Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, nearly nine years ago, the people of Northern Ireland took a great step forward into building a lasting peace. The Good Friday Agreement, signed in 1998, set forth a plan for establishing a peaceful civil government for both Catholics and Protestants. Today, we are close to ending an enmity that stretches back across centuries. With the establishment of an assembly there will be a substantial forum for the people of Northern Ireland to sort through their difference peacefully. The years of calm since the signing of the agreement have seen developments that seemed nearly impossible decades ago. The acceptance of the Police Service of Northern Ireland by Sinn Fein in January of this year marked one ofthe last hurdles to the full implementation of the agreement. With one neutral force to fairly administer the law, the people of Northern Ireland can stop seeing the police as adversaries and instead see them as guardians of the peace, as it should be. It is now critical that a final agreement be put in place so that the assembly can continue to meet and lead the people of Northern Ireland. Now that the IRA, as confirmed by third-party observers, has decommissioned its weapons, it is time for the Democratic Unionists to come together to rule in cooperation with Sinn Fein. With so much progress made it would be a great shame to see the dissolution of a body freely elected by the people of Northern Ireland. This Congress supports blueprint for peace signed nearly a decade ago and wishes to see last democracy and tranquility in Ireland.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, we are here today to announce our support of the Enumerated Powers Act authored by our good friend from Arizona, Mr. Shadegg. As the founder and chairman of the Congressional Constitution Caucus, I urge my fellow Members to cosponsor this legislation. Article VI, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states: ``The Senators and Representatives before mentioned . . . shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.'' On January 4, each of us followed this constitutional mandate and swore such an oath. Yet in the past two months, we have passed legislation without first considering the very document that grants us legislative authority. As a result, taxpayer dollars are being wasted on programs and projects that overstep the constitutional jurisdiction of the Federal Government. And personal freedoms and State priorities are being overshadowed or even forgotten. Unfortunately, this trend is not new to the 110th Congress. In recent decades, there has been a sharp escalation of funding for existing Federal programs and creation of new ones. The bloated bureaucracy we have today is certainly not the type of central government envisioned by our forefathers. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in an 1808 letter, ``The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying our own money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the dispensation of the public moneys.'' It is time for us to explain our distribution of taxpayer dollars. Our constituents should be assured that we are upholding the document that protects their freedoms. Otherwise, the Federal Government will continue to overstep its boundaries, encroaching on the freedom of the people. Our Founding Fathers deliberately wrote a constitution of enumerated powers. While some countries have attempted to limit government by writing constitutions that specify every single area in which the Federal Government does not have jurisdiction, the framers knew that such a constitution would be unnecessarily tedious. Therefore, in Article I, Section 8, the founders specifically listed congressional powers. The 10th Amendment grants all other legislative powers to the states. It makes sense that Congress should perform only the duties prescribed by the Constitution. The United States has thrived as a nation precisely because the freedom of the people has been protected by a limited government. The Constitution is the anchor that protects American citizens from the storms of a controlling central government. James Madison assured early Americans in The Federalist No. 45 that ``the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined.'' Madison continued to operate under that belief even after the Constitution was ratified. In fact, his last act as president was to veto the Bonus Bill, which authorized federal funds for public works projects. Today, Members justify passing legislation that is even more expansive than the Bonus Bill. They argue that Article 1, Section 8 allows us to pass any legislation, as long as it provides for the ``general Welfare'' or is ``necessary and proper.'' Madison would have been appalled by our liberal interpretation of these terms. In The Federalist No. 41 he asked, ``For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?'' James Wilson, the author of the General Welfare clause explained to the Pennsylvania ratification convention that the words ``necessary and proper'' are ``limited, and defined by the following, 'for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.' It is saying no more than that the powers we have already particularly given, shall be effectually carried into execution.'' For these reasons, Madison explained that he could not sign the Bonus Bill unless an amendment allowing such an expenditure were first added to the Constitution. Mr. Shadegg's commonsense legislation follows Madison's logic by ensuring that every bill introduced in the u.s. Congress include a statement declaring the specific constitutional authority under which the law is proposed to be enacted. Following such a guideline would help return our nation to the principles of limited government, Federalism, and the 10th Amendment. And, such a principle is not only consistent with our oath, but it is also a smarter use of our constituents' tax dollars. The Enumerated Powers Act will stem the flow of unconstitutional legislation by compelling Members to reconsider the intended role of the Federal Government. I strongly urge all members of the Constitution Caucus to co-sponsor this legislation. Congress must begin to justify its actions to the states, local governments, and, ultimately, the people themselves.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring to this body's attention a serious health issue affecting women and unborn children in Bergen County, New Jersey. The Bergen Record reported last Wednesday, February 28 that the Metropolitan Medical Associates Clinic in Englewood, New Jersey had been closed down following a complaint filed by Newark Beth Israel Medical Center when it treated a woman for complications from an abortion performed at the Metropolitan Clinic. The Clinic, which performs more than 10,000 abortions a year, including about 1500 partial birth abortions, was closed for posing ``immediate and serious risk of harm to patients.'' This very same clinic was barred from performing abortions in 1993 for its failure to protect the health and safety of its patients. As the Record reported, ``An order to halt medical services is extremely rare. This is only the second time in the last five years the [Department of Health and Senior Services] has closed one of the State's 619 ambulatory-care facilities for `deficient care.' '' Ironically, the Clinic is redirecting its patients to another local clinic owned by the same company that offers sub-par services at the Metropolitan Clinic. Perhaps, more ironic, however, is that the State has stepped in to protect the women seeking abortions from the physical hazards posed by the Clinic's substandard care. It has not sought to address the emotional damage that these women may suffer from the trauma of an abortion. And, it certainly has not sought to address the fatal tragedy that befalls the more than 10,000 children whose mothers come to the Clinic each year.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce and renew our hope to be a regular occurrence on the House floor for the 110th Congress. The members of the Congressional Constitution Caucus will use this opportunity to emphasize for our colleagues and for the Nation as well the necessity of ensuring that our government is operating according to the intent of the our Founding Fathers. As the 10th amendment affirms, the authority over most domestic issues belong to the States and local governments and the people themselves. But before I begin, let me express my sincere gratitude to my friend Utah who has led this important education effort in the past and this year as well. He has faithfully championed the notion of a limited, effective and efficient Federal Government, and continues to fight for the authority granted to his home State and the other 49 states as well when each was admitted into this most cherished Nation. I look forward to working with other like-minded Members of this Congress who share the sentiment that our Federal Government has seized control of programs that State governments have traditionally been much more effective in administering. I invite my colleagues to consider joining this important effort regularly as well. This Congressional Caucus, I strongly believe that this body must begin to focus on the principles delineated in the 10th amendment. Our Founders were precise when they established our system of government. They intended to set up a republic of sovereign, self-governing States with a small central government operating under clearly defined, limited powers. Dividing sovereignty between the Federal Government and those of the States prevents an unhealthy concentration of powers at any one level of government. As James Madison in the Federalist Number 51 said, this arrangement is a double security in protecting the rights of the people. Throughout the last few generations in particular, the intent of the 10th amendment, that of a limited and efficient central government, has been fading away. There are those I know who support a bigger, more centralized government. They believe a central government run bureaucracy can make the best decisions for the American people. They believe in the public good of higher taxes. But on that I strongly disagree. As a member of the House Committee on the Budget, I am very much aware of where such faulty reasoning leads our Nation. It leads to our current situation, a bloated Federal Government consumed by a deficit upwards of $400 billion, which, in turn, delivers sub par public services. Now then, to be fair, much of the spending that recently caused this deficit to increase is temporary relief on the gulf coast region and the global war on terror. It may not show up on the bottom line. And while this eases the short-term picture, the bigger problem is still one that must be addressed. And if we do not curb this foolish Federal spending habit now, our children will have to pay the price. Congress, you see, on almost a daily basis allows, our government to grow, pushing it is further into deficit. And we are swiftly drifting away from the limits set by our Founding Fathers. Each time a Member slides his card to cast a vote, he needs to ask himself this one question: Does the bill that I am voting for violate the Constitution? Does it take away rights promised to our constituents and put them in the hands of a bureaucracy in Washington instead? I remind this body that the Constitution does not only protect the rights of the people though. It also protects the rights of the states. In Federalist number 45, James Madison wrote, ``The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which will remain in the states governments are numerous and indefinite.'' I have long served in this House long enough to know that it makes our lives easier at home when we come to D.C. and support increased funding for every conceivable type of program. Yet James Madison and his colleagues were less concerned about their ability to write glittering press releases than they were in developing an efficient system of government, one that would operate at the lowest cost to the people paying it, the people at home. That is what this caucus is all about and what these weekly information sessions are about as well. We must turn a critical eye on the Federal Government. This is how we will lower the deficit, grow the economy and assure that America remains that beacon on a hill. Aside from being informational, this Caucus also seeks to make specific legislative gains in the name of governmental efficiency and Constitutional adherence. So we will support legislation that seeks to return power and authority back where it belongs, to the States, local governments and to the people. And so tonight, I specifically ask all Members to consider supporting the Reaffirmation of American Independence resolution that will soon be reintroduced by Congressmen Feeney and Goodlatte. This is a resolution I know our Founding Fathers would be original cosponsors of, were they able. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states, ``This Constitution and the laws of the U.S. shall be made in pursuance thereof; shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws or any state or the country notwithstanding.'' This legislation goes in the direction to ensure that all such laws abide with our Constitution and not by foreign governments.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Thank you, and I shall be brief. Mr. Speaker, as I sit here and read the bill, I consider it a riddle: When is a tax cut not a tax cut? When it really raises your taxes in the end? This legislation, as many tax bills, is masquerading as a tax cut, when at the end of the day citizens of this country will see their taxes rise. The tax cuts in this bill are temporary. The tax increases in this bill are permanent. There are good parts in the bill. Section 179, expensing, is a good part; the tip credit, which was mentioned earlier, a good part. Portions were left out, as we discussed during the rule, such as deductions for State and local tax deductions should have been in here. But even beyond that, even if they were, it is a bad bill, because it raises your taxes. Business lobby may be out there protecting the tax businesses, who is protecting the individual taxpayer? Earlier today, we received a flier from NTU, National Taxpayer Union, which said, according to the CBO, H.R. 976 would increase net taxes by providing only temporary tax cuts in exchange for permanent tax hikes. Furthermore, a memo from RSE indicates similarly. H.R. 976 would permanently increase taxes on some taxpayers, while others would see them go down. This bill was also scored by the Joint Committee on Taxation. So it is not just my word on it. It is not the word of NTU or RSE. The Joint Committee on Taxation also concludes this bill would yield a net tax increase over 6 years. How does this bill hurt the American taxpayer? It hurts the young, and it hurts the small business. It hurts the young who are between the age of 19 and 24, those individuals who are just getting out in the world, starting their own businesses. It hurts the young and the college student, who may not have lobbyists down here in Washington. It hurts them. Small businesses, it hurts them as well because they now have an acceleration in their taxes. In conclusion, so you can get your flights and what have you to go back to your taxpayers and explain to them why you raised their taxes, since 2003, the gentleman, the ranking member, could probably explain better than I, the tax cuts we have put in place have spurred on the economy, have spurred on the revenue. Since October of last year to this year, you have seen a 9.7 percent increase in revenue because of true tax cuts. What America's taxpayers need is permanent tax cuts. We do not need permanent tax increases, which this bill will provide. I encourage a ``no'' vote on the tax increase bill.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, as AHEPA celebrates 85 years of service in the community, it gives me great pleasure to offer my heartfelt congratulations on your reaching this milestone. Since its inception in 1922 as a voice against prejudice and hate, AHEPA has grown into a multinational organization that continues to spread the universal truths of Hellenism--humanity, freedom, and democracy--across the United States and around the world. Many organizations begin with noble causes but waver in purpose as time and obstacles dampen their ambitions. Yet, in the face of depression, war, and the unavoidable hardships of growth and development, AHEPA has continued steadfastly to advocate for the principles of education, philanthropy, civic responsibility, and family and individual excellence--principles that are common to us all as Americans. From helping young people achieve their dreams of education to supporting philanthropy and public service to addressing the deepest needs of families, AHEPA's successes have been remarkable. Today, while we would hope that prejudice no longer dwells on any streets or in any hearts of America, we live in an imperfect world and the original mission of AHEPA is still vital. Today, we need to keep the dreams of education alive. Today, we need to continue to foster the spirit of giving and volunteerism in our communities. And today, we need to persevere in spreading the hopeful message of freedom and democracy. As a Member of Congress, I am proud to serve on the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Affairs. In this capacity, I work with fellow caucus members to enhance and strengthen the United States' relationship with Greece and the Republic of Cyprus. The friendship between our nations has a long and rich history, and by continuing to further this important bond, we can stand together to advance the causes of liberty and democracy. In this worthy endeavor, I look forward to continuing to stand with you. This 85th year is a time to reflect upon AHEPA's past successes and upon the many ways in which Greek-Americans have enriched the fabric of America. Equally important, it is a time to look forward with hope and anticipation to a future of continuing to build the vision that is AHEPA. Congratulations on 85 years of success and best wishes for many more years ahead.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the tremendous public service of John Nallin as he prepares his retirement after 20 years with UPS. During his proud career at UPS, he has served in a number of capacities, starting as a Systems Manager in Delivery Information Systems in 1987 and retiring now as Vice President and Information Services Corporate Repository & Architecture Portfolio Manager. Throughout his years with UPS, John Nallin has helped to make this company a high-tech leader, implementing cutting edge technologies and a progressive business strategy. Prior to coming to UPS, at a time when the field of information technology was still in its infancy, John helped to execute a similar technological vision at AT&T, Asbach Consulting, American Cyanamid, and Tenneco Chemicals. He truly is one of the pioneers that helped to propel some of America's leading companies into a brave new world of high-tech advances. John will surely be missed by his colleagues at UPS; but this corporate loss is without doubt the community's gain. John's public service dates back to his years as a United States Marine. And, he remains a community leader as a member of the Board of Directors of New Jersey Mental Health Association and the Board of Advisors for the American Cancer Society. His business acumen has been tapped for the Governor's Economic Growth Council and his generosity of heart has been enlisted as an active participant in a wide variety of United Way activities. John plays a strong role in helping prepare tomorrow's leaders as well as a member of the New Jersey Institute of Technology Board of Overseers and as a founding member of the Berkeley Heights Education Foundation. And, he serves on the Ramapo College Board of Governors; a board on which I also proudly sit. On the eve of his retirement from the corporate world, the community looks forward to continuing to work with John Nallin to make North Jersey an even better place in which to work, live, and raise a family.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, the resolution debated this week in the House says, ``Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces.'' Today, I am introducing legislation, the Armed Forces Tax Relief Act of 2007, and the Strengthening America's Military Families Act of 2007 that will do precisely that. Both bills would put more money into the pockets of our troops fighting in a combat zone. Members of the Armed Forces currently serving in a combat zone are exempt from having their earnings taxed under the federal income tax. However, their pay is still subject to ``employment taxes,'' such as the significant payroll taxes for Medicare and Social Security. The Armed Forces Tax Relief Act changes this, and truly allows our fighting men and women to keep their earnings tax free. Compared to the sacrifice that our troops make in the field, the amount we compensate them is not nearly enough. And while their sense of duty to their country is not tied to the size of their paychecks, enacting this legislation would put real extra money into the pockets of our Armed Forces, and send them a message that we are working hard in Washington to support them. Oftentimes we forget that when the military is called overseas to fight in combat, many leave behind a well-paying job, a family, and children. The second bill I have introduced, the Strengthening America's Military Families Act of 2007, seeks to strengthen those families at home while their spouses are fighting abroad. With this legislation, the federal income tax exemption that we currently offer to members of the Armed Forces fighting in designated combat zones would be extended to their spouses. This way, during the months that our soldiers are fighting, they can have some peace of mind that their absence at home will not be wrought with financial hardship on their families.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the authors of this resolution say that we should provide our troops with all the resources they need, whether it be armor, bullets and Humvees. That is, all the resources they need, except two; and I would argue they are the two most critically important ones: manpower and the support of our national leaders. This Democratic resolution can be summed up in three simple words, to ``stay the course.'' The irony here is inescapable. Just months ago the very same supporters of this resolution derided the Pentagon and the White House for proposing to stay the course, but today they bring exactly that same strategy to life in their resolution. This resolution doesn't propose a new course of action. It doesn't have the courage of its author's rhetoric, convictions, to change the course of the war. It simply states that this Congress will not support the new approach proposed by our new commander and the Iraq Study Group. General Petraeus, the chief architect of this new plan, was confirmed unanimously by the Senate, and yet many in that body and this body are adamantly opposed to this very strategy he now seeks to implement. So it begs the question: If the general is the right man for the job, then why is his plan now not appropriate? They claim to support the troops but seek to undercut their new leader's strategy. How can we support the troops when we insist that their orders are faulty? We cannot praise the general out of one side of our mouth while mocking him out of the other. We have heard it said that this resolution calls for a new direction in Iraq. But I defy those who say this, to say what that new direction is. It is certainly not apparent in this resolution. This resolution is only an empty opposition to the Commander in Chief's plan to deploy the Armed Forces as the generals on the field see fit. This two-sentence resolution, sense of Congress, is not a new plan for victory. In fact, it is not even a new plan for bringing the troops home now, but to leave them in the field with under-manpower. It is little more than a gift to our enemies who have been patiently awaiting the American naysayers to erode the American confidence in our mission. Our enemies do not lack morale, and we fuel their exuberance with this drive for success every time they hear us speculate on withdrawal. Our enemies are fighting us, against us and our servicemen and our allies, with the belief that each headline brings them closer to victory. Our brave men and women in uniform are up to the task. But they need our support, not empty proposals that doubt their ability to secure the peace. Millions of peaceful Iraqis are struggling to rebuild their Nation after the cruel reign of Saddam. They want an opportunity to build a better future for their children, and they ask for our help to secure that peace. Will we now stand aside while al Qaeda and Iran support factions that would enslave them once again? You know, it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who knew the repercussions of failing to support those nations that are struggling for liberty, when he said, and I quote: ``Enduring peace cannot be bought at the cost of other people's freedom.'' FDR also declared that we are committed to full support of all those resolute people everywhere who are resisting aggression and are thereby keeping war away from our hemisphere. We cannot have peace in Iraq by handing over those who have worked to build a Nation based on freedom and justice and peace, turn it over to those violent brethren who seek only destruction of those principles. Make no mistake about it: If we stay the course, as this resolution would have us do, it will not be long before this war returns to our shores I would like to end with the words of two individuals. The paths they have traveled to now and the paths they desire to take in the future could not be any more different. But, they are equally strong in the passion they bring to their beliefs. And, their words should be instructive to us in this debate. First are the words of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. He says: ``We have drunk blood in the past, and we find no blood sweeter than that of the Christians. Know that offense is the best form of defense, and be careful not to lay down your weapons before the war is over.'' While we quibble over words here on the floor of the House of Representatives, our enemies speak with frightening clarity of conviction. Can there be any doubt that this resolution solidifies the resolve of the jihadists he leads and inspires? In stark contrast are the words of one of my constituents, Ron Griffin, who 45 months ago lost his son, Kyle, an Airborne Infantryman serving in Iraq. ``We never felt lost or alone for we were literally carried through our sorrow by the resolute, soothing and comforting hands of countless human beings whom I only hope can truly understand how they made life worth living. . . . What I see [now] is a people pummeled into acquiescence. The loss of these wondrous warriors is of itself a weight that is almost unbearable to struggle under, but when accompanied by the din of negativity it becomes to most people a burden.'' Can there be any doubt that this resolution does nothing more than add to the din of negativity of which Mr. Griffin speaks? I have faith that we can stand strong. I oppose this empty resolution to stay the course. I stand up for an America that is just and free and a friend to those who seek liberty and peace.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, last month, the world lost a powerful voice for free speech when journalist Hrant Dink was tragically killed for expressing his views on the Armenian Genocide. His death should serve as a watershed moment for Turkish-Armenian relations. While Turkish officials have rightly condemned the killing, Turkey should honor the memory of Hrant Dink by using this opportunity to begin an open dialogue between Turkish citizens and their neighbors of Armenian descent. Laws that criminalize free speech and serious discussion of difficult issues are counterproductive to true democratic reform, which the Turkish government has called a priority. Taking steps to finally reconcile its past with its future by recognizing the Armenian Genocide are the foundations for real progress for Turkey. In the wake of this tragedy, we must not allow an assassin's bullet to silence such a dynamic voice for change, but rather, continue to encourage Turkey to make positive changes with the same resolve Hrant Dink showed throughout his life as a champion of freedom.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate those latter points. And it gets to the question of people who hear our discussions of why is this all-important to me? Over the last several days, as we have begun to look at the President's budget as he submitted it to Congress, we have heard from the experts, we have heard the debates, we have heard the speeches, we have heard talk of the CBO, the OMB, dynamic scoring, static scoring, a whole list of other acronyms and technicalities and the like. But you have to really at some point in time step back from all the Byzantine make-up that Congress is when it comes to a budget and say is there some sort of common principle that we can base all this on that underpins this almost $3 trillion endeavor that we are all engaged in? For all the complexities of this process, the fact of the matter is that what we are doing is nothing different than what every family in America has to do every day of their lives. They have to look at the amount of money that they expect to have and get over the next 12 months and decide what are their priorities, where are they going to spend it, how are they going to spend it. Now, there are some differences, of course. I guess there are three of them between what we are doing and what the average family budget is. First of all, it is on the scale. We are doing things here on a mammoth scale compared to the average homeowner. Years ago there used to be a $1,000 bill. I don't think there is a $1,000 bill anymore. I think they did away with that. But if you took a $1,000 bill and you stacked them up, you would need 1,000 of those $1,000 bills just to get up to $1 billion; and then if you had that stack of $1,000 bills, you would need 1,000 of those stacks to get up to $1 trillion. And we are looking at a $3 trillion budget. So we are looking here at a size that is different. Also, families realize that their family budget has a finite amount of money that they deal with, whereas we look at it slightly differently because we know we can always borrow and spend and print more money. And, finally, one other major difference in what we do here than the family budget is that we are spending other people's money. So many times people come down to the floor and say we have to be compassionate for this program or that, but we have to realize at the end of the day it is not our money we are taking out of the pocket. It is the American taxpayers' dollars that are coming out of the pocket to pay for these programs. So that is where the difference is. But at the end of the day, it is all the same in the sense that we have to live within the boundaries, just like a family should. At least that is what the American taxpayer is looking at and asking us why we don't. Why don't we live within a confined budget like they do? And why don't we go one step further, as many families do? Just as many families save for their children's education for the future, why can't we get to the point of actually having a balanced budget where we can set aside some dollars for the future generations? Now, I, like my colleague from Texas who just spoke, also serve on the Budget Committee. And I have to be honest with you that what we have heard there from the other side of the aisle is that they are laying the groundwork, from their comments at least, to do two things, to attack the budget on the point of taxing and spending. They are laying this groundwork on spending saying that we are not spending enough and on the side of the taxes that we are not taxing enough. And on that latter point I will just close on this point. The budget cuts that this Congress, Republican Congress, has done in the past have been progressive budget cuts. That means it helps the average-income family more than anybody else. And I get the static information not from the CBO or these other experts. I get this information from nobody else but the New York Times. And they have looked at the budget cuts that we have done, and they proved the point for us; that if you are making less than $50,000, that you saw the percent change in your average tax bill by a 48 percent reduction. So the lowest incomes under the progressive tax cuts help the lowest-income people the most. If you are making between $50,000 and $100,000, a 21 percent reduction; $100,000 to $200,000, a 17 percent reduction; $200,000 to $500,000, it flows into a 10 percent reduction. So you see the trend. What we have done in the past is help the average taxpayer in the State of New Jersey around $200,000. What we must do now is make those tax cuts permanent and do as a family budget, live within our means.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise, too, in strong opposition to this resolution which violates the Constitution and the fundamental intent of the Framers of the Constitution as well, and it does so in four ways. First, it would allow Delegates to vote, even though our Founding Fathers intended that this legislative body represent the people of the States. The Constitution, Article I, section 2, clause 1, states, ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen by the people of the several States.'' By definition, Delegates do not represent States. Secondly, this resolution violates the principle of one person, one vote. The average congressional district represents approximately 650,000 people, but three of these areas have populations of less than 160,000 people, and American Samoa has residents of less than 57,000 people. The Supreme Court has already spoken on this. In 1964, the decision of Wesberry v. Sanders, the Supreme Court said, ``To say a vote is worth more in one district than in another would run not only counter to our fundamental ideas of a democrat government, but it would also cast aside the principles of the House of Representatives elected by the people. That was a principle tenaciously fought for and established at the Constitutional Convention.'' Thirdly, the qualifications for these Delegates are not the same as all the other Members of the House. Neither Puerto Rico, American Samoa nor the District of Columbia requires that their Delegates be a citizen of the United States for 7 years, as all other Members have to be. Fourthly, the Constitution requires that all Members be elected and ``chosen every second year.'' Puerto Rico Delegates, however, hold 4- year terms. Finally, Madam Speaker, it was a former Democrat Speaker of the House who said, ``It is very clear that a constitutional amendment would be required to give Delegates a vote in the Committee of the Whole or in the House.'' H. Res. 78 does not do this. H. Res. 78 obviously is not a constitutional amendment; it is, instead, an attempt to resurrect a shameful move done back in the 103rd Congress, back in 1993. I do not support, nor should the Members of this side of the aisle nor any Members of this Congress, an assault on the Constitution of the United States nor an assault on the people of this country as well. Vote ``no'' on this resolution.

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the hallmark of Catholic schools is their ability to provide students with a well-rounded education. By focusing on academic excellence based on strong morals, Catholic schools consistently graduate ethical scholars. I strongly support H. Res. 51 because it recognizes this distinguished ability of Catholic schools. New Jersey's fifth district is proud to be the home of numerous Catholic schools which are overseen by the dioceses of Newark, Metuchen and Paterson. As we commend Catholic schools through this resolution and during next week's Catholic Schools Week, I would be remiss if I did not highlight the excellent administrators, teachers, parents, and students who make up the New Jersey Catholic School system. It is their dedication to their mission that has cultivated a lasting and celebrated program. New Jersey's strong tradition of Catholic education can be traced back to the late eighteenth century when larger metropolitan areas started to erect schools which were supervised and supported by church authorities. Now, over 200 years later, Catholic schools can be found all over New Jersey, educating future leaders to serve their fellow statesmen and those who live far beyond our state line. New Jersey Catholic Schools operate under the motto: ``Learning to love. Loving to learn.'' This maxim pinpoints the consistent successful record of Catholic education: instilling a respect and concern for others while simultaneously sparking a genuine curiosity and thirst for knowledge. It is with these things in mind that I whole-heartedly support House Resolution 51 and look forward to hearing of the continued successes of the Catholic school system, in New Jersey and all over the world.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise to associate myself today with the words of my colleague, Mr. Sam Johnson from Texas, a Member who can probably speak more eloquently than any Member of Congress on the loneliness, the separation, the uncertainty that is war, and the need to know for such soldiers that the Nation is behind them and supports them. I have had the honor to travel and visit our troops in Iraq, and I have had the opportunity to visit the troops when they have returned. And in each and every one of them, I have seen their commitment and determination to the completion of their mission. I have also had the opportunity to be with parents who have lost a son or daughter in the war, to look them in the eye and to hug them during that time, and to be with other parents who were about to see their son and daughter go off to war, and to be with them during those uncertain times. Madam Speaker, at this point in time, this Nation and this Congress must double its commitment to our troops to make sure that they know that we are behind them and support them for their eventual and soon safe return to their families.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman. I, too, rise today in support of H.R. 323, the Seasoned Customer CTR Exemption Act of 2007, legislation which seeks to reduce the regulatory burden caused by the previous Bank Secrecy Act and does so by simplifying exemptions for financial institutions, banks, for example, in their currency transaction reports, their CTRs, on seasoned customers. You know, while well-intentioned CTRs have imposed a tremendous regulatory burden on financial institutions without a corresponding increase in benefit to our efforts to thwart terrorist attacks, for the most part law enforcement agencies have found these reports to be largely useless in the prevention of crimes and terrorist attacks, while banks have found the filing costs and regulatory burden they create enormous. Currency transaction reports were created to follow any large transaction through the banking industry to catch money laundering before it became a fait accompli, but the provision that created them is now outdated. What was considered a large amount of money back in 1970 is hardly so today; in fact, the threshold for filing a CTR is $10,000, which in today's term is close to $50,000. So with the provisions caught in time, banks are now locked in a situation by which they are filing CTRs for many everyday transactions; and because of the frequency of these filings, paper overflows and the actual tracking of criminal activity is severely hampered. Potentially criminal transactions that should be setting all alarms with the banks and law enforcement agencies are drowned out in a sea of paperwork. This legislation then is a good start towards helping reduce regulatory burdens on our Nation's banks and financial institutions, and I therefore encourage all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5, the so-called ``College Student Relief Act.'' Although its supporters would have the public believe that implementation of this bill would be a cure-all to the skyrocketing costs of higher education, the truth is that H.R. 5 does nothing to address tuition costs for students and could actually end up making college even more expensive. In fact, the only students who will be fortunate enough to reap the full benefits of this proposal are those who take out their loans during the small 6-month window from July 1, 2011 to January 1, 2012. Before that date, the promise of halving the interest rates is unfulfilled. And, after that date, the interest rate will again double. While this bill provides great sound bites and interesting political opportunities for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it also demonstrates that they have no intention of implementing an enduring plan which will address the costs of higher education. And, while this bill purports to help those in financial need, in reality, it only applies to college graduates who have already reaped the financial and other benefits of that education. I am concerned for those students who apply for loans on January 2, 2012 and any date afterwards, for they will not only have missed the boat on a low-interest rate loan, but they will also bear the brunt of having to pay higher tuition costs. The proposal before us will exacerbate perverse incentives already at play with regard to government subsidies for student loans. College tuition costs have skyrocketed by almost 300 percent between 1982 and 2003. The only segment of our economy that comes even close to such growth--where costs have also outpaced inflation by such a dramatic gulf--is health care, which grew by nearly 200 percent. As the Wall Street Journal noted in an editorial today, ``it's no coincidence that third parties foot the bill for big chunks of both higher ed and health care spending. . . .'' Colleges are serving up these Federal subsidies to education-hungry students knowing full well that those students will not be able to realistically judge the costs of the education they receive. Those students who apply for loans in that first semester of 2012 will be forced to pay for the sound bite we consider today. While cutting the interest rates on students' loans made for an attractive campaign slogan, the new leadership is creating a program which is costly, has negligible effects for those it purports to help, and has retroactive consequences for many aspiring scholars. I challenge my colleagues to evaluate this bill for what it truly is: a political stunt which sorely lacks an effective plan to cut college costs for future students.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I find it no coincidence that as we were preparing to deliberate federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research, a study was released that announced a breakthrough in the form of amniotic-fluid stem cell research. These stem cells do not present any ethical controversy and have already shown more promise than embryonic stem cells. Federal funding already goes to research and development for embryonic stem cells. The NIH currently spends $40 million for such studies. It spends $600 million on stem cell research in general. In fact, nearly $3 billion has been spent on all stem cell research over the past six years. Much of this research, like the amniotic fluid stem cell research, is without the ethical dilemma, and has simply proven to be more effective. Researchers have expended years of time and energy trying to develop a single treatment or cure for any disease from embryonic stem cells to no avail; and actually finding adverse consequences like tumors at the implantation site. But adult stem cells have already provided us with treatment options for 72 diseases. Adult stem cells have shown a real return on the American people's investment. We have seen results from adult stem cells and should continue to support and subsidize progress in this field. And, as I mentioned a moment ago, there is a new option in the form of amniotic stem cells which has already shown great promise and even more success than embryonic stem cells. The face of this debate has already changed in the short time since it came before us last summer; and while this latest discovery provides hope, it should also act as a warning. A warning that we cannot make rash decisions which cost not only federal dollars, but also human lives.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. First of all, I commend the gentleman for coming to the floor to raise this important issue. As we conclude this hour worth of discussion and debate on this very important topic, I would just remind the gentleman that it has been an hour that we have been debating and discussing this issue. We have extended our hand to the other side of the aisle. We have extended our hand to the Speaker and to the sponsor of the legislation to come forward and to engage with us here on the floor and with the American public, as well, to explain whether there is a nefarious reason behind this inexplicable reason for treating certain people in the country different than other people in the country. We will welcome an opportunity in future times for them to join us to explain themselves.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I would definitely define it as an earmark. And I rise now to ask either one of the gentlemen to elaborate on the comment the gentleman from Iowa is making, and as the gentleman also raised, that this has already pressed accounts as to where this exemption is drafted for. But as the gentleman from Iowa said, there was no explanation as to why it came about. That is to say, the press accounts from the Speaker's office, I believe the gentleman from Iowa said that they have not been lobbied at all by the industry from their district. Is that correct? They were not lobbied at all by that particular industry from their district is what the press accounts say from the Speaker's office on this issue?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I believe I am quoting you correctly that the press accounts from the Speaker's office on this is they have not been lobbied whatsoever from the respective industry in their State on this topic. And if that is the case, and it is hard to believe for the reason the gentleman from Iowa states that something that is so fundamentally important to that particular industry, you would think that the Speaker, if she is going to be responsive to their industry, would be hearing from them on these matters. My question is, and perhaps you know the answer, why then does either the chairman or the Speaker say that they put this provision into the particular bill if not to protect those industries?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I appreciate that the gentleman is trying to conjecture what the potential answer is as to why this absurd language was put in the original bill. Neither one of them obviously stands on their own foot. The first one being that we are going to create such an exemption because we realize how dangerous imposing minimum wage on any particular industry can be. Well, if it is going to be dangerous for that particular industry, then the other side of the aisle should realize it can be harmful to others and they should broaden the exemption to others. That was the first explanation. The second explanation you conjectured was because they were doing it as an earmark specifically for one industry, to protect that industry. And in this area of ethics, I am sure that could not be the reason. So as we stand on the floor tonight, I am sure that while we are here to speak on this matter, the Members on the other side of the aisle are back at their offices listening to this debate, the Speaker is probably back in her office right now, the sponsor of the bill is back in their office right now. I would extend an invitation to any or all of them to come and join us to give us a logical explanation. Was it the first reason that they were just creating one exemption because they realized how harmful minimum wage can be, or was it that they were crafting something specifically as an earmark to protect one of their own industries outside of all others?

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I just wish to take this moment to commend you, Mr. McHenry, on this issue because just as the other side of the aisle has said that they want to have input from the other side of the aisle, and as you know, we have been precluded from giving that input in the form of amendments on this and just about every other bill that has come before us, I commend you for taking the time now to open up the floor to the other side of the aisle and give to them what they will not give to us. You were giving to them the opportunity to give input to our side of the aisle. And when I say, our side of the aisle, this is not just a partisan issue. This is not just something just for us here in this room or Republicans or what have you. We are really extending a hand to the other side. We are offering them to give input to the American public to explain themselves. Was it an issue of them trying to carve out something for one particular industry in their home State, or was this something even less nefarious than that, simply that they realized that raising the minimum wage can have the harmful impacts that it does?