Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. I want to begin by just complimenting one, two, three people. First of all, compliment Dr. Gingrey for having this session here on the floor tonight to bring this very important subject once again to the well so that we can have this debate, have this dialogue to address an issue that the American public is rightfully concerned about. Secondly, and I'm sure Dr. Gingrey will agree with this, we should always applaud the gentleman from Arizona, Jeff Flake, who has been, let us say, the ``voice in the wilderness,'' if you will, for a number of years when it came to earmarks coming to the floor, repeatedly, time and time again, before you and I were even in Congress, bringing this to the attention of the Members from both sides of the aisle, trying to shine that light of day. Unfortunately, the process was not such that the information was going out. He did it sporadically, at best, because he had to literally go through the bills page by page to try to gather the information. And when he did, he would gather those infamous examples that he would then bring to the floor, outrageous examples, and try to get a majority of Members of either side of the House to support him in deleting those egregious earmarks. Unfortunately, in nine out of 10, actually, it's probably more like 99 out of 100 examples, he didn't get the support that he deserved. And the third group of individuals that I think we should applaud is the American public, because they have been rightfully outraged from the very start, as soon as the information began to come out of this House, as to where their tax dollars are going. The American public saw that their hard-earned tax dollars that they work every week and send in their taxes to the Federal Government, to Washington, D.C., are going to absurd things: the rain forest in the central United States or ``bridges to nowhere'' and that sort of thing. It is only, I think, because their outrage has gotten to such an extent that Congress, especially from the other side of the aisle, the Democrat majority, is finally beginning to listen. And you and I also agree that they have not quite listened well enough because they have not brought through the sunshine and the adequacy of information that you and I would like to see and that the American public would like to see. So I just want to start off by saying, let's applaud those and give credit, yourself and Jeff Flake and the American public, where credit is due. I know you're about to talk about your proposal, so maybe I will cut my comments to a couple here because I would like to maybe discuss your proposal in detail so we can flush it out. But let me just raise this one point, and I think this is probably a good segue for where you're going to go into this. When it comes to earmarks, when you think about earmarks, it is right to say that they are really a very small part of the overall expenditure of the Federal Government. Unfortunately, I think some Members and lobbyists also spend, unfortunately, a disproportionate amount of their energy and time attaining those earmarks. I don't think that's why they sent us to Washington, to spend so much of our time trying to slice out a small percentage of the budget to bring back home. We know that some Members probably spend more of their time than others. We also know that some Members have been more successful than others in bringing home those earmark dollars in perhaps a way that some would argue is not the most equitable and fair way. And I think that's what your bill will get to, to provide a more equitable and fair distribution of dollars. How is the money being spent right now? Well, I understand that the average House Republican receives approximately $8.7 million on average in earmarks. I think that is an average as far as described as being a mean, or median, as opposed to a mode, when it comes to averages because some of them are considerably less and some of them have considerably more. The average Democrat, though, remember the Republican is $8.7 million, the average Democrat receives $10.3 million in earmark funds. And you have to scratch your head and think, where is the fairness there? Just because someone lives in a Democrat district, he may be a Democrat himself or he may be a Republican, is he more worthy? Did he pay more taxes that he is going to get more dollars coming into his district? Conversely, just because someone lives in a Republican district and he may well be a Democrat, as well, why is he being shortchanged? He is receiving on average a couple million dollars less. Now, I said a moment ago those are averages. Some are lower. I don't know where you or I stand on those numbers. But some are considerably higher than that. The Speaker received some $67 million in earmarks in the last go around, and then there, of course, is the very cream of the crop, the very top, appropriations cardinal, Congressman Murtha, topped the list at over $179 million in earmarks to his district. $166 million were in defense earmarks. Someone suggested that when you are collecting and spending $166 million, you are no longer just a congressman, you are now a CEO of a mid-sized company at that point. Of course, the interesting thing there is you are a CEO of a mid-sized company that has been bankrolled by the taxpayers of the country. That is something that we should focus the light of day on: Why are some people being treated better than others just by who they are, what positions they hold and what ranking positions they have in various committees. I think your legislation will possibly try to address those issues. And if it does, and as I understand it does adequately, it will go a long way to providing the equity and fairness that the American public has been seeking and has been outraged that we have not been providing them in the past. I would like to touch on some other points as far as really the scope of where earmarks go and some of the other things we may need to do, but I think this is a great segue into what your bill is able to address, and I yield back to gentleman at this time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I didn't mean to say it wasn't a good first step.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, as I sit here, and here we are in October, the question that always first comes to my mind is 10 months into the 110th Congress under now the new Democratic control, and what has that 10 months wrought: the largest tax increase in U.S. history, the creation of a budget by them with slush funds where there's no accountability; and, finally, the lack of transparency that was promised to us. That last point I think is what Dr. Gingrey is talking about here this evening. I am glad to join him to illuminate that issue a little bit more, the lack of transparency. The Democrats ran the election of last year saying that there was not enough transparency and openness in the prior Congresses and that if they were elected and put in a position of power, they would bring that transparency, the openness, the sunshine, if you will, to this floor. That is what they campaigned on. That is even, as Dr. Gingrey says here with the charts, the quotes from Speaker Pelosi, what they promised even after they came into a position of power. Of course that has not occurred. Mr. Speaker, some who may be listening to us here right now say why didn't the Republicans do this when they were in charge? The fact of the matter is, as you may recall, we did. We did pass legislation in the 109th Congress to bring transparency to reform the earmark process. Unfortunately, not all those reforms were carried over with us into the new 110th Congress, and, I should add, some of the changes that have occurred in the 110th Congress only came about because of people like Dr. Gingrey, Jeff Flake, and other people, Jeb Hensarling from the RNC, coming to the floor and compelling and forcing the additional reforms that we have seen so far in this 110th Congress. Let me just make this point. In earmarks right now, and it only applies basically to appropriation bills, which of course you have already spoken as far as the discharge petition, but in the rules of the House right now you would think that the American public would have the information now at hand that they have been asking for all along: Who's sponsoring the earmark, what the earmark is for, and how much money that earmark is allocating. You would think that is the case because that is the reform we compel the other side of the aisle to implement. Well, they passed the rule, but they are not implementing the rule. What they did was quite clever. You take a piece of legislation that can be literally this thick, as far as a bill is concerned, an appropriation bill, or even thicker than this as well, and that information is in here, who sponsored it, how much it's for, and what the project is, but it's not in one place. Instead what they did was put it in two places. So you go to one page where it has the sponsor's name and the project, then you go 100 pages later on and there will be the project and the amount. Now you have to search through literally thousands of pages, thousands of lines, and to put the two together to find out that, well, Congressman Murtha, for example, had this particular project in his district. You have to spend literally hours and hours and days and days to put it together to get that number that we gave before, $166 million in Defense Appropriations. I commend ``Congressional Quarterly'', because that magazine did spend the time to put together that data and has published the report, and it was an outside organization that actually did much of the spreadsheets on that. Finally, the American taxpayer has that information, no thanks to the other side of the aisle, because they put it together in a convoluted and basically in an orchestrated manner to make sure that the information they were required to reveal to the American public was presented in a way that you could not see it. The proposal that you are presenting to us tonight is a good one. I believe it is a step in the right direction, and I think the gentleman from Georgia would agree that it is a step in the right direction, and that we can even eventually, if we can get this step done, we can go even further, as you illustrated, to get even more information and to rein this in even further.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. None of these things, as good as all these ideas are, are going to happen unless the majority party, the Democrat Party, Speaker Pelosi agrees they are actually the right thing to do and are willing to move the legislation. Your bill that would move in the direction that the American public wants us to move, to rein in excessive spending, to rein in earmarks, to put a clamp or a lid on them, to move in the direction of moving them out entirely or at least scaling them down, will not move unless the Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, says that is a good idea and she will post the bill. The legislation that you spoke about at the top of hour regarding the discharge petition that the Republican leader has that would expand earmark information to not just appropriation bills but also to authorizing legislation, to clean up some of the areas that have given them the latitude to actually continue to hide this information from the American public. That piece of legislation will not move unless the Democrat Party and Speaker Pelosi finally hear from the American public and realize this is what the American public wants us to do and wants us to move that legislation. It is still early in the evening. It is only a quarter of 9. I am sure Speaker Pelosi is in her office or somewhere in the Capitol as we speak. I would invite her to come to the floor right now and join us with either one of those pieces of legislation. Maybe you could recite the words right back to her that she said some time ago, and remind her of what she said when it comes to the issue of giving transparency and openness. I would invite her to come to the floor and join us in this debate this evening, to say she will move these, will move these things in the next days, weeks. Just before the winter holiday so when we leave here in the next several weeks or months, they, we can say in the first session of the 110th Congress we finally gave the American public what they were promised when the Democrat majority came into Congress. I will eagerly await her arrival here.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Just a point that comes to mind. One of the issues that we will be dealing with this week is SCHIP. There is a piece of legislation you wouldn't think would be prone to earmarks. If you listen to the other side, they would tell you, hey, there are no earmarks in there. That is one of the peculiarities of the rule, the way the Democrats have written it as far as providing transparency. All you have to do is take your bill, that could be chockfull with all of your favorite pet earmarks from the cardinals and the chairmen of your committees and all your other friends, and the ones requested by lobbyists and what have you, and all the Democratic majority has to do is say, we hereby say there are no earmarks in here, and that is it. You and I can come to the floor and rail about it all we want and say, yes, there are. Look at page 72, line B. Here is an earmark. That is exactly what happened with the SCHIP legislation. They said there are no earmarks here. Lo and behold, there are. There are literally billions of dollars in earmarks in that going to special projects and special hospitals across the country, and you and I would not know about it if we were just to trust them and take them at their word.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Iowa for coming to the floor and speaking on SCHIP. I was on the floor earlier this evening, as you may know, with Dr. Gingrey. We were speaking about earmarks. After us, the other side of the aisle began their talk about SCHIP. I was hoping to interject when they were on the floor but that was not possible. So I'm glad you bring this issue up. Let me touch on one point you are talking about. That is the cigarette tax. You made a generalized statement. Let me give you an actual number here. The SCHIP program, of course, is intended to benefit the low-income and the indigent children. The question is how is this being funded? You had correctly stated it is going to be funded by a cigarette tax. You generalized the statement that the cigarette tax generally falls disproportionately on the poor. And that actually is correct. A study was done in 1990. It said that people who made under $10,000 per year paid almost twice as much in cigarette taxes as those who made $50,000 and above. So there is the irony. We are trying to provide a health care program for the poor. And on whose back is it going to be placed? It is going to be placed and paid for by those very same poor people who are paying a substantially higher cigarette tax. The study goes on to say that there are other adverse impacts to raising the cigarette tax. One of them you wouldn't necessarily think of. But when you raise the taxes that high, much higher, a higher Federal cigarette tax, the study says, will lead to more violent crime. The foundation's chief economist has documented that higher cigarette taxes fuel black-market activity, including truck hijackings and other armed robberies. In 2003 he said, for example, 200 cases of cigarettes in a modest-sized transport truck would have a retail value in New York City of around $1 million and would be a tempting market for thieves. So these are the side issues you don't hear about when you hear the bumper sticker rhetoric from the other side. The other thing that you don't hear from, and I will yield back at any moment if the gentleman has a point to make here I see with his signs or charts. Another interesting point is the need for the overall program. I don't want to get bogged down in numbers and you are better facilitated with the charts there. But let's take a look at where we have been over the last 20 years when we talk about children in need. In 1987, now look at 1997 and 2002. In 1987, child poverty rate in this country was 18.7 percent. The eligible children who were eligible for programs, at that time, 20.3 percent. So just about the same numbers who were eligible for some sort of a government program such as Medicaid were at the same approximate number who were in the child poverty rate. In 1996, you go ahead about 10 years, those numbers now are about 20 percent in the poverty level, 28 percent eligibility, that means we have now reached a point where more kids were eligible for government assistance than were actually classified as childhood poverty. Flash ahead now to 2002, the rate now of overall childhood poverty rate, 16.7 percent, eligibility though for government assistance and Medicaid and the like, government health insurance, 47.1 percent. We have gotten to the point where almost half of the kids in this country are now entitled to welfare payments. You had on your other chart when I came in here a neat little acronym for what SCHIP was. We have to call it what it really is. H.R. 976, SCHIP expansion, Socialized Clinton-style Hillary-care for Illegals and Their Parents, SCHIP. Well, that's true. And another way of calling it is welfare. We have gotten to the point where almost half the kids in this country are now eligible for Hillary-care, welfare, whereas the poverty rate for these children has actually decreased during that period of time to around 16.7 percent. We have gone in the right direction in this country as far as reducing the number of all kids who are in poverty, but we have vastly exceeded what the actual need is.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Just one point on this issue of freedom and the opportunities that come from it and therefore the incentives that also lead to it. We spoke just a moment ago with regard to the 1996 welfare reform package. Back when that was done, one thing that did impact the Medicaid program was a change to who was entitled to benefits. So in the 1996 Medicaid reform, they eliminated Medicaid benefits for noncitizen immigrants. Noncitizen immigrants. That means someone in the country legally, not illegal immigrants, but people in this country legally, so they are non-citizens and immigrants, they were eliminated from getting Medicaid coverage. Now, the critics of the proposal you may recall at that time said wait, wait, wait. If we are going to take this class of people who are otherwise eligible economically income-wise out of the pool that are eligible for Medicaid, we know what is going to happen. Their health condition is going to deteriorate, and, as importantly, their coverage level is going to go down. But you know what? For just the point you were saying, the increase in freedom, that did not occur. There was now a new incentive. Since they were not eligible to get Medicaid anymore, there was an incentive to do just what you say, to go out work, either get a job that had health insurance provided for it, or, if not, get a job that paid enough that they were able to buy insurance or do something to the health insurance. So the result of that group being excluded from Medicaid coverage at that time, from 1996 forward, was an increase in insurance coverage for that class of individuals. That is what we learned from expanding freedom, expanding opportunity, providing an incentive, as opposed to what is in the socialized Clinton-style health care for illegals and their parents SCHIP plan, is a disincentive and a phasing out and pushing out for the opportunities for individuals.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Well, New Jersey, as you may know, has not gone up to the 400. New York is, I think, the only State that as of current law, not the bill just approved by the House, under current law, New York has attempted to go up to 400 percent. New Jersey is at 350 percent, which puts us at around, for a family of four, $72,000. Now the median income is around $61,000 or $62,000 for the State of New Jersey, which means you're at the average. Mr. Speaker, so what are we saying here? We are saying that even those who are above average in income are now going to eligible for socialized welfare payments. Once a month they will get a welfare payment. It won't be in the form of a check, like a normal welfare payment coming to you to cash. Instead, it will be delivered directly to the insurance company, or other method. What that means is this. For every ten people that you wish to enroll under the plan under the Pelosi method, approximately six those people will already have insurance. So in that last chart you would say up in the $103,000 range. Every ten new children that you bring into the program, these six over here already had insurance. You're only adding these four children over here. But you're doing it at a tremendous cost. You're using taxpayers' dollars now to pay for those children who maybe their parents are making $103,000. Wouldn't it be so much better if those tax dollars were going to try to find a way to make sure that these four kids had all the, not only insurance, but also the actual health care, which is a question that I think you were bringing up before, because at the end of the day that is really what we should be focused on, making sure those kids have health care. Because it does those four kid absolutely no good just to make sure that they have insurance if they can't find a doctor to treat them. How many people do you know of, senior citizens who have Medicare and go out and try to find a doctor to accept their Medicare payments, and they find out there's no Medicare doctors receiving Medicare recipients. How many people do you know that are on Medicaid right now, which is an insurance policy, and try to go out and find a doctor who says they are still taking Medicaid patients, and they are not taking them. Mr. Speaker, we have done nothing if we simply have insured four new children under this SCHIP program if it's set up in such a manner that there is nothing else to facilitate more doctors to be out there to actually get care. We have done nothing to improve the health care coverage, all we've done is a sound bite for the Democrats, saying we improved insurance coverage.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. That is absolutely consistent with my recollection. Another aspect of it was at the time that the master plan as you described it at that time was to be more, was to be broader than what eventually transpired, and that was to include the block grant type arrangement for Medicaid, as well. Had we done that, we would not be in this budgetary crisis that we find right now where Medicaid has continued to have gone up, and the States actually would have been in a better situation than they are right now. Just as with Medicare, just as with the welfare reform movement, when the States were issued a block grant and given the significant flexibility that they had with the set dollar amount, the States were able to use the ingenuity of their States to actually decrease the enrollment of their welfare recipients and at the same time actually since the dollar limit remained the same, the per capita number per recipient actually went up. So those individuals who had the most need, if you will, had the most difficulty climbing out of their condition and their plight that they were in, you had a larger dollar value that you are able to apply to their particular condition. Had we done the same thing as this Republican Congress at the time intended to, but we were stopped, as you recall; President Clinton put up the roadblock to it. We could have done the exact same thing with Medicaid, done it in a flexible block grant arrangement to the 50 States. The Governors of those States would have no strings attached to it whatsoever. They could have decided who and how they were going to get into it. You could have had an SCHIP-type arrangement where you allowed them to go into privatized health insurance programs. The benefit there would of course be, just as a side issue, that you would not be squeezing out the private sector marketplace. You would be opening up and creating greater competition and you would not be having this dilemma that we are facing right now. That was all the possibilities we had back in 1996. We lost it at that time because of President Clinton and what he was trying to do.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the dependency and the loss of freedom is not only for the individual, it is for the State, too. What CHIP does is create an incentive for States to add more people onto the program since there is a 3 to 1 ratio as far as the dollars. The State spends $1, and they get basically a 3 to 1 ratio in dollars from the Federal Government. That means that the State is no longer incentivized to do other creative things to actually improve the health of the kids in the State, just so they can turn around and say we are getting Federal dollars to put the kids on health insurance. So not only do we disincentivize or take away incentives from individuals, we take away incentives from the States to do the right things for themselves. We see it in New Jersey. I am sure you see it in your State.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, last week the State of New Jersey lost one of its great political analysts, Dr. David Rebovich. On Friday, October 12, 2007, Dr. Rebovich died from a heart attack while teaching a class. He was 58 years old. Rebovich was an associate professor and managing director of the Rider Institute for New Jersey Politics. He received a bachelor's degree in political science from Johns Hopkins University, and a master's and doctorate degree from Rutgers University. As one of Dr. Rebovich's former students, I can honestly say that he was a genuine and fair professor. He continually put his students before himself and was an admired political asset to the State of New Jersey. He will be missed. My prayers and best wishes go out to the Rebovich family.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the late Jack Kurlander, who spent a lifetime turning Sussex County, New Jersey into a destination for tourists and recreation-seekers. His vision truly transformed this picturesque region of the Garden State. Born in Rhode Island and raised in Nutley, New Jersey, Jack Kurlander had been New Jersey's boys tennis champ while at Nutley High School. But, his love of sports extended to golf and skiing, as well. Spurred by his love of outdoor sports and recreation, Jack Kurlander set about turning this quiet Highlands region into a popular destination for a variety of outdoor sporting activities. Jack Kurlander and his business partners, first the Fitzgerald Family and later the Mulvihill Family, were the force behind the development of ski resorts, tennis and swim clubs, picnic grounds, spa resorts, and major golf courses over the course of four decades. The Ballyowen Golf Course, in fact, is the top-rated public golf course in New Jersey. Long before his vision took hold, Jack Kurlander was an avid inventor. He manufactured the first nylon tennis nets with his friend John Fitzgerald in the basement of a Nutley bakery. He created a ski- waxing machine, using his mother's disassembled washing machine to develop his invention. This evening, outdoor enthusiasts will join together to dedicate the Memorial Garden at the 7th Hole of the Black Bear Golf Course and to pay tribute to their friend and patron. Jack suffered a heart attack in 1977, but it barely slowed him down from his mission to transform this beautiful region. Nearly thirty years later, a heart attack took his life in 2006 at the age of 76. It is said that Jack Kurlander was able to see things that were unapparent to anyone else. His gift for vision and his love of life are truly missed.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend Michael J. Madonna for his extraordinary service to the people of the State of New Jersey, and particularly to its law enforcement community. Last month, Mike retired as President of the New Jersey State Policemen's Benevolent Association. He's been active with the PBA since 1968, when be became the State Delegate of the Oakland PBA. He later went on to serve on the State PBA Executive Board. In 1996, he began a nearly 11-year tenure as President of the State PBA. Mike has dedicated his life to keeping the people of New Jersey safe, putting his life on the line and sacrificing so much on our behalf. The PBA is the largest union of law enforcement officers in New Jersey, with more than 350 Locals representing more than 30,000 municipal, county, state, and Federal officers. These officers have benefited greatly from the hard work and dedication that Mike has given the PBA these last forty years. Tonight, the members of the PBA and community leaders from all across New Jersey will be honoring Mike for his career of service. I join them in thanking Michael J. Madonna for demonstrating such tremendous commitment to the safety and well-being of New Jerseyans statewide. The Garden State is a better place because of the service of people like him.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I am pleased that today we can honor a true American hero, Aaron Weaver of Inverness, Florida. Weaver is yet another example of the dedication of many men and women serving in our military today. Weaver has a great family history of service and I am proud to work with his uncle, Naval Academy graduate and veteran Bill Schmidt, on behalf of the veterans in the fifth district of New Jersey. I know that Bill will miss him dearly but I also know that he is proud of his courageous nephew. Weaver served in Mogadishu with the rangers who were immortalized by the movie Black Hawk Down. These brave Americans held out against superior numbers of armed rebels and conducted their mission in Somalia with dedication and dignity. For his actions in Somalia he was awarded a Bronze Star. When Warrant Officer Weaver was diagnosed with his illness he chose to fight both cancer and the forces of Saddam Hussein. While he could have chosen a medical discharge he instead pressed to be with his comrades defending our Nation. If there were American soldiers defending freedom on foreign shores then Weaver wanted to be with them. It's only proper that we should honor this hero with a lasting memorial in his community. I hope that his courage and sacrifice will not be forgotten and that he can serve as an inspiration to those who are serving our Nation now in the field of battle.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to two generous patrons of the arts and of education, David and Carol Burgess Lackland, whose service to the communities of northwest New Jersey is nearly unparalleled. As a 1954 graduate of Centenary College, the only 4-year college in northwest New Jersey, Carol has long been a strong supporter of her alma mater. Her husband, David, also serves as a trustee for the college. Tomorrow, thanks to their extraordinary support, Centenary will break ground on the new David and Carol Lackland Center, which will serve as a hub for cultural events, education, and activities not only for the college but for the region. The 68,000-square-foot performing arts center will include a 500-seat state-of-the-arts theater, a dance studio, a blackbox performance space, and more. The center will include classroom space where students will learn about the latest techniques and technologies available for communications and performing arts from backstage as well. Already, Centenary offers some of the most expansive cultural opportunities in the region. The Centenary Performing Arts Guild, which has been around for about two decades and is the only Actors' Equity theater in the region--presents more than 130 performances a year. With this new facility, the region will have even greater access to high- quality performing arts programming, and I commend David and Carol Burgess Lackland for their contribution to the college community and the surrounding area.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House Committee on Foreign Affairs will consider H. Res. 106, affirming the United States' record on the Armenian genocide. I will ask my colleagues on the committee to carefully consider this resolution and the vast body of evidence that supports its conclusion. The allied powers of the First World War early on recognized that the Turkish Government at that time was committing crimes against humanity by perpetrating the organized slaughter of Armenians. The U.S. Congress of that time affirmed these crimes in hearings and resolutions. Though the chief organizers of this crime were convicted of the massacres by the Turkish military courts, they never were made to pay any penalty. We fully recognize now the friendship of our allies in Turkey, but it cannot change the past. I hope that there can be some reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia and that a proper acknowledgment of the crimes of the past can allow them to move forward into the future of peace and mutual understanding.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I have stood on this floor several times now speaking about the negative impact that NCLB, No Child Left Behind, has had on our children's education and, consequently, on our children's future as well. Tonight I will speak continuously about that as well and the problems until NCLB are fixed. I will continue to speak out against NCLB until parents and educators are empowered to make the changes that will ensure an environment in which schools can teach and children can learn. More and more information is coming to light attracting more and more supporters to the belief that not only should No Child Left Behind not be reauthorized at this time, but, actually, it should be completely scrapped. Yesterday, in the New York Times, Diane Ravitch, a professor of education at NYU and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, wrote, and I quote, ``the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 is fundamentally flawed,'' and that it should be ``overhauled, not just tweaked.'' She continued, ``The latest national tests, released last week, show that academic gains since 2003 have been modest, less even than those posted in the years before the law was put in place. In eighth-grade reading, there have been no gains at all since 1998. The main goal of the law--that all children in the United States will be proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014--is simply unattainable. The primary strategy--to test all children in those subjects in grades three through eight every year--has unleashed an unhealthy obsession with standardized testing that has reduced the time available for teaching other important subjects. Furthermore, the law completely fractures the traditional limits on federal interference in the operation of local schools.'' Let me repeat that last point, because I believe that it is a missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle. NCLB ``completely fractures the traditional limits on Federal interference in the operation of local schools.'' Many times I have referenced the work of Neil McCluskey of Cato Institute, a scholar who shares my concerns about educational policy. He did a study in 2007 entitled, ``End It, Don't Mend It,'' and he concluded that ``NCLB has been ineffective in achieving its intended goals, has had negative, unintended consequences, is incompatible with policies that do work, is at the mercy of a political process that can only worsen its prospects, and is based on the premises that are fundamentally flawed.'' Using several shocking statistics, McCluskey points out how States are lowering, not raising, their educational standards. They are creating a race to the bottom to ensure that their schools will not be denied Federal funding. Let me give you just a couple. In 2003, the State of Texas decreased the number of questions on their test in order for it to be approved, from 24 to 20. In Michigan, when 1,500 schools were placed on the NCLB need improvement list, the State lowered the percentage of students required to pass the test in English from 75 down to 42 percent. The State of Ohio backloaded its adequate yearly progress goals, aiming to increase proficiency by a mere 3 percent, 3.3 percent for the first 6 years, but then said they're going to do a 40 percent increase in the last 6 years. They did this of course in hopes of meeting NCLB's unrealistic goal of having 100 percent proficiency in math and reading in all schools. And there are other studies as well with similar conclusions. In 2005 the Fordham Foundation compared the State proficiency scores to NAEP scores, with striking results. The NAEP tests have generally been maintained at standards over the year, and so it's a good barometer. In the Fordham study, of the 20 States that have reported gains on their tests in 8th grade reading proficiency, mark this, only three showed any progress at even the basic level for NAEP. That means 20 States are saying that since No Child Left Behind things are going better. But if you compare it to NAEP, really not. Only three. Furthermore, in a new study released today by the foundation, researchers note that in at least two grades, twice as many States in the U.S. have seen their tests become easier, not harder, since NCLB was put into effect. And that's my point here. All the studies are showing that since NCLB went on the books, States are racing to the bottom when it comes to trying to establish their tests, the exact opposite of what this administration tried to do. I think all of us should be startled, at the very least, by this. Appropriately, we should be outraged. You know, if Washington is forcing our schools to basically lower their standards, putting our children's education at risk, we must act now in this House to reverse the trend. And with NCLB reauthorization coming up now, now's the time to do it. To that end I've submitted a bill, the LEARN Act, Local Education Authority Returns Now. It's H.R. 3177. And what it will do is very simply, it would allow States to opt out of the Federal NCLB system completely, and, at the same time, allow the States to retain their funding. I think, to me, it's very obvious that States have grown tired of Washington dangling money over their heads and holding them accountable. And I thank the Speaker for allowing us to address the issue of the reform that is needed in the area of NCLB and talking about the LEARN Act.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the majority party ascended to power with a promise that they would make this Congress the most open and ethical Congress ever. Most open and ethical indeed. Perhaps the majority party should have said something like, We will be open and ethical when it suits our purpose. That wouldn't have been a catchy phrase maybe on the campaign trail, but at least it would have been honest. For instance, the majority promised to clean up the earmarking process, but so far that, too, has been a hollow promise. Recently, we had the SCHIP and it was riddled with hidden earmarks. And yet not one sponsor of these provisions has ever been identified, and they have denied that there's any earmarks in them whatsoever. Now the Republican Party has now offered a simple resolution to clean up the process of earmarks, but not a single Democrat has signed on to this resolution. I call on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in the majority, to allow for a real debate on ethics and earmarks. Let the House debate H.R. 479 so that we can have an open and honest discussion and we can truly get to what you promised, an open and ethical Congress.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. What happened was the Rules Committee decided to not allow the amendment to come to the floor. So at the end of the day, we have a bill where the rich are still being subsidized by the poor. Substance was altered by the stifling of debate. I will commend the chairman of the committee for all he did and by not voting ``yes'' on the rule because even he, a Democrat chairman, saw the error of their ways in what they did.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. You spoke about the flood bill and the problem we had here. Anytime we stifle debate, and that is what occurred when the Democrats did this, they alter substance. What we were trying to do with an amendment that went through committee and we worked on with the chairman's staff, an amendment that the chairman said withdraw the amendment from committee and he will make sure that it gets through Rules and to the floor, our amendment simply said we should no longer have the rich and the wealthy who live in these great mansions on the coast and what have you, have them be subsidized by the poor widow in the house right across the street. We thought that was absurd. This amendment would have fixed that situation. The chairman was on board with us. He went to the committee and testified in favor of it as well.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I would just conclude by concurring with the gentleman from Georgia on this. Although we are in the minority here, this is not an issue for the minority; this is for half of America. And it doesn't matter whether the Americans watching tonight are Democrat or Republicans. Their voices are being silenced because they cannot have their voices heard through us in the Rules Committee and have their important issues made part of the process.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Bernard J. Milano of Allendale, New Jersey for his dedicated support for the 35,000 Boy Scouts of North Jersey. Last week, Mr. Milano was honored by the Iaoapogh Mountains District of the Northern New Jersey Council for the Boy Scouts for his long record of service to these Scouts. This District directly serves more than 3,100 young people. Bernie Milano is supportive of a number of worthy organizations beyond just the Boy Scouts. In addition, he serves as a member of President Bush's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities and as chair for the business school advisory boards at North Carolina A&T State University, from which he has an Honorary Doctorate, and local Ramapo College. Furthermore, he is a member of the Ramapo College Foundation Board of Governors, of which he served as chair from 2002-06. Mr. Milano is also a Senior Warden of the Church of the Epiphany in Allendale, a member of the Newark Episcopal Diocese Commission on Ministry and Audit Committee, and a member of the National Episcopal Church Foundation Board of Directors, of which he served as chair for 6 years. Mr. Milano has served on the Allendale Board of Adjustment and board of education. He was a founding trustee of the Allendale Foundation for Education Excellence. And, he serves on several national boards, including for the Points of Light Foundation and Business Civic Leadership Center. Trained as a CPA with a B.S. in Accounting from Temple University, Mr. Milano is president of three not-for-profit organizations: KPMG Foundation, KPMG Disaster Relief Fund, and the PhD Project Association, which is a $6 million collaborative effort between corporate and academic America to promote greater diversity in the business world. Mr. Milano has been active with the Scouts for over a decade. The father of six and grandfather of another six, he and his wife, Sharon Pierson, understand the value of scouting in providing boys and young men with positive outlets for their energies and talents. Through scouting, they develop character and leadership skills and promote citizenship and fitness. This is only possible because people like Bernie Milano give of their time, their energy, and their resources. I commend him for his service to these boys.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, despite recent aggressive behavior from China, Taiwan's democracy has continued to grow and flourish. I am pleased that this House can come together today in support of Taiwan. China's industrial buildup in the last decade has been unprecedented. While Chinese citizens have been taking advantage of their increased economic freedom, the Chinese government has been using this economic growth to build up their military and position new and dangerous weapons along the Taiwan Strait. The Taiwanese request to purchase 66 F-16 fighter planes will assist them in countering the growing threat of Chinese militarism. These weapons will allow the Taiwanese to balance the threat of hundreds of Chinese fighters and bombers that are stationed just on the other side of the Strait. We have always stood by our friends in Taiwan and today we call on the President to ensure that that relationship stays as strong as ever. This House supports protecting the freedom of the Taiwanese people. Today, Taiwan is proof that a nation can successfully move from one- party rule to democracy and maintain its dynamic economy. I am hopeful that Chinese citizens can one day experience the same liberty as their counterparts in Taiwan.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the men and women who volunteer their time, skills, and energy to the people of Ramsey, New Jersey through their dedicated service to the Ramsey Ambulance Corps. Since 1953, when the Ramsey Ambulance Corps got its first ambulance and responded to its first calls, the faithful volunteers of this organization have been an integral part of the community. From its birth more than 50 years ago, the Corps has blossomed to a strong and steady group that today responds to more than 1100 calls for help a year. And, the Ramsey Ambulance Corps volunteers do far more than respond to calls for ambulance assistance. They also loan important medical equipment, like wheelchairs and crutches, to people in need. They operate a bike corps for special events. They train people in emergency medical services, like CPR. And, they help with important search and rescue efforts. This weekend, I will join these fine public servants and their neighbors at the dedication of two new ambulances. One will be dedicated to Mr. Lawrence R. Inserra, Sr. His family, a pillar of the community, generously donated the funds to purchase one of these new ambulances. The Inserra Family is in its third generation running a local supermarket chain of more than 20 stores in North Jersey and nearby New York. They have used their wealth to make North Jersey a better place to work, live, and raise a family, including through an endowed chair in Italian and Italian American Studies at my alma mater, Montclair State University. The other will be dedicated to one of the committed leaders of the Ambulance Corps, Michael F. Adams. In addition to being a life member of the Ramsey Ambulance Corps, the Ramsey Police Reserve, and the Ramsey Rescue Squad, he is also completing his thirty-third term as the Borough of Ramsey's Emergency Management Coordinator. As a CERT Program Manager and Instructor and head of the Ramsey Citizen Corps Council, he is one of the Borough's leading advocates for citizen preparedness. I commend these fine citizens for their commitment to their community and the example of service that they demonstrate daily.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, tomorrow, the people of Franklin Lakes, New Jersey and their neighboring communities throughout Bergen County will celebrate the 85th anniversary of the Borough. A full day of rides, demonstrations, music, and great carnival food will mark the birthday celebration, which culminates in a fireworks display. From as far back as the 17th Century, people have been drawn to this picturesque area. The Lenape Indians first traveled here to fish and make winter camp. Later as Dutch settlers pushed west, they, too, made what we now know as Franklin Lakes their home. In 1876, the Walker Atlas shows that the community had grown from its first business--Daniel Youman's Grist Mill on Franklin Lake--to a thriving community of shops, schools, mills, hotels, and about 100 residences. In years to follow, rail and road expansion would bring even more people to the Franklin Lakes area. And, in 1922, Franklin Lakes officially incorporated, detaching itself from Franklin Township and electing its first Mayor, William V. Pulis. Between 1876 and 1980, Franklin Lakes grew to a whopping 8,500 people. And, today, nearly 10,500 people live there. Though it has grown in size and stature, it has always maintained its sense of neighborly quiet. The sense of friendship and community is evident in every nook and cranny of Franklin Lakes. It is my hope that the people of Franklin Lakes will maintain this vision for another 85 years into the future and then some, and I congratulate them all on this milestone occasion.