Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman and gentlewoman on the other side of the aisle for their efforts on this legislation

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I also thank again the distinguished chairman of the committee for bringing this important legislation to the floor. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 2347, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act. The radical hard-line Islamic leadership of Iran presents one of the most serious threats today to peace and stability throughout the world. First, their quest to acquire nuclear weapons technology, when you combine that with comments by the Iranian President such that the Nation of Israel should be ``wiped off the map,'' make it clear that the Iranian leadership is unpredictable and dangerous. The Iranian President has gone even farther by speculating that the collateral damage of attacking Israel with nuclear weapons would be worth the cost to the Muslim world. So for a regime that is developing nuclear capabilities, these are truly extraordinary words, and the world must take notice. The Iranian President and the Ayatollah's supreme wish is the destruction of Israel and all of her people. They have not tried to mask their goal. They doubt that the Holocaust ever occurred in the past, and now they're making plans for the Holocaust of the future. And there is no doubt about it. Their fresh Holocaust will stretch far beyond the borders of Israel. They will encompass all whom they consider a threat to their values and to their plans. So to confront Iran now is not only in the national interest, it is also in our interest because the U.S. will surely sometime be a target itself. There is much talk at the U.N. about preventing wars and genocide, but, unfortunately, there is so too little action. The world should not ignore these words now of aggression. Because of the lack of success the U.N. has had in keeping the nuclear technology out of the hands of these radicals, the United States must now take the appropriate measures and work directly with all of our allies to do everything in our power to prevent Iran from obtaining those weapons. And so that is why I'm here today. I am pleased with H.R. 2347, for this act will do several important measures. First, as indicated, it permits, permits, not mandates, the divestiture from companies with investments of $20 million or more in Iran's energy sector. Secondly, it directs the Federal Government to produce a list of such companies that qualify for such investment. Thirdly, it authorizes State governments, local governments and public educational institutions to divest even their pension fund assets from companies on that list. Fourthly, it permits private investment and pension plan managers to divest from companies listed, as the chairman states, without breaching their fiduciary responsibilities. As the committee report herein notes, companies based in the U.S. are already barred from doing business with Iran. But these trade investment sanctions do not extend to foreign companies which operate legally. Foreign persons that invested in Iran's energy sector, despite Iran's support of international terrorism and its nuclear program, have provided additional financial means for Iran's activities in these areas, and many United States persons have unknowingly invested in those same persons. So Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, it is my hope that by allowing U.S. companies to divest their financial interests from any foreign-owned companies doing business with Iran, we will continue to put that pressure on that radical Iranian leadership to end their stated goals of acquiring nuclear weapons and encourage other countries to bolster their trade and economic restrictions on Iran as well. So I urge my colleagues to support this small but very important step in reining in this extremist regime. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays)

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to a champion of the fight for human rights, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, just a concluding point, with the need for us to take initial movement on this but also to look for the rest of the world community to become involved. It was just last year when U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown said with regard to Darfur on this point: ``And yet what can the U.S. do alone in the heart of Africa in a region the size of France? In essence, the U.S. is stymied before it even passes Go. It needs a multilateral means to address the Sudan's concerns.'' I believe that is true, but this is the first step in that direction. With that, I once again thank the gentlelady from California and the chairman as well for their work together in a bipartisan manner on this legislation

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I begin by saying that over the last couple of years there have been multiple genocides that occurred under the U.N.'s watch. There was Bosnia, Rwanda and now Darfur. Each time the U.N. has failed to take appropriate action. Each time it is because of political and economic pressure. When the current situation arose in Darfur, the best that we could get out of the U.N. and then-Secretary General Kofi Annan was, at the anniversary of Rwanda, simply a statement on the floor of that anniversary and a moment of silence and the pledge this shall never happen again. Unfortunately, it has happened again. That is why we are here today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman and a strong fighter on this issue, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays)

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House today is considering H. Res. 121 which rightly recognizes the plight of Korean comfort women during the 1930s and WorId War II. I was proud to cosponsor this resolution which calls on the nation of Japan to formally recognize and apologize for these crimes. After the Japanese occupation of Korea in the 1930s, the army forced young women to work in brothels. In some cases kidnapped women were transported overseas for sexual servitude. At the end of WorId War II, these women were left scarred and in many cases far from home with no resources. Sadly, there are some in Japan who still insist that the army was not formally involved with these crimes or that the women chose to become involved in prostitution. The evidence clearly demonstrates that this was not the case. It is far past time for the Japanese government to recognize the role the army played in these crimes. Today, we call on them to apologize to the few women who continue to live with the shame of the crimes committed against them. While the relationship between Korea and Japan has improved as both countries turned into thriving democracies, the issue of the comfort women continues to come between them. I hope that this resolution will promote reconciliation so that both countries can move together into a future of cooperation and friendship.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share in the celebration of LCpl Mathew Liberto's homecoming. Mat serves honorably with the 3rd Battalion, 14th Marines, 4th Marine Division out of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He has just returned from a deployment to Al-Qaim and a forward-operating base near Waleed on the Syrian border. Today, his employer, New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company (NJM) is officially welcoming Mat home with all the pomp and circumstance deserved by a great American hero. He will be honored for his service along with his fellow employee, Joseph Bethea of Morrisville, Pennsylvania, a National Guard Flight Operations Sergeant with the 150th General Support Aviation Battalion of the 42nd Infantry Division. Joe also recently returned from deployment to Iraq. I commend these gentlemen for their commitment to the ideals of freedom and liberty and to the sacrifices they have made that make it possible for those ideals to exist in our lives today. I also commend New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company, which is today treating these men to a hero's welcome. Not only did the employees of NJM take the time to correspond regularly with their deployed colleagues, they also sent them and their units care packages. This compassion and community is the strength of our national fabric, and it is an honor to share their story for posterity.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield a moment to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the chairman's acceptance of the amendment. I will just spend 30 seconds just for the edification of the membership of the conference as well what the amendment does. This amendment harkens back to the days when, not too long ago actually, the various Federal Government agencies, when taking part in international conferences overseas, would send upwards of 70, 80, 90, 100, over 100 members of their Departments or agencies to these various conferences, spending, obviously, an excessive amount of taxpayers' dollars. And as we've heard from both sides of the aisle in an appropriate manner, we are here to set priorities. And I agree with the effort on both sides of the aisle, and that's exactly what this amendment does. It says let's pick a reasonable number, in this case it's 50, a limitation as to the number of members of any agency to go on these international conferences. This amendment has been accepted in the past, and once again I appreciate the chairman accepting this amendment. I'm not sure whether the ranking member is also in agreement with it as well. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. I support his amendment because it does bring both fairness to the American farmer and also to the American taxpayer, and it does so by dispelling certain myths that are out there. This program started in 1933 as an emergency program that was supposed to be temporary. Well, 70, 80 years later and this temporary program is still with us. It started out as a program that was supposed to be for the small farmers, like we have in the State of New Jersey still, actually, and yet we find that three-quarters of the farmers are getting 10 percent of the program. The small farmers are just getting a slice of it. It is supposed to be going out for the small farmers and the farmers who are only making a small income, to help the family farm, yet we see that the average income of these farmers for the large sales are making $199,000. This amendment helps to dispel the myth to make sure that we get a program that actually helps the family farmer and helps the American taxpayer at the same time. I support the amendment of the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I recall last term in the 109th Congress in the Budget Committee where I served the gentleman from Minnesota who's no longer with us, Mr. Gutknecht, who made a point with regard to spending by this House and Washington, D.C. You know, in that committee you could always put up charts on the wall with regard to spending, chart A on mandatory spending or B on discretionary spending or health care or other spending. You would put them all up there. And Gil one time went through all the charts and he said, now, can you put up the chart of all the people and lobbyists that come down to Washington to ask for a reduction in their program and spending? And of course they put up a blank screen. Of course, Gil's point was, no one ever comes to Washington, no lobbyist ever comes before the House or committee and says that their program should see a flatlining or a reduction in their programs. And that's really the point here tonight, and it has been all last week. We are here to set the priorities because everyone that comes to every Member of Congress looks for us to spend more on them, and so we must set priorities because they won't do it for us. So just as the American family has to set priorities, we do. Just as the American family says, we're not going to buy a cable TV system and a Dish TV system and a satellite TV system, we're going to set priorities, pick one if we can afford it. Maybe we can't afford it at all. And when it comes to heating our house, we're not going to have electric heat and hot water heat and coal heat and gas heat. We're going to pick one, hopefully the most efficient. That's what families do. And we would hope that Congress does the exact same thing with the money. Set priorities. And this amendment really just calls us on doing that, looking to see, not a 6.7 percent increase but a 6.2 percent increase and try to set priorities. Now, the other side of the aisle says, well, we are being stingy with all these programs if we are not able to go up by a 6.7 percent increase. I would suggest to the other side of the aisle maybe they are not looking at the right side of the ledger, the right side of the equation. Look at the families who have to pay for all these inefficient, duplicative, and unnecessary programs that they want to spend taxpayer dollars on. Look instead at the American family when it comes to education. When it comes to education, well, if they do successfully pass the largest tax increase in U.S. history, which they are about to do, the American family is going to have to see their educational spending cut. The American family is going to have to decide whether they can send all of their children to college or not. The other side should look at the issue of health care for the American family because what they want to do is tell the American taxpayer, you have to cut your spending on health care. Maybe you have a child that needs new braces or glasses or something like that. Well, with their tax increases, the American family is asked to cut their spending. How about housing? The other side of the aisle would say the same thing. Maybe it is a young family trying to start off to save enough money to buy their first house. Well, the other side of the aisle would like to raise their taxes on them so that they can put these duplicative programs through, and they will not be able to afford their housing. Finally, most importantly, after the other side puts on all these burdens when it comes to cutting the taxpayer with regard to education or health care or housing, the biggest burden is on time. When the Democrats raise the largest tax increase in American history on the American family, what they are also doing is taking away time from the American family because now families which weren't working two jobs now have to work two jobs. Families that weren't working overtime before now have to work overtime just to pay for the extra burden that this government in Washington, under Democrat leadership, is imposing on them. So the most basic thing we could all look for, time with our family, is being robbed, is being taxed, is being taken away from the American family just so we can implement what the Democrats see as necessary, but truthfully we have shown are not priorities, truthfully are unnecessary, duplicative, hugely increased, inefficient programs. Let's focus again back on the American family. Let's focus again back on allowing them to have time with their family and put the burden where it should be. I support this amendment and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do so as well.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am pleased to come to the floor today with my colleague from New Jersey, Morristown, and also my other colleague here as well from Connecticut, Christopher Shays, as we propose an amendment that will ask the FAA to basically more closely consider how their proposed airspace redesign plan will impact upon the quality of life of the residents of the State of New Jersey, from Connecticut, and also from the State of New York as well. Now, we all recognize that the skies over our area are more crowded than ever before, and air travel is, obviously, a worthy goal. But the FAA must make noise and air pollution a top consideration whenever they work to redesign their airspace. Residents of the communities across the five States are facing a threat now to the quiet of their communities and also to the value of their homes as well. The residents of my area, the Fifth District of New Jersey, are especially concerned about this. Just recently we held what you call a town meeting of sorts, and nearly 1,500 people came out to the public hearing up in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey, and that was just about a month ago. And they came out to voice their concerns directly to the FAA. The FAA received comments from all present, but wouldn't it have been a lot better if the FAA had taken those comments before they drafted their preferred alternative? The citizens who came to that meeting left with a deep concern that the FAA just is not listening. So this amendment is really here to help force the FAA to listen to those people in the area. So as noise in these communities increases, there is a very real possibility that the values of their homes are going to decrease. Residents are concerned their communities are going to be drastically affected by the fact that the FAA is simply trying to save 2, 3, 4, 5 minutes from the travelers' air time. So, in conclusion, we are simply asking now through this amendment that the FAA reconsider their preferred alternative with an eye towards protecting the communities and considering that at the same time that they consider the air travelers as well.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. If the gentleman would yield, And lest anyone following this get confused when we talk about the tax increases, the gentleman from Wisconsin set it out and you followed up with quite some detail, as far as the tax increase necessary in order to pay for those entitlement expansions over time. That would be in addition to what we have already seen has occurred during this first 6 months in office. In other words, we have already seen the largest tax increase in U.S. history. And the current tax increase means that 115 million taxpayers are going to see a $1,716 increase in their tax bill in just a couple years; 84 million women would see their taxes go up by $1,970; 42 million families with children, which is what we are down here talking on the floor about right now, those children, trying to be sure they have health insurance. Those 42 million families with children will see an increase of over $2,000 in their taxes already this year because of what the Democrats have done. And what you are speaking of is going to be in addition to and on top of that. In trying to just throw some numbers to the percentages that you were throwing out there before as far as this expansion of children that will come under this program now, those children who may be just living across the street from us who their dads or moms work for a company right now that provides them insurance, all of a sudden those companies don't provide it anymore because now the government, we are going to pay for it. Or those children who have parents who have retiree benefits and are getting insurance for them now, they will no longer have to get it from their retirement pension programs; the government, meaning taxpayers, will pay for it. The CBO just came out with some numbers on this, and real numbers means that for the first, just the expansion of the program as far as additional dollars means 600,000 new children who used to yesterday have coverage under the private sector will now look to the taxpayer to pay for it; and another 600,000 children yesterday who had insurance, whether through pensions or their parents' employers, will now look to the Federal taxpayers. So 1.2 million children. Now, that is under the House version. That number, I haven't gotten a CBO estimate yet, would be even greater under the Senate version as far as children expanded into this program who are already covered.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. We are number one in a number of things, in the number of taxes that we pay and the number of taxes that the Democrats are going to make us pay in the future as well.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for coming to the floor this late hour, although on the west coast it is just early evening, and so we welcome all those who partake in these forums that we have that are educational to not only the American public, but also to our colleagues who may be in their chambers learning a little about SCHIP as we go along. I was listening to your opening comments, and you were right on point on this one, as you are always right. I have great respect for your ability to have a strong grasp of the situation on a whole slew of topics. I sort of focus on certain areas like the U.N., which is one of my pet peeves, or financial services, or education and No Child Left Behind. But I know whether on the floor or at home, I can watch and be assured that you are covering thoroughly a topic of importance to the American people. And SCHIP is one of those topics. You were just beginning to address the issue of the number of children that will be on SCHIP and the direction that the government is going in this area. Your chart makes the point abundantly clear. Red is usually a warning sign to people. When the red flashers go off or the red lights flash, you know something is amiss, and I guess you chose the appropriate coloration of your charts that something is amiss. We see back in 1998, less than a decade ago, a little over a quarter of the kids in this country were under a government-run plan, and now we are looking to see almost three-quarters of the children in this country under a government-run plan. That is fine. That would be fine if you thought that the U.S. government, if Washington is in the best position to take care of and administer the health of our children. But you know, you don't have to listen to The Official Truth Squad here on the floor each week to know that things are oftentimes amiss when it comes to the efficiency and the accountability of the Federal Government. Heck, just look a couple of years ago when the whole issue of Katrina was coming on, there was railing from both sides of the aisle, rightfully so, when we realized that the Federal Government couldn't get into an area where it had an obligation to, and that is, to help out people in a tragic situation, whether it's home settings or others or in a health situation. Likewise, I think I recall there was railing again against the Federal Government when, again, in an area that the Federal Government does have a distinct responsibility, and that is taking care of our veterans and our men and women who are in the military or returning back from the military to the facility just down the road a piece from here, and there was a question as to the conditions of those medical facilities and whether we're giving those brave men and women all the facilities and care and comfort and proper medical care that they deserve. Yet, when we know that all those problems exist, there are some, especially from the other side of the aisle in this House and certainly on the other side of the aisle in the Senate, who would say that the solution to the health dilemma in this country is not by turning it back to a patient-doctor relationship, but instead of turning it to a Federal Government/doctor-patient relationship. So we are going in the wrong direction with regard to that. I'd like to come back to that in a moment or two, but at this point I yield back to gentleman if he would like to speak.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I know that the gentleman from Wisconsin would be able to elaborate on this in much more detail, but in the best case scenario, would that the Federal Government be awash with cash right now, and would that we had no mandatory spending problem going on in the Federal Government right now, maybe some people would want to sit down right now and say, how can we spend our extra dollars around the country? But as the gentleman can elaborate in much detail, and we have seen in the Budget Committee for the first months of this year, testimony after testimony after testimony, expert after expert after expert from all spectrums of authority, we are now in that situation where we find ourselves with the Federal Government and mandatory spending going out of control. There are legitimate groups within that that the American public would agree with, or those that we should be targeting, to make sure that they do. The aged, the poor, the infirm, who desperately need medical care and are not able to cover it by themselves and are not fortunate enough to be able to work any longer, and who are not working now and covered by an employer plan, and did not unfortunately work for a company that provides for a company-sponsored plan after their termination at work, those are the people that the American public would ask that's where our focus would be. But do we find ourselves in our situation right now where we can say that we have all the other mandatory spending under control that we can address this now?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. The last point you make as far as the area of intrusiveness of the Federal Government and how they are sometimes basically out of step with what is appropriate between the normal doctor-patient relationship, maybe that's because the Federal Government and all governments in general always lag behind the private sector, whatever field you might consider, as far as innovation and moving ahead and new areas. I mean, think about it. You can go to the store tonight and buy any item that you possibly want, whip out your credit card and slip it through a machine. Within seconds that transaction is created, and they know your credit rating and whether you have money in that bank account to pay for that item. It's all done just in the blink of an eye. Go to your local town hall or go to the IRS or go to anybody else like that and see whether they are up to date with that technology, and you will find out they are not. Those are okay, because that's not a life-and-death situation. But you, as a physician, know that when it comes to a life-and-death situation, or we all know, that we want our children and our spouses to be able to have the most up-to-date, the most innovative, the most advanced technology available to them. I think that is going to be found on the marketplace of ideas that is in the general marketplace, as opposed to the convoluted, Byzantine system that we call this, the Federal Government. Mr. Ryan just stated that what the Federal Government is attempting to do here, with the expansion of this program, as we come to the floor tonight, we mark approximately the sixth month of control of the Federal Government under Democrat leadership. As we mark this sixth month, we have seen the largest expansion in taxes, the largest tax increase in U.S. history. I guess, as we discussed here on the floor tonight about the Democrat plan for the expansion of the SCHIP program, we see the largest expansion intrusion into the family and personal life by the health system, by the expansion of the SCHIP system. The point I just wanted to make, though, is take a look at how the system has worked so far with respect to the system, the distribution of money to the States. If you go back to I guess it was 1968 or 1969, the first couple of years under the Nixon administration, and he came up with a program of distributing money to the States that was called revenue sharing. That was a new idea at the time, and after a time we realized it didn't really work exactly the way Nixon intended it to do. In fact, he tried to do it in certain areas like education and was never able to get it into legislation. Yet the same sort of idea here, in the original version and the version that will be coming out in the Senate as well. In a similar situation that we can all relate to, say you have four kids in your family, and you are going to give them all $40 to spend each week. So you give each one of your children $10 each. So here, Child One, Two, Three, Four, presumably you have better names than that for them, here is $10 each. You each get to spend it on anything you want during the course of this week. But, mind you, when the weekend comes, if you don't spend it, if one of the other ones here happens to go over their budget, and you didn't spend it all, what we are going to do is redistribute those funds to the other child there. What do you think that your kids are going to do? I would imagine that each one of them is probably going to go out as soon as they possibly can, spend that full $10, and maybe even spend $11 just hoping that there will be some money left over from their siblings there to spend it. Well, children, not to make the comparison here to the States, but the States here are a lot like children in this situation. This system was set up with $40 billion initially spread out to all the States. It was done, you might say, as fair as the Federal Government goes, as far as how many children may be in the program versus how many children are under other programs. But what happened immediately after that, when they told the States, now, look, if you don't spend your money, we are going to take your leftover money and send it to the other States? Well, initially, in the first couple of years, a number of States did not spend all their money. In 2001, only 12 States exhausted their entire allotment. However, once they saw how that all came down, in 2006, 40 States used all available funds. In that same period of time, unused State funds dropped from $2 billion to only $170 million. So, finally, in this past appropriations, we had to step in, because there was too few States not spending all their money, too many States spending it. So we had to come up with spending of an additional $393 million that was recently appropriated to address the 2007 shortfall. That just goes to show you one of the inherent problems in the system and the way it has been administrated in the past and, I believe, will continue under this system as well.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I will yield.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I will. I will just extend that 30 seconds to approximately 1 minute, though, because I just want to make a point on this amendment. I very much appreciate the chairman for accepting this amendment. What this amendment does, as we have said all along, is it sets priorities, and it does on two areas that are extremely important to the Fifth Congressional District and the State of New Jersey and the entire Nation as well. And that is that we set priorities by increasing funding in two very important areas. One is to the National Cancer Institute for additional cancer research by $10 million. And another area of extreme importance to the State of New Jersey for the rising number of children being born with autism, to direct an additional $10 million for research in that area as well. I will just give a couple of statistics: one in 150 children, and it used to be one in around 10,000, is now diagnosed with autism. Every day 67 children are diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, which translates into a new case almost every 20 minutes. Autism is becoming the fastest-growing serious developmental disability in the United States. That was the purpose for putting that in these amendments, and I thank the chairman for agreeing with us to the importance and seeing that additional funds go to these very worthy causes. Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment that would take $49 million from an account that was zeroed out in the President's budget request, and transfer it to two Institutes at the National Institutes of Health that I believe need additional funding--one working to fight cancer, and one working to fight autism. Since President Nixon unofficially declared war on cancer in his State of the Union Address of 1971, much progress has been made in the area of cancer research. Over the past three and one-half decades, science has continued to break down barriers in the fight against this disease. Today, cancer is no longer the mystery disease that it once was, and researchers know infinitely more about the prevention, detection, and treatment of the disease than ever before. All this research is beginning to bear fruit. Fewer people died from cancer in 2004 than in 2003 and the American public is witnessing declining rates for most major cancer types, including breast cancer, prostate cancer, and colorectal cancer. But there's much more work to be done. I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for increasing the budget of the National Cancer Institute in this year's bill. I just think that we can do a little more. And this is an obviously higher priority with far broader application to the American people. We can also do a little more to fund research for a serious problem facing the country: autism. According to Autism Now, the largest autism foundation in the country: 1 in 150 children is diagnosed with autism; every day 67 children are diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder, which translates into a new case almost every 20 minutes; and autism is the fastest-growing serious developmental disability in the United States. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in my home State of New Jersey, the rate of new autism spectrum disorder cases is the highest in the country. One in sixty boys in New Jersey is affected. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would also increase the budget of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke by $10 million. This Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health, is the organization within the Federal Government that is primarily responsible for organizing the research into autism. The account that this amendment would take from was proposed to be eliminated entirely by the administration, as it has demonstrated to be duplicative and ineffective. My amendment retains some funding in that account, but reduces it. If these appropriations bills are about priorities, I ask that we make research on cancer and autism a priority, above duplicative and ineffective programs. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I appreciate that. I will shorten my remarks to approximately 30 seconds to say, I thank the chairman for accepting the amendment. I thank the previous subcommittee chairmen as well for accepting similar which we have done in the past, which simply says to set priorities. When we have Federal agencies send Federal employees overseas for conferences, we should put a realistic limitation on it, and this one, I think, does, at 50 employees of any Federal Department or agency for any single conference occurring outside the United States. Again, I appreciate the chairman's acceptance of the amendment. While this is an amendment that I have proposed to other appropriations bills, I believe it is especially important that it be included on this bill. Since 2000, HHS has spent over $435 million on conferences and spent $88 million just last year. Government-wide spending in those same years was over $1.5 billion. In 2002 HHS spent $3.6 million to send 236 persons to the AIDS conference in Barcelona. In 2004 HHS spent $500,000 to send 140 persons to the AIDS conference in Bangkok. In 2005 HHS sent 300 employees to a dioxin conference in Toronto. Last year the agency sent delegations of 200 or more to 54 separate conferences. Many of these conferences are now covered online, allowing interested parties to attend without expensive plane tickets, meals, and hotel rooms. An identical amendment was included in the House-passed version of the FY05 appropriations bill but removed in conference. I cannot help but think of the possibly tens of millions of taxpayer money that could have been saved in the past few years had this language become standard. I trust that the new chairman will work to include the amendment in the conference agreement--we must inject some sense into HHS. This amendment will only limit international conferences, just a small step in reigning in an agency that seems to think its job is to talk about problems instead of working to solve them. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.