Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that will positively affect thousands of small businesses across the country. I would like to thank my good friend from Florida, Congressman Tom Feeney, for sponsoring this amendment with me and for all of his hard work on pushing for much-needed Sarbanes-Oxley reform. Mr. Chairman, the 5-year anniversary of the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley is almost upon us, and there are many of us who believe, myself included, that SOX used a sledgehammer where a simple tap would do. The accountability and transparency goals that were so laudable in developing SOX could have been met, at least in part, through a competitive market where empowered investigators have a real role. One thing is for certain, however, and that is the regulatory scheme and structure that SOX established has created more problems than it resolved. You see, we are in a global economy, and our financial markets must be able to be competitive. But when going public in an American market means added out-of-pocket expenses of $4 million to $6 million per accelerated filer, that is more than 50 times the original SEC estimate, it begs the question why any company rising through the ranks would go public and be subject to those requirements. Worse yet, it begs the question of why that successful company would go public in the U.S. at all. In fact, there have been very many credible reports pointing to a loss in the supremacy of the American financial market as a direct result of the SOX implementation. Only one of 24 listings with over $1 billion in capital raised has listed in the U.S. as opposed to London, according to the New York Stock Exchange. And there is also evidence that some U.S. companies have even returned to being privately held because of their inability to meet the costs and extensive accounting requirements of SOX. We have seen this directly with our Nation's two largest financial markets, the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ, both looking to expand into a less regulated, less litigated environment in Europe. One segment of the U.S. economy that will bear a disproportionate brunt of SOX is the American small business. Because the SEC expected small businesses to have difficulty meeting all of these costs and filing requirements, they were temporarily exempted from the regulatory burdens of section 404 to give them time to prepare. This exemption was last extended now through 2007 so that the SEC and the PCAOB could finalize their revised guidelines to management and new standards to the auditors. So while I am commend the SEC and the PCAOB in trying to improve the implementation of 404, it still remains unclear whether these revisions make it possible for small businesses to comply without suffering dire economic consequences. Furthermore, it is unfair to make our small businesses comply with new regulations that are being finalized and adopted halfway through this year for which these small businesses are supposed to report. So I offer this amendment today to extend the exemption for small businesses to comply with section 404. The amendment will prohibit the SEC from forcing small businesses to comply with section 404(a)for fiscal year 2008. There is just too much evidence out there that small companies are not going public or are doing so overseas because of the onerous burdens of section 404, and this amendment will address that. It is essential that we do not add to the overly burdensome new costs on our Nation's small businesses, especially while new auditing standards are still being revised and finalized. So by delaying the requirements for 1 year, and that is all, we are giving our small businesses more time to ensure that they are not unfairly hurt, without jeopardizing the accountability goals of the original SOX legislation. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record The National Taxpayer Unions Vote Alert in support of this amendment that is on the floor today, along with a letter from the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. National Taxpayers Union, June 27, 2007. National Taxpayers Union Vote Alert NTU urges all Members to vote ``YES'' on an amendment by Representative Scott Garrett (R-NJ) to H.R. 2829, the Financial Services Appropriations Bill. This amendment would extend the moratorium on small business compliance under Section 404 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act, also known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Shielding small businesses from crushing regulations brought on by Sarbanes-Oxley is an important step in protecting a vital source of economic growth. A ``YES'' vote, in support of easing the burden on small businesses, will be significantly weighted in our annual Rating of Congress.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I quite candidly don't recall in any of the questioning by my side of the aisle or yours that he used the word ``yet.''

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, just a reflection on the comments by the chairman. I appreciate the chairman wishing to defer to the expertise of the SEC. Would the chairman and the committee defer in the same manner to the SEC with regard to the issue of executive compensation as he does to the area of SOX. The problem with the testimony that we heard in committee the other day is that after repeated questioning from both sides of the aisle as to exactly what the cost will be on business in America through the SOX reform that they are proposing right now out of the SEC on both large and small businesses, their answer was basically ``we don't know.'' They have had 2 years to look at it at the SEC, to come up with new rules and regulations, to try to bring down the complexity and the burden on businesses large and small. And after 2 years, they don't know. Congress has directed them and the message has been made clear to the SEC that the burden, as the gentleman from Florida has already pointed out, is excessive and we asked them repeatedly, can you categorize this? Can you pinpoint how much, if any, savings there will be for businesses? And they say they don't know. So until they do know, all we are asking for is a 1-year extension so that small businesses can have an opportune time to learn the new regulations that are basically being promulgated as we speak before they have to implement them.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) who has been a staunch advocate of businesses large and small and making sure that they are competitive and stay strong in this country.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments and just point out that I also did not support No Child Left Behind, the medicare bill, the immigration bill or SOX, and I do have a No Child Left Behind bill if you would like to sign on to reform that piece of legislation.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I just walked in a moment ago. I was on the streets of Washington, D.C. where the heat is truly on this Nation's Capital in the high nineties and the humidity is also in the high nineties, and here we come to the inside of Chambers, where the heat is being put on, on the American taxpayer and the American family; but this time it is being placed on them by the Democrats and majority party. Six months into control by the Democrats, and what have they wrought for this Nation? The largest tax increase in U.S. history; an attempt to change the rules on the American public going back to 1820; and last week, of course, we saw as well the idea by the Democrats that they should have some sort of slush fund where your tax dollars go unequated for. When you look at the basic math I was trying to do here, look at the equation, what they give us is this: a tax increase plus a spending increase leads to an answer of an increased burden on the American taxpayer. I have had the opportunity now to serve on the Budget Committee for 4 years; and during that time the Democrats, when they were in the minority, railed against us time after time saying we were spending too much. I thought that railing would stop once they were in the majority and they had the opportunity to go in the other direction. But as we have seen here, the railing has not stopped. They continue to point to the past about increased spending, but they then at the same token, out of their same mouths, what do they do? They increase spending on the American public again. If the problem in the past was that the U.S. Government was spending too much, you would think that the simple solution to that, the simple answer to that math equation, would be spend less. But this budget does not do that. This spending bill does not do that. That is why I support the gentleman from Georgia's amendment.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, as a Member of Congress who supports the protection of our national parks and as an individual from the very crowded State of New Jersey who is seeking to make sure that we preserve the open space of this country as best we can, I rise in support of the gentlelady from Colorado's amendment which would increase spending on these worthwhile causes by 4 percent. You know, the American public who watches this debate right now might wonder sometimes, do we have a schizophrenic state of mind by the majority party in control today? Out of their mouths come one thing now and something else later on. What is white is black, what is day is night. One moment we are railing against and saying spending, spending, spending is the problem and it's been the problem of the Republican Party for years and years and it still is their problem. Just a moment later, we hear that spending is not the problem from the other side. The problem all these years has been cuts, cuts, cuts. The problem that we have now is that we've been cutting too much in the past. Which is it? The American public must do as I do sometimes when they hear the debate from the other side of the aisle and scratch their head. Which are the facts that they want to go by today? Is it the problem that we've been spending too much, as the other side of the aisle says? Or is the problem, as the gentleman just recently said, that we were cutting too much? I would argue that the problem has been that we've been spending too much of the taxpayers' dollars in an unaccountable manner. And the budget that has come before us would give the American taxpayer the largest tax increase in U.S. history. The amendment from the gentlelady from Colorado would try to do things on an even and moderate manner. It would still increase spending by 4 percent so that all the worthwhile programs in the bill that's before us would be able to be continued to be fully funded at the necessary levels. But at the same time, the gentlelady from Colorado takes in mind the efforts of the American taxpayers to make sure that we will not have the largest tax increase in American history on that family.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening to bring information before this body about the current status of education in our Nation. I had the distinct pleasure of speaking before the Committee on Education recently during Members Day regarding No Child Left Behind, NCLB, and its reauthorization. But I felt compelled to come to the floor as well to join with my other colleagues and reiterate my concern with the current state of education in this country and what I hope to see come out of this year's reauthorization. Now, I share with all my colleagues here in Congress the ultimate goal of providing a high-quality education for every child in America. Surely, we can do better than what has been done so far. What, then, should we do? I have looked at past reauthorizations of ESEA, and I noticed a troubling trend. With every reauthorization, now problems are identified with American schools. With every reauthorization, the solution proposed by Congress is for the Federal Government to become more involved with education. So, with this reauthorization before us, I have to ask, what has this interference wrought? Back in 1983, a famous report entitled ``A Nation At Risk'' said that America had fallen dangerously behind the rest of the world in education. Today new studies say many of the exact same things. According to the National Center For Education statistics, for example, in 2003, U.S. fourth graders were outperformed by their peers in 11 countries, including four Asian countries and seven European countries. U.S. eighth graders were outperformed by their peers in nine countries. Yet, as a percentage of GDP, we spend more money now on education than at any time in our Nation's history. In fact, we spend more in the United States on K through 12 education than the Philippines, Saudi Arabia or Sweden spend on everything in their countries. Our problem is this: We have increased Federal paperwork which requires increased taxpayer dollars to pay for increased administrative staff. But we have decreased teacher flexibility. We have decreased accountability to parents and decreased student performance. So for this year's reauthorization, I am proposing something different. Very soon, I will be dropping in legislation that will allow a State to in essence opt out of the majority of the requirements of NCLB, but at the same time, allow those taxpayers in the States to keep their education funding through what we call a refundable tax credit. I understand this is very different than what some other Members were proposing. But I feel that only by allowing the States and local governments to bear the burden of education accountability, accountability on that level, will we ever, as a Nation, make the progress that we need to make in the classroom so that we can stay competitive in the twenty-first century. I recently held a town hall meeting back in my district about No Child Left Behind. Every person in that room had something negative to say about the administrative requirements in the program in general. At one point in the meeting, I asked how many people there had contacted and met with a local teacher or principal or school board member regarding their problems? Nearly everyone in the room raised their hand. I then asked the question, how many of the people in the room here met with somebody in the State capital or in the New Jersey Department of Education about their concerns? About half the people raised their hands. I then asked, well, how many of you have had contact with someone from the U.S. Department of Education in Washington? Only one person raised their hand. My point is this: By transferring the requirements for NCLB in Washington, we are moving the accountability for education further away from the parents, the teachers, the school boards, to where it belongs. It belongs close to the parents, the students and the educators in the local school boards. In addition, the reporting requirements under NCLB have created basically a confusing system, a system that ends up punishing our best schools. One of the high schools in my district is consistently cited in publications in the State as one of the top-performing schools in my State. This very same school was placed on an early warning list 2 years after NCLB was instituted. This was not an underperforming school. Every year, nearly 100 percent of the kids graduate and they attend college. The average combined SAT score for the students in that school was around 1,100. Fourteen AP courses and tests were offered and so on. So it is a great school. And, yes, it is on the warning list. So I worry that while trying to meet the requirements of NCLB, students attending this high school will actually be held back by burdensome regulations rather than pushed to excel at already high standards that the school had previously set for them. I am certain there are many other schools in my counties in my district in my State and across the country, which is why we need a change to NCLB.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I will conclude with the quotes of Thomas Jefferson, who addressed this overall issue, in 1791, when opining on the constitutionality of a national bank, so, in essence, what he was doing is what we were doing, we do every week. The thought was at that time in 1791, of course, Alexander Hamilton at the time was pushing for such, and whether there was a constitutionality to do so. He said: ``I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that `all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people,' '' obviously our 10th amendment. ``To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, not longer susceptible of any definition.'' Jefferson was very clear that once we overstep the authority that is granted to us by the Constitution, there is no limiting factor on us any more in Congress and the Senate can spend whatever they want on any purpose that they want. The Supreme Court has already opined that they are not going to be the element to rein us in. So we, therefore, must, fortunately or unfortunately, if not going to rein in ourselves, look to the American public to be the political process to rein the Congress back in the manner that the Constitution and the Founders intended.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah. Of course, it is humbling to follow after such a gentleman who is learned in these things and also previous to coming to Congress a teacher of such topics of our history and of our Constitution. So I will try, while I will never live up to his standards, but try to emulate him as best I can. When I conclude, I guess I should end by say saying ``Goodnight, Rob.'' When we looked at those expressions, we remember the words of talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, who often does say the expression ``words mean something.'' He is usually expressing it about one of his callers who has just called in and talked about a particular topic or what have you, and he will take a little slight angle on it and say, well, those words mean something that are being said there. So too it is with our Constitution, the fundamental document, the Founding Father document of this Nation. It is unique in a sense and it was recognized at that time. Back in 1803, Thomas Jefferson stated, ``Our peculiar security in this Nation is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.'' How prescient Jefferson was to see how future generations of this country possibly would and have and courts have as well taken that document; taken its plain meaning, and manipulated it to whatever the understanding of those words currently mean, as opposed to getting an understanding of what the founding document writers intended at the time. James Wilson, writing in the Study of Law in 1790, said, ``The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute,'' or in this case the Constitution, ``is discover those meanings of those words by those who made it.'' So when we come to the floor today, or any day, to take a look at our Constitution, we must have an understanding of those terms as those meanings of the words had when the Founders first wrote them. The gentleman from Utah just went to the point as far as the fact the Preamble goes to the issue of a limiting basis. I would just suggest, and I believe he made one reference to this, that despite the fact that today certain people look to the actual words of the preamble as giving us certain rights or powers now, Gouverneur Morris, the delegate from Pennsylvania at the time, added the preamble, I won't use the word as an afterthought, but certainly after the rest of the Constitution was written down. And specifically preambles at that time in any legal document that were written, were understood to say that they did not have a substantive legal basis or meaning to them. That is to say a Preamble did not grant nor did it limit powers. So today, when people come and look at the Constitution and say there is the general welfare clause in the Preamble, they should have an understanding that that was not an intention of the drafters of the document, to expand the powers of the Federal Government. This can be understood if you look to how those who wrote it and lived at that time understood the document. Anybody who has an understanding of the life and times of Alexander Hamilton understood that there was a brilliant mind, a confidant of George Washington. At the beginning of the revolution, he became an aide in battle, and later when George Washington became our first President, Hamilton was there as the Treasury Secretary and one of the most powerful men in government at the time second to the President himself, more powerful than the Vice President and the Cabinet members at the time, someone who had an array of employees under his control inasmuch as the Treasury was dealing with the collection of excise taxes and the like. He had people under his control throughout the entire country. He understood in order for this country to be great, and he wanted this country to be great, just as the mighty powers of Europe had been at that time, he had envisions that this country could expand and grow through different aspects of building bridges and roads and building canals. But even Hamilton understood that if he was to try to go down this road, that the powers that were granted to the Federal Government at the time were limiting on him. Even Hamilton suggested that a constitutional amendment would have been necessary for them to do some of the things that Hamilton thought necessary at the time. So in 1790, Alexander Hamilton said an amendment to the Constitution is necessary in order to make the improvements to the country that are needed for a flourishing democracy. Of course, that amendment never occurred, and therefore the country and following Presidents never had the authority to do many of the things. Mr. Bishop will probably cite some of examples of some of the constructions that they were intending to do, and Presidents such as Madison and others vetoed those initiatives. How all of this is relevant to us today, as someone who may be listening to our debate or discussion right now, this past week the House of Representatives began the debate and now passage of several appropriations bills. We will be coming back in the weeks to come on the consideration and eventual passage of other appropriation bills. Likewise this past week, or the week before last, I should say, this House had a considerable debate on the issue of earmarks. Just an aside on the whole issue of earmarks. The debate on that topic goes to whether or not the Congress has the authority, and no one really questions this, but the authority to make, the issues of spending money on particular projects, and I don't think anybody debates that too much. The debate we have had on that topic is the transparency issue and whether or not Members of Congress and the American public are able to see exactly what individual Members are requesting that the American tax dollars go to. That is an appropriate debate and one which I supported, and I supported openness and transparency and to shine the light of day on what we do here. But that really begs the question as to where American tax dollars go at the end of the day. Earmarks are just a very small fraction of the overall government spending. Sometimes we hear of egregious examples, the proverbial ``bridge to nowhere'' and the Cowgirl Hall of Fame and the like. These things are targeted in an appropriation bill, either on the House floor or in the Senate or in conference. People are outraged both here in the House and at home as well when these things are added to the budget. But we must understand that such spending does not occur simply through earmarks, it occurs in the underlying bills as well. And it occurs also by the executive office and the administration as well. So the fundamental question that we must be asking is whether it is a particular earmark, whether it is for a bridge to nowhere or a Cowgirl Hall of Fame or a museum someplace that we tag onto a bill here in the House or the Senate; or whether it can be exactly the same type of project that the administration puts into the spending pattern through their agencies and departments, or whether it is the same type of spending in the underlying bill. The larger question is, and this is a question that every Member of Congress should always consider every time they reach into their wallet or their pocket, wherever they keep it, and they pull out their voting card and they put it into the little device to vote ``yes'' or ``no,'' does Congress, does the Federal Government have the authority to spend those dollars on those purposes? The argument is, and this is where the gentleman from Utah was leading to in the Preamble, which is also referenced in article I, section 8 of the Constitution, is the general spending clause. So all the adherents of those who support the earmarks and support the spending on these particular topics will either look to the Preamble or article I, section 8, the general spending clause of the Constitution, which says for the general welfare of this country. Well, as the learned gentleman from Utah would say, we have to have an understanding what the ``general welfare'' of this country was intended by the Framers when they penned that document. Today we would take that to mean anything that the House of Representatives can think of that would be an improvement for this Nation. That broad and general, expansive meaning, interpretation of the language is not what the Framers intended. What they intended was the opposite. They intended it as a limitating factor on spending. The Founders intended the general welfare clause and the spending clause in the Constitution was limiting to the extent that Washington could not spend the American taxpayers' dollars on just a parochial interest for this one particular Member's district or for this one particular Member's town or for this county or what have you. Instead, it had to be generally good for the entire Nation. There is a story that came out of a book that was written in 1884 which I would like to share about a former Member of Congress, the name of which most Americans know, used to be on Disney TV, but he was a real Member of Congress back in 1827-1831, and that was a Member of Congress by the name of David Crockett, more familiarly known as Davy Crockett. He was, I guess you would call him back then, a conservative Member of Congress. He actually addressed in his writings after he served in Congress this issue of whether or not under the general welfare clause he, as a Member of Congress, had the authority to actually spend money on these parochial interests. Let me share that with you. He stated: ``If Congress is not given such extensive powers, then who is?'' The answer lies in the 10th amendment. Of course, I am not the first person to suggest this; others have as well. He writes about how one day in the House of Representatives, that would have been in 1827-1831, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches were made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question to the floor of the House when Congressman Crockett rose. ``Mr. Speaker,'' he said, ``I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate money as an act of charity. Every Member on this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity. But as a Member of Congress, we have no such right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due to the deceased. But, Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war. He was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that government was in arrears to him. ``Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest of corruption, appropriate this money as payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity either. So, Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. But I am the poorest man on this floor, and yet I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give 1 week's pay to the object. And if every Member of the Congress will do the same, it will amount to more money than this bill.'' At that point he took his seat, and no one replied. The bill was put upon for passage, and instead of passing unanimously, as no doubt it would but for his speech, it received only a few votes, and of course it failed. Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, he explained. Here is the crux of the story. He told how several years earlier one evening he was standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other Members of Congress when their attention was attracted by a great light over the city of Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. They jumped into a hack and drove over. The houses were burned, and many families were made homeless, and some of them lost all the clothes they had. The weather was cold, and he said that I felt that something ought to be done. And so the next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for the relief. All business was put aside, and the bill was rushed through as soon as it could be done. Davy Crockett stated, The next summer, when it came time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around the district. When riding in a part of my district, I saw a man in a field plowing and corning towards the road. I spoke to him. He replied politely, but I thought rather coldly. I began, Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates. The stranger said, Yes, I know, you are Colonel Crockett, but you should not waste your time. I have seen you before, and I voted for you once, but I shall not vote for you again. Davy Crockett was shocked by this, but the man stated, You gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case, you are not the man to represent me. Your understanding of the Constitution is different than mine, and I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred and rigidly observed in all its provisions. To which the Congressman replied, I admit the truth of what you say, but I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any unconstitutional ground. But the man responded that he knew about it, having read about it in the papers, and how last winter you voted to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers in Georgetown. Crockett admitted that was true. The gentleman pointed out it was not the amount of money that Congress appropriates that he complains of, it is the principle. In the first place, Congress should not have excess funding. And secondly, it is the principle whether or not the Congress is abiding by the Constitution when it appropriates its money. He said, so you see, while you are contributing to relieve one person, in that case the people in Georgetown, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you have the right to give anything, the amount is a matter of discretion. You gave $20,000; you could have given $20 million. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all. And since the Constitution neither defines charities nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to anything and everything you believe in as charity, and for any amount you believe. You will easily perceive what a wide door this will open for fraud and corruption and favoritism on the one hand, and for robbing from the people on the other. The man continued, Colonel, Congress has no right to give to charity. Individual Members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. You see, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. In the end what the poor farmer was saying was this: That he had a better understanding of what the Constitution meant and what the Founders had intended when they crafted it less than 100 years earlier at that time; that the Constitution set out limiting powers on the spending of money, both on the Preamble which sets out no powers whatsoever, as previously stated, and under the general spending clause of article I, section 8 of the Constitution. And this is not just my interpretation or the farmer's reading. The Supreme Court has commented on this in several instances of note. In 1905, the Supreme Court made that comment that the general welfare of laws under the preamble is not a grant of power but a limiting of power. This tendency of the understanding of the Constitution was the case from the time of the Founders basically up until around 1930s. Starting in the 1930s in the New Deal, this Nation changed substantially. It was at that time that this Nation began to have an interpretation of the Constitution that the Congress would be the arbiter of what the general welfare clause meant, and that the general welfare clause basically means that Congress can decide to spend money on any process or program that they desire. Then furthermore, subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have held that the U.S. Supreme Court would not interfere with the determinations of Congress that these are basically political decisions. To conclude, what this all means, that when the House of Representatives comes back together next week in the weeks that follow on the appropriation bills, when we hear discussions on earmarks and the likes, and when we hear from the other side of the aisle that we will be spending ever more money on the appropriation process than we ever had in U.S. history, the question we should always be asking, is it within the limits of the general welfare clause. A strict interpretation of that clause would say no, but the Founders have said in order for it to be a general clause it must be for individuals all across this country and nor for a particular town, city or area of a State. It must benefit everyone. But you will see in each and every one of those appropriations bills, in just about every one of those earmarks that those dollars are going in contravention of the Constitution and in contravention of what the Founding Fathers intended. For that reason, we come here on a regular basis to try to raise up these issues to have a better understanding of what our Founders intended for the Constitution. With that, I will say good night, or at least, good evening, Gracie.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentlelady for accepting the amendment, because I do believe, as I am sure she does as well, that this is the right thing to do for the people of the world and not only for the people here in the United States as well. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. First of all, I want to begin by saying that I am pleased that the committee has taken steps to see that the United Nations peacekeeping forces are not or will not be engaged in human trafficking or other sex crimes. But I am concerned that the language in the bill, quite frankly, does not go quite far enough. The facts are that between 2004 and 2006, 179 peacekeepers from the U.N., under their charge, under their control, were dismissed or repatriated following investigations for sex crimes. Yet only a very few of these have been successfully prosecuted for their crimes. Earlier this year, The Daily Telegraph newspaper revealed that members of the U.N. force in southern Sudan had abused children as young as 12. Just last year, the U.N. had tried to claim that these reports were just unfounded rumors, but only after these reports did the U.N. admit to repatriating four of these individuals for these crimes. Yet none of these four have ever been prosecuted in their home country of Bangladesh. Just this week, the Government of Sudan agreed to a substantial peacekeeping force in Darfur. We must ensure the people of Darfur, who have been subject to a systemic rape and violence constituting genocide, do not suffer further at the hands of the people who are there to protect them. I am concerned that the language in the present bill that the U.N. ``hold accountable'' these individuals will mean that the U.N. peacekeepers will continue to get away scot-free. All national armed forces have processes for court martial and punishing crimes committed by their personnel. The U.N. must see to it that these countries offering peacekeepers actually apply their system of justice when a crime is committed. The U.N. is supposedly committed to high ideals of human rights and justice. We are merely asking that they keep them to ensure that their own personnel and others operating under the U.N. flag do not use their position to commit gross crimes. Let us be clear that the United States taxpayers funding these important missions will not stand for this injustice. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I appreciate that. And I will just conclude then, Mr. Chairman, by pointing out what the purpose of the amendment was. And that is there have been certain cases where upwards of 150 employees of single government agencies have attended international conferences such as in Africa and other places, and we are just simply saying that it is not wrong for U.S. Government agencies to send their valuable employees over to these international conferences, but we should put some limit on them. Just as small businesses and families have to rein in their budgets and decide what is appropriate as far as their staff going to conferences and the like, so should the Federal Government. And I appreciate the gentlewoman for accepting the amendment. I will conclude by saying that perhaps, maybe not in this session but in future sessions, that these amendments may not be necessary on the floor; and I will be glad to work with the gentlewoman in the future to incorporate such language similar to this in the actual underlying bill.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, perhaps I will not use the entire 5 minutes, because the amendment I present tonight is one similar to what I offered previously on other sessions of this Congress which have passed on voice vote in a bipartisan manner. This is an amendment which simply looks to the number of U.S. Government employees who attend international conferences.

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, here we are tonight, 6 months under control of the Democrat majority, and what has that majority wrought? The largest tax increase in U.S. history, an attempt in the past to change the rules of the House that have been in place since the times of Jefferson. And, of course, last week we saw the creation or attempted creation of slush funds to conceal where they wish to spend their increase of dollars. The gentleman from New Jersey who just spoke a moment ago said, quite candidly, that there is no tax increase this year or next year. What he didn't finish in his statement, of course, was, Mr. Chairman, that there will be a tax increase within the budget cycle that is before us. And these are not just my words, Mr. Chairman. I quote from the New York Times, who has looked at the budget that the Democrats have given us, and they have looked at that budget increase and the spending increase, and they too have said and agree with us that there is a tax increase coming on the American public and they even gave us numbers. If you are an average family in the State of New Jersey, a family of four making $70,000, you will see a tax increase of upwards to $1,500 on you because of the budget of Democrats who are now in charge. In the bill before us, I come to the floor right now to commend the gentleman for his modest proposal to simply reduce the increase by the Democrats of 1 percent, a mere, in terms of Washington, $342 million. Mr. Chairman, we are still looking at an increase in spending for foreign aid of almost 10 percent, around an 8.5 percent increase for foreign aid. Quite honestly, when I go back to my districts and talk to my constituents, their interest is in their families here at home, in Sussex County, Bergen County, Passaic County and Warren County in the good State of New Jersey. They are asking, why are we increasing to such a dramatic extent for all this money on foreign aid when we have problems right here at home? Mr. Chairman, how many times have you heard from the other side of the aisle when they rail against spending for our brave men and women overseas on our military aid, when they say we should be spending those dollars here at home? We concur when it comes to foreign aid, we should direct those funds here at home. I support the gentleman's amendment.