Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Georgia, and I would just make reference to the gentleman from Hawaii. I believe he misstates the intent of the legislation here when he says that the intent is to make sure that Alaska or Hawaii, and this bill is only on Alaska, does not get a dime. As my testimony indicated, Alaska will continue to get more than a dime, as the President's budget request included $1 billion in direct support for the education of Indian and Alaskan Natives. That is more than one dime. Native Alaskans will also get $118 million in formula grants to school districts, competitive grants for demonstration and professional development programs. That is more than one dime. Finally, to the gentleman from Hawaii's first point, which he agreed with the previous comment that education is best done locally and that the folks of Alaska know best about how to educate their children and the folks from Hawaii know best how to educate their children, I would presume he would agree the people from New Jersey also know how best to educate their children. I would ask the gentleman from Hawaii, if he truly believes that, would he support our initiatives and my initiative in the LEARN Act to allow States to opt out of the cumbersome regulations of education from the Federal level and keep their dollars in Hawaii and keep their dollars in Alaska so they would be in the best position to educate their children.

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. And let me just begin to reference the chairman's comment as far as whether we should be excluding one set of children from this. Well, that's exactly the point; I believe that we should not be excluding any children. And the language in the bill that is before us right now excludes the children of 49 other States. As the Representative of the Fifth District of New Jersey, I am concerned. I come to the floor because this underlying bill excludes the children from the State of New Jersey with this special extra funding. Let me assure the gentleman there are children with special needs in the State of New Jersey, and there are children with special needs in the State of Wisconsin as well. They are excluded from the Alaska Native Education Program. I am trying to bring fairness to the overall program, which is also what the administration is trying to do. Let me make that point by sharing with you this comment. The Alaska Native Education Program is authorized by the ESEA of 1965 and they are subject to the reauthorization. But the administration was not recommending reauthorization and, accordingly, funded it at zero. The administration, as do I, recognizes the importance of ensuring that the Alaska Native students receive appropriate educational services. This request is consistent with the administration policy of increasing resources for high-priority programs by eliminating small categorical programs that have a limited effect, such as this. In addition, the services provided to Alaska Native students through this program are redundant with many of the programs through the Department's Indian Education Program already being funded. School districts that wish to implement programs and services tailored to the educational and cultural needs of the Alaska Native students are able to use funds already provided under other Federal programs in the 2008 budget. That includes $1 billion in direct support for the education of Indians and Alaska Natives in addition to the significant funds that are provided to those students who receive services through broader Federal programs; grant programs such as title I grants to local educational agencies and special grants. Further, let me point this out as well: Alaska Native students will also benefit in addition to $1 billion that I also already referenced. They will also benefit from the Department of Indian Education Programs, which provide more than $118 million, $118 million, in formula grants to school districts and competitive grants for demonstration and professional development programs as well. You see, these programs already serve as the Department's principal vehicle for addressing those unique educational and culture-related needs which the gentleman from Wisconsin is referring to. The bottom line is there are already programs established that address those concerns that the gentleman from Wisconsin raises. The administration recognized this and already requested appropriations of $1 billion overall, plus the $118 million in special formula grants. So it is our position, in line with the administration, that we do need to address those specific needs of those children who are in unique circumstances such as we find with Native American Indians in Alaska. But we do not need to do it in a redundant manner. Finally, I would just conclude by saying the gentleman from Wisconsin is correct. We do not want to have children not being educated, regardless of what State they come from, whether it is from New Jersey, the good State of Georgia, the good State of Wisconsin or Alaska. But we are not doing the children any favor whatsoever if we do not appropriate the dollars in a manner that effectively gets that job done. This amendment works to effectuate and ensure those kids get properly educated.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, there are two amendments at the desk. The amendment that I was speaking on is my amendment, which goes to the issue of Native Alaskans. The gentleman may be referring to another subsequent amendment that will later on refer to Native Hawaiians. It's the same page, same line, same dollar amount, so I can understand the confusion.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, and I will be brief, we must remember that every dollar that we send to Washington comes out of that proverbial ``family budget'' that I referenced before. So when duplicate programs like this come before us, we should put ourselves in the shoes of the family in the same situation. So, do you think that families would go out, families from the other side of the aisle would go out and spend their hard-earned tax dollars on a month's worth of groceries and then go out and eat every single night of the week? I don't think so. That would be duplicative. They would be spending money on the exact same thing. American families don't do that; neither should Congress. That doesn't make much sense to me, Madam Chairman, and quite frankly, neither does the funding of multiple Federal programs do the same.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I rise to support the gentleman from Georgia in his amendment. And the overall focus of his amendment is to do two things, first of which is what Congress should be asked to do by all of our constituents in all our districts from all across this country, and that is to take their hard-earned dollars that they send to us in the form of tax revenue and to prioritize them into the most efficient manner and into the most efficient programs and into the most efficient methodologies in order to get those programs effectuated for the good of the citizens. And that is what this amendment does. In accord with the opinion of the administration, there are a number of programs now in existence essentially attempting to do the same thing. Here with regard to education, essentially trying to lift up the quality of education in this country, a laudable goal obviously; secondly, to lift up the quality of teachers in the classroom, again a laudable goal obviously. But we are asked to prioritize this to make sure that those dollars actually get to those programs and effectively down to the teachers, where it can do the most good. The gentleman from Georgia's amendment would do just that. One of the fundamental flaws in the No Child Left Behind program is to take away the issue of authority and local control from the frontlines, and that is the classroom and that is the teacher, and shift it someplace else. The fundamental flaw with No Child Left Behind is to say that the parents should not be involved in making the decisions or the teachers should not be the ones making the ultimate decisions on how we educate our children, but it should be the bureaucrats down in Washington and unelected at that. We need believe that the focus should be shifted back to the parents, back to the teachers, for those who are the people on the frontlines, those are the people who are having the day-to-day interaction with our children. When you think about it, if you have kids in school or if you have neighbors with kids in school and they have a problem in the classroom, where is the first place that they go to to try to resolve that problem? They go into the schoolhouse and into the classroom and talk to the teacher. They want to get to the bottom of it right then and there. And ultimately it is a matter of making sure that that teacher is the best qualified teacher that you can actually have in that classroom. Parents do not go to Washington, DC, and speak with the U.S. Department of Education to try to resolve some difficulty they have in their classroom. Parents do not come down here to speak with the Secretary of Education to deal with difficulties they have in their classroom. They go to the teacher. And they sit down and work things out to try to get to the heart of it and the root of the cause of the problem. And the gentleman from Georgia realizes this. And he realizes that in order to make a better classroom where more learning can occur, where we can have better schoolhouses and classrooms, where we can raise up the quality of education, it is to raise up the quality of our teachers. The gentleman from Georgia's amendment does just that by ending programs that are ineffective, ineffectual, and don't get the job done, and transfers them over to those programs that do get the job done. In this matter we should all be commending the gentleman and support his amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding. To answer the question of the gentleman, yes, I have picked vegetables and I have worked on a farm and I have thrown bales of hay and I have worked in the sweltering heat of greenhouses picking vegetables as well. So, yes, I do have that experience. So, yes, I do know of what I speak, to some extent, but never to the extent, I am sure, of the chairman or some of what the people go through in these situations. The chairman also makes reference to words about being stingy. You know, it is awfully easy, it is awfully easy, to be a generous individual if you are using somebody else's money, and basically that is what Congress does every single day of the year. We come to the floor with the appropriation bills railing about how much more we are spending than last year and saying how generous we are, when in fact these are not our dollars. Despite the statement of the gentleman from Alaska at the last debate, these are the taxpayers' dollars coming in. So it is easy to be generous with other people's money. What we here as Members of Congress should therefore do is consider ourselves in a position to be wards of that money, protect it and make sure that it goes to the most effective places. I refer you now to a statement from the administration with reference to this program to point out the necessity of cutting the funding here and making sure there are funds in similar programs. The administration states this: ``This program was established as a demonstration project,'' a demonstration project, ``in the mid-1970s, and it is no longer needed to demonstrate the benefits of these strategies to serve underserved populations such as migrant and seasonal farm workers. Many of the same States have received continued funding over the last 30 years and should be able to effectively serve this population under the VR State Grant Program,'' that program that has continued to be funded in this underlying legislation, that VR program that sees a $36 million or $37 million increase in the funding. The gentleman from Georgia, when he speaks to what his constituents feel, I wonder what his constituents would feel when they are told that we have a demonstration project established back in 1970 and we are still following that demonstration project to see whether or not it is necessary to run the program.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I would like to be heard on the objection.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I come to the floor tonight to rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. I come to the floor also to indicate my support for what we can do on this floor for labor here in America. And I think that is the optimum word, ``here'' in America. This amendment will do just that. It will protect laborers in this country, and that should be the first priority of this U.S. Congress. We do that first and foremost by protecting the fruits of their labor. Their wages, their income, what they work for, 9 to 5 and longer, Monday through Friday or longer during the course of the week. We do that by ensuring that the money that we spend, their hard-earned tax dollars, is appropriately spent and appropriately prioritized. And I commend the gentleman for doing just that with this amendment. There are many things that we would like to spend our dollars on. But when we are elected to public office, we are to come here and make sure that first and foremost the American citizen, and in this case, the American worker, is protected. As I come to the floor tonight, as I have said in the past, we have now marked about 6 months into Democrat control of this U.S. Congress. And what has it wrought during those 6 months? The largest tax increase in U.S. history. The attempts to change historic rules of this House and in operations. And, finally, attempts to create slush funds in which dollars can be misspent on other inappropriate items, dollars that are earned from the backs and sweat of American labor. And that is why I come strongly to support this amendment by the gentleman from Texas, to make sure that their hard-earned dollars are not misspent. How often have we gone back to our districts and heard the complaint of jobs in this country going overseas? Well, it is one thing to say the jobs are going overseas; it is another thing to ask the laborers in this country to support those jobs overseas. It is one thing to see our jobs flee from this country to go to foreign shores; it is another thing to ask the workers of this country, through their tax dollars, to in essence support the organizations' structure of those jobs overseas. We are elected to public office to protect the workers of this country. This gentleman's proposal does just that, by making sure that their tax dollars are focused first and foremost on workers and their quality of life and their standards here in this country. We will protect American workers. We will protect American jobs. And with this amendment, we will protect the budget of the workers of America as well. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, the amendment that I'm offering tonight is a very simple, straightforward one. As was just read, it would remove $10 million from a program that was in fact zeroed out in the Bush administration's budget request, and then use those dollars, that money to increase the level of funding currently appropriated to the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. Madam Chairman, some time ago President Nixon unofficially declared a war on cancer in his State of the Union Address back in 1971. Since then much progress has been made in the area of cancer research, thankfully. And over the last 3\1/2\ decades, science and research has continued to break down barriers in the fight against this dreadful disease. Today, cancer is no longer the mystery disease that it once was, and researchers know infinitely more now today about the prevention, the detection and the treatment of the disease than ever before in history. The results from all of this research is now beginning to bear fruit on people's lives every day. Fewer people are dying from cancer in 2004 than they were in 2003, according to the studies. An American public is witnessing declining rates for most major cases, including breast cancer, prostate cancer, and colorectal cancer as well. So, Madam Chairman, I think that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee has done a good job for increasing the budget of the National Cancer Institute this year in the bill, and Republicans supported a doubling of the budget at the National Institutes of Health in past sessions. I supported that. But I think we can do just a little bit more. The account that this amendment would take from is the Alaska Native Education Equity program. That is a program, like we hear so often on this floor, that is basically a redundant program that the President has eliminated in his budget request. According to the administration, the Alaska Native students already receive benefits from the department in Indian education programs, which provide more than $118 million in formula grants to school districts and competitive grants for demonstration and professional development programs. Now, Madam Chairman, when we consider how the Federal Government is prioritizing its spending, which really is what it is all about when we come to the floor on each and every one of these amendments, I submit that funding cancer research is more important than spending additional redundant money on a redundant Federal program. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I rise to support the gentleman's amendment, leaving aside the underlying question of the funding issue of where the dollars come from. I appreciate the ranking member's point with regard to that. I want to go to the point the gentleman raises as far as the necessity and the importance of making sure that we have appropriate dollars spent on nurse education and retention and to have a level of funding for 2007. I come from the great State of New Jersey, and within the Fifth Congressional District, which I represent, I represent several, over five good hospitals and also long-term health care facilities as well. As I travel about the Fifth Congressional District, and I meet with the various hospitals and the administrators from such, and I also meet with the people from the long-term health facilities as well, when I travel down to Trenton, our State capital, to meet with our State hospital associations as well, one of the first issues that always comes up in our discussion is the issue of the availability and quality of nurses in the State of New Jersey, I should say the availability of quality nurses in the State of New Jersey. Every nurse that we have is a quality nurse. We just need more of them in the State. To that end, on a positive note I should add, we have initiated for some facilities in our State where we are providing more nurse training than we ever had before. One of the things, I will just say from a parochial interest, is once we do have that training for the nurses, we are going to do everything we possibly can to make sure that they stay after being trained in the State of New Jersey, but we will, of course, if need be, maybe allow them to go out to some other States as well down South, where I believe they probably have a need as well. But this is a bill from a national perspective. I know the gentleman can speak to this more eloquently than I. This is not simply an issue up in the Northeast, and this is not an issue down South as well. I am sure that I can speak to any Member of this body from any portion of this country, and they will tell me similar stories that I am recounting here right now, that we have a lack of quality, skilled nurses in this country. Maybe there are other underlying reasons for this. One that comes to mind, of course, is the rate of compensation for nurses. When you talk to nurses, when you consider the number of hours they put in as far as the training they have to go through initially, and then the net length of the time they have to get the other skills necessary to become a nurse, and then the amount of pay that they get, it is certainly not commensurate to what they provide to this community and to this country. On top of that, of course, is the long hours that they must struggle with in their jobs, and the conditions that they have to work with and under in certain circumstances as well. So I take my hat off to the nursing establishment, the nurses, the young people, men and women that decide to go into this career. If there is anything we can do as a national body to facilitate that and encourage and foster this, I will support it. So I commend the gentleman for coming up with the idea to make an amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriation bill to double funding for nurse education and retention, as they said, from the $37.2 million that's currently in the bill. I commend his work. If I can work with him on this initiative or other initiatives in the future to address the issue of nurse retention, I am more than happy to do so. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. The objection, if I understand it correctly, is that the assertion is that this increases the total of number of outlays for the bill. That would be the case if we are simply asking for an increase of $10 million for the Cancer Research Institute, but that is not what we are asking to be done. We are simply asking that $10 million in one line, Page 41, line 7, be increased by the $10 million but another line, page 80 line 2, after the first dollar amount insert, ``would be reduced by $10 million.'' So in point of fact, this amendment does not increase the total net dollar output of the underlying bill. It is a balanced amount. No increase, no decrease.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 375, which honors the United Parcel Service, UPS, and its 100 years of commitment and leadership in the United States. Of the 425,000 jobs that UPS provides to hard-working people across the globe, 16,000 of them are in my home State of New Jersey. Included in that number are the employees that work at the Ramapo Ridge Data Center in Mahwah, NJ, in my District, one of two data centers supporting UPS worldwide computer operations. UPS has made it a priority to integrate itself into the local community and has been a magnet for jobs in a variety of positions; from the high-tech workers at the Mahwah Data Center to the uniformed delivery people we meet on a daily basis in offices across the country. UPS continues to actively recruit from the local colleges and universities in my district, with internship and co-op opportunities for students who are studying Computer Science, Information Systems, Industrial Engineering, and Mathematics. UPS has also been recognized for its commitment to diversity. Twenty- nine percent of UPS's IT population is female, far higher than the IT population as a whole. In 2006, UPS was recognized as one of America's most supportive companies of both black and Hispanic engineering students by two independent surveys. Truly this is a company that has made a commitment to reach out to populations traditionally underrepresented in high-tech fields, and has continued to excel while doing so. With more and more American jobs being created in the services industry, it is companies such as UPS that serve as a great example of how U.S. businesses are adapting to our changing economy. When the American Messenger Company acquired its first delivery car, a Ford Model T, in 1913, perhaps the founders could have envisioned the nearly 100,000 cars, vans, trucks, and motorcycles that today comprise the delivery fleet of UPS. But surely they could not have envisioned the 14.5 million page views that www.ups.com averages per day or the nearly 5,500 technology employees currently employed by UPS. As companies continue to adapt to the changing global economy, it is entirely appropriate that this House of Representatives recognize one such company that has not only adapted, but also stayed ahead of the curve for 100 years, while at the same time staying true to its original mission of delivering parcels from one to another.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, it's been almost one year now and many have forgotten about the three Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hamas and Hezbollah: Ehud Goldwasser, Eldad Regev, and Gilal Shalit. But today thousands who will not forget this injustice rallied in front of the United Nations calling for these three captives to be returned to their families and for the Security Council Resolutions to be honored by all parties--not just Israel. Hezbollah seems to have forgotten that last year's hostilities ended only after there were promises regarding the return of the Israeli men. This just goes to reinforce the fact that terrorist organizations cannot be negotiated with. Though Security Council Resolution 1701 called for Hezbollah to disarm and return the soldiers, they remain in Lebanon and not even international organizations such as the Red Cross have been able to see them and be assured of their fair treatment. Israel has demonstrated its commitment to the Resolution by ceasing hostilities and pulling back its soldiers, but yet again they are dealing with opponents who show disrespect to all and whose word cannot be trusted. We stand together with Israel to call again for the unconditional release of these three men. We pray for their safe return and for peace between Israel and its neighbors. They will not be forgotten by their families, by their nation, or by the American people and this Congress.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, today, the House recognizes the historic achievement of a power-sharing government in Northern Ireland. After decades of violence, Protestants and Catholics have come together to form a government that fairly represents both sides. With Ian Paisley as first minister and Martin McGuiness as deputy first minister, this government will be one which both sides can respect and entrust to work toward peaceful resolution of differences. The joint government and a police force that is admired by both sides will bring an end to the years of ``troubles.'' Nearly 10 years ago when the Good Friday accord was signed it was still doubtful whether the two sides could come to a lasting agreement. Though there were setbacks along the way, the parties were committed to peace and at each opportunity for failure thy chose to lay aside their weapons and negotiate. The people of Northern Ireland will have a bright future if they maintain the present course. Surely, there will be disagreements but there is now a legislative process to work out such differences. The peace process in Northern Ireland is now a shining example of how peoples in conflict can put aside long-standing grievances and learn to live in peace. Today, we properly honor and offer our support to those who are working to establish a peaceful and unified government.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise in honor of the public service of Robert Walker, who has spent the past 40 years in proud service to countless New Jersey students as a classroom teacher and school administrator. A Wisconsin native known for his commitment to his family and his famed Harley Davidson motorcycle, Robert Walker leaves behind him a real sense of respect from the faculty and students with which he has worked. The more than 1,200 students who attend Kittatinny Regional have achieved an excellent reputation for being well-behaved, appropriately dressed, and safety conscious. They exude Robert Walker's sense of pride in their school community. Furthermore, Robert Walker's message to students and faculty alike is ``service above self,'' and it shows. Kittatinny students have traveled as far as South Carolina to work with Habitat for Humanity. They've raised money for school improvements. And, following the attacks on September 11, 2001, they bonded together to donate supplies needed by the rescue workers at ground zero, delivered personally by Robert Walker and other faculty. When Robert Walker graduated from high school, he became a draftsman for Union Carbide in Newark. At the urging of a boss, he sought and achieved his college degree and took his first teaching job as a mechanical drawing teacher at Johnson Regional High School in Clark, New Jersey in 1967. The next year, he taught at Sussex County Vocational School, later serving as its assistant principal. In 1975, he moved to Kittatinny Regional High School, where he has been ever since, serving as superintendent for 23 of those years. Having followed a somewhat non-traditional path to teaching himself, Robert Walker is a strong advocate for alternate-route teachers and has hired individuals from a wide variety of industries--from space engineers to reporters--to teach at his school. In fact, about a quarter of the school faculty are alternate-path teachers. On July 1, Robert Walker retired from his lifetime of public service as an educator, but I am certain that in the years ahead he will continue to teach and lead all those around him, even if only by his good example. I commend him for his service to his community.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a true hero upon his retirement from a long history of public service to his community and his country. On June 1st, Lt. David M. Mauro retired after 26 years of credited service with the Morris County, New Jersey Sheriff's Office. Though the Sheriff's Office will be losing a respected public servant and true expert in gang intelligence and crime prevention, I have little doubt that Lt. David Mauro will continue to be an active member of his community. Lieutenant Mauro served his country with the U.S. Army Airborne for 6 years before joining the Sheriff's Office in 1984. During his law enforcement career, he served for 12 years as a diver and instructor with the Morris County Underwater Search and Recovery Task Force. Additionally, he served as chief firearms instructor for the Bureau of Corrections, emergency management coordinator, and aerosol instructor. His true expertise, however, is with gang investigations, and it is there that Lt. Mauro leaves the most indelible mark on Morris County. In 2000, Lt. Mauro founded the Morris County Gang Intelligence Unit and he served as the Unit Commander until 2005. While with this unit, Lt. Mauro was directly responsible for training more than 10,000 people on the subject of gangs and for the validation of 250 gang members within the County and the identification of 15 gangs operating there. Under his command, the Gang Intelligence Unit was nominated for and received a number of commendations, including the Sheriff's/Chief Award in 2001 and a Unit Citation in 2002. Lt. Mauro was the first member of the Morris County Sheriff's Office to be assigned to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to serve with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Gang Investigations Unit. He is also a member of the New Jersey Gang Investigator's Association, East Coast Gang Investigator's Association, National Major Gang Task Force, International Latino Gang Investigator's Association, and the Morris County Latino Peace Officer's Association. He regularly shares his experience by making presentations throughout the community to law enforcement and civic groups about gangs. In fact, he is the founder and Chief Instructor of G.I.U. Associates, a consulting and educational company dedicated to providing gang training to government, corporate, and civic groups. I commend Lieutenant Mauro for his extraordinary commitment to the people of Morris County and the surrounding community.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly support this amendment by the gentlemen from Indiana and from Texas. Fair and balanced media, truly a laudable goal. But, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, we achieve that result when we do, in fact, let the public decide. They report; you do decide. That is more than just a catch phrase. That is what this American public is about. You see, it is the market, and when I say the ``market,'' I mean the American people, for they are the best arbiters of what a free press is and to obtain it and they are the best mechanism to achieve it in this Nation. It is not the unelected bureaucrats of a central government that we must look to. We must look to the American public. So I rise to strongly support this amendment, this amendment that will guarantee us a free press.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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