Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment by striking lines 4 through 7, which would be paragraph A, and I guess appropriately renumbering or relettering paragraph line A, paragraph B to correspond.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. That's why I say to appropriately reflect the change and deletion of that.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I would agree with the gentleman's comments. And we can proceed with the procedural matters. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. And I am not naive in my politics or on economics at all. Because we know that, in business, at the end of the day the cost of anything that we buy is eventually paid for by whom? By the consumer. You can say that you are pushing it off onto the stockholders or the investors of the company, but at that point in time you realize that if it raises the price too much for the stockholders or investors to invest in that company, what will they do? They will step back and they will not invest in that entity anymore, they will not invest in that company anymore, which raises the overall cost for investment for that entity. In this situation, then where does the cost go to? It goes to the consumer. Mr. Chairman, we should be opposed to this mortgage tax increase.

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time. Because I have heard the gentleman make that charge with regard to my amendment, which has not come to the floor yet and I will be glad to get into a debate on my amendment later on. But the amendment that is before us right now addresses the issue as far as this MTI, mortgage tax increase. And I appreciate the chairman now coming to the floor and saying specifically that his comments earlier was not absolutely correct when he said it would all come from the stockholders. Before he said it would come from the stockholders and not from the home buyers. Now he just indicated that you can't put that in language because you cannot actually prove that is going to occur. And that is my point, that at the end of the day the GSEs are in control of this. They will have the tax on them; they will have to decide where this tax is going to be placed. Is it on the poor, low income family, who has no bargaining rights with the GSEs at all; or will be with their stockholders, which the chairman just admitted that we as a legislative body cannot control.

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. First of all, let me commend the chairman on his work on this legislation with regard to the underlying and the basic principle where this whole legislation came from; and that is, to create a world class regulator, I think was the buzz word when we first started working on this, with regard to the GSEs. And when the night is done and we vote on final passage of this, I hope that the language in the bill, I see the chairman is leaving. But I hope that the chairman will stick to his promise and the assertions that what we have in this is a good regulator, and it will not have any amendments that will water that down. But to the point of the ranking member's amendment, I stand in support of the amendment. We should look at this and realize that what we have in this housing fund is an MTI, a mortgage tax increase. After this bill becomes law and a prospective homeowner goes to buy his next house and he sits there at the lawyer's office with the stack of papers this high that they have to fill out, somewhere in those documents buried in all the fine print and other costs that always are found in a home purchase at the last minute will be increased costs to them, an MTI, a mortgage tax increase. Why is that? Because, as the ranking member indicates, you can't pull money out of thin air. We are not creating perpetual motion by this bill. They are trying to set with the housing fund a new flow of money to go into this. But where does it come from? Now, the chairman of the committee constantly retorts that it is not coming from the perspective home buyer, it is not coming from the low and moderate income individual, who is just getting enough money together to buy that first house. And yet the door is slammed shut on them because one more tax, an MTI, a mortgage tax increase, is coming through this bill. The chairman would suggest that it is coming exclusively from the stockholders. I don't see the chairman on floor at this time, but I would offer and entertain from the chairman whether he would accept an amendment to the bill right now that would specifically say that: That no increase in fees can be charged; that we cannot raise any taxes on the individual; and that all the money has to come from the stockholders.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, on Monday, May 14th, I participated in the D.A.R.E. graduation ceremony in Oradell, New Jersey. More than 100 elementary school students participated 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 Oradell, and I would like to recognize them all for taking this step toward positive citizenship: Rachel Bahng, Shamus Barnes, Edward Caiazzo, Christie Candrilli, Nicole Carney, Estee Chaimson, Christopher Colon, Colleen Dakay, Phillip Giuffre, Kandai Iso, Dana Johnson, Tyler Kane, Kevin Loh, Hayley Murphy, Gerard Quinn, Laura Rivera, Julia Shats, Griffin Suess, Gabriela Valenzuela, Mark Wittkamp, Anna Yasouka, Haylee Alonso, Ashley Anzalone, Esther Bae, Ryan Bauman, Troy Bendian, Thomas Browning, Liam Cameron, Raymond Cannarozzi. Daniel Christmann, Marissa Conti, Melanie Culha, Conor Davidson, Hunter DeGregorio, Ciara Enright, Jacqueline Galbraith, Daniel Gladston, Kevin Hanrahan, Emily Hyman, Tyler Kallensee, Maria Karim, Emily McGovern, Dillon Ross, Cathy Antonelli, Michael Bruno, Lauren Chagachbanian, Michelle Chakansky, Katie Dantoni, Gianni DaSilva, Sumie Kakehi. Adam Kunkel, Emily Lewis, David Lo, Robbie Lombardi, Brett Lubben, Kayleen Melvin, Emily O'Boyle, Emily Reynolds, Andrew Rivera, Hannah Schultz, Alissa Settembrino, Sara Starr, Meghana Yarde, Ryan Zaccaria, Chris Bastable, Taylor Bavlitschko, Jack Bertini, Tyler Bisig, Scott Callison, Emily Croonquist, Cami Didio, Sharon Galperin, Gregory Gerbino, Michelle Hao, Colleen Kelly, Natalie Ortega, Michael Santucci, Samantha Sender, Madeline Toohey. Jessica Toufayan, Melonie Ward, Rebecca Weimer, Austin Williams, Zack Wynne, Kaitlyn Brady, Alexandra Braun, Daniel DaSilva, Kalette deMarrais, Jared Finkel, Ryan Gallow, Rebecca Goldstein, Martin Gross, Sonya Koh, Simon Kramer, Meagan McCorry, Emanuel Nobile, David Pagan, Daniel Ross, Ana Song, Maryssa Spiniella, David Tirelli, Karen Triunfo, Rebecca Wasserman, and Brenna Wiegand.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the Mental Health Association in Passaic County for its outstanding dedication to the well-being of the people of Passaic. For two decades, the committed staff and volunteers of this organization have provided County residents with the services and support that they need to take care of themselves. From a listening ear to prescription drugs and therapy to education and public awareness efforts, the Mental Health Association serves Passaic residents from childhood to retirement, often without payment for all they provide. At their Fourth Annual Vision and Achievement Awards Dinner tonight, the Mental Health Association in Passaic County will honor seven tremendous citizens whose individual efforts also work to support the well-being of Passaic residents. Each, in his or her own way, helps to make the quality of life in this North Jersey community top-notch, and I wish to recognize them all for their outstanding accomplishments: Mohamed El Filali, Outreach Director at the Islamic Center of Passaic County and the Muslim Chaplain at the Passaic County Jail. Sister Gloria Perez, Executive Director of Eva's Kitchen and Sheltering Programs. Dr. Steven D. Rose, President of Passaic County Community College. Dr. Sybil C. Schreiber, Executive Director of the Passaic County Mental Clinic. Jerry Speziale, Passaic County Sheriff. Jack McElligott, a licensed clinical social worker and member of the Board of Directors of the Mental Health Association in Passaic County. Linda Shapiro, a loving wife and mother and volunteer for the Mental Health Association in Passaic County. It is an honor to recognize the public service of these seven individuals and all the men and women who make the Mental Health Association in Passaic County such an important part of the Passaic community.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I am deeply disappointed that the Democratic leadership has chosen to bring up H.R. 1700, the COPS Improvement Act of 2007, under suspension. While the Committee on Judiciary reported the bill out without objection, I am concerned that the hundreds of Members not on the committee will not have any opportunity to offer any improvements to the bill. Had I been allowed the opportunity, I would have introduced an amendment to more fairly allot grants by State. According to last year's funding statistics, small States received a disproportionate amount of funds. In fact, in some cases small States have received more funds than States more than five times their population. For instance, Alabama gets more assistance than California. My home State, New Jersey, a densely populated State nestled between the major metropolitan centers of New York City and Philadelphia and also home to a heavily trafficked drug corridor and its own inner- cities, receives less than 2 percent of all grants. As if this imbalance weren't bad enough, the Office Management and Budget's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) graded COPS as ``not performing: results not demonstrated.'' The bill authorizes $1.15 billion for this program next fiscal year and another $4.6 billion over the next 4 years. With so much taxpayer money at stake, and so few positive results demonstrated, why is the House missing this opportunity to fully consider how we might improve a program that is failing despite its good intentions? The people of New Jersey watch a disproportionate share of their Federal taxes go to Washington to carry out this unproven program in other States. And for these reasons, I regret that I simply could not support this bill on the floor today.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend Frank Leone on the occasion of his 80th birthday for his extraordinary public service. Frank Leone's service to his country, his community, and his neighbors dates back to World War II when he was drafted into the U.S. Navy. He served as a flight deck crewman on the aircraft carrier USS Kearsarge, a ship his father had helped to build during the war. He remains an active member of the Oakland American Legion and Franklin Lakes VFW. In 1954, Frank Leone moved to Oakland and became an active part of that Bergen County community. He ran for mayor in 1960 and was elected to the Borough Council in 1963. He served as the president of the Chamber of Commerce for 12 years. Frank Leone also served as Civil Defense Director and Emergency Management Coordinator. His long record of extraordinary service to his community was honored in 2001 as the Grand Marshal of Oakland's Memorial Day Parade. In 1965, President Lyndon Baines Johnson appointed Frank Leone as Oakland Postmaster. Today, he is the last active postmaster in the Nation appointed by the President of the United States. He has served in various State and national offices of the National Association of Postmasters. Frank Leone is a shining example of citizenship and dedication to your community. It is an honor to share in the celebration of his 80th birthday.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise to praise some of the most under-valued public servants in our society: American nurses. They are ever-present at every stage of our lives--at our birth, through childhood illnesses and adult traumas, and in our final days. Yet, while people remember the doctor who delivered their children or cared for their aging parents, they rarely remember the friendly, caring individuals who stayed by their side while busy doctors made rounds. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, registered nurses constitute the largest segment of the health care workforce, with more than 2.4 million jobs in 2006. And, they are projected to create the second largest number of new jobs amongst all occupations. Yet, the demand for nurses is far outstripping the supply and many parts of the Nation--from the most urban inner city to the most remote rural community--are experiencing extraordinary nursing shortages. Nursing is a noble profession, but one which is too often upstaged by other health care professionals and too often given little credit for the enormous role played in sustaining the high quality of American health care. As we celebrate National Nurses Week this week, let us all take a moment to thank the nurses in our hospitals and doctors' offices, nursing homes and hospices, and all throughout our communities for all their tremendous service.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed in today's rule that barred the House from considering a common-sense amendment that I brought to the committee. The text of my amendment was substantially from H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2005, which passed the House by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority in the 109th Congress. One of the 9/11 Commission's primary recommendations was to ensure that all federal government grants for homeland security be allotted by risk and need. To this day, however, nearly 40 percent of all grants are handed out merely by virtue of their location. The House has time and time again passed legislation to streamline the grant process and reduce the mandatory minimum percentage given to each state. While the House did pass such language in H.R. 1, the Senate had yet to take up this legislation. Until the President signs into law legislation correcting this oversight, we should not pass up an opportunity to make our nation more secure. But that is what the Democrats are doing today. We must reiterate this critical policy change at each and every opportunity. The constituents of the fifth district of New Jersey know too well the repercussions of failing to provide for strong homeland security. Many of them lost loved ones on 9/11 and they expect our country to prepare for any such future disaster. As long as grants continue to go to low-priority wasteful projects, our most at-risk citizens will be vulnerable.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, today is an historic day for the people of Northern Ireland. A day that has been years in the making and which heralds a new era of peace. Today in Belfast, parliament opened with the swearing in of Unionist and Sinn Fein members side-by-side. I congratulate Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness on their new roles as first minister and deputy first minister of the assembly. Today is proof that despite decades of violence, two previously bitter enemies can sit down and work through their differences peacefully through representative government. Nine years ago, the Good Friday Agreement envisioned this day. The work to cement that achievement has been difficult but it has been accomplished through negotiation and compromise. Certainly, today is not the end of disagreement, but it is the beginning of settling things politically and not militarily. Today is possible because both sides have recognized that violence is not productive, that killing benefits neither side. The children of Northern Ireland can now grow up in a country where hate is not a virtue. What the people of Northern Ireland have accomplished today is an example for areas around the world suffering with internal conflict. A people who were once at war with one another have freely elected leaders who will work to solve problems peacefully. Again, I congratulate the people of Northern Ireland on this historic occasion. It is a day to remember and in which they should take pride.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 291, honoring those brave officers who have paid the ultimate price in the line of duty. May 15th marks the 44th annual Peace Officers' Memorial Day and to mark the occasion, law enforcement officers from around the Nation will gather here in Washington, D.C. This visit will include a gathering here on the Capitol lawn to pay their respects to their fallen comrades. All of these officers--both those who have passed and those who carry on today--deserve our gratitude and our respect, But, during this time of remembrance, I would like to especially recognize those 72 brave officers who were lost on September 11, 2001, the single deadliest day in law enforcement history. Thirty-seven of those lost were officers of the New York/New Jersey Port Authority and we are eternally indebted to them for their bravery and sacrifice on that tragic day. The memory of their service and the sacrifice their families have made on our behalf should be always in our thoughts. In our great Nation, there are 870,000 sworn law enforcement officers who risk their lives daily to ensure the safety of their neighbors. Every 53 hours one of these officers is killed in the line of duty. It is in their memory that we gather each May to pay our respects to the fallen and to honor this noble profession. Many thanks go to the law enforcement officers in New Jersey, here at the United States Capitol, and around the United States. We thank you for your service and join you in honoring your fallen comrades.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I understand what you're saying, the first part, that those are the heart-felt policy statements of your budget. But are you referring then to the other side of the equation, to the reserve accounts that are spoken of in the budget as far as, I will use the term, for paying for those?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. If the gentleman will yield.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Because you referred to my comments. When you said that you planned this in the budget, are your comments referring to reserve accounts?

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, despite the hopes of the other side of the aisle, the constituents in my district are pretty smart people. When they were paying a little over $2 a gallon for gasoline a year or so ago and now they're paying upwards of $3 per gallon, they know that's an increase out of their pocket. Likewise, when it comes to taxes, when they see that they are paying so much for their taxes now on the Federal level now, and after this package goes through on the other side of the aisle, they will be paying upwards to $3,000 or more. They know, they're smart enough to realize that's a tax increase as well. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have to look to outside nonpartisan groups they call them, really nonpartisan liberal think tanks I think is the best term, for those think tanks to say that these are not tax increases when they really are. When your taxes go up from this year to the next year to the next year, that is a tax increase. They talk about the budget planning process and say, don't worry, it only comes at the end of the budget. Well, you know, regular families plan during the entire budget. If you have a weekly budget for your food allotment, you want to make sure you have food at the end of the week. If you're doing a monthly budget, you plan the entire month. If you have a yearly budget or a 5-year budget as this is, you do it in the entire 5 years. And under the Democrats' budget, your taxes during the course of that time will go up. In New Jersey, you're looking at a $3,000 or more tax increase. When it comes to Social Security, my constituents are also very smart and loud when they say, ``Keep your hands off of my Social Security.'' The Republican plan does that. The Republican plan stops the raid on Social Security, and it does so without a tax increase. Now, there is some rumor I am hearing by some Democrats on the other side of the aisle that they may support our motion to recommit. But mind you, mark my words, if they support this motion to recommit, it will be as disingenuous as their support and their comments and other things they have done in the past this year. When they said that they were going to curtail spending, what did they actually do? They increased spending by over 11 percent in this budget. When they said they weren't going to raise your taxes, what did they do? They increased your taxes by $392 billion. And when they said that they were going to solve the AMT problem, what did they do? They did not solve it at all. Support this motion to recommit.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, just beginning where the last comment on the last bill ended up, I appreciate the gentleman pointing out that this side did support a doubling of the NSF, and I was probably one of those who was there to support the increase; so no one, I think, can take the position that we are not uniformly as a body or as a party opposed to the general notion of increasing, making significant increases to applied research or general research, I should say, by the NSF. What we can ask, though, is after the last election, has the American voter spoken with regard to the overall growth in Federal spending in all areas, whether it is in science and health care, whether it is in the war, for veterans or other areas; should we not look at each one individually and decide some should go up, some should remain the same, and some should go up at a slightly different way? That is what we are suggesting in the last amendment, simply that they should go up at a slightly different arc than they are in the underlying bill, 6.5 percent instead of 7 percent. In the amendment before us right now, we look to see what is the underlying mission of the NSF. If we look at their mission statement, we see it is: ``To promote the progress of science, advance the national health, prosperity and welfare and secure the national defense.'' But during these tough fiscal times, both at the Federal level and at the family level, as I pointed out before, Congress must exercise good stewardship over every penny of taxpayers' dollars. This includes helping the NSF to focus on its priority projects. Just as the gentleman from Georgia indicated, he has been visited by a number of people from various groups dealing with health issues, so have I; people with serious health issues like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and diabetes. They come and ask what are we doing and how are we prioritizing for their concerns within the NSF. The amendment before you simply says can we find more than a quarter million dollars to fund research on such programs as reproductive aging symptoms of midlife Bangladeshi immigrants, but not more funding for research projects which might bring progress and eventually cures for some of the serious illnesses we have already heard about on the floor? In addition, how can we justify research like the diet and social stratification of ancient cultures when here at home current medical research is so desperately needed? Now, I understand that the point has been already made that we do not specifically itemize in the authorization bills each one of these specific programs, but these are, as the gentleman knows, programs which have already been authorized in the past and are continuing under the law right now into 2007 and 2008. So doesn't it behoove us here in Congress to make a statement, to make a stand and say that at least in several of these areas we can make a position that our limited dollars should not be going to those areas, but instead we would make the position that they should be going for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes and cancer research and some other areas that we have previously spoken about? So I encourage my colleagues, do not only exercise good stewardship over the taxpayers' dollars, but in essence to also ensure that worthy projects receive the funding they deserve within that noble mission that I set forth at the beginning, ``To promote the progress of science, advance the national health, prosperity and welfare and secure the national defense.''

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