Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Taiwan's 104th National Day on October 10th, also known as Double Ten Day. Both the United States and Taiwan share the belief that remembering our countries' heritage is critical to forging a path to a better tomorrow. Only a few decades ago, Taiwan was an authoritarian state. Yet today, presidents and legislators are elected through a peaceful, democratic process. I applaud Taiwan for cherishing these liberties rather than taking them for granted. The United States has been a close ally of Taiwan for many years, and our friendship is solidified by our core set of shared values. Justice, rule of law, human rights, and freedom of the press are treasured by people in both the United States and Taiwan. Furthermore, Taiwan is an important security and economic partner of the United States. As a member of the Congressional Taiwan Caucus, I am pleased to see Taiwan's admission to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation group and World Trade Organization, as well as Taiwan's observer status at the World Health Organization. However, Taiwan and its 23 million people are still not fully represented in the United Nations. It is vital for the United States to continue to stand with Taiwan by supporting its meaningful participation in international bodies. This is why I have introduced H. Con. Res. 76, which supports Taiwan's full membership in the United Nations. I urge my colleagues in Congress to join me in supporting Taiwan's full and equal membership in the United Nations and other international organizations. I would again like to congratulate the people of Taiwan on their 104th National Day. This anniversary is a time to remember the sacrifices of the past and to look ahead to a promising future.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. I thank the chairman for helping us to usher this legislation through today. I very much appreciate it. Mr. Speaker, today I stand before the House to honor the life and the legacy of one of New Jersey's sons, Staff Sergeant Joseph D'Augustine of Waldwick, New Jersey. Staff Sergeant D'Augustine was killed more than 3 years ago--that was back on March 27, 2012--while conducting combat operations in Afghanistan. In the greatest possible act of self-sacrifice, he gave his life while protecting the lives of men and women in uniform. He was just 29 years old. Today it is fitting that this House will honor him by passing legislation to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service, located at 1 Walter Hammond Place in Waldwick, New Jersey, as the Staff Sergeant Joseph D'Augustine Post Office Building. While nothing will ever heal the loss left by Staff Sergeant D'Augustine to his family, to his friends, and to his community, today's vote will ensure that all of the residents of this town will have a permanent reminder of the ultimate sacrifice made by one of their native sons. To protect our freedom, to protect our liberty, to protect our way of life, a few brave men and women have answered that call of duty. They stand--and have stood--between us here in the United States and those who would do us harm. So I am privileged to come here and stand before this House to honor one of those men today. You see, it was just one day after graduating from Waldwick High School in 2001 that Staff Sergeant D'Augustine enlisted in the United States Marine Corps. He was assigned then to the 8th Engineer Support Battalion, 2nd Marine Logistics Group, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force. He had served two full tours of duty in Iraq and was just 2 weeks away from completing his second tour of duty in Afghanistan. He worked as something called an explosive ordnance disposal tech, and he was going ahead of his fellow marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen. He was the one clearing the way for them. Although we will never know the number of lives that he saved, I think his numerous awards speak for his selfless heroism. He was awarded the Bronze Star with Valor, the Purple Heart, the Navy and Marine Commendation Medal, the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, the Combat Action Ribbon, the Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the Iraq Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Korean Defense Service Medal, the Humanitarian Service Medal, and the NATO-ISAF Medal. I think all of these speak of his selfless heroism. Even now, after his passing, Staff Sergeant D'Augustine's legacy continues in his community. The Staff Sergeant Joseph D'Augustine Memorial Fund offers a scholarship to one male graduating senior and to one female graduating senior who exemplify the highest standards of citizenship through strong character and dedication to community service. Since October of 2012, the fund has donated more than $94,000 to numerous charities as well as direct donations to veterans in need. The tremendous outpouring of love and support for his family since his death has provided a glimpse into the numbers of lives that he has touched and to the number of lives his love continues to touch. To those who knew him best--his parents, Anthony and Patricia; his three sisters, Nicole, Jennifer, Michele; and his brother-in-law, Len-- he will be remembered as a loving son and brother. To his fellow marines, he will be remembered as a faithful brother in arms. To this Nation, he will be remembered as a patriot who loved this country, who loved the Marine Corps, and who gave his life in defense of freedom. The Marine Corps' motto is Semper Fidelis, always faithful. Staff Sergeant D'Augustine lived this motto, and his legacy embodies it. He was faithful to his country; he was faithful to the mission; he was faithful to the Corps; and he was faithful to his fellow marines. In times such as this, words do fail to provide adequate comfort to his family and to his friends; but it is my hope, as I think it is the hope of us all, to know that the prayers and gratitude of this Nation are with them. I want to thank my colleagues for supporting this legislation. Again, I thank the chairman for moving this legislation, for ensuring that the Staff Sergeant Joseph D'Augustine Post Office becomes an everlasting honor to his legacy and service to our Nation.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, on this date two-hundred and twenty-eight years ago, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention completed their arduous work and signed the document designed to restore liberty to the citizens of a new nation. The American Republic was born out of a struggle against British tyranny and a monarchical system that our forefathers deemed incompatible with the rights of free men and women. Consistent with the principles espoused by the Spirit of '76 and enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution was not imposed on the people. It was humbly submitted to the people for their approval. A great national debate followed. If the people were to judge the Constitution, they were expected to understand the Constitution. The Federalist Papers, a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, responded to Antifederalist critics by serving as an invaluable guide to the Constitution's provisions. Their arguments proved decisive and, eventually, the requisite number of states ratified the Constitution. Education was integral to the Constitution's ratification. At a time when the globe was dominated by kingdoms and empires, a skeptical world believed that a republic devoted to the ancient cause of liberty would inevitably fail. But the test of time has proven the wisdom, effectiveness, and durability of our great charter. It has guaranteed our natural rights and preserved our cherished liberties. It has inspired foreign peoples shackled by tyranny to seek to replicate what the Americans have accomplished. It has resisted the waves of totalitarian ideologies that claimed human liberty to be a relic of antiquity. On Constitution Day, Americans follow in the footsteps of the Founders, not only by recommitting ourselves to the Constitution's enlightened provisions, but also by accepting the duty to provide the education necessary for the survival of a free people. I commend all those that take the opportunity this day provides to promote the American ideals of human liberty and renew our commitment to the preservation of the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, as founder of the Congressional Constitution Caucus, today marks the 228th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. Unlike other revolutions, the Constitution was not imposed on the people. It was submitted to the people for their approval. If the people were to judge the Constitution, they were expected to understand the Constitution. The Federalist Papers, a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, argued for ratification and served as an invaluable guide to the Constitution. Education was integral to the Constitution's success. Today, I commend all those who follow in the footsteps of our Founders by accepting the duty to educate the public on the ideals of human liberty. It is they we must thank for the preservation of the Constitution today.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize an industry that has a large and very delicious impact on my home district in the Fifth District of New Jersey. I, of course, am talking about New Jersey's confectionary manufacturers. I am proud to see New Jersey products in stores, not only throughout the State and the country, but around the world. The Fifth District's own Promotion in Motion and M&M Mars have contributed to countless fond memories of enjoying candy at sports games, movie theaters, and birthday parties; but the confectionary industry provides even more than just tasty treats. In New Jersey and throughout the country, this industry is an economic driver comprised of family-owned businesses employing tens of thousands of employees across the State and across the country. No doubt, New Jersey is a sweeter place thanks to the candy manufacturers that call our State of New Jersey home.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. We can use those sanctions, those sanctions from the very committee that I was on, to negotiate a good deal. I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting the security of the United States and protecting the security of our allies as well by rejecting this misguided deal.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, for months now, the President has made promises that we have heard that would prohibit Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons through strict oversight. Unfortunately, we see now that this deal does not do that at all. The Iranian regime has done nothing to earn the trust of the international community, yet this agreement rewards Iran with sanctions relief. I was a member of the Iran Sanctions Conference Committee, and I support tough, strict sanctions against this regime. You see, the Iran sanctions were designed to force a peaceful resolution to this ongoing situation. It was clear to many that the sanctions were working. Iran had an inflation rate of 35 percent, the value of its currency was falling, and its monetary reserves were dwindling. Iran had no choice but to come to the negotiation table. So the U.S. was in a position of power to negotiate a good deal. Instead, we have a deal which allows Iran to continue to use centrifuges, a deal that allows them to continue to enrich uranium, a deal where, after 15 years, it will be unclear what, if any, access the inspectors will have to their facilities, and a deal where Iran can dispute inspections and delay for 24 days. This is not, by the way, ``anytime, anywhere'' inspections that the administration also promised us. The President may claim that this deal is built on verifications. That is simply not true. We now know that Congress hasn't even received all the details related to the deal. There are side deals as well. So what makes us believe that Iran will abide by the agreement that we see, let alone by the side deals that we have not seen? This deal asks us to trust a country that holds American hostages, that tortures its own people, and that has called for the destruction of the United States and its allies. It is not a surprise that Iran and its allies are celebrating. However, it is obvious that this deal does little to advance U.S. security. We can still reject this severely flawed deal. There are still alternatives. The U.S. can use sanctions, sanctions that have worked to negotiate a good deal.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, on July 16, 2015, the House of Representatives considered H.R. 2898 and several amendments to that bill. On that day, I was in New Jersey to attend my daughter's wedding and, therefore, could not vote on that legislation.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman from Texas for holding this Special Order tonight. Mr. Speaker, birthdays are usually a cause of celebration, but, this week we mark 5 years--the 5th birthday--of one of the most overreaching and damaging laws in recent memory that was heaved on our economy. Now, when the Democratic majority passed Dodd-Frank, there were three big promises they made about this legislation, first, that the legislation would end too big to fail; second, that the legislation would protect consumers; and, third, that Dodd-Frank would make our economy more competitive. Why don't we take a look at each one of those one by one and see how they have worked out so far. Promise number one, Dodd-Frank will end too big to fail. First, did Dodd-Frank really end too big to fail? For starters, by just about every measure, the biggest banks today are even bigger than they were before the financial crisis while community banks and other small lenders continue to be shut out and shut down around the country. In fact, according to recent statistics, the five largest banks in the Nation now control roughly half of all of the assets in our banking system. To put that in another perspective, that means that outside of these institutions it takes the collective assets of over 6,000 banks in order to equal the number of assets held by the five largest banks. Moreover, the so-called resolution authority included in title II of Dodd-Frank is not, as our former colleague Barney Frank put it, a death panel for banks. It is, in fact, instead, a mechanism for future bailouts enshrined now into the law. This is not just a case of baseless accusations. One need only look at the actual text of Dodd-Frank to understand how it allows for big banks to be bailed out--by whom?--by you, the American taxpayer. For example, Dodd-Frank gives the FDIC, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the authority to do two things, first, purchase the debt from the creditors of a failing institution at par or even above par and, two, pay any obligations of an institution that it believes are necessary and appropriate during that time of crisis. Dodd-Frank, of course, also created the so-called FSOC. What is that? That is the Financial Stability Oversight Council, which during its current existence has done virtually nothing to enhance the stability of the financial market. In fact, if you look at it through its systemically important designations of institutions, FSOC has gone in the other direction in that it has now put taxpayers on the hook not just for banks and bank bailouts, but for the potential bailout of nonbank institutions as well. So a law that has made the big banks bigger, that has given regulators such a vast expansion of authority, and that has put taxpayers now at so much risk cannot conceivably be described as having ended too big to fail. It is not just those on our side of the aisle who are skeptical of Dodd-Frank's claims. Here are two examples. The GAO, in a January 2013 report, concluded that there ``is no clear consensus on the extent to which, if at all, the Dodd-Frank Act will help reduce the probability or severity of a future crisis.'' Cornelius Hurley, a former senior official at the Federal Reserve, stated recently, ``If the whole purpose of Dodd-Frank was to eliminate the concept of too-big-to-fail and you judge it by that standard, then it's a failure.'' So, by any objective measure, it is clear, I think, that they failed at promise number one. Let's look now at promise number two, Dodd-Frank will protect consumers. How has it protected consumers? On this matter, it depends, in large part, on what you mean by consumer protection. You see, the drafters of Dodd-Frank and many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe that consumer protection involves complete bureaucratic control over the entire credit market, which gives a handful of individuals right here in Washington, D.C.--the bureaucrats--the ability to decide what kind of mortgage you want, what kind of credit card you are going to get, the kind of student loan Americans should have access to, and so on. Hence, the creation of the unaccountable CFPB and the incredible amount of authority now that they have been given is given to a single agency or, actually, to a single dictator there, if you will. Real consumer protection doesn't involve unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats who make decisions on behalf of you, the American citizen. No. Real consumer protection involves ensuring competitive credit markets and empowering the consumers to make their own choices based off of well-disclosed information in the marketplace. By this measure, Dodd- Frank and the CFPB have again failed miserably. Take, for example, the CFPB's qualified mortgage rule, which became effective just last year. According to a study from the Federal Reserve Board, roughly one-quarter of Americans right now who obtained mortgages in 2010 would not have qualified for those mortgages that they did get under the QM rule, increasing the likelihood then that millions of Americans will find it harder in the future to actually qualify for a mortgage. Moreover, the effect of QM is even more pronounced on certain segments of the economy, such as minority borrowers. The same Federal Reserve study noted that about one-third of both African Americans and Hispanic borrowers would have been ineligible to have gotten a mortgage under the QM loan. Many of the Bureau's initiatives regarding credit cards and other loans will ultimately have the same effect, making it either impossible or too expensive for individuals who are starting businesses to draw on a line of credit. So it is clear that, on promise number two, Dodd-Frank is not protecting consumers and that it is, in fact, harming consumers and making it harder for them with all of this red tape. The next and final promise, number three, is that Dodd-Frank will make our economy more competitive: The third promise, that it will make our economy more competitive, clearly has not come true. In fact, Dodd-Frank is a direct cause of the economic struggle that millions of Americans continue to face today. For a minute, just take a look at the sheer breadth of regulation that has come out of Dodd-Frank. The law provides so much regulation that it is a burden on the economy. The Davis Polk law firm performed a public service back in 2013 when it estimated at the time that, for every one word of text in Dodd- Frank, 42 words of regulations have been produced. Since that time, the number has even grown. How can our economy possibly be more competitive today when such a huge number of complex and burdensome regulations have been implemented over the last 5 years? We need to look no further than the growth of our economy to figure this out, which actually shrank during the first quarter of this year, another reminder that we remain mired in the weakest economic recovery since World War II. So Dodd-Frank has actually served to weaken our economy, not to have strengthened it, and the millions of Americans who have experienced a weak job market and decreased opportunity are the ones that are feeling the pain of Dodd-Frank. Since 2011, the Financial Services Committee, under the chairmanship of Jeb Hensarling from Texas, has led the charge to roll back some of the most damaging provisions of Dodd-Frank, and I commend the chairman and all of my colleagues on the committee for their continued efforts in this regard. Unfortunately, it now appears that many of these efforts, which used to be bipartisan in nature, are running up against the rigid ideology which believes that Dodd-Frank was chiseled into stone and should never be changed. I believe that their view is unsustainable as we continue to see evidence of the harm that Dodd-Frank is inflicting upon Americans, and hard-working Americans at that. Our committee and this Congress must continue to do the important work that will make it easier for our fellow citizens to get a job, to obtain a credit card, to obtain a mortgage, and to create opportunities for themselves and their families.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 432, the SBIC Advisers Relief Act. First I want to say thank you to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) for his hard work and leadership on this issue, among others, and on the legislation, which passed out of the Financial Services Committee unanimously this past May. And what would it do? It would fix yet another unintended consequence of the Dodd-Frank Act, an interpretation of the bill that would require unnecessary and costly registration of investment advisers who all play a very critical role in our economy today. You see, the Dodd-Frank Act amended the private fund exemption under the Advisers Act to include an explicit exemption for advisers to both venture capital funds as well as advisers to Small Business Investment Companies, SBICs. Whatever the merits of changing the private fund exemption in this way, Congress very clearly intended to exempt advisers to such funds from the burdens and the added costs associated with yet another SEC registration. Unfortunately, due to the way the legislation text has been interpreted, someone who happens to advise both a venture capital fund and, also, an SBIC is being required now to also register with the SEC. This makes absolutely no sense and is clearly contradictory to the statutory language. There is no valid argument or reason to require an adviser to register simply because they happen to advise both a venture capital fund and an SBIC. You see, such a requirement would not in any way enhance investor protection or promote capital formation. It is also important to note that SBICs are already overseen and examined by the Small Business Administration; so registration with the SEC would not only be unnecessary, but duplicative as well. So why is all of this important? Why do we have the legislation here today? Well, according to the Small Business Investor Alliance, initial registration costs with the SEC are estimated to be in excess of $100,000 a year and annual costs can run up to $250,000 a year. That is money. That is money that could otherwise be used for salaries and hiring more people and in helping the economy. In conclusion, it is important to keep in mind that the small businesses that we are talking about often don't have an array of lawyers or compliance specialists to deal with registration and oversight from the SEC. Oftentimes these are businesses that only have a handful of employees. Again, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) and all my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on the Financial Services Committee who support this. I urge passage of the underlying bill.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his work on this. I also thank Mr. Womack and Mr. Himes of Connecticut for all of their work on H.R. 1334. I am thankful for the great bipartisan message that we just heard from the ranking member as well on the JOBS Act, and I will look forward to working with her even more for those technical corrections on the Dodd-Frank piece of legislation. I am looking forward to doing that going forward. As she says, there is little doubt that the JOBS Act did have a positive impact upon our economy, as evidenced by the boost in initial public offerings since 2012 and the number of companies, both public and private, that are taking advantage of some of the law's provisions right now. Title VI of the JOBS Act included an important provision that the gentlewoman talked about, that increased the outdated shareholder thresholds that determined just when banks and bank holding companies have to register with the SEC. These thresholds, by the way, they have been around for a long time. They haven't been changed for over four decades. What they were doing is they were basically forcing the smaller companies, the small banks, to register as full reporting companies with the SEC, and that is really a very costly burden on them. It is very often the case that it is inappropriate for small lenders who are already regulated and examined by a series of bank regulators. As the gentlewoman points out, we had a slight oversight in the drafting of the JOBS Act. The SEC, at first, they did not include savings and loans companies under the updated threshold; and this made no sense, particularly when considering that S&Ls perform largely the same functions as banks and are overseen by the same regulators. With few exceptions, S&Ls tend to be generally small institutions that serve the local communities. This registration with the SEC would have had the ultimate effect of raising the cost of lending to families and small businesses. This would be the exact opposite of what the JOBS Act intended. The underlying legislation would make a technical correction to the JOBS Act. It would ensure that the S&Ls are able to take advantage of the new provisions of the law. One final point, while the SEC, last December, proposed to include S&Ls under the new thresholds, a regulation that can be taken away at any moment is no substitute for what we have here, statutory text. Congress has a clear role here to step in and fix the issue. Again, I thank Mr. Womack and Mr. Himes for their work in fixing that issue; and I urge passage of the underlying legislation.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the vice chairman for those remarks. I do in fact rise in support of the bill, H.R. 2064, the Improving Access to Capital for Emerging Growth Companies, EGCs. I also want to thank my friend Mr. Delaney and my other friend Mr. Fincher for their hard work on the underlying piece of legislation. As we said before, because of the JOBS Act, we have seen a significant increase, a resurgence, if you will, in initial public offerings, with 2014 being the best year for IPOs in more than a decade now. If you look back, study after study has shown that job creation expands significantly once a company goes public. So Congress then should do what? We should do more to reduce the burdens on these small and growing companies that want access to the markets and want access there to capital and want access, therefore, to grow and expand and create job creation. That is exactly what this legislation does. H.R. 2064 would expand upon the success of the JOBS Act by making significant improvements in title I of that bill, including reducing the number of days that an emerging growth company would have to wait before commencing with the so-called road shows once it files with the SEC, and it would significantly reduce and simplify the financial disclosures that go along with it. These are targeted and incremental changes that reflect the feedback and input that the Committee on Financial Services--the members who have supported it, the vice chairman as well--has received since the JOBS Act was passed back in 2012. We had a number of hearings on this, and one witness told our committee: ``This bill is in keeping with the philosophy that underlies title I of the JOBS Act, and the creation of safe harbors such as `Testing the Waters' and `Confidential Filings.' . . . providing issuers with the ability to file without financial statements will cut issuer time-to-market which is,'' at the end of the day, ``beneficial in mitigating market risk and speeding access to capital.'' With that said, by removing some of the ongoing hurdles to going public, this bill, H.R. 2064, would help promote growth and help promote job creation throughout our entire country, our entire economy. Therefore, I urge its swift passage.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GARRETT. Madam Chair, I rise today, as I have done in the past, to offer an amendment that attempts to restore some sanity, fairness, and certainty to our housing market. My amendment would undo harmful economic actions taken by the administration that weaken credit availability and job creation. You see, the Department's final rule implementing the Fair Housing Act's discriminatory effects standard establishes regulations promoting the use of a legal theory known as disparate impact. What is disparate impact? Disparate impact liability allows the government to allege discrimination on the basis of race or other factors based solely on statistical analyses that find disproportionate results among different groups of people and--get this--regardless of any evidence of any actual discriminatory actions or intent. Let me point that out again--regardless of any evidence of actual discrimination. If, for example, a mortgage lender uses a completely nondiscriminatory standard to assess credit risk, such as maybe a debt- to-income ratio, they can still be found to have discriminated if the data shows different loan approval rates for different groups of consumers. So real and actual discrimination must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I think that is something everyone here can agree on. But under the example that I just laid out, that lender could even have specific antidiscriminatory practices in play, in other words, he would have rules in his business in place, but still be found liable under this theory. Predictably, by creating a presumption of discrimination, this rule will result in a perverse regulatory scheme where lenders, insurers, and landlords would effectively be required to intentionally discriminate among different classes of borrowers. Why? Just to protect themselves from becoming entangled in the regulatory pretzel-like logic of this administration. So if we specifically consider the examples of homeowner insurance commonly considered factors, including an applicant's claim history, construction material, the presence or absence of a security system, the distance to the firehouse, well, they could be barred if they were found to result in creating a statistical disparity for a class defined by race or ethnicity or gender. You see, sound risk-based lending insurance underwriting and pricing that unintentionally results in a statistical disparate outcome, that is not discrimination; rather, accurate risk identification and classification is absolutely essential to the lending of insurance businesses. In addition to being unfair and unwise, the HUD rule is also unnecessary. Why? Because protected class characteristics are already prohibited from consideration in the risk assessment process. You see, State law already prohibits insurers from recording race, for example. The HUD rule requiring race considerations there turns on its head and violates these laws. You see, all 50 States in this country have antidiscriminatory provisions in their housing insurance regulations, and there is no claim that these have been insufficient. The Federal Government, therefore, should be encouraging sound business practices, not punishing them to utilize them. We have seen what risky lending practices can do to our economy already. Although I believe the Supreme Court will strike down disparate impact theory, we should do all we can in our power to rein in an administration policy that will increase the cost and undermine the availability of credit throughout the economy. Now, to this Chamber's credit, let me point out, this House recently passed my amendment to the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations bill that would prevent the DOJ from using this very same theory. I hope that we will continue to take a stand against this flawed logic and theory and promote sound business practices. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT. Madam Chair, how much time remains?

Mr. GARRETT. The gentleman said, ``The fact is.'' Well, everything we have heard for the last 5 minutes as the facts has absolutely nothing to do with this bill. This bill has nothing to do with vets and service animals. This bill has nothing to do with domestic violence and women not being able to be in the house. This has nothing to do with any of the weakening of State standards whatsoever. This bill basically simply says that, if a lender to you says that you live in a wooden house versus a stone house, there might be different rates for your insurance. It says that, if your house is miles from a fire department and your house is right next to the firehouse, there might be different rates for the insurance and the mortgages and the loans you get on that house. Those are not discriminatory practices. Those are reasonable practices that businesses enter into. It has nothing to do with all of the examples just given. This bill says we should continue to go after and prosecute when there is evidence of discrimination and intentional discrimination. This bill will not end that. This bill will not end your ability to look into the examples the last gentleman just raised. It would simply say that businesses should be allowed to use standard rationales in their risk analysis, whether it is debt-to-income ratio or construction materials and the like. For those reasons, along with the other reasons I have already said and the host of organizations that support this legislation, and that this House just passed last week on the CJS bill, we should do so again tonight. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that will bolster our Nation's rail safety and operations. First, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida for his dedication and important work on this bill. Mr. Chairman, the number of train derailments and accidents in our local communities is a growing concern among my constituents and Americans all across the country. In the first 2 months of 2015, there were 18 Amtrak accidents, as well as recent oil train derailments in West Virginia and in North Dakota. Most recently, Mr. Chairman, an Amtrak train crash in Philadelphia killed eight people and injured dozens more. In New Jersey alone, there are 2,400 miles of freight lines and over 1,000 passenger rail miles, and we must ensure, Mr. Chairman, that these existing lines are operating safely. So what do we have here? My amendment fully funds the Federal Railroad Administration's safety and operations account without increasing spending in the underlying bill. The FRA's safety and operations account provides funding for the FRA's safety program activities related to passenger and freight railroads. So how do we do this? By reallocating a mere 4 percent of funding from capital investment grants, we can fund the safe operation of our Nation's trains at the President's requested levels. Mr. Chairman, we do not build a new section onto our house if our roof is caving in. So we should not be adding on to these systems if they are caving in or failing. So why are we funding new projects before we ensure that our current rail lines have enough dollars, enough funding for their safety? My amendment would simply prioritize safety and maintenance of our existing infrastructure over the ribbon-cutting ceremonies associated with system expansion. In light of the recent upsurge in deadly rail accidents, now is the time to adequately fund the safety and operations of our trains. Additionally, with our rising national debt, it is very important that we remain fiscally responsible and prioritize how we spend our constituents' hard-earned tax dollars. That is why, in conclusion, my amendment does not increase spending, but only prioritizes a commonsense directive. And so I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to fund train safety, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, two points. The first is, I understand the gentleman's opposition on procedural grounds as far as the differences in outlays and what have you. But when you go back home and talk to your district and say you are trying to do something for safety, as we are in this case, and you say: Well, the reason we can't do this is the procedural aspect of outlays versus the actual amount of money going in and the amount of money being cut, and so on and so forth, and you go through all the rubric and the matrix that we use around here and all the buzz words on the floor to try to explain things, the eyes of the people back home glaze over, rightfully so, because they say: Those are your rules, not ours. Why don't you just get something done. What they are asking to get done is rail safety. And that is what this amendment does. I just want to end with one quote. Back in 2010, the head of the FTA--at that time, the administrator was Peter Rogoff--chastised local transit agencies for promoting rail construction for so many new rail lines. He said on one hand, agencies were unable to maintain the rail lines they already had. The FTA had recently at that point estimated that rail transit systems suffered from close to a $60 billion maintenance backlog--and the backlog was growing even then. And he said this: ``If you can't afford to operate the systems you have,'' he asked the agencies, ``why does it make sense for us to partner with you in new expansions?'' That is a great question. If they can't fix up what is already out there and all the problems on the rail lines out there on important things like safety, then why on Earth are we spending all these tens of millions of dollars on brand new programs that we know that they are not going to be able to maintain as well? Let's do first things first. As I said in my little example before, if your roof is collapsing on your house, you don't add a new deck, you don't put in a new pool, you don't put in a paved new driveway, you don't do anything else. You repair the roof, first and foremost, and then everything else comes after that. And that is really all I am asking. Let's maintain the safety, first and foremost, so that everyone riding on the rails can feel confident that they are operating right. Then, after that, let's come back here to the floor and fix up the other funding mechanism for new programs and what have you, and go forward. Right now, let's make sure that our constituents back home can feel confident every time they ride on a transit system, be it a bus or train or something else, that they know that it is adequately funded and taken care of and maintained. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster) for his work on this issue. I am honored to serve alongside him on the Payer State Caucus as well. Madam Chair, this program is yet another example of good intentions and bad policy. What was intended to be a temporary assistance to a select group of States to build a research infrastructure and then exit the program has become a permanent and growing pot of taxpayer subsidies. This, of course, is in addition to the permanent and growing pot of subsidies the government has already enacted for the States. For three decades, 30 years after establishment, this program continues to be called--what?--an experimental program, and no State-- none--has graduated from the program; yet it exists 30 years later. This can only demonstrate one thing, Madam Chair, that this is yet another example of ineffective, wasteful redistribution programs that the taxpayers are compelled to financially support. The Foster-Garrett amendment would relieve the taxpayers of this burden. Again, I thank Mr. Foster for his work in protecting the payer States, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 3 minutes. I rise today to offer an amendment that stops the Justice Department from using one of the most dangerous and illogical theories of all time, the theory of disparate impact. In short, disparate impact allows the government to allege discrimination on the basis of race or other factors based solely on statistical analyses that find disproportionate results among different groups of people. In recent years, the Justice Department has increasingly used this dubious theory in lawsuits against mortgage lenders, insurers, and landlords and has forced these companies to pay multimillion-dollar settlements. What is wrong with that, one might ask? Under disparate impact, one could never have intentionally discriminated in any way and even have strong antidiscriminatory policies in place and still be found to have discriminated. For example, if mortgage lenders use a completely objective standard to assess credit risk, such as the debt-to-income ratio, they can still be found to have discriminated if the data show different loan approval rates for different groups of consumers. To be clear, I have zero tolerance for discrimination in any form; and, if there is intentional discrimination, we must prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. The Justice Department's use of disparate impact, however, tries to fight one injustice with another. On a more practical level, disparate impact will make it difficult, if not impossible, for lenders to make rational economic decisions about risk. Lenders will feel pressured to weaken their standards to keep their lending statistics in line with whatever the Justice Department's bureaucrats consider nondiscriminatory. We have seen the damage risky lending can do to our economy. It is truly reckless for our government now to be encouraging those dangerous and shortsighted practices. Ironically, disparate impact forces lenders, insurers, and landlords to constantly take race, ethnicity, gender, and other factors into account or risk running afoul of the Justice Department. Mr. Chairman, even an accusation of discrimination could have a devastating impact on a small business. Therefore, on balance, disparate impact will make it more difficult and expensive for families to buy a home, and it will result in more discrimination, not less. For these reasons, both philosophical and practical, I ask my colleagues to reject this misguided theory by supporting this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think it is an indication of something. It is an indication of whether this House is more concerned about actually filing true intentional discrimination or is just creating fear in this area by saying that we are going after discrimination based upon disparate impact. It is about whether this House is more concerned about making things easier for all races, for all ethnicities, for all ethnic groups to be able to buy homes and to live and prosper and enjoy a new home or make it more difficult to be able to buy that first home. Allowing the Justice Department to use disparate impact will do just that. It will make it more difficult for those individuals who now find it difficult to buy a home because lenders will not be able to use the proper risk analysis to make those decisions and, therefore, will be less likely to make those loans. For those reasons and for the other philosophical and practical reasons I have already stated, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.