Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for your commitment to this issue, your commitment to our children and their education now and in the future, and for your past work as far as you set out as far as your experience in the area of education. I was listening closely to the points you made, and you made a number of good ones. You started off, of course, this being Constitution Day, talking about the Constitution. You are correct. We ignore the Constitution at our peril, and those who would be willing to give greater power over education to the Federal bureaucracy are, in essence, sowing the seeds of freedom's destruction here in this country. Madison in the Federalist Papers, No. 47, said ``the accumulation of power in a small number of hands,'' in this case by Federal bureaucrats, ``the accumulation of power in a small number of hands is the very definition of tyranny.'' That is really what we are leading to here when we take away the parents' rights to control their child's upbringing and education and we take away the local community's rights of dictating how their schools should be run. One of your last points, it is interesting that you bring it up, you were citing the fact that there are other factors that go into the performance of children on tests and on schools and the like. I was sitting back in the cloakroom just before coming on here tonight and talking about education. I would commend you to take a look at this article in the Weekly Standard. The headline is ``No Child Left Alone.'' By that, they mean the fact that the Federal Government is coming around, and the little poor child is looking at adults on either side of him. In the article, it raises an element of the point you have, that we would like to think when we are elected officials that we are in control of the situation; that if there is a problem on the nightly news or the front page of the newspaper, just come to us, whether in State government or in the Federal Government, and we will drop a bill in and that will solve it. When it comes to education we would like to think all we need to do is spend a little more money, which was the last plan I was going to get to that you raised, spend a little more money, tweak the system here or there, and we are going to increase the output, if you will, of the school, as if we are producing widgets in those schools, that there is no difference than the factory or what have you. But different from the factory, these are human beings. These are little lives that are coming from an environment that the schoolhouse has absolutely no control over. These are the other factors I think you are alluding to; the fact that this youngster over here might come from the traditional nuclear family of a loving mom and dad, where only one of the parents works outside of the home and the other parent stays inside the home and takes care and is watching over the child all the time and educating, making sure that that child is doing their homework, following up on activities, going out to museums and the like. In another family, in another environment, you may have different demographics. You may have a single parent, or no parent whatsoever. You may have a crime-ridden area. You may have no one watching over that child after school. There may be no after-school activities whatsoever. There may be no museums or what have you for that child to go to. On and on the list goes. Those are all factors that the school, and things like NCLB and all that the Federal Government does with regard to education, are not going to be impacting upon directly. Yet we like to think that just by changing an education law, we are going to fix it. Which brings me to one of your middle points which I think really needs to have the point reemphasized, and that is the spending issue. I brought a couple of charts to illustrate this.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to come to the floor this evening to speak on a topic that I, quite honestly, am quite passionate about, and that is the education of our children, of my children, of the children in our communities and the children of all the parents across this great country. It's an issue that I have been involved with for some time, first and foremost as a father with my own children at home, obviously from the very beginning days as educating them as a parent before they went off to school, and then later as they are in school now, both at home and off in college as well. Obviously, as a parent, we are all intimately involved with those issues. But in another sense as well, in a public official capacity. Before coming to Congress, I had the opportunity to work with the issues of education and public education, serving for 12 years, as I did, in the State government and serving on the Education Committee there. I come to the floor now tonight to talk about an issue, education, and specifically some legislation that will be coming before this House, and eventually the Senate as well, and perhaps to the President's desk, and that is something called NCLB, No Child Left Behind. Now, as I say, there are numerous issues, and we just heard the other side of the aisle talk about the issue of war, which is often making the press and making the media and is talked about on talk radio quite continuously, as it should be. And the issue of education, public education is perhaps down there on some of the polls and down there as far as talk radio and the media as well. And I have noticed that the issue of the reauthorization of NCLB, No Child Left Behind, also has not been out there in the forefront of people's debate. But rest assured, it shall be in the days and weeks ahead, as first the full committee in this House will consider legislation and has already drafted legislation, which I will talk about shortly, as the committee begins to consider that and hopefully have a number of public hearings on that and eventually come before this entire House for discussion. So I think it's important that we get out in front of it, if you will, to talk about NCLB, and maybe a little bit about the history of where we are on public education in this country, how did we get to the point we are right now; NCLB, and what it has wrought to this country over the last half a dozen years that it has been the law of this land, and what could occur if it does get reauthorized. And finally, at the end, of course, I would like to talk a little bit about what I see as the solution to the problems of public education and their impact upon NCLB. And I will just give you a tad bit of a look at that right now, and that is, I have dropped in some legislation, H.R. 3177, and what H.R. 3177 is is a bill. I call it the LEARN Act, ``Local Education Authority Returns Now.'' And what that acronym simply means is that we really should take a look at education, see where we came from, and realize that in the earliest days of education in this country the idea was that having the parents involved first and foremost, having the teachers, the local principals involved first and foremost, and then the school board or community boards that run education is really the best way to ensure that our young kids will have the best education in their community, that the standards will be the highest possible and obtainable for all the children in their school, that the teachers will be the best and the brightest, that the methodology that we will use in those schools will be the best, and the school books and the programs and what have you will all be as best that we can in our local communities. That has been the history of public education. That has been the history of private education, as well, and that is really what is at the heart of my piece of legislation, H.R. 3177, to say, can't we return, or can't we move forward, if you will, to that, once again, to put the control, to put the decision- making, to put the accountability and to put the promise of better education right at home with the parents, the teachers, the principals and the like. That is what H.R. 3177 really does. But I get ahead of myself here when I talk about what the solution to the problem is before we even spend a little bit of time about looking at what the problem was. Now, NCLB was signed into law, as I said, just a little less than a half a dozen years ago. It is up for reauthorization right now. When the President signed the law into effect, he hailed it as ``an historic new law that will change the culture of American schools.'' Now, at the heart of this change were mandatory new testing, reporting, and accountability requirements. You see, the theory went that schools would raise their standards and strive to make improvements, and then this eventually you might say trickle down and assist the underperforming students that needed the help the most. But as we now reconsider the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, I submit that many of the changes brought about by this law were certainly unintended, maybe not unforeseen if they had merely taken the time to try to consider what some of the consequences would be, but they were truly burdensome and unintended consequences that were brought about by it. You see, instead of giving the local school districts the flexibility that they really need to develop their own curriculum to the very best limits that they can, they are instead hampered by NCLB's testing requirements, and they must basically now tailor their classrooms around this standardization to, what is in a way, a schizophrenic standardization, if you will. I will explain that. On the one hand, the advocates of NCLB and those who you will hear who advocate its reauthorization will say, well, look, NCLB actually gives flexibility to the classroom and to the States inasmuch as they have the ability to set their standards and they have the ability to set their proficiency. Now, that is the one argument that the proponents of NCLB will make. Flip it around, though, and the same proponents will say, well, wait a minute, at the same time we are doing that, we are going to be requiring accountability at that level and a standardization across the board to an extent on this, as well. Obviously, that is a schizophrenic talking out of both sides of your mouth on a point, because, of course, you can't have both. To the first point of essentially allowing the States the opportunity to set their own standards, well, there is a nod, if you will, to federalism, which is the appropriate way to handle education, that is, at the local level; but think about what has actually occurred. This is it: if you are going to tell the States that you are able to set your own standards, but then, at the same time, tell the States that we are going to tie your funding to your meeting those standards, or exceeding those standards, what is going to be the result? Well, I can tell you what the result has been, and that is the proverbial race to the bottom. It makes logical sense. If a State were to set the standards to where the parents would like them, perhaps the community would like them, perhaps the business interests and the community interest and everyone else in the State would like them, at a high level in the State, what is potentially going to occur in that State? Well, potentially, what is going to occur is they are not going to achieve what the law requires, which is 100 percent proficiency. Think about that last term just for a moment. One hundred percent proficiency is being demanded by the Federal Government. I would like to hear from the Department of Education about any of their programs that are being run 100 percent proficiently. For that matter, I would like to hear from any agency of the Federal Government that their agency is being run 100 percent proficiently. Yet, even though the Federal Government can't achieve it, they are going to say that the States have to achieve that 100 percent proficiency level, because that is the requirement of NCLB. The result is that those bureaucrats in the State who realize that their dollars are going to be tied to whether or not they meet the bar that they themselves have set, they are going to race to the bottom, lowering the standards. This is just not a hypothetical that I am suggesting. This has been the actual result. This has been the actual result of State after State as they realized during the course of the implementation of NCLB that they have not been able to meet the proficiency standards that they had previously, and so they have lowered them. I believe I have examples of that. One example, of course, was in Michigan where prior to the law they had various standards within their schools as far as math and reading and what have you. Those standards were fairly high. You and I might agree they are appropriate levels for the schools. But they realized that they were not going to be able to meet those standards on a 100 percent proficiency level. So what did they do? They did really the logical thing for the best interests, I guess, for the people who run the schools, the bureaucrats and what have you in the State, but certainly not necessarily in the best interests of the students. They lowered the standards. Now, by lowering the standards, suddenly, magically, if you will, they have now met their new lowered standards and they are in compliance with NCLB. There are obviously, not obviously, but there are clearly additional examples of this. I can give you some additional examples. But I see I have been joined by several of my colleagues here on the floor, and I will turn the floor over now to Ms. Foxx who is quite equally interested, and I would say concerned, and dare I say equally passionate about the issue of education for our children and making sure that the standards are as high as completely possible and that the area of control remains appropriately where it should be, and that is with the parents and the local school community.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Sure. I appreciate that. Before I get to the gentleman from Georgia, let me just bring back to the point of spending in our schools and where it goes to. When you are talking about spending in schools, there are two elements to it. There is instructional spending and noninstructional spending. Instructional spending is what you and I would normally think about as far as spending for schools. That is paying for the teachers' salary, that is for paying for the books, the papers and pencils that they may have in the classrooms and that sort of thing. The other is noninstructional. That would include the items such as the building itself, maybe the school bus and bussing the kids into there, and other things outside of the classroom. The numbers that we have here, and, by the way, you have to give credit for being able to bring this tonight to Dr. Anthony Davies of the Donahue Graduate School of Business at Duquesne University, who collected a lot of this data. What we see is on these two charts, sort of interesting, the little blue dots and the red dots. The blue dots on the top portion of the chart are eighth graders. The red ones are the fourth graders. The first chart I will look at is instructional. The next chart makes a similar point with noninstructional spending per pupil. Across the bottom of the chart is how much we are spending on these kids, and it goes from $2,500 up to $7,500. That is the x-axis. The y- axis, you have the NAEP scores. These are basically educational scores, actually started during the Reagan Administration, actually trying to come up with a uniform testing of all schools in the country. These are NAEP scores. So let's take a look at eighth graders for instructional spending. You would think when you move from left to right, from the $2,500 per child over to $7,500 over on the far right, that you would see an increase of performance by the students. What do we see? All of the little dots representing the students are in the same band here, from the 520 to 560 band all the way across. The same thing with the fourth graders. You would think intuitively, or at least by the propaganda of the education establishment, that the more money on instructional spending we would spend for the fourth graders on their NAEP scores, on the testing scores, would increase. But what do we see instead? They are all again right in the same bandwidth, meaning that as you spend more dollars, we are not seeing an improvement in test scores. Let's take a look at the next chart. Very briefly, this confirms what we were talking about with noninstructional, things outside of the classroom. It is slightly different numbers because the dollars you spend on that is sometimes greater. From $3,000 on the left to $6,500 all the way to the right. Again, the blue is the eighth-grader kids and the red are the fourth grade children. Again this is the NAEP scores. Again, what do we see? There are no increases, as you would intuitively think there should be, at least by the propaganda you would think there should be. For the eighth graders, it stays constant. On the fourth graders, it equally stays constant. So, both charts make the point of Ms. Foxx that what we do on the Federal level with regard to saying we are going to provide funding for these specific programs or what have you, whether it is through NCLB or otherwise, really doesn't hit the point. The point really is to make sure that the curriculum and the teachers and the school and everything else is the best that they can possibly have, and making sure that the accountability for those are by those people who have the most interest in it, and that, of course, is the parents and the local community. I am very pleased that I am joined here this evening by a good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, to speak on these topics as well. Mr. Price.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, last month, the Nation lost a great patriot when Mr. Hagop Bahtiarian of Emerson, New Jersey, passed away. Mr. Bahtiarian was born of Armenian descent in Keskin Maden near Ankara, Turkey in 1909. In 1915, his father was murdered by Turkish officials, forcing his mother to flee with her children, adopting the Muslim faith and ``Turkified'' names to survive. In 1919, at the age of only 10, Mr. Bahtiarian was placed in an orphanage in Constantinople with his brother. Not until 1922 was he able to escape to Marseilles, France, a survivor of the Armenian genocide. In 1927, he came to America, living in the Bronx, New York and Englewood, New Jersey. There he worked as a jeweler and watch maker and raised a family with his wife, Gula; loving children, Rita and Berj; and later in life two grandsons. Mr. Bahtiarian never forgot the life he'd been forced to live as a child in Turkey and was an active member of Armenian cultural groups dedicated to ensuring that the genocide would never be forgotten or repeated. During World War II, he went to work for his adopted country, serving proudly as an Instructor at the Naval Air Warfare Center in Indianapolis, Indiana. There he specialized in the construction and repair of the famous Norden Bomb Sight. Mr. Bahtiarian lived a tremendous life and he bore witness to some of the most significant events of the 20th Century, from the Armenian Genocide to World War II. And he ensured that the lessons learned from those events would bear the fruits of peace for his children and grandchildren. Each year, as more and more survivors of the Armenian Genocide pass, let us be certain that their memory lives on and that we never see such a travesty again.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend Newton Memorial Hospital on the occasion of its 75th anniversary. As it celebrates its diamond anniversary, I share the sentiments of all Newton area residents who are grateful for the integral role the hospital plays in their community. The hospital was founded in 1932 out of the bequest of the estate of Thomas E. Murray. With his gift, as well as half a million in funds raised through a community financial campaign, the Newton Hospital Foundation began to plan construction of a hospital facility off of Route 94 in Newton, NJ. When it opened its doors that year, it had 40 acute care beds and 10 bassinets. That initial facility is now the Administration Building. The Sussex County community rapidly grew and the hospital grew with it. By 1951, the hospital constructed a new building, adding 60 more inpatient beds, a complete maternity suite with a newborn nursery of 20 beds, and expanded ancillary and diagnostic services. And, as the community continued to grow, Newton Memorial Hospital kept pace, adding buildings, beds, and land. By the year 2000, Newton Memorial had opened the Sparta Health and Wellness Center to provide off-campus outpatient diagnostics and treatment, a state of the art emergency room and surgical suites, and more. In that year, 10,262 patients were admitted for inpatient and same-day surgery cases, including 750 births. And, in 2001, the hospital extended its care over the border into Pike County, Pennsylvania, with its Milford Health and Wellness Center. Newton Memorial Hospital's continuing efforts to meet the needs of the community are shepherded by a superior staff, dedicated volunteers, and an active and capable Foundation. As a Sussex County resident, I understand how comforting it is to know that we are served by the Newton Memorial Hospital and I join the community in wishing them the best for another 75 years of superior care.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, with all the various important issues that we have been debating on the floor, we should remember one very important issue dealing with education of our children that will be considered here in the House very soon, and, most specifically, that deals with the reauthorization of NCLB, No Child Left Behind. So I come to the floor tonight to address some of the concerns and problems with NCLB and offer a possible solution. That solution, by the way, is the legislation I have submitted, H.R. 3177, the LEARN Act, the Local Education Authority Returns Now, allowing States and parents and local communities to regain control of their education and not have it be here in Washington, DC. As we're all aware, NCLB is really simply a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Act, that's ESEA, from the 1960s. What I've done is I've looked back over the past reauthorizations of ESEA, and I've noticed a very troubling trend. With every single reauthorization, new problems are always found for America's schools, and with every new problem, the solution is always more Federal involvement. You know, all the way back in 1983, almost a quarter of a century ago, a famous report came out. It was called, ``A Nation at Risk,'' and it said that America had fallen dangerously behind the rest of the world in education; but, today, new studies are saying much the same thing. According to the National Center for Education Science, in 2003 U.S. fourth graders were outperformed by their peers in eleven other countries, including four Asian countries and seven European countries. U.S. eighth graders were outperformed by their peers in nine countries, including five Asian and four European. Yet, today, as a percentage of GDP after NCLB, we are still spending more money on education now than at any time in U.S. history. We have increased the paperwork, the requirements for the teachers, more taxpayer dollars, increased administration's burden; but we've decreased the flexibility for the teachers and the power in the classroom. So let me just present two charts, and I would like to thank the work of Dr. Anthony Davies of the Donahue Graduate School of Business of Duquesne University, to make this point. If we look at this chart, the chart shows noninstructional spending and instructional spending in our schools. The top is eighth graders. The bottom is fourth graders. The first chart is noninstructional spending. That is the spending that we use for the buildings, the transportation and the like. You would think that with all these reforms that we have done, that with the increase in spending, you would see an increase in performance. Well, what does the chart actually show? Well, the top chart, again, is eighth graders, and what it's showing is, as you see at the left-hand side of the chart, $3,000 per pupil; on the far side of the chart, $6,500 per pupil. But the performance of the students stays basically the same, regardless of how the dollars coming from Washington are spent. The next color, the red dots, are fourth graders, exactly the same thing. Regardless of whether we're spending around $3,000, $4,000, $5,000 or $6,000, the instructional value of those dollars coming out of these programs, the numbers stay essentially the same. The next chart you look at confirms the same point. This is instructional spending. These are the dollars that actually make their way into the classroom. This is for the books. This is for the teachers. This is what you really think of when you think of education. Same thing: top is eighth graders, bottom is fourth graders. It starts at $2,500 and goes up to $7,500. You would think that with these reforms of NCLB, you would think that with additional dollars going into the classrooms you would see an increase actually in the performance for these grades. But what do we actually see on the chart? Well, for the top, the eighth graders, starting at $2,500, up to $5,000, up to $7,500, the numbers for them for the performance on these scores, under the NAEP score standards, and that's the national standards of assessments for kids, the numbers are even right across the chart. Likewise, on the bottom part of this chart, that's the fourth graders, the red little squares. Again, we're looking in the same dollar values, $2,500 up to $7,500, middle it's around $5,000. How do we look at the NAEP scores? How do they change? Basically, not at all. It's in a range here of between 420 and 480 for all those students regardless of the spending of the dollars. So the point of these two charts, and, again, I appreciate the work of Anthony Davies for compiling this information, is to show that throughout history the Federal Government looks to say that there's a problem with Americans' education. We say we're going to be the solution for our children in this country, and the solution is going to be what? Well, last time it was NCLB, No Child Left Behind, and now it's going to potentially be a reauthorization of that. I suggest no. And I would conclude by saying that the solution is not more work on the Federal level, but more control by the parent and the local school board for the raising of their own children.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, this House will soon be considering a reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. Now, when President Bush signed No Child Left Behind into law 5 years ago, the theory went that schools would raise their standards and strive to make improvements and that this would then eventually trickle down and assist all, even the underperforming students that needed the help the most. Now as we now reconsider this reauthorization of this bill, I submit that many of these changes brought on by this bill have had tremendous burdensome unintended consequences. See, instead of giving local school districts the flexibility to develop their own curriculum, they are instead hampered by the NCLB's testing requirements and must tailor their classes now around these tests. Instead of schools setting their standards high in an aggressive drive towards excellence, we have seen just the opposite. In order to maintain their Federal funding, the States are now setting their standards low. In essence, it's a race to the bottom, if you will, as far as standards in this country. And instead of allowing our educators to focus on education, NCLB has instituted some absurd regulatory burdens on the States. According to the GAO, 41 percent of the financial support and staffing of State education agencies was a product of Federal dollars and regulations. In other words, this means that the Federal Government was the cause of 41 percent of the administrative burden at the State level, despite the fact that the Federal Government only sends 7 percent of overall education funding in this country. Also, according to the GAO, the testing requirements of NCLB alone will cost States around $1.9 billion between 2002 and 2008 and spend up towards 6.6 million hours to administer all the paperwork that comes with it as well. Now, I recently held a town hall meeting on NCLB. Every person that came to that meeting, showed up, had something negative to say about the administrative burdens in NCLB. At one point during the meeting I asked how many people had contact and met with either their local principal or their local school board about some of these problems. Just about every hand in the room went up. So then I said, Well, how many people here in the room went and talked to somebody down at the New Jersey capital, the New Jersey Department of Education? About half the people raised their hand. I said finally, Well, how many people went to Washington and took the time out to go and visit somebody with the U.S. Department of Education? Only one person raised their hand. You see, my point in this is, by instituting these requirements for NCLB in Washington, we are moving accountability for education farther and farther away from where it belongs: parents, students, educators at the local level. In addition to this, the regulations NCLB places on schools often attempts to fix problems that really don't exist. One of the schools in my district consistently was cited in publications as one of the top performing schools in the State, but it was placed, because of NCLB, on its watch list 2 years after NCLB was instituted. Now, notice, this was not an underperforming school. Every year nearly 100 percent of the kids graduated. Most went on to college. The average combined scores of SATs was 1100; 14 AP programs were offered at the school. This was a great school. But instead, NCLB found it underperforming. And because of this, now the teachers and administrators at this school have to turn their attention away from what they were doing, which was running an excellent school and now focus on the paperwork and the burdensome accountability requirements of NCLB. So less good education is coming about because of this. Now, let me be clear. I share, along with all my colleagues from both sides of aisle in Congress here, the ultimate goal of providing a high quality education for every child in America. This year I introduced legislation that would allow a State then to opt out of the majority of the requirements of NCLB, but, at the same time, would allow that State to keep their education funding through a refundable tax credit. My bill is H.R. 3177. I call it the LEARN Act. That stands for Local Education Authority Return Now. It gives the States the ability to opt out of NCLB and provides residents of those States a State tax credit equal to the amount of money that otherwise would have gone to Washington and then come back to their State for Federal funding. What it does is give control back to the States, allow them, the States, the parents, the school boards, the option to pursue local and State educational initiatives based on what they know is best for their kids. It allows the States and local school districts to set their own standards, enforce their own penalties for failure, and establish their own goals for their teachers and their students. With my bill, education accountability is transferred from D.C. bureaucrats back to the people who know the schools and the students personally. See, under my proposal, States that feel that the regulation of NCLB is both necessary and beneficial to continue on, well, they can stay in the system. If they need Washington bureaucrats in their State to tell them what to do, well, they can stay in NCLB. However, if the State's residents feel that the responsibility for educating their children is best left in the hands of the State, then this legislation will empower them to do so and keep the funding in place that the States rely on.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend Dr. Garry A. Neil, group president of Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, for his extraordinary contributions to advancing the health and well-being of American seniors. Dr. Neil has had a long and distinguished career in medical research. After graduating from the University of Saskatchewan College of Medicine, he performed his post-graduate training in internal medicine and gastroenterology at the University of Toronto and performed a postdoctoral fellowship in immunology at the Research Institute of Scripps Clinic. Prior to joining Johnson & Johnson in 2002, he worked as Vice President of Clinical Research for AstraZeneca, Vice President for Medical and Scientific Affairs at AstraPharmaceuticals, Director of Clinical Research for Gastroenterology and Executive Director for Medical Sciences at Astra Merck, and Vice President and global head of clinical research and development with Merck KGaA and its U.S. subsidiary EMD Pharmaceuticals. Since coming to Johnson & Johnson, Dr. Neil has worked in several roles to help develop their research program. In fact, he played a substantial role in development of INVEGA, a new medicine for schizophrenia approved in December 2006, as well as many other important drugs. He also a member of the Board of the J&J Development Corporation and Vice Chair of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) Science and Regulatory Committee, as well as a member of the PhRMA Foundation Board. Dr. Neil also has a distinguished career in medical academia, currently serving as a member of the Board of Trustees for the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. He has held a number of academic posts at the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research in Toronto, the University of Iowa College of Medicine, and the University of Pennsylvania. Furthermore, he has written more than 50 scholarly articles and book chapters. On October 17th, at the 2007 Lifetime of Caring Gala, the American Geriatrics Society will present Dr. Neil with the 2007 Discovery Award for ``his outstanding business, civic and philanthropic leadership, and for Johnson & Johnson's commitment to the well-being of older adults, their families and the communities in which they live.'' The American Geriatrics Society is an organization of more than 6,700 health professionals devoted to improving the health, independence, and quality of life for people as they age. I join them as they honor a fellow medical professional for his lifetime of work helping seniors and, indeed, people of all ages, live longer, healthier lives.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the volunteer firefighters of Good Will Fire Company No. 1 in Belvidere, New Jersey. For the past 125 years, they have faithfully guarded their neighbors. I commend them for their extraordinary service. The Good Will Fire Company was first formed in 1879 and officially incorporated on April 26, 1882. It has relied upon the dedication of volunteer firefighters throughout its rich history. Changes in demographics, lifestyle choices, and regulatory requirements have made it harder to recruit volunteers, but the men and women of this fire company make up for the open spots with their tremendous commitment and spirit. Many of the current members of Good Will Fire Company have fire fighting in their blood, fulfilling a legacy of service. And, there are also those at Good Will that have sons and daughters ready to step into their boots. On August 18th, the Good Will Fire Company celebrated their service with a parade. The people of Belvidere are well-aware of how fortunate they are to have these men and women protecting their lives and homes and businesses. And, I join them in honoring these brave firefighters.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, on June 26, 2007, the world lost one of America's unsung heroes when Thomas A. O'Rourke, originally of Ramsey, New Jersey, succumbed to a bone marrow disease known as Myelodysplastic syndrome. At the height of the Vietnam war, Tom O'Rourke sought out service to his nation, as both his mother and father had done before him. During college, Tom attended United States Marine Corps Officer Candidate School. He was commissioned as a second lieutenant and sent to flight school in Pensacola, Florida, where he earned his ``Wings of Gold.'' As a naval aviator, he headed off to Vietnam to fly AH-1G Cobra helicopters. Tom retired as a captain and went to work for Bell Helicopter International as a test pilot and then as manager for their Maintenance Test Flight Division in Iran. In the true spirit of lifelong allegiance to the values of the Corps and to his comrades still serving and yet to serve, he ensured the safety and effectiveness of their aviation equipment from his new place in the private sector. Tom later worked as the contracting administrator for the Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) and then in a number of capacities for the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe in Washington State, protecting the natural resources of those lush lands. Tom also found time to pursue personal interests, like scuba diving, travel, and softball--both as player and as coach. He spent a wonderful life with his wife of 28 years, Lohna; his son Kevin Thomas O'Rourke and his wife Casey; and his beautiful granddaughter, Mallie. Tom's son not only carries on his father's name, but also the proud family tradition of service as a pilot in the United States Marine Corps. Tom O'Rourke's place in this world is not easily filled; he touched so many lives with such sincerity of spirit. But his courage and determination and sense of fellowship live on with his family and friends. And, I join them in celebrating this heroic life.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend two long-time public servants in Sussex County, NJ: Phoebe and Ralph Shotwell. Both are pillars of the 4-H in Sussex County, having spent a lifetime working with its programs. Phoebe Hunt Shotwell, who first became a part of 4-H as a child, has been a volunteer leader for the 4-H cooking club, the Yeastie Beasties, for 55 years. She is on the Sussex County 4-H Advisory Council and is on the Executive Committee for the New Jersey State Fair/Sussex County Farm and Horse Show. Phoebe is also a director for the Sussex County 4- H Foundation, where she reviews scholarship applications, a job for which this former assistant teacher and library aide is very well qualified. She has also volunteered her time with a number of community organizations, such as the local PTA and the Green Township Hospital Auxiliary. Ralph Shotwell first joined his local Pequest Dairy 4-H Club in 1928 at the age of 11. Over the years, he has served as president of the Sussex County 4-H Council and has participated in a number of related efforts, including the Pomona Grange, New Jersey State Grange, Farmer's Enterprise Grange, Sussex County Agricultural Society, Sussex County Milk Producers, and Sussex County Board of Agriculture. He has also found time to serve as an elder in his church and as a volunteer firefighter and chief with the Green Township Fire Department. It is due to the dedication and hard work of the Shotwells and volunteers like them that the 4-H program in Sussex County has grown to more than 700 members participating in 63 clubs. Today, at the Sussex County Fairgrounds in Augusta, NJ, the Sussex County 4-H Educational Exhibit Hall Committee will dedicate the Phoebe and Ralph Shotwell 4-H Exhibit Hall. During the upcoming State Fair, the facility will be used for clinics, demonstrations, presentations, shows, educational programming, and--most importantly-- proud displays by 4-H members. I regret that I cannot be with these honored guests today as their 4-H colleagues demonstrate their extraordinary gratitude for the humble, yet outstanding public service of this Sussex County couple.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise to commend Maria Rath of Hainesville for her kind and generous service to her community. In her retirement, Maria has turned her tremendous energy and heart into a true blessing for all of Sussex County. Next week, her good deeds will be recognized at the State Fair when she is named the 2007 Sussex County Senior of the Year. I join my Sussex neighbors in honoring her for her work. Maria has established the Bread of Life's Ministry, a one-woman show distributing donated baked goods to area food pantries and families in need. She has partnered with places like Panera Bread, Manna House, and Sussex County Technical School to take their donations of leftover bread, repackage it, and distribute it to institutions like Liberty Towers and Nutrition Center, Brookside Apartments, the Newton Adult Day Care Center, First Presbyterian Church of Sparta, and, my own church, Lafayette Federated Church. In addition to her regular rounds, Maria will take whatever extra time or effort is necessary to help a family she hears may need her loving touch. In addition to this important project, Maria and her husband, Wilbur, started a furniture ministry six years ago. Through that endeavor, they bring household furniture to families in need. Maria also cooks at the Manna House once a month and volunteers at the Newton Hospital labs. Her labors are truly labors of love, bringing joy and hope to people as well as the material goods they need so badly. Maria notes, ``I'm 77, but I feel like 49.'' Age is no match for a young and vibrant spirit and heart. Maria is an extraordinary example for men and women of all ages, demonstrating the power of a single life to influence so many lives in a very positive way.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to New Jersey's 18 newest young ambassadors, the female soccer players of the North Jersey All-Stars. Today, they will set off from JFK Airport in New York for a two-week trip of good will and sportsmanship on the East Coast of Brazil. While in the coastal cities of Sao Mateus and Jaguare, the team of soccer superstars will play five games with local players, will deliver more than $15,000 in donated soccer equipment and sportsgear, and will spread a message of friendship to the people of Brazil. While most Americans traveling to Brazil, spend their days and nights in the touristy resorts, like Rio de Janeiro, these girls will be visiting a more remote and isolated, and far less wealthy, region. These high school-aged soccer players will be accompanied by their manager, David Heitman; trainers, Karen Hartigan and Phil Ross; and a local reporter, Brian Farrell. They will also be traveling with their coach, former professional soccer player, Roberto Ferman. The North Jersey All-Stars are: Zoey Talias of Wyckoff, Anna Rothschild of River Edge, Ashley Walker of Mahwah, Nicolle Sanchez of Lyndhurst, Amanda Soto of Mahwah, Faith Tucker of Rutherford, Lexi Hutton of Basking Ridge, Christy Shedlock of North Haledon, Katy Generelli of Spotswood, Karen Schoepflin of Oakland, Brielle Heitman of Mahwah, Janelle Biagini of Wyckoff, Kelly TenEyck of Mahwah, Brooke Bandazian of Wyckoff, Chelsea Marie Wuesthoff of Ironia, Sarah Royse of Northvale, Catherine Wolff of Wyckoff, Mimi Kocela of Waldwick. I commend these young women for their dedication to their sport and for their efforts to use that sport to spread a message of good will and sportsmanship overseas.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. America, your freedom of speech was trampled on yesterday. This new Democratic leadership quashed any semblance of free speech here on this House floor. This is not just a procedural matter, mind you. This is a matter for all Americans. You see, each Member of Congress represents 600,000 constituents. That is 600,000 American voices that were quashed yesterday. As I say, this is not just a Republican issue, for their voices were quashed, but so were Democrat and Independent voices as well. But in fact, this is nothing new for the new Democrat leadership. Just a week ago we had to come to this floor to make sure we could fight to keep the radio waves and the media opening dealing with the Fairness Doctrine. Prior to this, we had to fight to make sure that the centuries-old tradition of bipartisanship would not be broken. Prior to that, we had to fight to make sure that there would be transparency in earmarks, and all the Republicans fought on the side of openness and freedom of speech. The Democrats say they tolerate all diversity, but apparently diversity not of thought and speech.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, throughout this debate, we have heard a vote against this bill is a vote against the children, a vote against the poor, a vote against those who need the help most; and had this legislation merely reauthorized the current law, the arguments might have had an element of truth to them. But with this unconstrained growth in a welfare entitlement bill that this expansion has become, what we do know is that this bill now undermines the health care of millions of uninsured children and insured children and does so at the expense of American seniors. Supporters of this bill would say that by no means is this a back door to a mandatory, socialized, government-run health care system. I say, not the back door, but, as Paul Ryan might say, it's a front-door approach to a socialized, government-run health care system. Also, it opens the windows and the garage door as well. This bill does not set a cap on the annual income levels of the families it covers, it does not include an asset test to ensure that millionaires are not eligible, and it expands the program to cover childless adults. It is entirely conceivable, and, actually, it probably will occur, that the States can enroll as many people in this program as local politics will make expedient. A benchmark figure that has been bandied about is 300 percent. They want to enroll families up to 300 percent above the poverty level. Just what would that system look like? According to the Census Bureau, and I just got these numbers a little while ago, of the 300 million or so people in this country, 48.3 percent, or roughly 145 million people, live at or below the 300 percent of the Federal poverty level. So we're now considering a new entitlement program for nearly half of the entire population of this country. And if you add to that number the 44 million people who are currently enrolled in Medicare, what does that mean? That means, with this bill, almost two-thirds of the entire population of this country will be on a government-run, socialized health care system, two-thirds paid for by one-third. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it. This proposal is a large step towards a single-payer, Washington-run State health care system.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Is it a sufficient nexus to discuss the amount of time that an individual is taking to discuss the underlying amendment?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Thank you.

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I too join in supporting this amendment, and the gentleman from North Carolina for doing it, for saving so much money for the American taxpayer. Just prior to this we heard the chairman from the other side of the aisle, in essence, asking us in some ways to trample on our free speech rights in this House. And you know, when you do that, when you ask that we not speak on important issues here in this House for hours, for a period of time, and the other side of the aisle always points out that we're spending more time this year than we did in the past years trying to debate these issues. And I think the American public, quite honestly appreciates that, whether it's 86 hours or 186 hours. I think the American public looks to Congress to make sure that we spend their money appropriately, and looks for us to debate those issues appropriately as well. We, each Member of Congress, as we stand here, represents a little over 600,000 individuals, men, women and children, across this country in our respective districts. When we come to this floor and speak on this floor, we are representing their voices. We bring their voices from New Jersey to this floor. And so when the other side of the aisle says, oh, you go on too long over there in the minority, well they're saying that really to my constituents. They are complaining that my constituents' voice should be silenced. And I come to the floor right now and say, no, sir, my constituents voices will not be silenced. I will speak out when I can, where I can on behalf of the constituents of the Fifth District and the State of New Jersey as well. Now, I know that we're looking at a bill here with $18.6 billion. Right now we're looking at an amendment for $100,000. To us, and my constituents, that's a lot of money. And if it takes us an hour or two hours to debate this one amendment, to get consensus to save $100,000, well, that's a lot of money to my constituents, and they would say that hour or two hours of debate is well worth it. Now, maybe the other side of the aisle will disagree with me. Maybe the other side of the aisle doesn't care whether we spend 50,000, 100,000 of our hard-earned tax dollars. And maybe they will accept the amendment as they did in the past, and if they do so, the $100,000 amendment, we appreciate that. But you know, in that regard, this really is a bipartisan effort then. It is really two parties coming together to solve a problem. The one party, the majority party, comes to this floor, raises our taxes, increases our spending. The minority party, the Republicans, equally come to the floor, and we reach out our hand and work together. While the Democrats raise our taxes and raise the spending, we reach out a hand and say how about trying to bring that spending down just a little bit by $100,000, and by bipartisan effort we're able to get that down. So this is a bipartisan day, and I hope that we will see other amendments to increase that bipartisanship as well, as we try to rein in the spending that the other side has brought us. And when we talk about what the other side has brought us, and one of the reasons why we need to save this $100,000, just think of what we've gone through in the last few months already and just recently in the last couple weeks. We have seen taxpayers on the American taxpayers go up by over $400 billion in one of the first bills that House passed under the majority party of their budget. We have seen just recently them raising taxes again through the farm bill. And now with this underlying bill that we'll be looking at in a little bit on the SCHIP bill, another $60 billion in taxes. And let me add just one more tax increase that maybe Members of both sides of the aisle may be forgetting about. Just a few hours ago, as I look at the clock, I came out of Financial Services Committee, where we, or the majority party, added the last piece to the puzzle with regard to another tax increase on the American public, and that's the MTI. That's the mortgage tax increase. That's a tax increase on every family in America who needs to go out and get a mortgage to buy their first home or their second or an additional home as they move into it. Every family in America who will want to get out a mortgage in the future will now have to pay an MTI, a mortgage tax increase, thanks to the majority party in the legislation that is just finally put in place. So whether it is an increase in the budget taxes or the farm bill or the SCHIP or now an MTI as far as a tax increase as well, we're working with the other side of the aisle. As they raise taxes on the American family, we work with them here and there, to bring down the spending to a level that our taxpayers in our districts are able to abide by. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. When the Chair rules to a point of order with respect to limiting one's comments or debate to the underlying amendment that is before us at the time, is that time allowed to be discussed on something with respect to the amount of time in essence that we are discussing that bill or does the language only go to the underlying amendment?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to join with the chairman in support of H.R. 180, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act. I'm increasingly concerned, I'm outraged in a sense, about the continuing atrocities in the Darfur region of Sudan. Without question, the horrific actions of the janjaweed militia and the Sudanese Government must immediately end. And the nations of the world must speak in unison against this genocide, and that is what it is, a genocide. Hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed, many of them in particularly brutal ways. Another estimated 2 million in Darfur have been displaced refugees, plus hundreds of thousands in Chad. This is a crisis that must be addressed now and must be addressed on each and every front. Unfortunately, the international community, specifically in the United Nations, the U.N. has consistently failed in efforts to bring peace to this region. U.N. resolutions have lacked the teeth or failed to be implemented, and that is because of the Security Council members such as China and Russia as they continue to stall the progress. So as the U.N. slowly moves towards a real peacekeeping force, other groups are being forced to pull out because of violence in the region. Thus, recently, OxFam announced in June that they will have to pull out of the largest camp in Darfur, where more than 130,000 people have found shelter; and without a way to protect humanitarian aid flowing into the area, thousands more will face starvation. That is why I'm pleased we are bringing this important legislation to the floor today, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act. It requires the Secretary of the Treasury to create a list of companies that have a direct investment in or are conducting businesses operations in Sudan's power, mineral, oil or military equipment industries. It authorizes States and local municipalities to divest based on the Treasury list or other lists to protect them from lawsuits. It amends the Investment Company Act of 1940 and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to protect mutual funds and pension funds from lawsuits if they choose to divest from companies on the Treasury list. And finally, fourthly, it prohibits the U.S. Government from entering into or renewing contracts with companies on that list. I was very pleased, as I say, Mr. Speaker, with the chairman working in a bipartisan manner with myself and Ranking Member Bachus on the committee, and we agreed to make a number of changes to the bill to address some of the concerns made from our side of the aisle. One of the specific changes that was made was calls on countries around the world to take similar steps with regard to the situation. The section states: ``It is the sense of the Congress that the governments of all other countries should adopt measures, similar to those contained in this act, to publicize the activities of all persons that, through their financial dealings, knowingly or unknowingly enable the Government of Sudan to continue to oppress and commit genocide against people in the Darfur region and other regions of Sudan, and to authorize divestment from, and the avoidance of further investment in, the persons.'' As the distinguished ranking member of the committee, Mr. Bachus, has noted, ``Economic and financial considerations are important, but in a loving Nation can never be as justification for complicity in genocide. Closing our financial markets to those who participate directly or indirectly in the slaughter of innocent human beings is well within our ability and ought to be a bedrock principle. America is a loving Nation, and allowing our financial markets to be utilized by an evil regime which conducts religious and racial genocide is inconsistent with our values and principles.'' With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I now yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).