Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4118, a bill that will exclude from gross income, payments received by the grieving families and victims of the tragic Virginia Tech massacre from the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund. Madam Speaker, April 16, 2007 is a day that will forever be seared into the collective memory of the American people as a day of terror, tragedy, loss, and mourning. It was a day when we were reminded of the frailty of life; and a day when we were reminded how much we, as a Nation, value the sanctity and freedom of our schools, colleges, and universities. For on that day, we learned that because of the murderous intentions of one person, the lives of 32 students and faculty members at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University had been snuffed out. One of the victims of this tragedy, Matthew La Porte, was a 20-year-old student from Dumont, New Jersey, and a constituent of mine. In the aftermath of this tragedy, and in response to the generosity of people across the country, Virginia Tech founded the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund. Many donors contributed to this fund in memory of the victims of the massacre, and in support of those who survived it. Today, the fund has received contributions of over $7 million. And while no amount of money can ever replace the loss of a loved one, this legislation will ensure that all of the victims, families of victims, and survivors of this tragedy receive payments from this fund without interference from the Internal Revenue Service. Madam Speaker, it is during times of great tragedy that the kindness and generosity of the American people is most apparent. It is in that spirit of generosity, and in the memory of all the victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, that I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 4118.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the citizens who have spent the last 2\1/2\ years working to keep the people of Sussex County safe from methamphetamines as part of the Sussex County Meth Task Force. My staff and I have had the honor of working with these committed individuals over the years and have borne witness to the gusto with which they have performed their work. Only a few years ago, as local meth labs were busted and drug use seemed to be on the rise, the people of Sussex County did not stand idly by. Instead, they formed this task force and set to training local law enforcement, informing citizens, and quite literally taking back their streets. They have trained more than 700 volunteer firefighters and others. They have distributed informative ``meth packets'' to over 165 local retailers. They have worked with local educators and organizations to raise public awareness of the scourge of meth. The results have been impressive and local law enforcement now feel confident that methamphetamines have not been able to establish a foothold in Sussex County, New Jersey. And so they are disbanding their formal group and spreading the word to show others how they've been so successful, including in a presentation at the statewide League of Municipalities conference earlier this week. Many, many individuals deserve credit for the good work of the Task Force. Tom Davis, the Sussex County Fire Marshal, has served as Task Force Chairperson, shepherding the group through its several goals. Tom Cooney, of the Sussex County Narcotics Task Force, has helped to train hundreds of first responders and others. Dan Coronato has helped to put the Sussex County Task Force in touch with others who can benefit from their model. And Becky Carlson, Barbara Adolphe, Meg Samuel-Siegel, and Jane Butz have been the glue holding them all together, serving as a constant source of information and direction. I commend the members of the Sussex County Meth Task Force for their extraordinary service to their community and I look forward to continuing to work with them all to keep our streets safe and our schools and neighborhoods drug-free.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend Mary Orr, Principal at Abraham Lincoln Elementary School in Wyckoff, New Jersey, for her extraordinary commitment to high standards of education excellence. Mary Orr has taken learning to a new level, integrating fresh technology, new education tools, and incredible enthusiasm into the approach at Abraham Lincoln. She mixes theory-driven number-crunching with a very personal touch at her school, encouraging teachers to find new and creative ways to help their students ``learn to be learners.'' Mary Orr has developed her own method for using spreadsheets to chart test scores and provide teachers with easy-to-follow graphs on their classroom achievements. She also encourages her teachers to use technology to give students new ways to access information and develop a real love of learning. An educator in Wyckoff since 1969, Mary Orr is being honored now as New Jersey's Distinguished Principal by the U.S. Department of Education and National Association of Elementary School Principals. She has long been eligible to retire, but she continues to give her all to the students, teachers, and parents of Abraham Lincoln Elementary School. In fact, she continues to pursue enhancement of her own already- impressive professional credentials. She has already earned a master's degree in language arts and a doctorate in education administration, yet Mary Orr is pursuing a second master's in educational technology. And, all the while, she also remains an active part of the community, spending time with the local Rotary Club and earning the 2004 Wyckoff Family YMCA's First Annual William E. Boye Jr. Humanitarian Award. From her enthusiastic spirit to her detail-driven approach, Mary Orr has made Abraham Lincoln Elementary School a model for all to emulate. I commend her on her good work there.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Colonel John Rosenkrans Chapter of the New Jersey Society of Sons of the American Revolution. The Society strives to preserve and share the rich heritage of our Nation's birth for the generations. Its many chapters, dotted throughout our Nation, keep the spirit of the American revolution alive and help to spark the same love of country and principle that led our forefathers to give birth to our Constitution and our Nation. New Jersey, often known as ``Crossroads of the Revolution,'' has a long and proud history and played a pivotal role in our nascent Nation's victory in the Revolutionary War. The New Jersey Journal, published in Chatham, was a major catalyst for the Revolution. The Continental Congress met in Nassau Hall at Princeton University. One of the most famous women of the Revolution, Molly Pitcher, was a legend born of New Jersey battles. And, this fine state was the third to ratify the Constitution and the first to ratify the Bill of Rights. Then, of course, there is Washington's crossing of the Delaware River, the Battles of Trenton and Princeton, the Battle of Monmouth, and more. These are all part of the American psyche and history. Colonel John Rosenkrans has been described as ``perhaps the most outstanding Revolutionary patriot of Sussex County.'' The compatriots of this chapter of the New Jersey Society of Sons of the American Revolution have made it their duty to share his stories and those of the Colonel's heroic contemporaries. They play an important part in keeping our Nation's feet firmly planted in our proud past as we reach ever higher into the future. This weekend, they will celebrate their 50th anniversary, and I commend them for their good work.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that this amendment is supported by the Mortgage Bankers Association, the American Financial Services Association, and Financial Services Roundtable. I believe they do that because they realize when a bill sets up the language of presumption of ability to repay and net tangible benefits, as it has done on line 1, page 52, and then defines that as a safe harbor, with the one hand, but then immediately takes it away with the other hand by saying that you can still go into court after the lender has met all the requirements as we defined as what is an ability to repay and tangible benefits, we are creating more uncertainty in the market, as the gentleman from Louisiana indicated, one that will hurt the overall economy and the ability to secure loans. I ask for a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman misstates the case when he says you can never get into court. You can get into court when these five different criteria are not met. But when these five criteria are met, you have a safe harbor. That is the language of the bill. What is a safe harbor for, if not for giving protection to those who are meeting the requirements. With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker).

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Before I begin, let me just recognize and appreciate the work by the ranking member of the committee with regard to this overall underlying piece of legislation for his work to try to improve the legislation. I believe his actions have been done in view of his constituents and their concerns with the primary lending market as we see it today. Getting to the amendment that is before us, Mr. Chairman, the amendment would simply strike the rebuttable presumption paragraph under section 203 of the manager's amendment text. As currently drafted, section 203 of the bill specifically lists several criteria that lenders must meet when they originate a loan and that loan to be considered a qualified safe harbor mortgage. Qualified safe harbor mortgages are loans that: one, document consumer income; two, an underwriting process based on fully indexed rate; three, a debt-to- income ratio not greater than 50 percent; four, no negative amortization; and five, six payments for at least 7 years an adjustable rate loan with an APR that varies less than 3 percent over indexed rate. Now after meeting this prescriptive list of requirements, the loan can be considered a qualified safe harbor mortgage. It is presumed that the mortgage is an appropriate loan. However, section 203 also contains a provision that, even when all these provisions are met, would allow a borrower to rebut this presumption in a court of law and claim that the creditor has made a loan to them in bad faith anyway. You see, by allowing lenders to still be held legally liable for a loan even after all these conditions have been met, we are creating even more uncertainty for loan originators. This will in turn lead to further tightening of the credit market and keep more people from getting loans. Mr. Chairman, if a creditor goes through all these requirements as listed, I do not believe that they should still have to worry about being held legally liable if the borrower cannot make their payments. Such a provision undermines the very nature of a safe harbor vision. It undermines the presumption of good faith that the law itself establishes. How can we on one hand tell the lender that they are providing them with a safe harbor from suit and then turn right around and say that safe harbor can be rebutted? I am afraid this will, at the very least, raise the cost of loans, at the worst, keep the loans from being made at all. Mr. Chairman, I ask you to help the providers, lenders make some sense of the legal clarity and to make this a safe harbor, a true safe harbor. I would ask every Member to support this important amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the Braen family for its tremendous service to its community. Currently in its fifth generation of family management of its quarry and construction business, the Braen family has long typified the ``good neighbor.'' In addition to the commitment that the individual members of the Braen family pursue in charity work and community service, the company has initiated a program to promote volunteerism with its own employees. Their efforts have not gone unnoticed. And, tonight, the Braen family and the Braen family of companies--Stone Industries, Inc.; Van Orden Sand & Gravel; Braen Supply, Inc.; and Braen Aggregates, LLC--will be honored by the Northern New Jersey Council of the Boy Scouts of America for exemplifying that high standard. The Braen family also dedicates itself to community-friendly business practices that not only add to the value of the local economy but also to the quality of life Braen employees, customers, and others enjoy. They have always strived to meet environmental standards long before the standards are in place, thinking first of the health, welfare, and comfort of their employees and neighbors first. They have been honored for their good work, including as New Jersey Family Business of the Year. So, tonight, as the Boy Scouts honor the Braen family for the support they have shown Scouts and Scouting, I rise to share in their tribute and to thank the Braen family for its contribution to making north Jersey such a fine place to live, work, and raise a family.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, earlier we heard from the other side of the aisle that President Kennedy once said: ``To govern is to choose.'' Well, so it is, and we have seen how the Democrat majority of this House has decided to choose when it comes to the issue of tax and spend. They always choose tax. In the very opening comments from the Democrat chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, he said that one of the options they could have considered was cutting spending in the United States Government for once, but they immediately dismissed that, saying that that was simply politically undoable for the Democrat Caucus. So instead what they do they do? They raise taxes. Their proposal, they say, is to tax the rich. But really what they are saying is try to rob Peter to pay Paul and then go and try to convince Paul that Peter is paying and convince Peter that Paul is paying. But the American taxpayer knows that all of middle-class America will be paying for this tax increase. This tax increase, a $76 billion tax increase over 10 years, follows a litany of other tax increases. I was on the floor last night and I went through about a dozen Democrat bills which, combined, totaled about $110 billion in tax increases on top of the largest tax increase in their budget. Vote ``no'' on this.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I appreciate that and thank the gentleman from Texas for your work on this issue. I also commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania because I know he has been championing this issue and cause for a number of years. And I believe during his remarks he mentioned the piece of legislation he has had in this House for some time as well. In his usual, understated way, the gentleman from Pennsylvania ended his remarks by saying this will begin a philosophical discussion, and the gentleman from Texas picked up on that as well. Indeed it is a great philosophical discussion to point out the disparity between the two parties. The Democrat Party, which is now in control of the House and the Senate, we can see from their actions during the past 11 months that they have been in control that families should be compelled to keep their house in order but Congress does not have to be forced to live within its means. They do that every time they come to the floor with another tax increase, which we will see shortly when their AMT bill comes, that Congress does not have to live within their means. The focus should be, instead, on the family budget, as we have always said on this floor in the past. Before I came to the floor, I want to do a little aside, I was reading this current issue of Human Events, the week of November 5. It is a front-page story by Andrew Boylan: ``Rangel tax reform riddled with tax hikes.'' He has an expression in here, and I think it points out what Charlie Rangel and the Democrat majority are trying to do in the House. It says, ``Chairman Rangel's plan isn't just robbing Peter to pay Paul; it is robbing Peter and Paul while convincing both of them that the other guy is the one paying the higher taxes.'' That really puts it in a nutshell. What you will hear from the other side of the aisle when they begin to explain this is no, we are just trying to set things straight. We are just trying to rectify a problem from the old AMT. But at the same time they really, in reality, are shifting it. No, they are robbing from all of us, the entire American population, and they will be trying to convince all of us through the spin and the rhetoric that we hear that the other guy is paying it. That is not the case at all. You know, the word ``AMT,'' for those who don't follow this issue very closely, has a good name, alternative minimum tax. At first blush that sounds like something that you would want to pay instead of what you are currently paying. ``Alternative'' makes it sound like it is voluntary. ``Minimum''; I, too, would like to pay the minimum amount of taxes. But those words are deceiving just as the Democrat plan is deceiving. It is not alternative in the sense that it is voluntary. It is mandatory. You are compelled to pay the higher of the tax. And it is not minimum in any sense of the word. It is a maximum tax. That will be exactly what we get when the Democrats give us Charlie Rangel's bill of an alternative minimum tax fix. Now the gentleman from Pennsylvania talked about a piece of legislation that he has worked on, which I have cosponsored as well, that tries to address this by simply repealing the entire AMT. It repeals the entire alternative minimum tax so that citizens of this country will not have to pay that higher tax. I've cosponsored that legislation, and I support it, but let me just digress for 30 seconds here and just say that I also have sponsored a piece of legislation to address the AMT in this session of Congress. It does not go so far as to totally repeal the bill, but what it does is to try to do, let's say, a compromise measure, if you will, if we can't get that far because the other side of the aisle will not go so far as to giving American taxpayers that total relief. And what it does is it meets it halfway. From my perspective, it gets halfway and says let's put a COLA in that bill, a cost of living adjustment into it, so that the AMT could do what it was actually intended to do several decades ago, target those very, very, very, very few. Back then, there were was only 150 of those taxpayers out of 200 million people, those taxpayers who were not paying any taxes, and put a COLA into it so that it would be just adjusted just as the rest of the tax breaks. So when your income goes up each year due to inflation and what have you, you would not find yourself falling into it. So if the Democrats can't go so far as some of us, as Congressman English and others of us believe that we would like to see here, and that is to totally repeal, take away that burden on all American taxpayers, I would hope that they would see instead some sense to reaching halfway at the very least and saying let's make sure that it does not swallow up so many of the individuals in this country. If we don't do anything shortly, 22 million Americans will see their taxes go up dramatically. Now, I come to the floor, as the gentleman from Texas says, from the great State of New Jersey, and I speak with some experience as to the fact that sometimes the other side of the aisle, both on a Federal level and on a State level, will try to deceive us on some of these things as to who they're really going after. Here, if you read and listen to the rhetoric from the Democrats on this issue, they're saying, well, we're just trying to go after the rich people in this country. In New Jersey, a few years ago, there was Governor McGreevey at the time. They said the same thing. They said we're going to go with a millionaire's tax, and of course, the average citizen said, hey, that's fine, they're not coming after me; they're going after the other guy; in effect robbing Peter to pay Paul and convince them it's the other taxpayer that's going to pay the bill. But you know what happened there. That millionaire's tax in New Jersey started at $1 million, and then suddenly it went down to $900,000, then $800,000, $700,000, and it kept on going down lower and lower and lower until eventually it covered just about everybody. Anybody who had a household where the husband and wife worked, you had a husband maybe a policeman and the wife might be a school teacher or a nurse or something like that, they became covered by that so-called millionaire tax in New Jersey. It was the so-called tax that started out as a rifle shot at just a select few and instead turned into a shotgun approach and encompassed everyone. Same thing that's happening right here with the AMT so-called relief that we're getting from the Democrats, so-called going after the millionaires; but it's going to cover all of us with higher taxes. When I say higher taxes, one of the things I say on the floor just about every time I come to the floor, I say this. We are now in November, the eleventh month of the year, which means we're on the eleventh of Democrat control of this House, and we should always ask ourselves, what has 11 months of control by the Democrats wrought for this House and the country. It has initially brought us the largest tax increase in U.S. history. It has brought us the creation of slush funds in the various appropriation and budget bills that they gave us at the beginning of the year, and it has gotten rid of any hint of transparency in the earmark rules of this House, some things that they campaigned on. The issue of tax increases continues here tonight, and if I have just another minute, they gave us the largest tax increase initially when they gave us the budget at the very beginning of the year. Since that time, in just about every piece of major legislation that the Democrats have brought before this House, you have seen a tax increase. In bills that you would never even imagine would have tax increases, they have it. And let me just take a moment just to run through a list, and I don't have a chart to put up behind me so I'll have to give it to you this way. The CLEAN Energy Act, we're all in favor of clean energy, I suppose, but it includes a $7.7 billion tax increase over 10 years. The Small Business and Work Opportunity Tax Act, $1.38 billion. Katrina Housing Tax Relief, tax relief, it sounds as though they're giving us tax relief. No, it's raising taxes by $241 million. Taxpayer Protection Act, $23 million increase. To amend the Internal Revenue Code, well, we all want to do that, but who knows. When they did it, they raised taxes by $14 million. U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act. Gosh, by the name of that, they're all great things, U.S. troop readiness, Katrina recovery, but you know what, they tucked in a tax increase there. How much? $4.4 billion. Second bill, same name, H.R. 2206, $4.8 billion. The Andean Trade Preferences Act, $105 million tax increase. Farm Nutrition and Bioenergy Act, $7.4 billion Democrat tax increase. The Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act, get this one, $54.8 billion Democrat tax increase. Just three more. The Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Act, what does that have to do with taxes? Well, for the Democrats, it's $15 billion in tax increases. The Airport and Airway Trust Fund Financing Act, trying to make our airports better. Well, how do they do it? They do it by raising our taxes by $1.8 billion. And, finally, the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act. Who could be against mortgage forgiveness and debt relief? Well, the debt is going to be on our shoulders because they're raising taxes by $2.005 billion. You add up that whole list, and this is even before we come to the bill that's before us tomorrow, that comes to $106 billion tax increase over 10 years, on top of the largest tax increase as I mentioned in the budget at the beginning of the year. Let me just conclude. I see our time is coming down. These numbers are for me, and I think most Americans, hard to put your arms around when you are talking about such high tax increases. The bottom line, though, is put them in large absolute numbers when you're talking about $106 billion or the $70 billion in permanent tax increases as the gentleman talked about, or as a Member from the other side of the aisle admitted, 130 percent tax increase, whether it's percentages or absolute numbers, put them down in day-to-day numbers. It's around $2,400 on the largest tax increase to the average American household that you will be seeing. The question we have to ask is the one I started with and the one that the gentleman from Pennsylvania ended with. It's a philosophical discussion. Are we going to put the focus on the American budget or the family budget? I suggest, and this side of the aisle suggests, the focus should be on the American family's budget to allow the American taxpayer to keep as much of his money as possible and not see another tax increase on that family budget.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I appreciate that, and just a couple of them, Addressing America's Health Care Challenge, with that and what you've talked about here, as I put the expression, you step back for a moment and look at the bigger picture, which is what I'm going to talk about in a moment. So I think this is a good one. Another one is the cure to the physician crisis, and I'm not going to get into it here. This article gets into it pretty well to say, you can do all that you want to do when it comes to the issue of health insurance, but if we don't have enough docs out there such as yourself and other docs out there, physicians that are out there taking care of the patients, it's not going to mean anything. When I'm back in my district and I tour my hospitals, what is one of the first complaints or concerns that I have, and I bet it's the first complaints and concerns that you hear from your hospitals, is a shortage of nurses. And whether it's long-term care facilities, hospitals or clinics, they say we just can't get enough visiting nurses, we just can't get enough trained nurses as well. If we don't get that aspect of the problem solved, everything else that you and I and the rest of Congress talks here tonight and in the future will mean nothing because we're not getting the providers to the patients. So, again, I just wanted to start where I should probably end, and I think I will in a little bit, thank you for your work in this area. Where you left off and some of the points you were touching about goes along this line, and that is, that you have to look at some of the bigger picture. In my office, I was looking at some data, and one of them is on data from the World Health Organization, and I think this is interesting. Again, regardless of what we do on health insurance and regardless of what we do in the government, whether it's in the Federal level, the State level or anything else, here's what they tell us. Here's what the World Health Organization tells us. That if Americans, and I guess the world community as well, but Americans in particular, would address three areas, smoking, eating disorders and eating, what your diet is, and exercise, if you address those in a logical coherent manner, presumably after consultation with your physician, 80 percent, an amazing number when I read it, 80 percent of Type 2 diabetes could be addressed and resolved. Eighty percent of heart disease could be resolved. Forty percent of cancer issues could be resolved. Nothing about buying insurance. Nothing about spending more money. Matter of fact, you'd probably end up spending less money if you ate right and didn't go to McDonald's as much as I do. Those three areas. The one on diabetes, I just had the opportunity in the last week to 10 days to have folks from that organization come and speak to me back in the district, and they pointed out a statistic. Approximately a little less than one-third of the dollars that we spend on Medicare goes to diabetes or diabetes-related injuries or other illnesses that are related to it. So can you imagine, if we were able to resolve that issue, how we would be able to address our health care costs in this country. Costs being one factor, but obviously, the bigger factor is improving the quality of life. So you're right on the target when you say how do we improve the health quality of individuals in this country first and foremost; and secondly, how do you do that through a proper physician relationship. As I come to the floor this night, and I always make reference to this mark, here we are in November, the 11th month of the year, and we have to ask ourselves what has now under the new Democrat leadership wrought when it comes to the issue of health care in this country. Somebody else pointed out some numbers to me the other day. I think it was this past week. So far the ledger is 106 bills have made its way to the President's desk. Forty-six of those bills have been to do with the naming of post offices and Federal buildings. Forty-four just have to do with Special Orders and special days and the like. That's almost two-thirds. Ninety bills out of 106 of no real major significance, and here we are at the floor tonight I think addressing something that is of major significance, second perhaps only to what our colleague Tim Walberg and others were talking about as far as their faith issues, and that is the quality of life and the health of the citizens. This, though, is not a new issue. President Clinton, when he was President of the United States, said that he had an answer to this problem, and it goes in a totally different direction that you were addressing before. His solution was larger Federal Government intrusions into this part of the economy. It's approximately what, one- fifth of the overall spending of the GDP on health care. He wanted it to be even larger and more of a centralized control, government- controlled health care, if you will, socialized health care. And he told us back at that time how he intended to bring this country, that he realized after Hillary's failure to address the issue through her secretive meetings that we heard about later on, he said how can we get there. He said we can get there through a centralized, government-run health care system incrementally. First, we'll insure and control the health care for indigent children, then all children and for indigent adults, and then for all adults. So all of us eventually will come under the control of the Federal Government. That means we were basically putting that very personal, that you referred to before, and you know as well from the doctor side, we all know from the patient side, the placing of doctor-patient relationship under the control of the Federal Government, bureaucrats, faceless, nameless, maybe very nice people and well-intended, but bureaucrats. I scratch my head to think when people actually advocate such a government control. This is the same Federal Government that we saw handle the Katrina situation and FEMA terribly, loss of life, loss of homes and what have you, that Federal Government. This is the same Federal Government during this past summer when families were trying to go on vacation and asked the Federal Government to do one of its basic functions, issue visas so families could go on family vacations. The government couldn't get the visas out the door. This is the same Federal Government that to this day we're still arguing and debating on this floor how do we close and secure our country's borders so that illegals and terrorists and drug traffickers can't come into this country. That same Federal Government can't control this, but they want to control our health care delivery system. So he told us how he was going to do it, and one of the charts up that you have, I have a variation of it, but if I could just ask the gentleman from Texas to put that one chart back up with regard to the coverage. It tells us how he was going to do it, and they're now trying to do it through SCHIP. By very definition, a middle-class entitlement means that you are going to be providing an entitlement, in this case, health care, for people who are making over or at the middle-class level of income and above. Well, we know that the poverty level is, for a family of four is around $42,000. I'm not sure if that's showing that on that chart, for a family of four is around $42,000. We also know that the median or the middle range of income in this country, again for a family of four in this country, is around $48,000. So, by definition, if you're going to be providing a benefit to people over that level, over $48,000, then you're providing a middle- class entitlement. It's no longer talking about poor children first. I know there was another chart, benefits should go to poor children first. We're no longer talking about the indigent. We're now talking about just about everyone. A family of four making over 300 percent makes around $62,000. So by definition we're saying, under the proposal that came before the House with regard to SCHIP, we want to provide benefits to a larger group of people, to a middle-class entitlement. And who is going to pay for that is the next question that should come to mind. Well, the plan that is in place to pay for those various ranges, and without my far glasses it's hard to see them, says that that is going to come out of various sources, but one of the biggest sources will be smokers. And the interesting thing about this is that in order to get enough money to provide for that level of coverage, not just for the indigent anymore, but people above the 200 level of poverty, 300. As you know, in the State of New York they tried to go up to the 400 level of poverty, which means around $84,000 a year. In order to do that, they will have to look to smokers, which is fine on the one hand until you get into the weeds a little bit on this issue. And the Heritage Foundation did a little bit of study and said how many people do we have to actually have start smoking in this country in order to come up with that money, and they found out at the end of the day that we will actually be looking to find 22,000 more smokers in this country in order to fund this program. Now, you are a physician and you could probably speak ad nauseam that smoking is harmful for your health, and actually it's most harmful probably for little kids more than anybody else. But in order to fund this program for the indigent poor and also for a middle-class entitlement, a government-controlled health care system, they will be looking to say we need 22,000 more children in this country in order to start smoking tomorrow so that we will have funding for this program down the road for the next few years. It's an absurd situation, and it's even a little more absurd when you think about who actually does smoke in this country. This is a little bit of a sad situation. Lower income individuals smoke to a higher percentage than upper income individuals. And in fact, if you look at the numbers, it's something like this. People who make under $10,000 a year, so very low-income people, pay twice as much in taxes from smoking than people who make over $50,000 a year. So what are we really saying? We're saying that we need 22,000 more kids to start smoking to pay for this program. And who are those people that are actually going to pay for it? The lowest of the low-income people who are smoking are going to pay the biggest percentage of their income towards this program. It's an absurd situation to fund it, and it goes back then to the final point, and I'll close and I'll yield back to the gentleman, as I think our time is coming to a close. It's an absurd funding formula to come up with for a government-run program. And unfortunately for the advocates of the program, the money runs out. The money runs out. You see on our little chart here, starting, if this program, as proposed by the other side of the aisle, Democrat side of the aisle, it would start in 2008, and there's little kids being encouraged to sign up. Indigent children are being encouraged to sign up for this program. I notice this picture does not have the children smoking. So, to be actually correct, we should have the children smoking, because they're encouraging them to smoke in order to pay for this program, but it would only last for 5 years. Then, after the 5 years, the funding is cut off almost entirely, 80 percent. That's why we have the chart go demographically down, and the kids are left hanging, in this case parachuting. Why this is bad is twofold. One is because we're leading people to believe that we're actually setting up a program that's going to be paid for perpetually for the children. And two, who is this child that's now left jumping off of this cliff here? As your previous chart showed, he may very well have been a child who was already covered by your insurance. And your chart shows 55, 75, 80, 90 percent of the children had insurance prior to this program coming along, but now they were encouraged to join into this program and go into it, give up their prepaid plans under their father's programs, mother's programs, company plans, what have you. Five years from now under this program, it's designed to fail. They will jump off. They will not have anymore government program, and they also will no longer have any private insurance. So we are setting up a system, encouraging kids to smoke in order to pay for it, and leading them to have to basically fall off the cliff in 5 years without having any health insurance at all. At the end of the day, and I'll close on this, I commend the gentleman for leading us to look at this issue from a larger perspective, to ask a basic question. It's not so much about health insurance; it's about health care. And it's not so much of whether you have the coverage to provide you with insurance; it's whether or not you're actually going to have a doctor or a nurse out there to provide those services for you. And it's not so much as whether the government is supposedly going to do it, because we know at the end of the day they can't, by the numbers; it's whether or not at the end of the day we can come up with something to actually make sure that the patient is in control with his doctor of the delivery system and that it's the best care in order to provide the services to them, and at the end of the day the quality of life of those individuals as well. I commend the gentleman from Texas for bringing this to the American public's attention tonight, and I look forward to reading more of his material, as well both on-line and in person.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. I thank the gentleman also for bringing this issue once again to the floor. I was in my office earlier this evening when you began your remarks, and I have heard you on the floor on numerous occasions speaking to medical topics. We appreciate very much your background, the expertise that you bring. And on that point, I should just say that on my 3-hour trip from New Jersey traveling on good, old reliable, semi-reliable, slow Amtrak, I had the opportunity to read a number of your articles that you have written. I would commend anyone who is listening to us here tonight. I should ask the gentleman, is much of this material I read, one a position paper, another is called Addressing America's Health Care Challenge: A Solution, are these articles by any chance up on your Web site? Can I commend the audience here that listens to us tonight to go to your Web site and look to find these things?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. You make a perfect point. Again, it goes to what we were saying before. It doesn't matter whether you have insurance or not. It matters whether or not there is actually a doctor who will be there to take the insurance. How many individuals that you know, senior citizens that you know right now that are Medicare or Medicaid, and they went out to find a doctor to treat them for their ailment, and they found out there are no longer doctors in their community who are taking Medicare or Medicaid patients. They had all the great socialized programs, coverage, that they needed. They just didn't have any doctors who would pick it up. You are explaining the same thing very eloquently. The same thing will happen to these poor indigent children. We lead them down the road to believe that they actually are going to have coverage now, that think that there is going to be a doctor there to take care of them. If their reimbursement rates are anything like they are for Medicaid, there may not be a doctor there to deliver the services.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for heading this program tonight to bring about the Truth Squad, which when I'm not here on the floor, I'm in my office turning on C-SPAN to make sure that I can find out the latest of what the actual facts are, because we can't always be assured that we hear them correctly from the other side of the aisle. Actually, that's where I want to begin on this one. I was tuning in as I was doing some work at my desk for the last 10 or so minutes of the other side of the aisle, and I was a little bit amused by their closing comment. They seem to be chagrinned by the fact that they don't have the opportunity to get the message out, if you were listening to them, that the President seems to be able to have the bully pulpit and be able to get the record straight out to the American public, and they don't. I had to scratch my head at that time because I thought, well, gee, doesn't the Democrat Party now control both this House, isn't Nancy Pelosi now the Speaker of this House? Isn't Harry Reid now the lead in the Senate as well? I thought the Democrat Party was the majority party. And I know that every time that I leave this Chamber during the day there are microphones out there waiting for speakers to speak. And they're not coming to me to ask for comments; they are looking to the Democrat majority. So I think they were a little bit flippant or disingenuous, if you will, when they're saying that they're not able to get the message out. I think what they are really saying, though, is the message that is getting out is not a truthful message, and some of the points that you've already made. And if I may just touch upon a point or two here. If you go back in time a little bit to when President Clinton was in office, he laid out the groundwork of what his vision was for health care in this country. He told us where he would like to take this country and maybe where his wife would also like to take this country when it comes to health care. And he said that he wanted government-run healthcare. He wanted universal, socialized, Washington-controlled health care. And how would you get there, he said? Well, he laid it out in plans; he put it out in a book, almost, for us. He said, you get there not overnight, although I guess Hillary Clinton tried to do that, but he said, no, you get there incrementally. First what you do is you insure the indigent children, then you will insure all the children, and eventually you will insure all the adults as well. And what does that bring you to? Well, that's socialized, government-run and controlled health care. Now, that may be something that he would like and maybe a small segment of this country would like, but when I go back to my constituents, they remind me that Washington government may not be the most effective and efficient entity in the entire world of delivering services. They remind me of what happened back when Katrina occurred and we had FEMA step in to try to deliver services, and it was abysmal. They remind me continuously, regardless of which party is in control, earmarks, and we can talk about that ad nauseum later on probably, about the waste, fraud and abuse when it comes to spending their hard-earned dollars on earmarks. They remind me, also, some of them who were trying to leave this country during this past summer for a summertime vacation and they found out that they needed to get a visa in order to do so. And they could not get their visa even though they put in their request one, week, two weeks, three weeks, eight weeks, nine weeks in advance. A very basic function of the U.S. government to supply visas to people, and they couldn't get them on time. They remind me that the government couldn't even do one of their basic functions. They remind me, finally, when it comes to what is one of the most seminal issues when it comes to any government, and that is to protect your borders, and they say, you know, Congress, here under this majority, can't even get that issue resolved and done. We can't get the money to the border security guards. We can't get that fence built along there. If the government can't do those functions, they ask me, why in the world do we want to turn over our control, life-and-death situations, really, and you're a physician, you know this, to an entity that can't run the functions that they're doing right now. They tell me, the American public, my constituents tell me that they want to make sure that health care remains in their hands, that health care remains as a private matter in the sense of a doctor-patient relationship. Maybe you want to comment on that at some point, where they're in control of the delivery, of the questions and the asking and what have you and the needs for the services, and the doctor is in control of the services that are being provided. They don't want big brother, if you will, stepping in and saying, well, no, we're going to exclude you, include you and what have you. So they are very hesitant to go down the direction that Bill Clinton wanted this country to go down and now this Democrat majority wants us to go down as well. And if the gentleman would continue to yield.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. The very definition of a middle-class entitlement, which, as Bill Clinton would say, is the next step to go to socialized, government-run health care, well, the very definition of a middle-class entitlement can be seen in what the Democrats are trying to do right now with SCHIP. Look at the numbers. And I know I don't have a chart behind me like you do to have these numbers right next to me, but let's think of these basic numbers. Right now the SCHIP program, as originally intended, was to fund indigent care for children, at what level? Two hundred percent of poverty. Ballpark figure, that's around $42,000 for a family of four; that's what is defined as poverty for that family. The medium income, that's the middle income in this country, for a family of four all across this country on average is about $48,000. So, $48,000 is the middle range. Any time you're going to start spending more, providing a government-run program for somebody making more than the middle by definition now becomes a middle-class entitlement, and that leads us to government-controlled health care. So, when they're talking about providing services above 200, 250, 300, well, 300 percent of poverty, that would put you at approximately $62,000 for a family of four. In New Jersey, we're at 350 percent of poverty; that puts you around $72,000 for a family of four. So, by definition, they're telling us that they are not trying to create a program for the indigent and the poor in this country. By the very definition of the words they're using and the facts that are out there, they are trying to create an entitlement program for the middle class. And then of course the question is, who is going to pay for that?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I will yield.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. You know, we would not need that wall under the Democrat philosophy, because we already have a law that says no illegals may come into this country illegally. If that is all it takes is just to say they can't do it and it won't happen, you don't need that wall. You don't need any surveillance. We don't need any border security guards, because we have a law that says they are not allowed to come into this country illegally. But we know that that is not the way it works. What works is you need enforcement. You suggest enforcement in the form of a wall, and I agree with you on that. In the area of SCHIP, enforcement means that we need to have a way of verification for an individual when they come to claim American taxpayers' dollars for their own benefit for them to verify that they are legal American citizens entitled to it. And that is all that the Republicans were asking for, some sort of process to make sure that was done. Now, the Democrats also argue, look, they put in a penalty provision for the States. The Democrats were not willing to actually put an enforcement mechanism in themselves to say how they want to verify the illegals. But the Democrats will say, well, we are going to leave that little question to the States instead and have the States cleverly come up with it. Of course, you and I are all supportive of States being the laboratory of experimentation. The Democrats then say that is all we need to do. I would suggest that is not all you need to do. The enforcement there is not to say to the States if you mess this up, if you don't enforce the law and allow illegals to get American taxpayer dollars under this program, and therefore potentially deprive other American children of their benefits, it does not say that those States will not receive any Medicaid benefits whatsoever. It does not say that they will not receive SCHIP benefits as well. It just holds the additional funding that goes to those States. Under the original DRA law that was signed in 2005 and went into effect in July of 2006, for those States under Medicaid where it applied to, we saw a decrease because of the Republican enforcement mechanisms of illegals actually getting those benefits. What the Republicans have simply asked the Democrat majority to allow us to do is to allow those systems that are working to apply to the entire SCHIP process. So on the point of trying to make sure that only U.S. American citizens get the benefits, Republicans have a plan and it has been working in other aspects of Medicaid, and we wish to expand it. I yield back.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Well, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for giving me the opportunity to address the House. First, before I begin, let me just say this. I commend the gentleman for your being down here on the floor to, first and foremost, refute the arguments that had been made initially, in your opening statements, refuting the arguments made by the other side of the aisle, where I believe you were getting into the issues of the debt and what have you, and some of the other points you made with regard to our spending levels, and finally on SCHIP. If I may, I want to address a couple of those. First of all, here we are at the end of October, 10 months into the rule under the new Democrat majority, and we have to ask, what has their leadership wrought? They have brought us the largest tax increase in U.S. history, the creation of slush funds, where a lot that money is going to go to, and the end to the transparency that they promised in the last election that they would bring to this House. On the first point, as far as the largest tax increase in history, that began initially as soon as the Democrats took control with their budget, a $387 billion tax increase, which basically is too large of a number for any of us to get our hands around. But what it really translates down to is, on average, around a $2,500 to $2,700 increase that every individual in this country will have to take out of their pockets, from the hard-earned money they make, and send down here to Washington so Congress can spend it instead on who knows what it may be. That is where they began. We know just this past week the chairman of Ways and Means has come out with the ``mother of all tax increases.'' That ``mother of all tax increases,'' of course, basically begs the question of what happens to all the orphaned taxpayers then in this country, those who are now left having to foot the bill for that tax increase. So I raise these points only because it is truly ironic that the other side of the aisle would come to the floor and raise the issue of the debt level and the spending of Congress, because, when you think about it, they ran on a platform that the Republicans were spending too much, but what was the first thing they did when they came here? They decided that they would spend even more. They ran on the platform that we were taxing too much. And what was the first thing they did once they got here? They raised our taxes. And they have done so repeatedly. They have about half a dozen times now had legislation, just about every single major piece of legislation that has come to the floor so far, that has included some form of tax increase in it. Now, the gentleman from Iowa raises the point now near the end of his discussion with regard to SCHIP, and I always appreciate his explaining to the American public what the acronym SCHIP really does stand for. SCHIP stands for ``Socialized Clinton-Style Hillarycare for Illegals and Their Parents.'' I will get to that point of illegals in a minute, but let's look at the overall focus and what the intention is here. I think it begs the question to ask, is anyone from either side of the aisle not intending working towards making sure all Americans can have the health care that they need? I think we all agree on that. The next question is, do we not want to make sure then that all American citizens' indigent children get the health care that they need? I think, generally speaking, except for the partisanship and the politicking on the other side of the aisle, I would have to say that all of us agree on that as well. Then we have to ask ourselves, what is the best mechanism to get there? Is SCHIP and the expansion that the Democrats want to foist on the American public the best way to get there? I would answer that question by saying, no, it is not. Going in reverse order, the gentleman from Iowa raises the point with regard to illegals, an important point. The Democrats will tell you, don't worry about it. The bill already says in plain language that illegals are not allowed to get these benefits, as if all you need to do is put those words into a bill and that makes it so. I see on the table over there, I think that looks like your demonstration for the wall. Is that what that is?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I will make this last point if the gentleman permits. The definition of a middle-class benefit or entitlement is one that goes to the middle class of America. The definition, I guess, of a program for the indigent would be a program that is aimed for those who are making less than the average, less than middle-class America. I wanted to give a couple of numbers. The median, middle, middle income in this country is around $46,000 for a family of four essentially. That is the middle. That would be how we define middle class across the board. Some higher, some lower. That is the middle. The bill, SCHIP, as it was created initially was for 200 percent of poverty. That would be around $42,000 for a family of four, so less than the middle. There are some discussions going on literally as we speak right now in what the Senate is looking at to bring this program up to around 275 percent of poverty. That would be $58,000 for a family of four. So if middle, middle-class America is around $46,000, and some are suggesting we should be bringing the coverage up to $58,000, by definition it is a middle-class entitlement. Actually above middle class. Slightly above middle-class entitlement, as a matter of fact. It begs the question if you are trying to set up a program to address the problems of the indigent Americans in this country, why are you bringing the number up so high we are going over the median income in this country. That is a rhetorical question. I don't think the other side can answer it unless they simply want to be honest with us and tell us they are trying to do what Bill Clinton said back when he was President that he wants universal coverage where the government has socialized medicine, and you will start with indigent children, you will go to all children and eventually you will go to all adults in the entire country. One-fifth of this economy will be encompassed by a government- run health care system, something you and I definitely oppose.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. SCHIP. It has another meaning as Republicans initially created it, but we see what the Democrats have morphed it into. SCHIP now stands for Socialized Clinton-style Hillarycare for Illegals and their Parents. That wraps it all right up there. They are willing to go back to what Hillary and Bill Clinton wanted to do, and that was to have a universal, socialized plan that the government would control, literally one-fifth of the economy, health care economy, the same government that gave us FEMA and the way they handled Hurricane Katrina and the same aftermath of Katrina, the same government that gives so many other problems of waste, fraud and abuse, and the same government that gave us the proverbial bridge to nowhere. That Clinton-style type of government, Hillarycare for illegals. As the gentleman from Iowa just pointed out, it is not for American citizens. It is for anyone who simply wants to walk across the border and take the benefits of the hardworking American taxpayers.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the extraordinary public service of the Reverend Monsignor Michael J. Corona of Phillipsburg, New Jersey. Today, the Phillipsburg Area Chamber of Commerce will recognize his commitment to his community, naming him Outstanding Citizen of the Year for 2007. Monsignor Corona completed his theological studies at St. Mary's Seminary and University in Baltimore, Maryland. He also earned a Master of Arts in Education at Seton Hall University in South Orange, New Jersey. He was ordained for the Diocese of Trenton in 1968 and has been pastor of St. Philip and St. James Parish in Phillipsburg, New Jersey since 1979. Under his guidance, the parish has been active in the community. While activities like their soup kitchen and Thanksgiving food drive feed the bodies of those less fortunate in Phillipsburg; their compassion and love feed their souls. And, the parish elementary school provides a quality education to so many local children. In addition to his work directly in Phillipsburg, Monsignor Corona spreads his skills and good nature through his work with the Diocese and other Catholic leadership organizations. He is a member of the Diocesan Presbyterial Council and College of Consultors, as well as the Director of Education for the Diocese of Metuchen. He is also the President of the International Catholic Stewardship Council's Board of Directors, an organization dedicated to the proposition that ``all members of our family of faith are called to be Christian stewards and share their gifts of time, talent and treasure in proportion to the blessings they have received from God.'' Monsignor Corona is an integral part of the community of Phillipsburg. I join his neighbors in commending him for his good work, his dedication to the people and particularly the children of Phillipsburg, and his commitment to continually improving this historic city.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the extraordinary public service of Patricia Hans, who this weekend will be honored by the New Jersey Council for the Humanity as the 2007 Teacher of the Year. Pat Hans is an American Studies teacher at Ridgewood High School, where she teaches an interdisciplinary program of history and literature. Using literature to understand historical events and history to enhance the literary experience, her classroom has been described as a place where ``ideas explode into reality.'' Pat Hans draws on the rich cultural and historical resources of North Jersey to give her students a textured experience in learning. In addition to teaching at Ridgewood High School, Pat Hans also teaches English Composition at Bergen Community College as an adjunct professor. A graduate of the State University of New York at Albany, with a Masters in English from my alma mater, Montclair State University, Pat Hans is a respected lecturer as well. She has given presentations before the Bard College Institute for Writing and Thinking, the New Jersey Writing Alliance, the New Jersey Council for the Teachers of English, and the New Jersey Education Association. She has been bestowed a number of fellowships and awards for her work, including the Summer Institute Fellowship from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation Poetry Fellowship, and a John F. Kennedy Public Service Grant. In both 2003 and 2004, she was named the Seton Hall Teacher Scholar. Pat Hans demonstrates an ongoing love for history and literature and continues to deepen her own knowledge and understanding for the humanities. Her passion for learning is infectious and no one benefits from it more than the students who enter her classroom. She is a model teacher and an exemplary public servant. As her colleagues honor her this weekend, I join them in commending her for her commitment to excellence in education.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join the Jewish community of North Jersey in honoring an extraordinary family that has made giving back a multi-generational legacy. This Sunday, October 21st, the Jewish Home Foundation of North Jersey will honor the Lippman Family of New Jersey for their intergenerational support for programs and services aiding thousands of Jewish seniors. Bill and Doris Lippman instilled strong values of community, compassion, and service in their children, who in turn have passed those very values onto their children. As a result, three generations of Lippman lineage have spent countless hours supporting their synagogues, local charitable organizations, and senior care programs. Though the family mourns the passing of their tremendous matriarch Doris, they carry on her legacy with respect and love for her memory. In Hebrew, the word commonly referred to as the equivalent of the English charity is tzedakah. But, as scholars often point out, tzedakah goes far beyond the simple concept of benevolence and generosity; it implies an act of justice and righteousness. The Lippman Family has taken this concept even further, making the love of giving back to one's community a gift that is passed down from generation to generation. As the Jewish Home Foundation celebrates the opening of its newest assisted living facility in River Vale, New Jersey and continues its notable tradition of caring at the facility in Rockleigh, I join them in saluting the tremendous public service of the Lippman Family whose generosity and support has made the Foundation's work possible.