Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I believe the other side of the aisle has mischaracterized what this amendment does when they speak of cuts and pullbacks from science and the Foundation. Nothing of the kind is in this amendment. Instead, we will still be increasing spending this year and next year and next year and next year up to $20.87 billion for these appropriated expenditures on the National Science Foundation, instead of $20.97 billion. I am very much concerned about education and science and our research. Let me just add, I am also concerned about the education of our youth. My constituents are just as concerned about educating their kids and being able to afford to send their kids to college and how do they pay for that? My constituents are concerned about the health care and the medical expenditures for their families and how do they pay for that? My constituents are concerned about the housing for their family and loved ones, and how do they pay for that? They are not seeing a 7 percent increase in their wages and salaries, even though each and every one of those things are just as vitally important to them as it is that we spend money on overall Science Foundation research in the United States of America. This amendment would not cut spending by a dime. This amendment would simply limit the growth rate from 7 percent down to 6.5 percent. The last amendment was seeing it go down from 7 percent to 6 percent. This would be even less, from 7 to 6.5 percent. You would still be seeing a growth year after year after year. The NSF would still be allowed to expend their dollars on those critical areas that my friend from Georgia and the Members on the other side of the aisle are so concerned about for the betterment of this country. I would implore the Members on the other side of the aisle that if we are to be consistent when we talk about the overall spending and revenue side for this Congress, that we stop doing what the other side of the aisle has done. They have only looked at the revenue side of the equation so far in the last 3 or 4 months, giving us the largest tax increase in America's history on the other hand, but have done absolutely nothing for the American public when it says how are we going to set priorities for the American public and what we spend money on, and how are we going to try to rein in spending for the American public as well. I think we need to do it on both sides. Finally, regarding what the gentleman from Michigan said, I agree with him. If we can do it across the board for all of the other programs, I am right in line with him, and I support him on that endeavor as well. Let's start here, and I will be the first one to cosponsor any of his amendments to do likewise, decreasing the overall increases of spending that this government has.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I, too, echo the words of my colleagues who are in support of the overall funding of the National Science Foundation, and I offer this amendment to H.R. 1867, which I hope will provide incentives for the NSF to identify waste and any abuse within the Agency, but also, very importantly, to help identify those programs which are either underperforming or simply just not working. I believe this legislation will help be a model of fiscal responsibility. It is similar to the legislation we just heard from in two respects. H.R. 1867 authorizes the National Science Foundation to increase their spending, which goes to the point of the gentleman from Michigan was saying before, by 7 percent, and again in 2009 and 2010. The point we must make here, though, is inflation has remained constant during this same time period at around 3 percent. So when we purport to be so concerned about the taxpayers' dollars and the debt we are leaving our children, which I just heard from the gentleman from the other side of the aisle previously, how can we justify programmic increases for research that are actually more than twice the rate of inflation? As I referenced before, when I go back to my constituents back at home in town hall meetings and the like, they are not seeing 7 percent increases in their wages and salaries. They are not seeing a doubling of their incomes and their family household incomes. They may be seeing that as far as their expenses are concerned. They are seeing all other sorts of increases in spending, such as gasoline prices and the like that they have to put up with, but they are not seeing the increases in income and expenditures that we are seeing in this bill. I will comment on one comment that the gentleman from the other side of the aisle made before as far as being consistent. I think we heard the American public on this past election day. The American public is concerned about overspending by Congress. They want us to prioritize where our dollars go. They want to make sure that we are spending every dime efficiently and appropriately. I have yet, however, to hear one suggestion from the other side of the aisle, either here on the floor or on the Budget Committee, on which I serve with some of the gentleman on the other side of the aisle, as to where we with can make some of those cuts. Instead, what we are seeing is a continual increase in spending. Another point to make as well: Time after time our constituents come to our office quoting the discrepancy between authorization levels and appropriation levels. It is my hope that instead of having to disappoint them once again, that we set realistic authorization levels that may actually be realistic to the appropriation levels that come down the line. Let's be realistic, both on what we can do for our constituents and also what the appropriators may be doing with this bill later on. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, because it is our duty simply as stewards of our constituents' money, the taxpayers' dollars, as we step forward to make an honest assessment of what we can afford and should afford the American taxpayer.

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Just a couple of points and then I will yield. I agree with the gentleman that in some respects, perhaps, this body should not be engaged in micromanaging various aspects of the Federal Government where we do not have expertise. Earlier today, and in just the past week, we had a complete debate on that subject of whether this body, all 535 Members, were in appropriate position to micromanage the war, and I think some of us thought that we were not in the best position but that we should have, just as you are suggesting here, the trained professionals, the experts, the people on the field who are engaged in this activity on a daily basis make those decisions. So I would agree with the gentleman there. And if we were to have consistency, then we should not be engaged in that matter and we should not be engaged in this case. Let me make my second point and that is this: It is not incumbent upon the gentleman from California to be the expert in these areas that he is raising questions about. The underlying bill is not the gentleman from California's bill. It is the majority party's bill. It is your bill. You are coming to the floor making the case, or I should say the other side of the aisle, as I am speaking to the Chair, making the case that we should be spending all this money on these programs. So it is incumbent upon the offerer of the underlying legislation to make the case why we should be doing it and have the information why each one of these is justified so that when either the gentleman from California or Georgia raises the legitimate question, the same question that we are going to get when we go back to our constituents and are asked why did we vote on it, he should be making the justification for that. With that, I will yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, again, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman is a doctor and I am not going to ask him for his medical expertise because, as you say, that is not our role here to delve into these things but to simply raise the questions. I will tell you this, that when I come back to my constituents and they tell me about their health concerns, whether it is menopause or cancer or otherwise, their first concern is how are they going to address their own health needs, how are they going to address their health care costs and what are we doing here about it. Their second question is what research are we doing here at home for these areas. The study that you reference, reproductive aging and symptoms experienced at midlife among Bangladeshi immigrants, sedentees, and white London neighbors does not, of course, as the gentleman knows, look to those issues here at home, but rather elsewhere. My constituents will raise the question, is that the first priority or should that be the first priority of the NSF. I am not an expert, I am not a doctor like the gentleman, so I cannot suggest that that is the most important one, but my constituents will certainly raise that question for me, and my constituents will certainly be consistent, as the gentleman from Georgia says, and that we should make sure that those dollars are spent here on their own health concerns first.

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. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend two outstanding public servants who have dedicated themselves to the people of the State of New Jersey through their work with the New Jersey State Law Enforcement Officers Association. Debbie Ferroni has been working with the Association since 1989 as its Executive Administrator. Jerry Leavy, the Association's President, says that he's not embarrassed to say that though he is the President, it's Debbie that does all the work. In 1994, Debbie was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. Several times during her battle with this debilitating disease, Debbie has had to be hospitalized or homebound. Each time, she has demanded her work be brought to her home and she always showed more concern for the men and women the Association serves than for her own health. Robert Criss has been a part of the Association since 1991. He retired as a Captain from the Highland Park Police Department in 1999. His first-hand knowledge of the needs of the law enforcement officers the Association serves has made him an invaluable volunteer. And, by all accounts, Bob Criss volunteers ``excessive amounts of time'' to this work, perhaps most importantly as the Chair of the Youth and Child Identification program. The New Jersey State Law Enforcement Officers Association will be seventy years old next year. Its members serve the people of New Jersey as Federal, State, county, and municipal law enforcement officers, special police, and auxiliaries. It is the outstanding commitment of people like Debbie Ferroni and Bob Criss that allows the Association to serve these brave officers so well. As it does each year, this past weekend, the Association honored several of its members for their valor and bravery in the line of duty. I join the Association in the pride they show for these officers and I am proud to honor Debbie and Bob for their sense of duty as well.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise to commend the community of Glen Rock for joining together to fight underage drinking, which, according to the National Institutes of Health, results in the deaths of approximately 5,000 people under the age of 21 each year. Many Glen Rock high school students face a destructive rite of passage called the Keg Race. The Class of 2007 is expected to consume 107 kegs of beer before graduation day in June. While no one has yet died as a result of this under-culture of house parties and drinking, the community has come together to try to put an end to this practice before some irreversible damage is done. Regrettably, this is not a problem isolated to the community of Glen Rock. A 2003 study by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism noted that by the time they have reached the eighth grade, nearly half of all adolescents have had at least one drink and more than one in five reports having been ``drunk.'' About a third of all high school seniors report engaging in binge drinking--that is, having at least five or more drinks in a single occasion--within two weeks of being asked as part of the report. Elected leaders, spiritual leaders, and parents are joining together to form a web of support for each other and for community young people to help break this cycle of underage drinking in Glen Rock. And, I commend their efforts and hope other communities will follow their lead.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, early this morning, the day that marks the 59th year of Israeli independence, Hamas militants broke their truce by launching dozens of rockets and mortars into Israel. While no one was hurt and there was no reported damage, this is yet another setback for Middle East peace and for the kidnapped Gilad Shalit and his family who have patiently awaited his return. Hamas remains an organization full of contradictions. While their militant wing says the cease fire is over, the political wing insists that the cease fire is to be resumed. Hamas claims that Shalit is a prisoner of war and yet they bar the Red Cross from visiting him and have offered only scant proof the he even remains alive. There cannot be lasting peace in the Holy Land until the Palestinian people insist that all armed parties come under the control of a freely elected government. Palestinian terrorist groups operate under their own authority, planning and carrying out their attacks based on their warped view of Israeli grievances. This is just as destructive for peace-loving Palestinians as for peace-loving Israelis. Hamas continues to call for the destruction of Israel in its official policy statements. How can Israel hope to negotiate a lasting peace if the stated goal of the other sitting government is the very annihilation of their state? There can be peace, but only if Hamas shows in word and deed that coexistence is its goal. Until that time, the international community should support Israel, a state that abides by international treaties and is actively seeking a long-term solution to violence. As long as Hamas continues to promulgate random attacks on civilians and violate international prisoner of war standards, it cannot be trusted to sit down with the Israelis in good faith negotiations for peace.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I am encouraged by the continued development of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education programs in the United States as we seek to stay competitive at the global level. While H.R. 362 and 363 attempt to boost these endeavors, we have to examine at what cost and whether that cost is commensurate with what they accomplish. H.R. 363 alone would cost $1.25 billion over 5 years and H.R. 362 represents an expenditure of $1.5 billion over 5 years. Oddly, these duplicative bills seek to establish programs that are already in existence and expand others that have yet to show a return on their original investment. As outlined by the Statement of Administrative Policy, ``the Academic Competitiveness Council has identified 105 existing STEM education programs spending over $3 billion annually, including 45 programs that support training of STEM teachers, and found that very few of these programs demonstrated evidence-based effectiveness.'' My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to pour more money into programs that are simply not working. I have continued to support successful legislation like loan forgiveness for science and math teachers to encourage development in this field. I also encourage individual states to look into programs like that in New Jersey's Core Curriculum Content standards, which I was proud to work on in the New Jersey Assembly. Under this program, students are taught the highest level of math and science while also providing development of pre- engineering and design and equipping students with modern computer literacy. Out of a sense of responsibility to our Nation's next generation, I could not in good conscience support these expensive, bureaucracy-laden bills. I will continue to support measures that are proven to work while upholding states' Constitutional right to design STEM programs which work well for them and their students.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the resolution condemning Hezbollah's frequent use of civilians to protect their military forces and cache of weapons. All too often we hear claims that Hezbollah and the Israeli Defense Forces are moral equivalents. But when we look at the facts, we see that Hezbollah constantly demonstrates that it is a force that does not operate under the international treaties that attempt to govern warfare. Hezbollah has set up shop in southern Lebanon and, while they attempt to participate in the legal process of that nation, they are not under the control of any government. They use the funds of Iran and Syria to act as their proxies in the fight against Israel. There is little dispute that they store much of their military equipment below civilian houses and during the most recent conflict their military leadership holed up in bunkers filled with non-combatants. Hezbollah fights their wars in the international press as much as they fight them in the battlefield. Sadly, civilian deaths are seen as a victory since they can use the cry of war atrocities to keep the Israelis from engaging their forces. On the other side we see Israeli forces who clearly identify their military personnel by uniform and delineate their military installations from civilian. Yet, Hezbollah still chooses to indiscriminately shoot their rockets into principally civilian areas. Hezbollah operates far outside the bounds of international law, something we must not forget as we seek to control them through international bodies such as the United Nations. With no regard for the lives of their own nationals, can we expect them to hold up their end of Security Council resolutions? We must stand with the legitimate government of Israel, a shining light of democracy and freedom besieged by those with no respect for law or life.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 240, the resolution calling on our colleagues in other nations to ratify the agreement opening the Bad Arolsen archives. I was proud to cosponsor this resolution but I am saddened that it is necessary to remind some of our closest allies what is at stake here. The Bad Arolsen archives represent over 17 million people records related to the Holocaust and post-World War II displacement. Survivors of this tumultuous time want nothing more than to find evidence of what happened to their loved ones. We are all too aware that members of this generation are dying each day and that time is of the essence. While survivors are able to make a request for records, the current system is both backlogged and poorly managed. Over 500,000 requests are unfulfilled and there are demonstrated cases where survivors have been incorrectly advised that there are no records concerning them. Today, we call on the legislatures of the United Kingdom, Luxembourg, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Greece, and France to live up to their promises to swiftly approve the changes necessary to open the archive. How many more survivors need to pass away before the bureaucratic red tape is cleared away? Now is the time to provide answers that survivors have been seeking for over 60 years. Now is the time to provide some measure of comfort to those who were terrorized by the systematic violence of the Nazis and the chaos of the war to end their reign.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I just come to the floor to rise to answer the question that the gentleman from the other side just raised as far as the information that the shareholders have the right to know, and I agree with him completely. The shareholders do have a right to know what is going on in the corporations that they are investing in. When you think about it, what should be the ultimate objective of any of the legislation that we are addressing here today or any of the amendments that we are addressing here today? And that, I think, is to make sure that the shareholders, A, have information, and, B, have the best return on their investment possible, whether we are talking about senior citizens who are relying upon their investments for their pensions and their security for their remaining days and they have to make absolutely certain that these investments are good investments because this is what they are relying on because they are no longer working or whether these are young people who are just starting out and are beginning to put a way a little money for their children for their education 5, 10, 15, 20 years down the road. They want to be sure that their investments have a good return as well. They want to have information as well. Or maybe it is somebody in their middle years, such as myself, 40, 47 years old. We want to make sure that the money that we set aside for our retirement is going to be there and that we are getting a good return. So we want information as well. So the gentleman on the other side of the aisle is correct when he says we need to know that information. Well, that is exactly what this amendment does. This is to provide more information. And that is exactly what the SEC has already done with their proposed rules and regulations as far as providing more information to the American investor as far as the pay packages that are going to CEOs. So let's step back again and see what is already out there. The SEC has initiated proceedings to make sure that the investor, whether it is a senior citizen, middle-income family, or a young person starting out, has the information that should be available to them. And I commend the gentleman from Georgia because he is following on in that tradition of making sure investors have additional information. Because what do we not want to do by any legislation that passes through this House? What we should not want to do is to hurt the investor. What we should not want to do is to add costs to the system that are unnecessary. What we should not want to do is hurt that senior citizen by adding a burdensome process to the system that will actually diminish the value of his or her current investments. What we should not want to do is hurt that young family just starting out putting money aside for their children's education by hurting the investments that they have already made. The underlying language in this bill has the potential to do that. This amendment by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) will alleviate that problem. This amendment simply asks to investigate, to study, to find out, to perform, to provide transparency, if you will, to the system to make sure that whatever we do here is for the benefit of the investor in the long run. I will just close on this: the other day I had my own amendment, which says that, like the other side of the aisle, we too on this side of the aisle agree that some of the pay packages that we read about in the media seem egregiously high or very excessive and what have you and we have our questions about them as well; but like this amendment and my amendment that came yesterday, we all want to do the same thing and make sure that at the end of the day the investor is not hurt by the actions of the other side of the aisle or by Congress, but are helped.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, before I begin to set forth my opposition to this piece of legislation, let me refer back to the comments made by the previous speaker, which looked back over 150 years to try to find a case to provide some substantiation for their argument, and they did so by finding a case with regard to judicial intervention. In that case they cited that the Supreme Court held that this Congress could allow or broaden the judicial authority, if you will, of the Federal courts. I think their example, in essence, proves too much. You cannot simply take one sentence or two sentences out of the U.S. Constitution and draw a conclusion from that. What you have to do is read the entirety of the Constitution. If you had done that, you would realize that the courts have always held, and the Founders' intent always was, that this body, this House, and this Congress has broad latitude when it comes to judicial issues and reining in the Federal courts or expanding their authority of jurisdiction. And that is all that that Supreme Court case was doing. It was not addressing the issue of infringing upon the rights of other citizens by what is occurring here today by granting more authority to other States as far as voting is concerned. More to the point on this legislation. As I said before, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation because it is, A, unconstitutional, and, B, unfair. It violates the Constitution and the very fundamental intent of the Founding Fathers of this country and the Framers of the Constitution. It would give the District, which is by no definition a State, a vote in this House and simultaneously the citizens of another State two Representatives, which is unfair to the State of New Jersey and all States in this country. Furthermore, by allowing, unfairly, the District of Columbia to have their own Representative and also a Delegate, they will have unfair representation. Our Founding Fathers understood and deliberately set aside a non- State section of land for our Federal Government and granted voting rights only, only, to State residents. They did this for a simple reason: They wanted to ensure that each State had equal representation, and they realized that putting the Federal Government in a State would have given that State unfair representation, an unfair advantage. H.R. 1905 does not line up with the Founders' intent. If the supporters of H.R. 1905 wanted the people of D.C. to be represented in Congress, they simply could have solved that problem by retroceding, by giving back part of the District of Columbia to Maryland. There is precedent for this, as stated. In 1846, Congress took that perfectly legal step of returning present-day Arlington to the State of Virginia. Couldn't we pass similar legislation like that right now and solve this problem? Unfortunately, the majority, who claimed just a few months ago that they would have an open process for amendment legislation, has left us with only two choices, an unfair and unconstitutional choice before this House.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the goals and ideals of Financial Literacy Month. Due to the growing complexity of financial products being offered throughout this country and the rapidly increasing number of young adults and seniors using these various products, it is essential that everyone educate themselves so they fully understand how their activities may affect their financial standing and future. As a member of the Financial Literacy Caucus, I believe the private financial sector and local, state, and Federal government officials should continue to further expand and promote financial literacy and education. Whether it is buying a home, opening a bank account, or acquiring a credit card, consumers are faced with a myriad of complex decisions requiring a broad knowledge of our nation's financial system. According to a July 2005 survey of 1,000 parents of high school students by Visa, parents rank developing good personal financial skills and being able to handle their money (74 percent) ahead of both following the wrong crowd (58 percent) and drugs/alcohol use (56 percent) in terms of their concerns they have for their children's futures. Only personal safety ranked higher (89 percent). This illustrates how valuable the American public considers financial literacy. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the goals and ideals of financial literacy month and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this straightforward and commonsense amendment today to provide shareholders and companies better guidance on what constitutes an excessive executive compensation package that this interventionist, otherwise, legislation before us does. But before I do that, I commend the distinguished chair of the committee for his hard work on this legislation, but I would like to point out an inconsistency in his approach to this legislation. We now have before us new SEC guidelines on executive compensation transparency. These new rules, unfortunately, have not even been given a chance, not an opportunity to bear any results or any fruit whatsoever. So without giving time to see if these new SEC rules will work, the chairman and this House are rushing ahead to consider legislation to address the issue. But on the other hand, Mr. Chairman, in regards to Sarbanes-Oxley reform, the SEC is also considering new guidelines to address numerous concerns, and in that case, the chairman believes that Members need to be patient and let the SEC do its job. In fact, we have not even had a single hearing on that topic. We are told we need to wait and see if the new regulations will fix the current problems in the corporate sector. But after listening to numerous arguments by the chairman about inconsistency, and even tonight as well, I thought it important to point this out, that we should be consistent on these two matters and to give both avenues an appropriate time to work things through. But if we are not going to do that, that is why I propose this amendment. This commonsense amendment I have offered today attempts to keep us focused on the perceived problems of excessive compensation. This amendment would establish a trigger that would have to be met before shareholders vote on executive compensation packages. The trigger would require that executive compensation exceed by 10 percent or more the average compensation for comparable industries in that particular sector and would require that the executive compensation question exceed by 10 percent or more the average compensation for comparable positions among companies with comparable total market capitalization. In essence, the SEC is being tasked with deciding which companies fit into these two categories for the purposes of determining these two percentages. So, it is simple. Essentially my amendment seeks to limit the required votes to instances where the disclosed excessive compensation in question grossly exceeds the norm and provides a quantitative guideline for what constitutes the norm and what constitutes gross excess. If the underlying bill were to pass as it is currently drafted, we will be forcing literally thousands of public companies across this country to conduct shareholder votes on every single pay package for every single CEO of every single public company all the time. Now, while the courts have said before ``we know it when we see it'' can be a useful test in certain circumstances, if we have the ability to provide better guidelines to American businesses and consumers, then we should do so in this legislation. We all know of the large compensation packages that have been given over the last several years. The media has ensured that those that receive extraordinary pensions make it to the media, but you know, for every one of those huge packages, there are literally hundreds, maybe thousands, of other compensation packages that are far more standard. They are within the norm, and we really should not be requiring a vote on each and every one of those that are falling into that category and failing to give the shareholders in those cases the proper information. So, by adopting this amendment, we will allow thousands of hardworking public companies to continue their day-to-day work without interruption, and we will be better able to focus on the new executive compensation packages that are outside of the comparative norm and may not be in the best interests of the shareholders.

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us, in fact, is intended to strengthen the bill and not, as the gentleman says, to gut the bill. How does it strengthen the bill? It does so by addressing the exact problem that the gentleman just set forth as what they were intending to do with the legislation in the first place. The gentleman, and also in committee, went on and all the testimony was about excessive compensation packages and how this is an egregious situation for this country and for the investors. I do not think we had one person who came before the committee, nor has anyone from the other side of the aisle made an example of saying that we should be doing something about fair compensation packages or compensation packages that only went up a small percentage. All the testimony, all the argument before, all the argument we have heard tonight is about excessive compensation packages, and that is what my amendment does. It says, look to, how do we focus this thing on really where the problem is, excessive compensation packages, and we do that by specifically delineating it, by saying that it is 10 percent or more of the above averages for the industry's norm. Secondly, the gentleman from the other side points out that the investor does not have any input. Of course, he does, and when the case is involving an excessive compensation package, then he will have the input to make his voice heard. Thirdly and finally, I think we see the difference of approach as to where the burden in these situations should apply. Should it apply to honest, law-abiding, good, hardworking citizens and businesses in this country, or should the burden be placed on government? My amendment would say that the burden is put on the SEC to make the determination to make those findings, and yes, it will be some burden to do so, but it is on the SEC to make those findings. We should not be placing these excessive burdens on the business sector. If they are doing what their stockholders want them to do, growing and expanding their businesses, hiring CEOs that are making salaries that are fair for them and are within the norm, we should not be placing an additional burden on them.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Yes.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, the SEC, as I said, will be tasked with deciding which companies fit into these categories for the purposes of determining these percentages.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Matthew La Porte of Dumont, New Jersey who was tragically lost during the events at Virginia Tech on Monday, April 16, 2007. Matt was a sophomore at Virginia Tech and had already made quite a mark on campus. He was awarded an ROTC scholarship, was a member of the Corps of Cadets, played tenor drum in the Corps' Highty Tighties regimental band, and was part of the Air Force Special Operations Preparation Team. Before he began his education in Blacksburg, Matt graduated third in his class from Carson Long Military Institute in Pennsylvania. Aside from being an avid scholar, Matt was involved in numerous extracurriculars that ranged from drum and bugle corps to the baseball and soccer teams. At home in New Jersey, Matt worked as a lifeguard at the Cresskill Municipal Pool during the summer and is remembered by neighbors as a polite and humorous young man. I offer my deepest condolences to his parents, Barbara and Joseph La Porte, and his sister, Priscilla, and assure them that they are being remembered in our thoughts and prayers as we celebrate the impressive life of their son and brother, Matthew La Porte.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join the celebration of United Methodist Homes of New Jersey's 100 years of service to Garden State seniors. Starting in 1907 with a single home for the aged in Ocean Grove, New Jersey, today, United Methodist Homes is a network of ten homes serving more than 1400 seniors. The flagship of this network, Bristol Glen, is nestled in Newton, in my District. It is a continuing care retirement community offering quality health care services, a wide variety of residential living conveniences, and a loving and friendly environment. I recently visited Bristol Glen as part of my Mobile Constituent Service Hours program and had the opportunity to meet with residents and staff alike. I was struck by the extraordinary sense of community there. The emphasis is truly on well-being of the residents as a whole--catering equally to the spiritual, emotional, and physical needs of all who live there. As it enters its second century of public service throughout New Jersey, I commend United Methodist Homes of New Jersey for all it does to make the golden years truly golden for so many seniors.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Rutgers University women's basketball team on their outstanding 2006-2007 season. As highlighted in this resolution, the Lady Knights sacrificed their own personal vacations over winter break to stay at school and train for their well-deserved victories in 2007. It is this dedication that gained them the Big East Championship title and a spot in the women's NCAA final four. It also made them the very first athletic team from Rutgers to earn a spot playing in a national championship. Their hard work, perseverance, and extraordinary skill have set an excellent example for athletes everywhere: women and men alike. And, as the national media spotlight turned on them in the wake of the ugly remarks by radio shock jock Don Imus, they maintained the same poise and grace under pressure that they exhibited on the court. I would especially like to extend my congratulations to sophomore, Heather Zurich of Montvale, New Jersey. Her performance with the Lady Knights as forward was an integral component to the team's success this season. The Rutgers University women's basketball team is a great source of pride to their campus and all of us New Jerseyans. I applaud their accomplishments and look forward to hearing of their future successes.