Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 183 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, on roll call numbers 174 and 175, I could not be present to vote on the House Floor as I was in my district attending the funeral of a former member of my staff. Had I been present, I would have voted aye on both roll call votes.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed with a heavy heart that I rise today to honor the life and legacy of one of New Jersey's sons, Staff Sergeant Joseph D'Augustine of Waldwick, New Jersey. Staff Sergeant D'Augustine was killed almost 3 years ago this week, on March 27, 2012, while conducting combat operations in Afghanistan. In the greatest act of sacrifice possible, he gave his life while protecting his fellow men and women in uniform. He was just 29 years old. Today, I come to the floor of the House to introduce legislation that will ensure that Staff Sergeant D'Augustine's legacy lives on for generations to come. This legislation will designate the United States Postal Service located at 1 Walter Hammond Place in Waldwick, New Jersey, as the Staff Sergeant Joseph D'Augustine Post Office Building. Understandably, no action by this Congress could ever repay Staff Sergeant D'Augustine's sacrifice. This bill, however, will create a permanent and visible memory of his heroism. Although this bill passed this House last Congress, unfortunately, my colleagues in the Senate did not take it up. So I come here tonight, hopeful that my colleagues in both the House and Senate will take action to get this bill passed and signed into law so that his legacy will live on.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, back on January 20, 2009, the day President Obama took office, the Federal debt in this country stood at $10.6 trillion. The Federal debt today, as we stand here today, is over $18 trillion. That is an increase of over 70 percent during his tenure. Debt now represents 101 percent of the GDP. In other words--let's put this in context--America owes more money to its creditors around the world than the value of all the goods and all the services that are produced right here in the United States in 1 year. That level of debt, quite honestly, is unsustainable. In fact, that is not just me saying this. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, states that our ``high and rising debt would have serious negative consequences for both the economy and the Federal budget.'' And it certainly does. Admiral Michael Mullen, also quoted on this floor before, perhaps put it best when he said: ``The single, biggest threat to our national security'' in this country is what?--``our debt.'' So, Mr. Chairman, Americans are faced with two paths right now: one that continues down the path of blissful neglect of our very real budget crisis; or on the other path, one that seeks an honest solution to it. Instead of solving our debt problem, President Obama has committed to exacerbating it. The President's budget would add another $8.5 trillion to our already staggering debt. But despite his $2.1 trillion in new tax increases, in addition, the Obama budget never ever balances. It is a vision that consigns our children and grandchildren to a future of crushing debts and heavy tax burdens. The Republican budget, on the other hand, is a stark alternative to the past 6 years of reckless spending and failed policies. Instead of ever-increasing debt and ever-higher taxes, Republicans will balance the budget in less than 10 years without raising more taxes on you. Instead of pretending that Medicare is sound, Republicans will strengthen the program by making much-needed structural improvements to it. Instead of dictating that Washington knows all the answers, Republicans will promote by innovation and also by flexibility for Medicaid, for education, and other programs by restoring local control. So, Mr. Chairman, I urge today all Members of this body to stand up to support the budget and to support the American taxpayers, to stand up for strengthening our social safety net, and to stand up for our children and to stand up for our grandchildren, who do not deserve to be handed the bill for our irresponsible spending today. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Republican budget.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, the issue before us today is, in fact, security. As a Member of Congress from the Fifth Congressional District of New Jersey, my constituents in New Jersey, like most Americans, understand the devastating impact of a lack of security in certain areas. We live in the shadow of the Twin Towers and understand when security is not a paramount interest of this government. But with that said, an equal responsibility of this Congress and this government is to the security as being a nation of laws and abiding by the fundamental law of this country, which is the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, we can achieve both of those: be a secure nation by funding Homeland Security, which this House has done twice now, and we can also become a nation by following the rule of law and following the Constitution which this body has done twice now by sending full funding of Homeland Security to the Senate and simply asking them to do what all Americans want Washington to do today--conference on these issues, discuss these issues, and come to a resolution where the Constitution is upheld, the rule of law is upheld, and homeland security is upheld as well.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman leading tonight's discussion on the floor. As we do so, we think about the people back at home and across this Nation. Mr. Speaker, Americans are hurting. Americans are hurting because they are out of work, Americans are hurting because they lost jobs, they find they can't find new jobs. Families are hurting because of this. Families, Mr. Speaker, are also hurting because they are waiting for other fellow family members to be able to join them here in this country through the legal immigration process. They are patiently going through all the processes that we have set up in this country to process it, and they are hurting as they wait for their family members to join them. As we come here to the floor today as Members of Congress, we understand that this government has to ensure that everyone plays by the rules, including this administration. As Members of Congress, we are obligated to uphold the Constitution, and that is exactly what this House has done by defunding the President's unconstitutional actions in which he granted amnesty. Added to that, he provided working permits to over 5 million illegal immigrants, thereby creating additional problems for those Americans who are out of work and creating additional problems for those Americans who are waiting for their fellow family members to come into this country through the legal immigration process. Mr. Speaker, the House has done its job. We have acted. We have fully funded--this is important--we have fully funded the Department of Homeland Security while at the same time undoing the damage the President's unprecedented executive amnesty is having on our Republic and, more important, on our American families. The President's actions to grant de facto amnesty has broad-reaching consequences for many of my constituents and constituents all across the United States as well. It is unfair. It is not only unfair, it is irresponsible to divert resources away from legal applications of those who, as I said before, are patiently waiting and going through the legal process of immigration to give it to those who have broken the law. It is also reckless to reward those who have blatantly broken the law with work permits, allowing them to compete directly with those Americans and those American families who are hurting because they are out of work today and are finding themselves in a hard position to find work. So because of this, Mr. Speaker, I call on our Senators who are blocking a vote on the bill: do not turn your backs on the millions of Americans who are struggling to find work, do not turn your back on those who have immigrated here legally, and do not turn your back on those who are still waiting to try to immigrate into this country legally as well. It is time, Mr. Speaker, for the Senate to act. It is time for the Senate to end its obstruction. It is time to move this bill. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 250th anniversary of St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church, located in West Milford, New Jersey. St. Joseph's parish dates back to 1765, making it one of the oldest and longest lasting parishes in New Jersey. As we look back on the past 250 years, we recognize that the world has changed drastically. Throughout these changes St. Joseph's church has remained a beacon of faith for their community. The parishioners of St. Joseph's Church come together every week to worship, promote faith, care for the less fortunate, and serve their local community. Their commitment to one another, and to the wider community, is exceptional. I congratulate St. Joseph's on this impressive anniversary. It is an honor to represent the people of West Milford and to commend St. Joseph's parish for all they do as they seek to make our community a better place.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, for approximately the past six years, innocent customers of three failed broker-dealers--the securities firms of Bernie Madoff, Allan Stanford, and McGill, Smith, have been unfairly victimized time and time again despite the existence of remedial legislation enacted by Congress for the specific purpose of protecting such customers. Initially these customers were victimized by the nefarious fraudsters, whose Ponzi schemes caused the failure of several securities firms and resulted in financial devastation for so many. Next, these customers were victimized by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) and their henchmen, whose antics, behavior, and positions were the antithesis of investor protection--financial self interest and preservation clearly appeared to be their guiding mantra. Finally, when SIPC sought the Court's blessing for its wrongful conduct and breach of trust, the court's bizarre deference to SIPC and their blatant misapplication of the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) resulted in a perverted process and erroneous interpretations of SIPA, which, further victimized these customers by depriving them of the financial protections and benefits mandated by SIPA and exposed them to draconian claw-back lawsuits seeking to strip them of what few remaining assets they might still possess. Examples abound supporting these conclusions. If someone walked into a securities firm and purchased a stock or a bond, who would believe that such a person would not be considered a ``customer'' and would be denied basic Congressionally created customer protections? Why would a customer of a failed securities house, one who had no knowledge of a Ponzi scheme operated by the broker-dealer, be subjected to costly litigation to defend the returns their account statements told them they had earned from their investments? Why would a customer of a broker-dealer receive a monthly ``account statement'', purporting to evidence their financial position at the firm, and later the parties charged with protecting the rights of those customers be allowed to disregard those statements and eliminate all stated returns in the account? And who could have ever anticipated that this same entity would elect to adopt a ``valuation'' methodology patently designed to provide the lowest values to the customers in order to maximize its own bank accounts and resources? While these results seem fanciful and far fetched, they are the realities that innocent customers of these three broker dealers have had to endure. While the courts are charged with the responsibility of interpreting statutes, that function properly involves determining Congressional intent. If, as here, the Courts have misinterpreted that intent, it is then the role of Congress to reaffirm what it actually meant and to clarify how Congress meant to achieve the desired results. Thus the Garrett-Maloney bill is not an attempt to rewrite SIPA retroactively. Rather it is intended to reaffirm what Congress meant all along--the protection of innocent customers who have been defrauded by a dishonest broker-dealer. When Congress reconvenes in January, we will expeditiously address these important issues--victims have been victimized for too long. Victims will receive what they are due. Victims who had no actual knowledge of the frauds will be extricated from the harassing ``claw back'' lawsuits. Much progress was made on these issues during the past two years--numerous hearings were held and support for the Garrett- Maloney bill is now robust and bipartisan. Addressing these issues, and providing appropriate remedies for the victims, will be a top priority in January, indeed an urgent one.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 535 I was unable to vote due to a doctor's appointment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 536 I was unable to vote due to a doctor's appointment. Had I been present, I would have voted aye.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials for the Record on H.R. 4569, as amended, that is currently under consideration

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise now in support of H.R. 4569, which is the Disclosure Modernization and Simplification Act of 2014. Having access to the U.S. capital markets and the broad investor base that comes with it is vital--literally vital--for U.S. companies to be able to grow their businesses and create jobs in this country. Over time, as our securities laws have continued to grow and evolve, the number of new SEC rules and regulations that have been weighing down on public companies continue now to multiply, and it is becoming more and more difficult and costly for small businesses to succeed and eventually go public. Many of the disclosure rules that have been added over time are both duplicative and are no longer needed due to many technological advancements that we are all familiar with. And yet the SEC has taken little action to review these unnecessary and outdated regulations and to make appropriate changes to help U.S. companies and also investors. So we have H.R. 4569 before us, and it seeks to do what? It removes some of the outdated and unnecessary red tape and allows for the small companies and investors to benefit from a more streamlined and efficient public disclosure regime. Specifically, the legislation would direct the SEC to simplify the public company disclosure regime for issuers and investors by permitting the issuers to submit a summary page of annual reports on Form 10-Ks with cross references to the contents of the report. It is that simple. Because the typical 10-K filed by issuers is hundreds of pages long and written in legalese, investors do find it difficult to locate and to digest the truly important information about the company in the report. So permitting issuers to submit a summary page would enable companies to concisely disclose pertinent information to investors without exposing them to liability. This summary page would also enable investors to more easily access the most relevant information about that company. This legislation would also direct the SEC to revise Regulation S-K-- ``Reg S-K,'' it is called--to better scale disclosure rules for emerging growth companies and smaller issuers, and to eliminate other duplicative, outdated, or unnecessary Reg S-K disclosure rules for all issuers. In testimony before the Capital Markets Subcommittee, one witness stated: ``The burdens imposed by existing regulation, primarily Reg S-K and Reg S-X, effectively deny small companies access to the public market and make investors less willing to invest.'' He added: ``This bill, H.R. 4569, is very constructive, and the Commission is likely to be receptive to it. It might well launch a process that would substantially reduce unneeded impediments to smaller firms being able to access the public capital markets.'' Additionally, another commenter testified: Over the course of time, proxies have become voluminous, some required disclosures have becomes obsolete, and the delivery of information has changed, though the legal mandated forms of disclosure have not. This situation has commonly been referred to as ``disclosure overload'' and it is apparent that investors are not being given information in a decision-useful manner and, in some cases, they are simply overwhelmed with non-relevant information. Even SEC Chair Mary Jo White has, on several occasions, stated that a review of our current disclosure system is a top priority for the Commission this year. So this bill would help augment the SEC's effort by requiring the Commission to, first, eliminate wholly unnecessary or outdated disclosure requirements and to allow issuers to include a summary of material in the form 10-K. So this legislation builds on section 108 of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups bill--you remember that, the JOBS Act--which directed the SEC to study Reg S-K in order to simplify and modernize disclosure rules. The SEC completed the study in December of 2013. Unfortunately, the study proposed few substantive reform measures. Instead, it recommended further study of Reg S-K disclosure rules. Let me conclude with this. Given our continued economic difficulties, I believe we need to stop studying and start taking action. Simplifying and streamlining disclosure requirements will enable companies to divert fewer resources to compliance, freeing up additional capital to create American jobs. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for her assistance in this matter. Also, you made reference to Mrs. Maloney from New York for her work as well. She is not on the floor right now, but I certainly do appreciate her efforts with the legislation and in full committee and in subcommittee as well in order to move forward on this piece of legislation before the House, H.R. 4569. And to your comment about perhaps I should have taken the substance of the bill to heart, I did streamline the 10 pages down to four pages to make it not duplicative, unnecessary, and outdated information. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. GARRETT. I appreciate the gentleman's coming to the floor. More importantly, I appreciate the gentleman's efforts and hard work on this legislation in committee. Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4569) to require the Securities and Exchange Commission to make certain improvements to form 10-K and regulation S-K, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentlewoman for her efforts. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 534, I was unable to vote due to a doctor's appointment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 520 I was attending a funeral and was unable to be in Washington, DC for votes on 11/17/2014. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Joan D'Alessandro and to recognize her mother, Rosemarie, for her tireless dedication to victims' rights and child safety. In 1973, Joan D'Alessandro was sexually molested and murdered by her neighbor, Joseph McGowan, after she simply went to his house to deliver Girl Scout cookies. Joan's body was found 3 days later, on Easter Sunday, in New York States' Harriman State Park. Joseph McGowan was later convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. Joan was 7 years old when she was murdered. This month, she would have celebrated her 49th birthday. In the four decades since her death, her mother, Rosemarie, has used the tragedy of her daughter's death as a motivation to ensure the protection of other children. She has mounted several successful campaigns to keep her daughter's killer behind bars, and she has worked tirelessly to strengthen laws against child predators. In the 1990s, Rosemarie launched a grassroots movement to pass what is called Joan's Law. This legislation imposes a life without parole sentence on anyone convicted of molesting and murdering a child under 14. Governor Christine Todd Whitman signed the bill into law in 1997. President Clinton signed a Federal version of this law in 1998. Even with these successes, Rosemarie continues to do even more. Earlier this year, she unveiled a butterfly sculpture and garden in Hillsdale, New Jersey. This sculpture is a tribute to Joan's life. It also serves as a reminder to each and every one of us to be diligent about keeping our own children safe. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in coming together to remember Joan's birthday; moreover, I ask you to join me in thanking Rosemarie for all she has done to protect countless other children. We will never fully understand the grief that she has suffered all these years, but we hope that she finds comfort in knowing that we are inspired by her determination to make the world a safer place.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to welcome all those who have traveled to Washington, D.C., this week for the In Defense of Christians Inaugural Summit. This summit unites human rights groups and religious leaders concerned about the plight of ancient Christian minorities of the Middle East. Many of these ancient churches have survived centuries of hardship, foreign invasion, and domestic despotism. As we have seen recently in Iraq and Syria, millions are now caught up in the middle of sectarian violence and conflict and end up paying the ultimate price for it. The bedrock of our Nation's establishment was freedom of religion. But what many experience today, even here in the United States, is the subjugation of religious beliefs by a government or military decree. A people cannot be free without religious liberty. So, Mr. Speaker, again, I welcome all those who are here for the summit, and I commend them for their enduring fight for religious freedom.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and service of Waldwick, New Jersey, Police Officer Christopher Goodell. Officer Goodell was killed in the line of duty on July 17, 2014, when a truck hit his police cruiser. He was just 32 years old. Although Officer Goodell's life was tragically cut short, he lived a life of purpose, serving both his community and his country as well. Officer Goodell was raised up in Waldwick and graduated from Waldwick High School, just back in the year 2000. Shortly after September 11, Officer Goodell enlisted in the U.S. Marines. Officer Goodell served in the military for 5 years, even including a tour of duty over in Iraq. After his military service, Officer Goodell returned back to his hometown of Waldwick, New Jersey, and joined the Waldwick Police Department. He took a special interest, if you will, in discouraging teens from drinking and driving. He spoke about the dangers of drunk driving back at Waldwick High School, and he also ran an annual DWI prevention course. It was on June 11 of this year that Officer Goodell was recognized in the State by the State chapters of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, doing this for all of his good service. Thinking about it, Officer Goodell truly had a bright future ahead of him. Just last month, he had proposed to his girlfriend, and they had plans to get married in 2016, but now, he is survived by his fiancee, a loving family, and an endless number of friends. Officer Goodell was truly a hometown hero. He lived a life of purpose, and he died serving and protecting the community where he grew up. So I come here today and I ask my colleagues here in the House of Representatives to join me today in paying tribute to Officer Goodell. We recognize, as we do this, that words alone may be of little comfort to the family and the friends of Christopher Goodell. It is my hope that they may find some solace, knowing that our thoughts and our prayers will be with them.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in an attempt to prevent government regulators from expanding the corrupt doctrine of ``too big to fail'' into even greater parts of our economy. You see, under Dodd- Frank, FSOC, the Financial Stability Oversight Council, has the power to designate companies as SIFIs, systemically important financial institutions. I have heard people say that SIFI status does not mean too big to fail, but that is a ridiculous claim--on par with the reassurances we used to get that there was no implicit guarantee with Fannie and Freddie, the GSEs. In the real world, everyone knows that the Federal Government will never allow a SIFI to fail. It is basically the government's stamp of approval, if you will, that says that we really care about this company. And every time FSOC designates a SIFI, it exposes all of us, the American taxpayers, to literally billions and billions of dollars in potential losses. You see, first FSOC designates the megabanks as being too-big-to-fail SIFIs. Now they are claiming that nonbank firms such as insurance companies and asset managers also should be designated as SIFIs, as well. I really don't think that FSOC will be satisfied until every company in this country is a SIFI. So, obviously, this has got to stop. That is why I am offering an amendment to prevent the Secretary of the Treasury and the chair of the Securities Exchange Commission, both voting members of FSOC, from designating any additional nonbank companies as SIFIs. You see, SIFI status puts nonbank companies under Federal Reserve regulation. And then the Fed, which only understands banks, imposes its bank-type capital standards on them, and it doesn't really seem to care if that makes no sense at all for these companies. I guess basically if all you have is a hammer, then everything else out there looks like a nail. And so when companies become SIFIs, they cease to be part of the free market. Instead, they become something else. They become protected entities that are spared the costs and consequences that normal companies face. And, so, over time, the combination of this protected status and the Fed's risk-averse regulation will sap the energy and also the competitiveness from these companies. Do you know what? Creative thinking and management will be seen as too radical, and innovative business structures will be stamped out as too risky. Meeting some G-13's definition of ``safety'' will take the place of building shareholder value. Instead, lobbying and political donations will become the biggest, highest, and best use of capital for these companies. And government will corrupt the private sector and, in turn, it will corrupt government. You only have to look at the corporate culture over at Fannie Mae to see what sheltering a company from market discipline does to it. What do I mean by that? If you like the GSEs, then you are going to love SIFIs. And so we should not allow too big to fail to take root in the nonbank financial sector. These companies are too important as a counterbalance to the megabanks for us to ruin them with crony capitalism. You see, Dodd-Frank was based on a faulty premise, and this is it: that the financial crisis was caused exclusively by the greed of large financial institutions and that intrusive government regulation could have prevented all this and prevented the crisis by keeping them from making all these risky investments. So with these ideological blinders on, it is no surprise that we ended up today with FSOC and SIFIs. Instead of solving the problem of too big to fail, Dodd-Frank basically codified it. FSOC is not working out as intended. And with every reckless designation of a nonbank company as a SIFI, FSOC steps in and makes our economy more dangerous and makes it more unstable. As they say, if you find yourself in a hole, you should do what? Stop digging. So I respectfully request that you support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, obviously the markets have already disagreed with the gentleman by the pricing of their shares. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), the chairman.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.