Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully understand there was a misunderstanding as to which amendment we were dealing with, and I appreciate the Chairman redesignating the amendment. The previous speaker made reference to ending nuclear nonproliferation and the like. Again, this amendment does not go to that point. This amendment simply goes to the point of taking money from the international organizations funds and trying to fight terrorism. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I do not withdraw the amendment.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, hopefully that redesignation is a clarification. What we are trying to do is not, as in a subsequent amendment where we will be taking funds from the peacekeeping mission, which is what the gentlelady was referring to here, instead is to take money from the U.N. international organization line and redesignate those $20 million to join us in the fight against terrorism. As my opening comments to the Chair stated, the U.N. has done a woefully poor job when it comes to fighting terrorism around the world. We only have to look at the situation in the Sudan and Darfur, where they are not even able at this late date to define and tell us a genocide is going on. My goodness, the U.N. has not been able to grapple with the definition of what a genocide is, let alone take responsive action to try to bring it to an end. Likewise in the area of terrorism, the U.N. has again willfully and woefully failed to step up to the plate and be an instrument in fighting terrorism with so many of the world nations, the United States obviously taking a lead in that course. If the U.N. is not going to be the international body to step up and take affirmative action in these areas, I think it is incumbent upon us here in this House to make sure that our dollars, our limited American taxpayer dollars, do not go to an organization, the U.N., an international body that is not getting the job done; but instead, to reallocate those dollars, to reallocate $20 million. That is only 3 percent of the U.S. contributions to the U.N. to antiterrorism assistance. Homeland security, fighting terrorism, is one of the hallmark principles that I came to Congress to work on and to achieve end results on, and this amendment to this legislation will go to that end. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I understand.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield to the gentlelady.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I have not yet officially withdrawn my amendment. I would appreciate a comment from the gentlelady with regard to her support in general of our ideas on this amendment and the agreeability to work together to achieve what we are aiming for in this regard.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Exactly.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. This amendment is not as to where our funds are coming from.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Would the gentlelady from New York yield for a clarification?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will increase our funding of international counterterrorist programs, while also calling out the United Nations for its continued reluctance to recognize and fight international terrorism. We are at war with an enemy whose tactics not only involve the destruction of non-combatants, women, little children, people just trying to work or buying something at the market; their tactics depend on such destruction. Terrorists disregard the rules of warfare and strike at pure innocents. They wear no uniform and often do not even care about saving their own lives. Despite the fact that the world is in the throes of the violence of terrorism, the U.N. has done so very little to fight this threat on humanity. The U.N. marks progress against terrorism by how many committees they have formed and how many documents have been signed. We need a world body that does not consider an expanded bureaucracy as success. We need a world body that is a partner in the war on terror. Instead, the U.N. spends its time passing toothless resolutions on counterterrorism that even countries such as Iran, Libya, and Syria can support. These nations will continue to funnel money to terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Mahdi Army knowing that there will be absolutely no repercussions from the U.N. My amendment proposes to shift $20 million, approximately 3 percent of the U.S. contribution to the U.N., to antiterrorism assistance programs. If the U.N. is unwilling to join the fight against terrorism, we should reallocate our dollars, reallocate a portion of the funds intended for them to programs which are truly working to bring real peace to the world. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the Ridgewood Chamber of Commerce for its 80 years of outstanding public service to the residents, businesses, and community of Ridgewood, NJ. I have had the honor of meeting with the men and women of this fine organization and have seen firsthand the tremendous sense of dedication they have to their neighbors. The board of directors that runs the operations of the Chamber of Commerce is very active in meeting the needs of its membership, raising funds for Chamber activities, organizing events to draw people to downtown businesses, and running a scholarship fund for local students. Under the leadership of its current officers with President Tony Damiano at its helm, the Chamber has made great strides. And, I have every expectation of that under the tutelage of the incoming officers: President Ed Sullivan, Vice President John Kiernan; Treasurer Patricia Duarte; and Secretary Linda Coombs. The Ridgewood Chamber of Commerce will continue to excel in all its endeavors, helping to raise the quality of life in the Village of Ridgewood for all who live, work, and visit that community for the next 80 years as well.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, last week, the Township of Washington and Borough of Westwood Police Departments held a D.A.R.E. graduation ceremony. More than a dozen students in Mrs. Munsch's Fifth Grade Class at Zion Lutheran School have been participating in this important program that gives young people the support they need to say no to drugs, underage drinking, and gang violence. Drug Abuse Resistance Education, or D.A.R.E., began as a small program in Los Angeles in 1983. Today, it is implemented in more than 75 percent of our Nation's school districts and in more than 43 other nations. It uses positive peer pressure to help children defeat the negative cultural influences that bombard them daily. I am proud of the young boys and girls who participated in this program in Westwood, and I would like to recognize: them all for taking this step toward positive citizenship: Jerome Ashby; Melody Ashby; Kara Dawson; Rachel Diomede; James Douglas; Katherine Federov; Jessica Fitzner; Jordan Gregg; Chester Lee; Rebekah Orso; Cassandra Petricca; Stacie Rinda; Emily Thomas.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the hard-working staff at the U.S. Post Office in West Milford, New Jersey. This post office is the first in North Jersey to earn the STAR designation, demonstrating their dedication to promoting the health and safety of its staff. And, today, in a special ceremony at the post office, they will be recognized for their commitment to the well-being of the men and women who work there. The more than 26,000 residents of West Milford and their neighbors in surrounding communities rely on the post office for services from passport needs to mail delivery. Like most towns today, the mailman has become more than just a person in our neighborhood; he has become an integral part of the overall community. Under the able leadership of their Officer in Charge, Emil Cimorelli, the men and women who work at the West Milford Post Office have lived up to a high standard of excellence and community service. And, the special designation for which they are being honored today demonstrates that this excellence carries through not only to the customers of the facility, but also to the staff there.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How many times do we have Members come before us on this floor with an amendment, and they begin their statement by saying, here I have a commonsense amendment to this piece of legislation. Well, in this case, I do believe I have a commonsense amendment to this legislation, and in fact most Members of this House I believe would agree with that statement as well. Why I say that is because the language of this amendment is similar, or dare I say identical, to language that I have used in previous amendments on appropriation bills in past Congresses, and these amendments, quite fortunately, have passed pretty much by voice vote in those Congresses.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that. For those who are watching, let me let them know what the amendment does. What this amendment does, and I appreciate both gentlemen's accepting this, is to say our Federal agencies should use common sense when they go to international conferences. In the past, there were extravagances. There were cases when over 100 individuals, government employees, would go to these conferences overseas, costing literally millions of taxpayers' dollars to do so. We are saying, let's rein that in a little bit. Let's put a number on that. Some people say this number is too high. This number puts it at 50. So any particular agency going overseas, Africa, Asia, wherever else, let's have them not send more than 50. Some of us would like it to be lower, but we will put it at 50 of their agency employees to that conference. I think just like any business or family, they would have to absolutely exercise priorities and common sense as well. We do so here. Mr. Chairman, I thank both gentlemen for accepting this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor to speak in favor of this very important amendment. Serving on the Budget Committee, as I have the honor and privilege of doing, I see the relevance of addressing such an amendment as this, that goes to the very heart of the principles that Republicans bring to the handling of the budget. As the previous gentleman just ended his remarks, I will begin mine. What we have seen in the last several weeks with regard to the legislation that is coming down, what I have seen as a member of the Budget Committee, gives us, this House, the largest tax increase in U.S. history, a breaking of the promises under rules that have been made during the past campaign, the establishment, which we were able to defeat this past week, of the creation of slush funds to hide some of those dollars going forward. Why is all of that relevant to the amendment that is here before us? From a very practical purpose, when a family or a small business sets about to handle its daily budget, how do they do so? They do so from a logical perspective in deciding what is in the best interest of that family as far as the purchases they make, or when a business sets out to create its budget for the year ahead and the purchases that it will be required to make. How does it do so? It does so on a logical, regional basis. It looks out at all the purviews and the parameters of the opportunities before them, and then decides what is best for their family or for their business. You can say a family does a competitive bidding process, although the average family probably doesn't think of it that way. When they do their shopping from grocery store to grocery store, or from Wal-Mart to Target or to Kmart or wherever else, they are, in fact, engaging in a competitive business process, business nature, if you will. When a business does it, a small business, which is the backbone of the American economy, they engage in a competitive business bidding process as well. They know what they need in order for their business to survive in this year and this quarter and the years ahead. They know what the parameters are and the order that they must meet. They will go out and about and engage in a competition, if you will, between the options that are out there before them and decide which one works best for them, which is at the best price, which is the most economical and which is the most efficient. If the family budget can make these decisions, if the small businesses of this country can make those decisions, then I think it's incumbent upon us here in this House, this House of the people, to make, likewise, those decisions in the same manner as well. As the gentleman from Texas often says, the focus should be on the family budget and not on the Federal budget. Likewise, when it comes to the way we handle the taxpayers' dollars, the focus should be on the same way the family and the small business handle their budget and their procurement, instead of the role and the methods we have done in the past. That's why I come to the floor this afternoon in support of the other gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), his amendment today. Because that's simply what this amendment will do, will strike section 105 from the bill and that is the section which prohibits funds from being used under OMB's circular 876, which is basically the outsourcing proposed process: ``to process or approve a competition with regard to the Army Corps of Engineers.'' By striking this provision, OMB would be allowed to use a competitive process in conducting private-public competition to determine who, the government agency or a private business, performs certain activities. Just think for a moment, if we were to engage in such activities, how much further the hard-earned tax dollar of the American public could go in this House, in this American economy that we have. Just think how many more of these necessary programs that we are called upon to support could be engaged in and provided. Now, I come from the great State of New Jersey, a State that oftentimes has to look to the core and to the Federal Government for various programs to provide for the health and safety of the citizens of not only my district but my State as well. Think for a moment how much further we would be able to go in providing these services to the State in my district and my county, and through the State of New Jersey as well. Think of how much further we could go if we could be able to provide these services in a more economical and efficient basis. The amendment before us does that. It will allow for the operation of the Federal Government to engage itself the same way as a small business does, the same way as a family budget does. Closing then, bringing this all back to my opening comments with regard to what we have seen at the beginning of the process with the Democrat budget and what we have seen in the past several weeks with regard to the largest tax increase for the American family in U.S. history, what this amendment will do is drive down the pressure on this government to raise taxes on the backs of American families.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Before I begin, let me just say I concur with the gentleman from Minnesota on his priorities that he is setting forth, and I cannot honestly say that I am familiar with each and every aspect of the provisions that he is raising there; but from his testimony before the House right now, they seem to at least rise to the level of significance, especially when you go to the concern of making sure that people need to have adequate drinking supply. So I appreciate him coming to the floor and making that point. I think the gentleman's point coincides with the point that I wish to make right now in support of the gentleman's amendment that is on the floor before us right now, and that is that it's incumbent upon this House and this body to set priorities. The American public asks no less of us, inasmuch as we are spending their hard-earned tax dollars. The American public has seen the misapplication of setting of priorities of this House in past administrations and past Houses in the past. The American public has been outspoken when they saw, with regard to what happened with Katrina, and the infamous case of buying of FEMA trailers, literally thousands of them, that were then set on land and never used for their rightful purposes. The American public was outraged when they said the priorities were not appropriately spent with their tax dollars in that instance. Likewise we were outraged when they heard about the proverbial ``bridge to nowhere.'' Again they asked were not priorities set as to where their tax dollars go when it comes to transportation purposes. Again, finally in the area of earmarks, and the latter point raises the earmarks. When the American public hears about the litany of earmarks that come out of both this House and Senate as well, the Cowgirl Hall of Fame and other such things, again the American public asks are priorities not set on these matters, again, with their hard- earned tax dollars. Well, the American public spoke this last November and at least this side of the aisle heard them loud and clear. We must set appropriate priorities when it comes to the American tax dollars. Unfortunately, unfortunately, the priorities that seem to be coming from the other side of the aisle in the majority of cases are not the appropriate priorities that the American public would set for themselves. Priority number one from the other side of the aisle is a budget which raises taxes, the largest tax increase in U.S. history upon the American family. Priority number two from the other side of the aisle appears to be an increase in spending with little or no regard to accountability or cutting spending in any areas. We see that in this case. When I hear the arguments made, both pro and con in this bill, I am taken aback. All this amendment simply does is to say that the American taxpayer dollars should not be there and spent to subsidize Big Oil. We had similar language in legislation last year. I know I supported it saying that the American taxpayer, in light of oil now being sold at over $60 a barrel, should not be forced into a situation anymore to support Big Oil in coal industries when it comes to these things through tax credits and tax cuts. I supported those, saying the American public in that regard. But, now, today, when we have a Member, Congressman Kline, saying let's at least rein in, let's at least set some priorities as to where our energy dollars should go, let's go to those areas, as the gentleman here said, perhaps some who support carbon capture issues; let's have some of those dollars, as a Member from the other side of the aisle says, go to renewable energy resources, whether it be wind, water or geothermal or et cetera. Let those dollars go to those areas, but let's set the priorities of those dollars to go specifically to those areas and not on extraneous purposes, as we saw in this bill. Congressman Kline gave a couple of examples that really just threw me when I heard them once again. The American public must really scratch their head, as I did, when they say, should we be giving, as Congressman Kline said, given the record profits being made by oil, gas and coal, the research of oil and gas resources of the Russian Arctic should be done and paid for by those oil companies and not by American taxpayers. This amendment simply goes to make sure that occurs. Likewise, again in the Arctic area, submersible deployed microdrill sampling, ultralight cement and oil and gas resource assessments in that area. Who should be paying for that? The American public? We already pay for that when we go to the pump each time. Shouldn't it be the oil companies who should make it a private investment and not the American tax borrowers? This amendment simply says let's set those priorities, let's reduce spending on those areas and make sure that we have the dollars from the American public to spend on those other areas, be they renewable energy or otherwise.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, first of all before I begin, let me commend a prior speaker, the gentleman from Texas, with his references to homeland security and the efforts that need to be made. I completely concur with the majority of the points that he makes. This House, as you know, just dealt with those issues the other day on homeland security and how it relates to my congressional district is one of the forefront issues that I deal with. I commend the points he is making there. Tied to homeland security is energy security as well. We will not be a secure country if we are not secure with regard to our energy needs. Much in this underlying legislation and what the administration is calling for is working towards that laudable goal, energy efficiency and renewable energies as well. And I concur with the previous speaker with his remarks as well, that we must move in that direction. I guess the rub is how you get to some of these things. When you talk to your local constituents back at home. When we have the opportunity to go back to our districts and talk to them and they see just how Washington spends their very hard-earned dollars, they must think we are literally burning their dollars down here and wasting them on inefficient programs. Some of them of course are important. Others need to be prioritized down the line to put them in the proper perspective. The legislation we have before us, more specifically the amendment, goes to that ultimate goal, setting priorities. Now the gentleman who is proposing this amendment is from the great State of California, a very warm State. I have come from the great Northeast where weatherization is a critical matter, especially for the low-income individuals who need to do something in order to make sure that their limited dollars go as far as they possibly can. They are called upon in their daily lives to be as efficient as they can with their limited dollars, whether it is spending on food or rent costs, or in this case, their energy costs. But they are asking us the very same thing in Washington. They are asking us to be efficient and effective with their dollars because they want to tell us these dollars are limited as well. Because it comes out of the American taxpayers' pocketbook. What we are looking at here is the largest tax increase in U.S. history, and this is going to be a negative impact on the average American family of $1,500 or $2,000 more that comes out of their wallets and is sent to Washington. They are asking to make sure that the dollars spent are done effectively. I am a Member of the 108th Congress. I came in with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and a few others, I believe, that started a group called WWW, Washington Waste Watchers. They would come to the floor each week and talk about areas of concern to them and this entire Congress to make sure that Washington moves in the right direction, to be stopping this wasteful spending of dollars. So before we take a program that is already in existence, that we know as the testimony here earlier from the gentleman from California may be a laudable program in some sense in terms of providing assistance to those who need it, but it is wasting the dollars in another sense because it is not really getting to those individuals who desperately need it, and it is going elsewhere and being done in an inefficient manner. Before we simply up the dollars and not make sure that those dollars get to those low- and moderate-income people to get the job done, as the gentleman from California pointed out, let's make sure that we have something, something to make sure that we do so in an efficient and effective manner. That is what the WWW, Washington Waste Watchers, is trying to do. That is what the Republican side of the aisle is trying to do. Let's implement programs to say we will operate this House of Representatives the same as a family's budget would; that we will operate just as stringently with our dollars here as if they were our very own. We will make sure that there are systems in place, accountability in place to make sure that the dollars really get to the places they need to get to. And before we get those mechanisms set up and established, we are not going to waste any more taxpayer dollars by going to them and saying we are going to raise tax dollars or raise tax rates, and simply up the spending on a program until we can certify that program is being run effectively and efficiently. I commend the gentleman from California for trying to move in the right direction to make sure that we don't have the largest tax increase in history, and to make sure that programs like this are run efficiently and effectively.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I think it is a significant point that you raise with regard to what level of American taxpayers will be subjected to these taxes. I come from the great State of New Jersey, where we had similar rhetoric, if you will, from the other side of the aisle on the State level. And we actually heard the exact same arguments being made: Don't worry, they're going to come up with what they call the millionaires' tax; and if you're not a millionaire, don't worry about it. Well, truth be told, after all the dust was scattered away from the bills, after all the hearings were held, after all the press conferences and everything else was done by the Democrats in the State of New Jersey, we found that that level went from $1 million to $900,000 to $800,000 to $700,000 to $600,000 to $500,000, $400,000, $300,000, 250-some-odd thousand dollars at the end of the day. Now, you still say they may be a large income? Well, in the State of New Jersey, if you're a two- income family making a hundred-some-odd thousand dollars, you found that you would still be subject to tax on that.

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor in support of yet another good and commonsense amendment. Good and common sense because it asks of this Congress to do the very same thing that any family in America and any small business in America would do under similar circumstances. The American public right now is looking at, as we have already seen, the largest tax increase in U.S. history. And let me just take a moment, though, before I go into the particulars on this amendment to explain how that impacts upon the average American family. There was an article in the New York Times several months ago after the Democrats proposed their budget, which is inclusive of what we have here before us, to say how would this, the largest tax increase in American history, impact a family of four, the average American family of four maybe in the Fifth Congressional District, maybe in Bergen County, which is one of the great counties of New Jersey that I represent, an average family of four, four individuals, making around $70,000, which I should point out by no means in the great State of New Jersey would be considered by most people an affluent family. That family would see their taxes, because of this underlying legislation combined with the overall budget, go up by upwards to $1,500, $1,600 year. That would mean $1,500 or $1,600 more coming to the Federal Treasury into the Federal checkbook as opposed to being able to stay in the family checkbook. That means $1,500 or $1,600 more coming down to the Washington bureaucrats as opposed to being able to remain in the family checkbook on the kitchen table where Mom and Dad are able to decide should those dollars be spent on their son's college education, on their daughter's health care expenses, on their in-laws' necessary expenses that they must share with, whatever else, to Washington as opposed to the family budget. Now, the good gentleman from Colorado comes up with an amendment to try to address that. If we are able to hold the line on overall spending just as an average family would have to do, we would not see the need for this, the largest tax increase in American history. And what does the good gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) do? Well, he simply says hold the line on spending for, let us say, the bureaucrats, if you will, all good men and women, I am sure, the people in the policy and administration account under this bill, under the Bureau of Reclamation, hold the spending at 2007 levels. By doing so, we will be saving some money. That will represent a $1.236 million reduction, from $58.8 million to $57.57 million. Some of you may say in this grand scheme of things when we are looking at our Federal budget upwards of almost $3 trillion, saving $1.2 million is not that much. But the flip side of that argument is if it really isn't that much of a cut, then it really shouldn't be that much to bear for the Federal Government. If we are not really not cutting that much, then the bureaucrats and the rest who have such a huge budget as it is should not feel the squeeze that much. But all we are asking them to do, like any other family does, is to live on their budget for this year. I ask how many Americans saw their income rise last year by one, two, two-\1/2\ times the rate of inflation? I can tell you quite candidly most of the people that I talk to in my district, unfortunately, did not see their incomes rise that much, but yet that is what we are asking them to do in the sense of higher taxes to pay for the increase in spending for the overall budget that we have here. Let me just conclude in the same way that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) does in his letter. He says, and I think these are the most poignant words: ``We must restore fiscal discipline and assure the American people that we are doing whatever is necessary to reduce our national debt. To do this, we must find both commonsense and innovative ways to do more with less. The American people have asked Congress to rein in Federal spending and to tighten its belt. This reasonable amendment does just that.'' And he asks us all from both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat alike, to join with the gentleman from Colorado to work to make sure that we do not have the largest tax increase in American history, to work to make sure that we have a system that is common sense, efficient, and appropriate on the Federal level, just as we have asked for the American family at home.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman from Texas for this amendment. And let me begin where the gentleman from the other side of the aisle concluded when he asked the question? What if there is not enough money to go around? That is a question that we ask here in Congress in the House all the time. What if there's not enough money for my pet project to go around? What if there's not enough money for this earmark to go around? What if there's not enough money for this brand-new program to go around? But let me suggest to you that there's another variation of that question that we would be mindful of, and that is the families back at home that we represent. When the mom and dad sits at their dining room table at the end of each week with their checkbook out, paying their bills, be it for the electric bill, some other utility or heating bill, their rent or their mortgage, their food bill, their health or education bill for their children, or any other vital bill that that family has, and the husband looks over to the wife, and they realize that they have all these stacks of bills in front of them, and they have more bills than they have money in their checking account, and the wife asks the husband, what now, because there's not enough money to go around, what does that family do? Who does that family turn to when there's not enough money to go around? I can tell you where this Congress turns to when we say there's not enough money to go around. When we say there's not enough money to go around, what this House has done, or at least in the new budget that was presented in the Budget Committee which I serve on, by the other side of the aisle, what the Democrats propose to do is to simply raise taxes. And as we have seen in the proposed budget from the other side of the aisle, it is now the largest tax increase in U.S. history, on the backs of America's families, on the backs of that very same husband and wife who is sitting there saying to themselves, there's not enough money to go around to pay our bills, to pay our mortgage, to pay our health care bills, to send our kids to go to school. They can't raise taxes on anybody else. They can't go out to their neighbors and say, we can't afford food this week, we can't afford our rent this week. We can't afford to send our kids to the colleges we want to, so we're going to raise taxes on you. They can't do that. But somehow or other, Members of Congress think when they get elected around here, that we can do that by raising taxes, the largest tax increase in U.S. history, that somehow or other that we're entrusted to do such things and create slush funds and the like. Well, I stand before you and say that no, that the American public has sent a message to us, to both sides of the aisle, to Republicans and Democrats alike. Yes, the Democrats are now in charge, Mr. Chairman, of this House. And they are so because the American public spoke this last November, quite candidly, because perhaps the Republicans weren't listening well enough during that period of time. But I can tell you this, and those who listen to us on this floor today, the Republicans are listening very well right now, and the Democrats are not listening very well. The voters sent us a message in November and said enough is enough. We have to be concerned about the family budget sometimes instead of the Federal budget. We have to put the focus on the moms and dads out there being able to pay their bills for their kids' health care and the like, instead of always worrying about ever-increasing budgets on the Federal level. Now the proposal that is before us to look at would simply look to save a few million dollars out of a several trillion dollar budget, something that most Americans, myself included, can't really get our arms around when you think about how large this budget is. In a way, it's just a drop in the bucket when it comes to the budgets back here. But to the budget of the family at home, that's still a lot of money. The proposal that the good gentleman from Texas proposes here right now would simply try to rein in spending in such the smallest of ways, but it would be a good step in the right direction. It would be saying to the voters from last November, we heard you; we have to put the focus on the family budget, we're going to try to live within our means. And even when we are dealing with important issues, such as the gentleman from the other side of the aisle raised, whether it's water resources or the like, we're going to fund those programs. We're going to take care of those programs, but we're going to do it in an efficient and a manageable manner, and we're going to do so in a way that is not a burden on the American family budget any longer because we have heard you, and we realize that there will never be enough dollars for every single program that every single Member of Congress and the Senate come up with. But we are going to prioritize them, put them in order of importance, put them in an order that are most significant to the American family, fund those programs to the levels that are necessary. And the rest, we are going to do just as every family in America has to do, set limits on what we are going to spend on, set limits on how much we are going to spend, and live within our means. So to the good gentleman, Mr. Hensarling from Texas, I commend you for your work in trying to have this House live within its means.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I am a proud cosponsor of to day's resolution which calls for the United Nations to take action to uphold one of its most important conventions--the Convention of Genocide. With the violence of the Holocaust just a few years behind them, the members of the United Nations in 1948 established a convention to prevent such atrocities from ever happening again. There is much talk at the UN about preventing war and genocide but unfortunately there is little action. The Iranian President has called for a UN member nation to be ``wiped off the map.'' Do we have any doubt that the UN would sanction the Israeli Prime Minister if the positions were reversed? The Iranian president and the Ayatollahs' supreme wish is the destruction of Israel and all her people. They have not tried to mask this goal--they doubt the holocaust of the past and make plans for a holocaust of the future. Ahmadinejad has even gone as far as speculating that the collateral damage of attacking Israel with nuclear weapons would be worth the cost to the Muslim world. For a regime that is developing nuclear capabilities, these are truly dangerous words. In the 1930's fascist dictators made bold claims of impending violence and we ignored them to our own peril. The world should not ignore these words of aggression. Today, we call on UN member nations to call out Ahmadinejad, to condemn these statements, and to work together to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I wish to rise to say that I appreciate the work of both the Chair and ranking member with regard to their work on behalf of veterans of this country. The amendment that is before us is an amendment to seek increase in funds for the State veterans homes. It does so in the amount of $10 million. There are 126 facilities, veterans homes, across the 50 States and Puerto Rico. These are State veterans homes and they care for nearly 30,000 of our Nation's heroes. The number of veterans that are going to be requiring care is large and is going to continue to grow through the year 2020. And the conflict today is leading to more veterans that will need special care throughout the rest of their lives. As many of our veterans move into these extended care facilities, we must continue here in this House to ensure that the facilities are both safe and comfortable for the residents. As you may know, there is an extensive list of backlogged projects just waiting for the funds, many of them in the area of critical health and safety needs. Of the $500 million of projects waiting for Federal funds, nearly half are classified as priority one. We must also see that these facilities are able to provide for high quality of life as well for those individuals who have made great sacrifices in the past years for our Nation. These are homes, as I said before, for our heroes. They are not simply institutions that we are funding. If we are not able to fund the priority one projects that I am worried about, these homes will be inadequate and we will not be honoring our veterans. The staff at these homes work hard to honor our veterans and work with them to provide that they have, for the remaining years of their lives, a comfortable environment. I have had the opportunity to spend some time in these veterans home, particularly the Paramus Veterans Home in my district in Bergen County, and I particularly had the chance to visit with the people who live there and the staff and their friends and relatives who come along. In addition to that, there are local veterans service organizations that have worked hard to secure State matching funds for these essential projects as well at this facility, just as their counterparts are doing the same sort of thing all across this country in their homes as well. Finally, I would like to point this out, that our colleagues in the Senate Appropriations Committee just this week approved $250 million for this account. So including my amendment here would still mean that we are falling short of where the Senate is by around $75 million; so I therefore believe that this $10 million is well called for. While this backlog is much greater than what this amendment can provide, I wanted to call attention to this difficulty these homes currently are facing and have been facing for some period of time, and I hope that we can work together now to find a way to honor these vets and make sure that they receive the best care and the best quality of life in their remaining days. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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