of that century of service. Philip Addison first joined the Closter Fire Department in March 1957. He served as Chief in 1970 and as President in 1972. Prosper Buchhart joined the Closter Fire Department shortly after Philip, in December 1957, and has also served as Chief and President. Charles Stewart started with Dumont Fire Company #2 in April 1949 and transferred to the Closter Fire Department 12 years later. Knickerbocker Hook & Ladder was honored in 2001 by the Volunteer Center of Bergen County for the work of its volunteers to keep the people and businesses of Closter safe and secure. These 45 volunteers spend countless hours on call at work, in their homes, or at the firehouse, responding to about 275 calls a year. They also participate in constant training to ensure their skills are always sharp. In addition to giving selflessly of themselves to respond to fires, accidents, and other emergencies, these firefighters also provide fire prevention education to school children and have sponsored an Explorer Boy Scout Troop. Philip Addison, Prosper Buchhart, and Charles Stewart exemplify the service and spirit that has long sustained this volunteer fire department and will sustain in for years to come. Their dedication to the public good is commendable and I join the people of Closter in honoring them as they reach this milestone in service.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I begin by saying thanks to the chairman of the committee for his help in working through this piece of legislation, and also for the ranking member for her working alongside the Chair as to facilitate the moving along of this legislation to the floor today. As the chairman indicates, we had the opportunity to discuss it in committee, which is, I think, and I think he will concur with me, is always the best way to deal with all legislation as opposed to bringing them up later on. It's best to get out there so we can have full and adequate disclosure and discussion on the issues. We were able to do that; we just weren't able to get it through the next hoop. But now we're able to jump through that hoop today, and, again, I appreciate the chairman's work on that. What this is all about, very simply, is this. Back in 1968, that is when NFIP was created, the National Flood Insurance Program, and that was done, as the chairman indicated, way back then three or four decades ago, as I guess more and more people were building homes in places maybe they shouldn't be, along coastal lines and what have you, it was just next to impossible to buy flood insurance. So Congress stepped in and created NFIP, and that allowed folks the opportunity to buy flood insurance for the first time. When they did that, however, they realized that here again we're talking about two sets of houses, those that were already in existence at the time and those that would come afterwards, called pre-FIRM and post-FIRM homes. They thought Congress back then, probably in its wisdom, realized that it wouldn't be right to tell those folks who were already in the floodplains that this new program was going to come along, that they were going to impose upon them a mandate of buying flood insurance when they bought and sold their houses; so what they did was instead to provide a subsidy for those pre-FIRM homes, and that subsidy has existed up until today. Unfortunately, we know that the flood program has had some problems in the last couple of years, most notably because of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. All the money that they have had to borrow to pay out for those huge flood losses, they are now $18 billion in debt. And that's the reason why the committee is now coming back to relook at the flood program, and that's why we have done that. The legislation that the chairman talks about that we have already done I appreciate that we've moved through the House. I am a little bit disappointed, though, in that legislation in one regard, in that it increased the exposure to wind damage in the flood program. But despite that what I call an error in direction on that legislation, the underlying bill did make some substantial improvements to the overlying program. It updated the flood maps, increased the phase-in of actuarial rates on vacation homes and also second homes and on nonresidential properties that have been subsidized by the program since its inception. The one area, though, that was not addressed was these pre-FIRM homes and the fact that the subsidies continue to exist. So to that effort, we have tried to get a compromise between those who said let's not do anything and those who said let's have those pre-FIRM homes immediately put in on the higher rates that would occur without the subsidization. Through the committee efforts, through the work with the ranking member and the chairman, we were able to come through with a compromise. In essence it says this: If you're a pre-FIRM home, your rates will still be subsidized until that home is basically phased in, sold and phased in on the same rate schedule as the underlying bill, and only for those homes that are sold for over $600,000. A movement in the right direction with regard to the subsidization, the problems of the underlying program, and for that reason I think we are moving appropriately, and I look forward to those deliberations that we may have sometime with the Senate on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for managing this hour as Members come to the floor to speak about this extremely important topic. I must begin my remarks by thanking everyone who took part earlier today, all those folks who traveled down here to Washington to participate in the annual Right to Life March from all over the country, in bad bus rides and distant flight delays and bumpy car rides. I am grateful to all the marchers who came from the great State of New Jersey. Particularly, I would like to recognize the students from Pope John High School and also the kids from Veritas Christian Academy located in Sparta, as well as some of the parishioners who came down from Our Lady of Fatima in Vernon, St. Jude's Church in Blairstown, Our Lady of Mount Carmel in Stillwater, and the folks from Lafayette Federated Church from Lafayette. I didn't include everyone, but the list would go on and on with all of the people from the great State of New Jersey, people concerned and taking part to make sure that their voice was heard. Earlier today I had the opportunity, and I would say the honor of speaking to the thousands of marchers who came out. They braved the freezing wind and the rain that was coming on as well. As I had a chance to talk to them, I told them that they, along with Members of Congress, were probably experiencing mixed emotions at the time, similar to the emotions I was experiencing. Think about it, on the one hand, we are immensely encouraged by what we see. We are encouraged that so many people have gathered here in Washington, DC to mark the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. We draw comfort from that fact. We are encouraged that our Nation has not forgotten that tragic death even 35 years later. We are encouraged that we can stand firm in reminding our fellow citizens that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. And most importantly of all, is the right to life. Finally, we are encouraged that in many cases, our efforts have been rewarded. For instance, the number of abortions that are performed annually has actually dropped down back to levels not seen since the 1970s. Still, despite those signs of encouragement, our hearts are still heavy with sadness and that is because we mourn the millions of babies who have been mercilessly killed before they can even take their first single breath. And we grieve for the mothers and fathers who suffer from the emotional pain of having to have gone through an abortion. We lament the fact of a continuing decline of morality, civility, and respect for human dignity and worth. For me and my constituents in New Jersey, I am particularly disheartened by a study that was released just last week that showed that our home State, the so-called Garden State, has the second highest abortion rate in the Nation. It is in moments like these that we must turn our gaze upward and remember the One, the One who created life is also the One who governs the universe. He commands us to ``run and not be weary, to walk and not faint.'' And so today, we ultimately find encouragement in knowing that the battle is not over. The battle is not ours alone, and the might of right is on our side. So we will keep working to increase the number of States that have substantive parental involvement laws, thereby protecting teens from the abortion propaganda. We will continue to prohibit partial-birth abortions and fight that in other States as well. And we will show by example how to value life. Finally, some day I pray that we will experience a January 22 free of these mixed emotions. And instead, we will be able to celebrate a renewed culture of life in this entire Nation. We elected officials come to the floor to remember the weakest among us. Yet I know we will succeed not because of who we are, but because of what Americans all across this great Nation are doing on behalf of life.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a fine public servant, Frank Gurnari, police chief in Bogota, New Jersey. Chief Gurnari has served the people of Bogota for 30 years, exemplifying the honor and pride of the uniform. This weekend, he will be installed as President of the Bergen County Police Chiefs Association, extending his service to other Bergen County residents and to his fellow chiefs. Upon his graduation from the Bergen County Police Academy in June 1978, Chief Gurnari was assigned to the Bogota patrol division. Except for a brief assignment to the Detective Bureau, Chief Gurnari served with the patrol division for nearly twenty years. He attained the rank of sergeant in 1988, and was promoted to lieutenant two years later. As lieutenant, he remained in patrol as a Tour Commander. In June 2000, Chief Gurnari was appointed Acting Chief of Police, and just six months later, he was sworn in as Chief of Police. He and the officers that work under his leadership respond to about 16,000 calls each year. For almost eighty years, the Bergen County Police Chiefs Association has served as a fellowship of officers throughout this busy corner of New Jersey. The camaraderie it fosters helps local police chiefs protect and serve the people of Bergen County and enhances the safety of the county. Chief Gurnari has earned the respect of his peers and by virtue of his long and honorable career of service he has earned this position of leadership. Throughout his honorable career, Chief Gurnari has received two Honorable Service Awards from the Bogota Police Department and the Chiefs Achievement Award from the Bergen County Police Chiefs Association. I commend Chief Gurnari for his lifetime of service and wish him and his colleagues the best for a safe and productive year.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a tremendous public servant, Robert Gabriel Shortal of Harrington Park, NJ. From the time that he, his wife, Jackie, and his children moved to this small Bergen County suburb, the Shortal family has been an integral part of this community, raising money for the public library and founding the Harrington Park Swim Club and more. Bob was born in Kearny, NJ, in 1928. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Bob convinced his father to allow him to enlist at the young age of 16. He served honorably with the Navy, stationed on a destroyer in the Atlantic theater. Upon his discharge, he completed his education, studying journalism at New York University. He worked for United Press International, UPI, first as a copy boy and later as a financial reporter. Dedicated to his profession, Bob joined the Financial Writers Association and became its president in 1958. As his family grew, Bob switched to work in public relations, first at City Service and later at RCA, where he remained until his retirement in 1985. Upon his retirement, Bob threw his talents and energies into community service. He became a certified EMT and became a leader with the Harrington Park Ambulance Corps. He has applied his journalist's skills as editor of the Harrington Park Newsletter. And, he has served his fellow veterans as Commander of American Legion Post 30. Bob is an active member of the Our Lady of Victories Church community and the Knights of Columbus. And, he can often be found working as a school crossing guard. In 1992, Bob was elected to the Borough Council. He has chaired or served on each of its standing committees until his retirement last year. All the while, Bob and Jackie raised a lovely family of four children--John Frances, Mary Judith, Roberta Ann, and Judith Ann. Jackie passed away in 1999, but Bob remains blessed with seven beautiful grandchildren and a lifetime of memories. Bob Shortal epitomizes public service. He has answered the call of his country and his community and given of his talents and time for his neighbors. I join the people of the Borough of Harrington Park in honoring Bob for his dedication and commitment.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Texas. Can the gentleman just remind me of the bill number again?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come back from our break, come here to these hallowed halls to speak on an important subject, and before the gentleman from the other side of the aisle leaves, and I know he is involved in a discussion right now, but before I repeat my remarks, I will reference his closing remarks, which was an outreach for bipartisanship to address the economic situations that the country finds itself in. The gentleman can rest assured that, at least from this gentleman from this side of the aisle, he can find that bipartisanship, because I think when we all go back home to our districts, regardless of the States that we are in, we are hearing the same complaint, outcry, what have you. It may be different in different portions of the country. Certain States are certainly harder hit than others. But I think there is a general perception out there that no matter where you are, the economy is in, let's say something of the doldrums. So this side of the aisle is glad to reach out to the other side of the aisle. I also know that the White House is more than willing to work to address the economic situation that we find ourselves in. That being said, I think that the American public wants to be sure, wants to be sure that whatever solution that we come up with out of this House, the House and the Senate, and the President eventually signs onto, will do something that will create more good than harm, and that will be long lasting and not just short-lived or a flash in the pan. A flash-in-the-pan might be something like we have seen in my very own State. I come from the great State of New Jersey. We do something in our State which is called homestead rebates. Every year around election time, whichever party is in power at that time sends out a homestead rebate check of around $300, $400 or $500. I guess that is supposed to be good for the economy and that sort of thing, but at the end of the day of course that has just de minimis effect on the overall economy, and if you look at the State of New Jersey economy right now, you will know it is not doing well at all. That, coupled with the fact that the State legislature has raised taxes on the people, but corporate taxes, income taxes, sales taxes and the like, we have seen 72,000 flee our State. So we know that we do not want a flash-in-the-pan approach, but instead something that will improve the economy in a better way. That would most likely be something that would allow a permanent return of people's money to their pocketbooks, such as lowering the tax rates, allowing the creation of more jobs and the like. But I digress, because I was just referring to the closing comments to the gentleman on the other side the aisle. Now I would like to turn the attention to what we are here for the next hour to speak about, and that is during the Constitution Hour. As I do that, let me just take an introductory moment to thank the gentleman from Utah who will be speaking shortly. I thank him not only for his usual diligent work as he works earnestly in his capacity as a Member representing his great State as a Member of Congress and all the responsibilities that that takes, I thank him not only for his work that he does in addition to that to try to come up with methodologies to improve the performance of this House, which we are all eager to look forward to and take part and see the work there as well, but in addition to all those responsibilities, he has also taken on the chore and responsibility, and I don't think he looks at it as a chore, to come to the floor once a month as part of the Congressional Constitutional Caucus to address the important philosophical and fundamental issues of the day. So before I begin, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Bishop, for all of his work to his constituents and also to the members of this conference as well. As I say, we are here tonight as we begin another year of our monthly Constitutional Hour. During this second session of the 110th Congress, the members of this caucus will use this opportunity to emphasize for our colleagues and also for the Nation the necessity of ensuring that our government is operating according to the intent of our Founding Fathers and the original intent in the Constitution. As the tenth amendment affirms, as I often speak of on this floor, the authority over most domestic issues belongs to the States, either directly or through their political subdivisions and the people themselves, and not here for this House to be haranguing about. As the one who helped begin this caucus, I have discovered that for many Americans, including unfortunately some of my fellow colleagues, I guess, the Constitution is nothing more than a historical document, not germane to the current hour. Too many citizens do not know what the Constitution says about the governance of this Nation, let alone how to help discern its meaning and therefore apply it to what we do in this conference. Therefore, one of the goals of this caucus is to help educate both the Members of this Congress and also the public as well about the original intent of the Founding Fathers and how some portions of that document got here, and tonight we will be talking about the Bill of Rights. Last month, on that point, we celebrated the 216th anniversary of the ratification of that Bill of Rights. It was on December 15, 1791, our Founding Fathers decided to attach the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. After months of deliberation, they succeeded, I believe, in securing liberties and freedoms that were unimaginable, truly unimaginable, to previous civilizations. Just as an aside, some scholars would perhaps disagree and say that this was seen in other documents such as the Magna Carta and the like, but nothing to the poignancy and the directness as we have in the Bill of Rights was ever seen prior to this documentation. Tonight I join, as I say, with Mr. Bishop and others in focusing on the ratification of this Bill of Rights, and I would like then to begin a discussion of how this document continues then to affect us today. According to Thomas Jefferson, the Bill of Rights was largely the brainchild of one man, George Mason. In fact, Jefferson wrote, ``The fact is unquestionable that the Bill of Rights in the constitution of Virginia,'' which is where he was from, ``were drawn originally by George Mason, one of our greatest men.'' Yet, unfortunately, not many people today have even heard of him. It is for this reason that many have called him the forgotten founder. But most Americans recognize the name from the movie and Cinderella story of 2006, the NCAA tournament, in which the George Mason University Patriots made its way to the final four. But it was George Mason's tremendous contributions and accomplishments himself that have largely gone unrecognized. Mr. Mason established himself as one of the richest planters in colonial Virginia, and, like George Washington, who everyone is familiar with, he preferred to remain at home working on his plantation and spending time with his family. But when duty called, he did not ignore it nor hide from it, and throughout his adulthood, consented to the request of his fellow Virginians and served in various political capacities. He was a Fairfax County justice, a trustee of the City of Alexandria, and a representative in the Virginia House of Burgesses. It was when England enacted the Stamp Act that he wrote a letter to London merchants, who he had often many dealings with, explaining the colonists' position and asking for their support leading to the revolution. One of his greatest accomplishments was his contribution to the Virginia Declaration of Rights. When he became a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, he was one of the five frequent speakers there. Despite all that, he ultimately refused to sign the final version of the Constitution, for two reasons: One, and most importantly to our discussion tonight, he wanted to have a Bill of Rights in that original document to protect individuals against a grasping, overgrowing central government, one which we see today. Secondly, he disagreed with the convention's tacit approval of the institution of slavery. So, because of his stands, he refused to sign the document and he also lost a longtime friendship with George Washington and others. But it was one year before his death Mason was vindicated. That was when the Bill of Rights was finally adopted by all the States. Moreover, much of the adopted language was actually the identical words that he used and crafted in the original Virginia Declaration of Rights. Author George Grant describes Mason as a rationalist who had little faith in the workings of government bodies. He fought passionately for the freedoms of the individual, whether it was a citizen or slave at the time, and he was largely responsible for ensuring that the protection of the rights of the individual would be such an essential part of the American system. That is our responsibility as Members of Congress, to ensure that those rights are continuously protected in the legislation that we deal with on this floor. To show you how much we are indebted to Mason, let me quote a portion of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which I just said he authored. ``All men are born equally free and independent and have certain inherent natural rights, among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.'' Those were his words. They sound very familiar to us all. Mason was also among the first to call for such basic American liberties as freedom of press, religious tolerance and the right to trial by jury. As he understood it, the Bill of Rights would protect citizens, as I say, from encroaching Federal Government, and so his original language then eventually made its way into our current U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. As my colleague will detail, I presume, or talk about, and I will a little bit later on, the Bill of Rights has been in certain cases misinterpreted in certain court cases in the past over the last centuries. In certain instances these errors have allowed the government to seize some of the very freedoms that the Bill of Rights was intended to protect. I will go into those in a little bit dealing with the first amendment and the establishment of religion, an issue that is very poignant today, and also in the first amendment, issues of the court's interpretation of abuse of freedom of speech and the press and how they have changed in the interpretations of recent Supreme Court decisions as to which is more important and paramount, commercial and independent speech. The second amendment, I believe we may have some speakers later on again on very poignant cases that will be coming dealing here with issues right here in the District of Columbia. The fifth amendment, taking clauses again, legislation that this House has dealt with and we will be talking about very briefly later on as well. Right to speedy trial and how what we do here with regard to the criminalization of laws can have an impact on that as well. In closing my remarks right now, the tenth amendment, I believe Ms. Foxx will be on the floor a little bit later on talking about that and how that closes up and compresses or closes the end tail, if you will, of the entire Bill of Rights. So those are some of the elements of it, our discussion tonight. With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Utah. Again, I appreciate your being with us.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I like that idea. CE credits, continuing education credits for Members of Congress. There are two avenues to get people to do something, whatever their professions are. One is the CE way, and the other is just personal pressure. If you are in a profession, you have to be good at your profession to continue to be hired. I guess, in Congress, you have to be good in your profession to continue to be reelected. But the other way, I would suggest to constituents who may hear these remarks tonight, to ask their Member of Congress at the next town hall meeting, at the next town hall meeting when the questions come up just to ask the Members of Congress, ``By the way, when was the last time, if ever, that you have read the U.S. Constitution?'' I know there are a few folks out there like Roscoe Bartlett that carry the Constitution with them. But that would be a good question for the members of the public to ask their Members of Congress. Give them a quiz, ask if they know what any of the 10 amendments are to the Bill of Rights and so on. Going back now to comments by the gentleman from Utah of the foundation or the formulation of the Bill of Rights, and I note the gentleman touched upon this. Part of the reason initially why there was a, I don't know if you want to say a pushback, but not so much of a strong desire, except for folks such as Mason and also what were called the anti-Federalists, a lot of people who talk about the Federalist Society and the Federalists who gave us this and Hamiltonians. But the anti-Federalists were on the other side. Part of the reason why there was a pushback and saying we don't need this was because the original push for creation of the current Constitution came after the Articles of Confederation. And originally, when they set up their, convention is not the right word but in essence that is what it was, to establish a new document, what they were intending to do was simply to create a new document or make amendments to the old Articles of Confederation to grant certain powers to a centralized government. So if their intent was to create or to establish powers for this new centralized government, there was not the mindset to say, well, we also at the same time need to set out for what the powers or rights of the individuals are; because that is taken as a given, that it is the people who have the rights and the powers, and we are just simply granting some of those rights or powers to the Federal Government to be able to better administer the commerce and trade and so on and so forth that the Articles was incompetent of doing. So I think that was part of the discussion that was going on: If we are simply giving certain rights over here to a central government, we really don't need to establish it. The anti-Federalists realized, however, that there was a need for it; that without establishing the paramount power of the individual and also the state, that this centralized government could consume the States. And that is exactly what Mason was talking about when he set forth his objections to it. It was, as I said before, I believe in September of 1787, it was during the final days of the Constitutional Convention that George Mason wrote the reasons for his refusal to sign the Constitution. He did it, interestingly enough, on the back of a committee of style report. Since we have committee reports up here, he simply wrote them all down. Copies of those, manuscript copies of that document were then circulated, and Mason sent copies to various individuals, including George Washington, a long-time friend of his. Washington, though, was on the other side of this issue. So, on November 22, the objections were printed in the Virginia Journal. Interestingly, again, it was done at the behest of Washington's secretary, and the reason they were printing them out publicly like this was so that Washington could publicly refute them. Those original documents are still with us today. They are in the Chapin Library in Williams College. The preamble of his objections read: ``There is no declaration of rights, and the laws of the general government being paramount to the laws and constitution of the several States, the declarations of rights in the separate States are no security, nor are the people secure even in the enjoyment of the benefits of the common law.'' So Mason is simply saying here that I may live in a State, and my State may provide certain rights, but if the Federal Government's rights or powers are paramount to my own State's rights, the Federal Government can step in and take away any rights that my State constitution guarantees me, and I would lose those rights and privileges that are God given. Now, a lot of this discussion by people listening is: How does this affect me? This is a lot of philosophical talking. Well, it isn't really. Day after day, as the gentleman from Utah mentioned before, we pass bill after bill, and some are signed into law. Some are perfunctory, naming of a school or post office, but others are profoundly important upon our daily lives. Do I have to remind the public about the PATRIOT Act and the discussion that entailed there? Later on I believe we will be discussing the FISA Court's issues and the powers; again, the issues of the powers of the various branches of the government and how they impact upon our individual liberties. These are all fundamental questions that come back to not powers created in the House or Senate or the executive, but rights or powers that we see in the documents, the Constitution of the United States. It is germane that we bring these things up this year, 2008, a Presidential election year. Most of the candidates are speaking about change. Either side of the party is talking about change. But the fundamental question that the voter has to ask: Is the change that they are espousing and bringing about founded on any constitutional principles or are they simply giving us change for change's sake and change that does not have any constitutional powers or rights given to the Federal Government? I see we have been joined by the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), and if she would like to speak now, I appreciate her participation.