Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 125th anniversary of The House of the Good Shepherd retirement community in Hackettstown, New Jersey. For over a century, this community has provided seniors with a place to call home. In 1882, five Episcopal Congregations founded The House with a 20- room rental building in Orange, New Jersey, rented for the sum of $400. Less than a decade later, they had outgrown that building and a new home was built in Orange housing three dozen women. In the 1960s, they expanded their offering to 175 residences on a wooded, 15-acre site in Hackettstown. The Musconetcong River and Stephens State Park offer a serene and quiet atmosphere. And, the excellent staff offer a loving and friendly environment for the seniors who live there. The House of the Good Shepherd is equipped to offer its residents a variety of care options from independent apartments to assisted living suites to skilled nursing residences. It is an active community where seniors to go live their golden years to the fullest. This year's anniversary is somewhat bittersweet for the residents of this community as their Executive Director of more than ten years has announced his retirement. Fred Heleine has ministered to and served the needs of these seniors admirably and with love and compassion since 1995, and as he said in announcing his retirement to his extended family of The House of the Good Shepherd, ``I leave The House with much gratitude for the privilege of having been there.'' I know that the gratitude is mutual, and I join the community in thanking Fred for his fine service. This Sunday, at a gala celebration fitting of such a momentous milestone, the residents and staff of The House of the Good Shepherd will be joined by members of the extended community. To mark this special anniversary, they will present their first annual ``Distinguished Friend of The House'' award to Claudia Conway, a longtime resident of Hackettstown and supporter of The House. Ms. Conway's service has been remarkable, particularly her participation on the Foundation Advisory Council, and she was a natural choice for this first award. But her dedication to The House not only speaks volumes of her goodness and compassion, but also of the worthiness of her cause. The House of the Good Shepherd is a phenomenal community and I wish it the best for another century of service.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the faculty, staff, and students at Bergen Technical High School who have partnered with State Farm to promote safe teen driving. Far too many young people lose their lives senselessly to motor vehicle accidents, largely because of their youth and inexperience behind the wheel. In fact, 14 percent of all motor vehicle deaths are teen drivers and car crashes is the number one killer of teens today. State Farm has developed a phenomenal program called Project Ignition, committed to reversing this trend and saving teens on the road. This popular program partners with local schools to develop ad campaigns to promote safe driving in ways that really speak to young people. Bergen Technical High School is one of only 25 schools nationwide chosen to participate in this program. Their visual graphic design program is creating a series of public service announcements for television, posters, and more to speak to teens about the importance of driving responsibly and safely. Streetwise, the name of their program, promotes six character education pillars--respect, responsibility, citizenship, fairness, caring, and trustworthiness--in ways that really resonate with their target audience. Today, the participants in this innovative program celebrated their work while trying to break the Guinness Book of World Records record for the longest message/graffiti scroll using their Streetwise message. They will be joined by fellow students from other Bergen County High Schools and supportive parents and citizens throughout the County. All of Bergen County is proud of their efforts.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the fact that the Rules Committee under Democrat control has included 13 Democrat amendments to their Democrat-proposed legislation here today. And if that is the new openness and the change in the process that they are presenting to us, should we anticipate that there is no need for Republicans to present any amendments to the Rules Committee in the future because they will only consider Democrat amendments? That is a sorry state for us today.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we come today on the floor in September, 9 months into the 110th Congress under Democrat control where they promised us the most open, honest and transparent Congress in U.S. history. And looking back at yesterday on their last rules decision, what have they wrought? Just the opposite. I come to the floor today, as well, to oppose this rule and to oppose the closed-door proceedings and partisanship that the other side has exhibited yesterday with the way that they handled their rule. Their methodology is basically closing out the voices of almost half of Americans when they want to have their voice heard here in this Congress. I, too, came and submitted an amendment to the committee. Although the other side indicates that 13 amendments were approved, there were no single Republican-initiated amendments approved last night. That is because, as I said, half of America's voices were silenced. Now, the amendment to the rule that I proposed is quite simple, to try to bring back fairness to this flood program, a flood program that most Americans would support in a bipartisan approach. Picture this, if you will, out on perhaps the California Coast you have a mansion, a PreFIRM home, a mansion owned by some megastar, a movie star millionaire in that home. He is paying one rate for insurance. Next door, literally across the street, is this little 1970s home, a little bungalow, owned by a poor widow. She now is paying higher rates for her insurance. She, in essence, is subsidizing that multimillionaire movie star on the other side in this lavish megamansion that he may own by this poor widow. Can't we do something about that? Yes. I propose an amendment that would bring actuarial fairness to this system. And I should say this, too. This was discussed in committee. The chairman of the committee said that he would work with me. My staff did work with his staff. I did work with the chairman. And the chairman even agreed with our language. The chairman even agreed, and I believe testified before the Rules Committee, that what we were doing here was bringing fairness to the committee and the rules process last night. So, at this time, in my closing comments, I would just ask if the gentlewoman would be willing to enter into a colloquy to explain why is it that she will not, and the Rules Committee would not, enter into a discussion on this bill in Rules, and why is it that they wish to exclude this rule, and why would the gentlewoman in the Rules Committee decide that we should not have fairness, and why should the poor widow be subsidizing the rich and the millionaires in this country? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman if she can explain why this amendment was excluded last night.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the fact that the Rules Committee is different this year from last year, and that is obviously apparent, because only Democrat amendments would come through, and last year both Democrat and Republican amendments would go through. If the gentlewoman could explain on the merits? I would gladly yield to the gentlewoman if the gentlewoman could address the point as to why this particular amendment was not considered to be appropriate to be considered for this rule, and why it is that we should have the poor and the infirm and those people who have been living in their homes for decades have to subsidize the rich and the wealthy in this country. I would yield to the gentlewoman, if she would explain why the inequity should continue.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. That is exactly the case. I presented this amendment in committee and presented it and discussed it in committee. At that time, we entered into a colloquy in committee and the chairman said that perhaps we could work through this because there were some other technical aspects that needed to be changed. I was more than willing to take the chairman at his word, and he lived up to his word to the extent that for the next several weeks and months following the committee hearing, we did have a back-and-forth between staff and also the chairman on the floor, literally himself, and he was supportive of the final product we had.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. And on that point, how this ties in besides a history lesson, which I think is important as well, how it ties into one of your comments was one of the suggestions that has been made, and you touched upon it, was with regard to a paper ballot today would be either simply that you would have a single paper ballot that you would take with you when you leave, and that would be the only receipt. Or, I think you suggested both. In other words, a paper ballot would be made and printed that would go into a locked box, plus you would get a receipt to confirm how you voted. So there would be two. The dilemma with either scenario, where you take a ballot out with you, goes back to what we are referencing right here. Now when you leave the poll, you have some document to prove how you just voted. Now, not to suggest that anyone in this day and age is paying people to vote, although we have heard such accusations, but of course without any documentation, someone can say, well, here is $25 to you if you will vote for my candidacy in the election. And of course the guy will take the $25 and come out of the election booth and say, ``Don't worry, I voted for you,'' and there is no proof that you did. If, however, there is a paper receipt, now you can come back and say, ``Well, here is the proof that I just voted for you or your candidate. Give me my $25.'' Or whatever the going rate may be in certain cities or elsewhere to confirm that I did. So I am not sure whether you have ever heard of that dilemma with that.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. First of all, let me say I am impressed by your opening comment, and I guess this is just a typical reflection of your dedication to an issue. Your opening comment was you began to look at this issue back in the year 2000, and here we are at 2007. And knowing your dedication to this issue, to the way you handle matters is that you have been looking at it ever since then and investigating it to make sure that you come up with the very best answer. So I commend you for that. This is just reflective of how you handle just about every issue that I have ever known you to deal with, that you stick onto it early on and then stick with it right to the end. Before I play a little of devil's advocate with you on this, if I may, the gentleman from Utah is probably a better historian than I am. But it is interesting, when we talk about paper ballots and ballots in general, people today probably have somewhat of a misconception about the veracity or accuracy and the legitimacy, I guess you might say, of past elections in this country, way before we had those electronic machines today or the mechanical machines that you were referring to earlier. I know the stories from reading textbooks and school books and what have you is that election days in this country years ago were celebratory days more so than they are today. Nowadays, we have to really push people to the polls. Years ago, it was something people, I don't want to say, spontaneously wanted to do, but they actually were more excited about it. Although, one of the ways I understand that they were encouraged to come to the polls was through town celebrations. And that is, in the county seats or that sort of thing, the candidates who were running for office would host large parties, and what would happen is people would come from the countryside and the hillsides and what have you into the county seat where they would be voting. And this would be a large celebration where food and beverages, I suppose adult beverages, as Rush Limbaugh would say, would be served, what have you, so it would be a celebratory time. People would come in and they would vote, and they would vote with, back then of course all there was was paper ballots, and many times the paper ballots were color coordinated paper ballots. And so if you were voting for Steve King in that election, you might be voting with a blue ballot, and if you were voting for Scott Garrett, you might have the brown ballot. So it would be a way that actually going into the election booth there was no secrecy to it, because you would be getting your brown ballot from the Garrett campaign or the blue ballot from the King campaign, and you would be going in. And that would also indicate which party, literally, which party you came to, and then you would put it into the election box. I don't know whether the gentleman from Utah knows those stories as well.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. And I appreciate the gentleman, if he has time for some queries on it as well.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to come to the floor tonight as we wrap up this week's session in Congress. It was just last week, Monday, the 17th of September, when we celebrated the 220th anniversary of the signing of our founding document of this country, the Constitution. It was on September 17, 1787, 39 revolutionary and visionary Founding Fathers changed the course of history in this land and the world as well. It came about after months of deliberations. What they did was succeed in securing liberties and freedoms that were, quite honestly, unimaginable to previous civilizations. I should just note, to commemorate this and honor the civilization's most ingenious governmental guidelines that we recognized last week, I introduced House Resolution 646 to that end. Tonight I come to the floor, as we do often as part of the Constitutional Caucus, to raise up the issue of the Constitution, that seminal document, that document that we should be looking to each and every day when House Members and Senate Members come to the floor after having deliberated various issues and bills, and taking out of their pocket their voting card and sliding into that slot, to ask themselves: Is what we are about to vote on constitutional? Is it within the confines of the Founding Fathers' document? Tonight I am joined by my colleagues, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), and I believe shortly the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) as well, as we deliberate and discuss the issues of the Constitution. We do this for several purposes. It is an illuminating event we believe both for Members of Congress and also for the general public as well, an opportunity to explore and expand and expound upon this important document. Because if we lose that, if we lose that as a guiding principle, obviously there will be nothing as a guide for us or a restriction into the role we are elected to abide by. Tonight we will touch on various issues, all within the confines of that document, but we are generally going to stay within the area of voting. Some legislation that we have looked at in the past, and I will probably touch upon a little later on, and some legislation that is coming down the pipe fairly shortly, to address some of the issues that people have raised throughout the country with regard to the veracity of past voting patterns in this country. So at this point, I would like to turn the microphone over to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for his comments, who I always appreciate Mr. Bishop's insight.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. He is. And I guess we should close on that quote. And again, I appreciate the gentleman from Iowa's coming. And with that, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be on the floor this evening.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. And you're absolutely right. You think about John Quincy Adams, who was first in Congress and then President, and then went back to sitting in Congress once again after he served as President. I think he was the only one that ever did that, and I cannot imagine any President today leaving the White House.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, I agree with that and I appreciate that. And I think that the seminal answer to your question of what was in the minds, if you will, of the Founding Fathers when they created the Electoral College was if they wanted the electors to have freedom to make that decision so it was their own wisdom that would be decided on the day of the casting of the ballot, which is what I believe that the Founders intended. Their alternative would have been to say, no, that you are bound by however you were elected. Well, if you were going to be bound by however you were elected, then in reality there's no need to actually have a person there to make that decision to cast the ballot. The Constitution would have been worded completely differently to say that, in effect, it was not an automaton but an automatic collection of all the votes. The majority of votes would not go to a specific elector, Steve King, but the majority of the votes would then therefore go to that candidate, whoever those electors are specifically delegated to vote for, whom they were representing. In other words, you would not need to elect a delegate, an elector, if he was going to be bound without any discretion. I think the Founding Fathers realized that still within the confines of the limited amount of times that the electors, within the terminology of the Constitution, had to actually vote following the popular vote, there was still that flexibility that they could consider whatever changing moment the times may have necessitated them to do. And of course, also, the other aspect of that that you didn't get into is the election of the Vice President and how the electorals play in that as well.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. In as much as the gentleman is raising the question, I have anticipation that he has specific examples in mind that he is going to cite. But I believe there have been specific examples when electors have decided to go their own way and not be bound by their electorate.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. And I thank the gentlelady. And as our time comes to a close here shortly, I'd just like to say I appreciate her comments and also to say she hits on the point directly as far as the role and appropriate breadth and scope of the Congress, the Senate, and the Federal Government. You know, the U.S. Constitution, article I, section 1, the very beginning of the Constitution sets forth the parameters, if you will, of the role and responsibilities of the Federal Government. They are then, that point is reinforced in a couple of different ways, actually, when you think about it, both there and at the end. There it's reinforced in the section in as much as article I, section 8 sets out specifically what are the appropriate roles, and it delineates what the appropriate roles are for the Federal Government. And an interesting thing there, and I don't want to go into too much detail on the verbiage of the Constitution here tonight as it's getting late, but many people often look to critics on the other side on this point, and on article I, section 8 say, well, in there is what is called the general welfare clause, and for that reason, Congress has the right and ability to move on and act on any sort of issue that they want to. But a closer study of the Constitution points out that the article I section 8 general welfare clause comes before the delineation of the specific points and authority granted to the Federal Government. That is at the beginning of the Constitution. At the very end of the Constitution, at least back in 1787 and a couple years after that with the adoption of the first ten amendments, which eventually we call the Bill of Rights, the 10th amendment, of course, is the one germane to this discussion and all of our discussions on the floor with regard to the Constitution and the role of Congress, and that is that it says all rights not specifically delegated to the Federal Government are retained by the States and the people respectively, which those two points tied together reinforces the gentlewoman's comment that we have to be careful as far as the role of the Federal Government in these areas. So it is appropriate that when we look to the bill that comes from the other side of the aisle on this issue of voting, which is so expansive in scope as far as its authority that it is trying to impose and so restrictive at the same time as far as what they are allowing the States to do, it is appropriate for us to come and discuss that issue and debate that issue to find out if there is not a better way. And that's why I very much appreciate the gentleman from Iowa's being with us tonight. I see the gentleman from Iowa is back with us again, and I yield to him.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I appreciate the gentleman from Iowa and your comments as well. And at this point I would like to yield sufficient time as she will consume to Ms. Foxx.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. And the gentleman from Utah made a passing reference to the 17th amendment earlier on, and then I will yield back to the gentleman from Iowa. But just to illuminate on that point, originally the Founding Fathers of course intended that the other body, the Senate, would be elected not by direct vote but by the legislators of those States. And the idea behind that was probably to address the point that the gentleman from Utah just made; that the various States, such as Utah, which is probably ahead of the curve in just about every facet of running a government that we have seen so far, based on his testimony and previous evenings, the State of Utah prior to the passage of the 17th amendment would have elected their U.S. Senators through their State legislators. That Senator many times would have come from the Utah State Legislature prior to coming to Washington, would know what Utah was doing, and would have a personal stake or a local interest in maintaining the integrity and the sovereignty of that State. Likewise, from Iowa or New Jersey as well. Obviously, the 17th amendment changed that, so now the U.S. Senators are now directly elected by the citizens of the respective States, and you break that bond between the sovereign issue that a legislature may have had. And you may have seen that reason on this issue coming from the bill from the other side of the aisle that we are talking about here, or some of the other issues that we have talked about on the floor as well as Congress begins to exceed its bounds and actually sees no bounds with regard to our control in every aspect of our lives. Earlier today, just to digress for a moment, we voted on the flood insurance bill and we were going to expand into a wind map plan and for wind insurance as well. Basically, the Republican side of the aisle voted ``no'' on that bill, primarily because they said we would be exercising outside and pushing pressures on the economic forces that are already there providing that coverage. And really, the question is as I said at outset of my opening comments, and they often do when you put your card in here to vote is, does the Congress have that authority? Prior to the 17th amendment, a U.S. Senator would say, no, we have that authority in our own States to handle the regulation, whether it is insurance or otherwise, and want to confine ourselves to confine the Congress or the Senate to the areas that the Founding Fathers intended. Voting, of course, is a carefully construed area in the Constitution, and I will just close on this before I yield back to the gentleman. Earlier, there was another issue, and I know the gentleman spoke quite a bit on this issue several months back. This House had another heated debate, if you will, when it came to a voting issue, and that was whether or not we would give voting rights to the citizens here of the District of Columbia, and I know the gentleman from Iowa also, I believe, came to the floor and spoke extensively on that topic. And the answer to that issue, as much as the other side, just as on this issue, just as the other side would like to stand up on this issue and say, well, we have the infinite detail and plan to the finite level to the Nth degree on how to do this issue that we have before us today as far as every little nook and cranny has to be covered on voting. They said the same thing when it came to the D.C. voting rights as well. We know what is best and how to implement that program and voting rights for the District of Columbia, And well, may they should or may they did; what they didn't seem to do with that one, nor apparently did they do in this case as well is look, as you and I would suggest they probably should have, and I think you discussed it at the time, to a copy of the U.S. Constitution. And had they done so, they would have realized on that issue, I'm not going to redebate that issue, but had they done so, they would have realized that the Constitution specifically addressed the issue of the District of Columbia and how it should be set up and how the control of the District would be. The Constitution also defined who is a citizen in terms of voting and who is a representative and that he would come from a State. And of course this is not a State. So all you really have to do on many of these cases is look to the terms of the Constitution, and they begin to answer some of these questions. But I have a question for the gentleman from Iowa, again just to look at some of the finer points to it. You raised the issue of actually having a piece of paper, a trail, if you will, and you raised the question whether or not we can trust the electronic aspect of the machines and what have you. Just to be the proverbial Devil's advocate with you, some people would suggest that, well, for our entire financial system in this country nowadays, we look to electronic transfers and what have you and we rely on that nowadays, as opposed to paper ballots or paper documentations. And likewise, there is another suggestion in this area, whether it comes from Congress or it comes from the States, as opposed to a paper ballot, but an electronic receipt, if you will. And I'll just give you one of these and then I will close. One of the suggestions for an electronic receipt would be not a written message that I just voted for a Steve King, but an electronic voice activation message that I just voted for Steve King. So instead of going into the ballot booth, and I don't know whether the gentleman's ever heard of this proposal before, and pushing the button and clicking down on a piece of paper, electronically it would record and you would hear, vote for Steve King for U.S. Senate. Would you see any of those as alternatives to this as we move into the electronic age to be an equal or sufficient record?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of today, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. More importantly, I thank the gentleman from Texas for your work in taking part in this battle. I know that you do not simply come to the floor in these matters, but you are out there in committee process and you are on part of the team to make sure that the system is run the appropriate way and also to make the battle continuous as far as making sure the American tax dollar is spent as wisely as possible. Although in this climate, I must admit it is a difficult battle to be engaged in. Thank you for your efforts. You raised a couple of good points. Let me just touch upon these to reiterate them. One is that we all do want the same thing, as least on this side of the aisle, and that is more transparency, more openness and an understanding of where the dollars are going to. I know from the gentleman from Texas and myself, this is not something new that we just came to the game at the last minute and are saying these things. I am now in my third term in office, my fifth year in Congress. I have had the privilege and the honor of serving on the House Budget Committee during that time. In that committee, many times I would raise the battle and raise the questions as to where our tax dollars are going, regardless of which agency we are talking about or whether we are fighting the administration. Even though it is our own administration on these issues, I voted against a budget that has come before this House, even though it is one of our own budgets, because I thought we were spending too much. So I believe I come to the well here with a track record to stand on, as does the gentleman from Texas, as well, when it comes to saying we want to be fiscally responsible. Likewise, to the issue of earmarks, let's spend a couple more minutes on that. Likewise in this area, I think the gentleman from Texas and myself come from the same place. And that is that even when we were in the majority, there were a number of us from this side of the aisle who were battling for, and eventually achieved what we were battling for at the end of the 109th Congress, and that was the issue of earmark reform and transparency. Unfortunately, that was lost at the beginning of the 110th Congress. You may recall the history. We had to come to the floor again and literally almost shut things down on this floor in order to compel the Democrat leadership to do what they had promised in their election of November of last year. This may be one of the biggest ironies of the day, and we continue to see it go out on this floor night after night. I think it was just last week when the Democrat conference Chair was on the floor just in the podium to the right of me making basically the same campaign speech, if you will, that was made back prior to the November election. And what was that? Well, The Republicans are the party of big spenders, they were saying. They were saying that this administration was spending too much, signing on to all these budgets and signing on to all the appropriation bills that were passed out of both the House and Senate. Of course, at that time, it was under Republican control, and so all the accusations were against the Republic Party. Of course, what was being said was that Republicans were spending too much. You would think that the next line then out of the chairman's mouth would have been, and out of the other side of the aisle's comments would be, at that time, And we are going to do something about it. We are going to reduce spending. Or at the very least, as Republicans had in past years, freeze spending at the same level as last year. But they did nothing of the sort. They did not freeze spending. They did not reduce spending. But they drastically increased spending over and over again in line item, after line item, after line item, appropriation bill, after appropriation bill. There is not a single appropriation bill that has come to the floor that you haven't seen what I am talking about: increasing in spending. But when we bring it back to the issue of the earmarks, the same irony goes here. All during the last cycle, the 109th Congress, when the Democrats were in the minority, clamoring, saying that we were doing things wrong, saying that if they were in leadership or they were in power that they would do what? They would give us the transparency. They would give you openness. What happens once they came into power? What have we seen? What has this last 9 months wrought under Democrat leadership? Well, as the gentleman from Texas pointed out, we had to compel basically closing down the floor for a day at a time to compel them to give us some of that transparency when it comes to earmark reform. We thought we got some of that transparency, but it is really not there completely as of yet. There was an editorial in the Las Vegas Review Journal saying: ``Democratic earmark reforms lasted just 100 days. The anti-earmark reforms are just for show. Mere window dressing.'' That was an editorial in the early part of the summer. They point out in there that these are just some examples of earmarks that would have been subject to an up-or-down vote on the House floor had the Republican earmark reform that we had talked about and that we had suggested and done in the last 109th Congress been in effect for the 110th Congress. They go on to point out the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Representative Murtha. A drug intelligence center was included in the intel authorization bill. Cost to taxpayers: $39 million a year. Now, we hear still to this day so much talk about the infamous, and I agree it is infamous, not famous but infamous, ``Bridge to Nowhere,'' a project that some of us continue to rail against and say it was wrong. I am glad that Members on the Republican side on the Senate did all they could to see to it that those funds would not go there on a cause that truly was not worthwhile. But, you know, you hear about that in the news for around $267 million, I believe, the price tag was there. But here is a $400 million disaster, I think one of the papers called it. But you don't hear much about that. That, again, comes from the same gentleman, same program. Quoting now from U.S. News and World Report, they criticized this program, the NDIC as a ``drug war boondoggle.'' A former official with the office of National Drug Control Policy said, None of us wanted it in Johnstown. That is from the gentleman from Pennsylvania's district. ``We viewed it as a jobs program Murtha wanted for his district,'' from U.S. News and World Report. The Washington Examiner I believe also commented on this earmark pork, as well. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee called NDIC an expensive and duplicative use of scarce Federal drug enforcement resources. So by any rational standard, this $400 million disaster should have been shut down a long time ago according to the editorial in the Washington Examiner. So there is an example of a way to get around the earmark reform that the other side was touting in the last election, as Republicans continue to this day to push for, and as the gentleman from Texas indicated, now that there is what we call a discharge petition being signed, at least by the Republican side of the aisle. I will wait to see whether anyone from the other side of the aisle joins on with us with that discharge petition to compel the additional reform, additional transparency, to come to the floor for a vote. Just to give a 30-second explanation of that, a discharge petition is a mechanism of this House so that when a piece of legislation, good reform legislation like this, is in the hopper, ready to go, but the controlling leadership will not post that for a vote, because the leadership party in power is the one who decides what bills get posted, there is a mechanism in the rules in order to provide a mechanism to get that up for a yes-or-no vote. That is called a discharge petition. The Republicans are doing everything in our power to make sure that does come up for a vote. Now, you may ask, again, why is this important to me? As I explained before to the gentleman from Texas, what it all really comes down to, it comes down to your tax dollars and where they are going to and shouldn't you have the opportunity to know where those tax dollars actually go to and how they are spent. One thing that you might not know is that when it comes to the transparency that the Democrat majority says they have given us and the American public when it comes to earmarks, and that really does not exist, is how the information is now being presented to the American public. Let me explain it in this manner: If it was our desire to make sure that information is being projected out to the Members of Congress in a useful fashion and also to the American public in a useful fashion, how could we do it? Well, in the earmark reform package that the Republicans were able to compel the Democrats to accept, we said that what you have to do, very simply, is this: Give us a list of all the earmarks and give us a list of what the project is, how much money we are spending, and who the bill's sponsor is. I should step back for a moment and say, just as the gentleman from Texas said, that we are not suggesting that all earmarks are bad, that all earmarks are extra-Constitutional; that is to say, outside of the bounds of what the Constitution says we should be spending it on. Not by any means. We are just suggesting that if we are going to have earmarks that are within the confines of the Constitution, what we should be spending our American taxpayer dollars on are on priority items. Shouldn't we have that basic information there, who the sponsor is, what the project is, and how much money is being spent on it? Three basic pieces of information. That is what we achieved. But here's the rub. Here's the little secret that came about in the mechanism that the Democrat majority put together when they implemented that. Instead of putting all that information on one sheet or two sheets or three sheets, whatever you needed for all the many, many earmarks, and there are many, unfortunately, too many earmarks in one place, that we could basically, well, what, put it on the Internet so the American public and bloggers and anybody else who wanted to Google or Yahoo or use any other search engine look into it and find out what it is easily. No, they didn't do it that way. Instead, here's what they did. They provided it in basically two sets of information. So over here you have a description of the project and how much money it is, and over here you have a description of the project and who the sponsor is. Now, these are two worthless pieces of information, unless they are joined together. Of course, we are looking at literally hundreds of pages of documents that you have to sift through in order to gather that information in one place. Basically, it would take an army of staffers, or of interns, or, maybe, and here's an idea, maybe of people out in the American public going through this, creating an Excel spreadsheet, if you will, to put all that information together so it is in one place. You know what? That could have all been done on the first day that the appropriation bills came out of committee, by the committee staff themselves, and presented here before the House when these bills were voted on. All that information was there. It could have been done very cleanly, simply, so that Members of Congress and, importantly, the American public would have that information. Unfortunately, that was not the transparent method that the Democrat majority wanted to use. Instead, we are still a case of obfuscation and trying to blur the information that is out there, and basically hiding from the American public what information should be readily available to us, information that the Republican leadership and those people who have been on the floor before and joining us now as well have been fighting for continually as far as transparency in these issues of our American tax dollars and where they are being spent. What I would like to do in a moment, because we haven't got a chance to get into this yet, is take a look at the other side of the equation. We have spent some time now looking at earmarks and how money is spent. I think we also need to take a look at where the revenue comes from in the form of taxation. I see I have been joined by another valiant fighter from Texas, a leader on these issues, who is also a leader of the Republican Study Committee, an organization of individuals who are dedicated to the issues and principles that we have been discussing on the floor tonight and in the past as far as adhering to the strict tenets of the Constitution and being concerned about where the American tax dollars go, and concerned about all the transparency issues, have been fighting both now under the Democratic leadership to increase the transparency and bring some fiscal constraint to these issues, but also, this is important, was also here engaged in the fight back in the days when the Republicans were the majority. There was a voice out there on the conservative right of the party. I am pleased to be joined by my friend from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. And if the gentleman could just refresh my memory, how did that vote come down when we tried, and I know you were one of the leaders on the floor at that time, to make sure that that limitation would take place? If you recall how that vote actually came down.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Because I think that's an important one. Someone in my district, years ago when I first went into politics, said to me, Scott, when you deal with all these complicated issues that you will deal with, at that time on the State level, or now that I'm here in Washington, you have to translate it into, well, how does this impact upon me? And I remember that and try to bring it back home. The point that you're raising here with regard to these Federal programs, SCHIP and what have you, providing benefits to illegal aliens, people coming into this country, breaking the law, and now looking to the American taxpayer to pay for their services I think is a critically important one. I think we're all too aware of the fact that there are a number of services that we would like to provide for our constituents at home, especially the low-income individuals, especially when it's something as critical as food, and many times, I'm sure you hear in your district that there's just not enough program to go around for your constituents as you would like to have them. So when the Republican Conference said, as you suggested, that we should simply limit this program and limit American taxpayers' dollars to go to American citizens and not to illegals, that, to me, hits home as, how does that impact upon me? It means that those dollars will be going to Americans and to those who are most needy. Is that your understanding as well?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I think our time is just about up, and I appreciate your efforts not only tonight, but throughout your entire time here. It has been a pleasure working with you in the House while you stand beside the American family and the American family budget. Americans place much responsibility in the hands of their Representatives in Congress. The American public deserves to know where their hard-earned tax dollars go. They have a right to this information. If the Democrat majority is not going to literally open the books in a clear and concise manner so the American public and Members of Congress know where the dollars go, if the Democrat majority is not going to give us the transparency that the American public deserves when it comes to where their dollars go, then the Republican Party and the Republican minority will see to it that the job is done on behalf of the American public.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, you raise a point: this is what they were saying last year but they are not doing it this year. We are hopeful that at least now that we have discussed this on the floor, the information is out there, the discharge petition is going forward, although that has not been a secret because there is a line every day that we are in session here of Republican Members standing down in the well signing the discharge petition, so they know it is coming. But let me give you two other quotes of what folks from the other side of the aisle were saying last year about this. When they were talking about the measure that would only provide for appropriations and not authorizations last year, they said: ``It is a half measure at best that would do nothing to stop wasteful and unnecessary projects like the bridge to nowhere.'' That was the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). Finally, ``My proposal requires the public disclosure of all earmarks, not just those of the Appropriations Committee, but authorizing and tax bills and much, much more.'' Who said that? Representative Slaughter from New York, now head of the Rules Committee. So we seem to have some very important people here last year from the other side of the aisle starting with Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, to head of the Rules Committee saying they agree with our ideas as far as broadening earmark reform and transparency. So maybe tonight, and I think we only have a couple more minutes, I would be willing to stay with you here on the floor if you would join me, if anyone from the other side of the aisle, leadership from Nancy Pelosi's office or the Rules Committee, to come and join me and say they will sign on to our petition, or if the Speaker would agree to move that piece of legislation since that is what they wanted to do last year when they were in the minority, and if they will do it now that they are in the majority. Will you wait with me if they indicate they will come to the floor?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. On just your last point, you raised this a moment ago, and before I say this, happy birthday to your 4-year-old. But maybe if your 4-year-old knew exactly what the debt that he has is, he would not have been so happy at his birthday party. You raised the point that the next generation for the first time in American history is not going to be as well off as the previous generation. Before you came here, I said one of the things that I learned early on in politics from a Member from the other side of the aisle back in my county was: What does this do for me? Or in this case: What does this do to me? In this case it really hits home for someone such as yourself or someone else who has a little one back at home. What does it do for my children? What does it do for my grandchildren? Or in this case, what does it do to them? Of course, in this case, it saddles them with a debt, an obligation, for something that they are not gaining any benefit from; but you and I and others in this generation may be gaining benefit from. But who is paying for it, your 4-year-old. And that, of course, is not fair. So many times, so many times we hear Members come to the floor and say: here is my program. Here is my earmark. Fill in the blank for whatever it is. It is the compassionate thing to do, to spend this money on this program. Well, I guess it might be compassionate if they were reaching into their pocket and pulling out their own money to pay for that particular program. But, gosh, in the 5 years I have been here, I have not seen any Member of Congress when they came with their program say they are going to spend for it. No, they are just going to saddle it onto America's debt. As you said, if you have little ones out there, that debt is not necessarily paid for by you and I, the current American taxpayers. It is going to be passed on the next generation. The question we should be asking the other side of the aisle, after they railed against the Republicans for spending so much, now they are spending even more. Now they are going to have to raise taxes under their PAYGO rules. We will get to that in a little bit. How compassionate are they when they transfer that burden, when they transfer that debt on to future generations? Keeping to this issue of how to fix the problem, the gentleman from Texas, you might want to comment on the petition that is currently being circulated, a discharge petition which I explained earlier, and how that will address the issue of authorization language as well. But before you do that, let me share with you a quote or two with regards to what the other side of the aisle said about this process last year when they were in the minority. This is actually something I had put forward last year to say when it comes to earmark reform, you can't just look at appropriation bills; you have to look at the authorization language. And as mentioned before with the earmark from the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the $400 million earmark, that was in essence done through authorization language. You have to do both of these. The other side of the aisle agreed with us at that time. They said, ``You can't just have earmarks viewed as appropriation bills unless you take up earmarks in tax bills and earmarks in authorization bills. But if you are going to have earmarks and you are going to have transparencies, you have to do it in the appropriation bills and in the tax bills and in the authorization bills. I would put it in writing.'' Who said that? Representative Nancy Pelosi, California. Likewise, ``To not do something about Authorizing Committee earmarks in the process is a joke, in my view.'' Who said that? David Obey. So we knew where they stood last year when they had their positions on transparency. Now that they are in the majority, we wonder exactly where they stand this year, when they have the ability to do something about it. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

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