Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim my time out of order.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the work on this legislation today and for making note of the anniversary of the interstate highway system, and as we also honor the work of our past President Eisenhower for his work to make sure that we bear the fruits of the system 50 years later. The 50th anniversary, we come here today on, but perhaps at this time it is appropriate also that standing on his shoulders we could do what he would like to see at this point in time as we move forward to the second half of that century to build upon what he has already done, to create a new system as we honor his work of the past. You know, this new system would be one in which we return some of the authority that we have now assumed on the Federal level back to the States to give them more discretion, basically to maximize the resources that are out there to create that great transportation system that we have in this country today. We could do that by returning primary transportation authority and responsibility and taxing authority back to the States. What would this do? This would free State transportation dollars from the Federal micromanagement that we have seen in the past and other budgetary pressures as well. It would let people back at the States, people who actually use these roads and bridges and tunnels and what have you, to help make the decisions to decide when, how and where and how they are going to finance them. They would make the decisions in the future how they would finance it, they would make the decisions how they would be regulated. You know, Mr. Speaker, I say in conclusion on this that we can honor this President who was indeed a great President for what he did for this country, but you know he was a greater general for all that he did for this country as well. And as a general he knew that sometimes the best decisions were made by those field commanders who were in the field. And I would just suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that now is the time to allow the States to assume command.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on Hamas' refusal to even come to the table to answer Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' recent ultimatum. Eleven days ago, President Abbas demanded that Hamas government recognize the 1967 borders with Israel threatening to take the plan to a public referendum. President Abbas' plan would establish a Palestinian State and allow for all Palestinian refuges to return to their homes within Israel. Hamas' refusal to even consider this plan shows just how extreme Hamas is. Hamas is responsible for the tragic deaths of thousands of innocent Israelis and Americans, including women and children. It has refused to take part in any peace talks, including the Oslo Accords. It has refused to participate in previous, formal governmental operations that have worked with Israel. And it has actively recruited children to accomplish their malevolent and homicidal agenda. I commend President Abbas for attempting to bridge the gap between the Hamas government and Middle East peace. I stand steadfast in support of our ally, Israel. And I urge the world to recognize Hamas for what it truly is--an organization bent on extremism and hate and a roadblock on the path to peace in the Middle East.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, and also I am thankful to hear from the other side of the aisle that they believe we should go forward and that this doesn't add anything to it other than what existing law is the case. I hope that is the case, because it was last month I sent a letter to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and I did that in response to an article in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and reports on various media outlets that stated the U.S. Border Patrol had in fact been informing the Mexican government of the location of the Minute Men and other similar U.S. patrols throughout the border. I sent that letter specifically to say what is our policy, or how are they conducting themselves. It was also reported that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman told the media outlets that the policy is meant to ensure the Mexican government that the migrant rights are being observed. I applaud the gentleman for doing the amendment because we know at the end of the day we here in this House are most concerned about the rights of the American citizens and the safety and protection of the American citizens, and I think his amendment goes a long way to making sure that our rights, our citizens' rights and their safety will be protected so that this information is protected and kept here.

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I do recognize the point of order, and I will address that at the very end. Mr. Chairman, I drafted an amendment here to highlight in essence the mismanagement of money in two specific agencies or programs funded by this bill, FEMA and the Homeland Security Grants program. There is no one in this body that knows our threat to this Nation better than I. The district that I have the honor and privilege of representing borders the Hudson River and downtown New York City is basically within eyesight of our district. There were tragically far too many people from the Fifth District of New Jersey who lost their lives on September 11. So my top priority since coming to this body has been and will remain homeland security. The threat to our Nation and the residents of northern New Jersey is still very real. Law enforcement agencies are stretching every penny to purchase equipment, vehicles, medical supplies, and radios, but they do not have enough resources. On too many occasions in this body, I have fought for more resources to be brought to New Jersey and other high- risk areas. With that being said, it pains me that as my neighbors and friends, living in my region of such high risk, the Department of Homeland Security is still using a portion of our limited resources for things that will keep no one safer and make no taxpayer happier. It has come to my attention that the DHS has provided grants for example to fire departments to pay for things such as fitness equipment, nutritional counseling, clown and puppet shows, no less. Now, Mr. Chairman, I think clowns are as funny as the next guy, but I don't think the ability to be funny is what it is about when we are trying to help people during the next terrorist attack. Looking next to FEMA, similar examples illustrate the need for additional oversight of FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Since Hurricane Katrina tragically hit the gulf coast, we have heard of numerous examples of mismanagement, neglect, wasteful spending, and even fraud that has prevented hundreds of millions of dollars from helping any of the victims of the storm. Now, my time is limited here, so I will highlight just some of the most egregious examples. There have been five, five separate government reports by the GAO and other bodies that detail these problems. They have provoked the universal outrage in mismanagement, and here in this amendment we try to address it. Specifically, my amendment calls attention to the utter mismanagement of the debit card program. As you may recall, FEMA gave out $2,000 debit cards with no verification process for eligibility. People took advantage of it. Among the many ``necessary'' items that people did for survival were adult entertainment, bail bond services, jewelry, and of course what every victim of a hurricane has to worry about, traffic tickets. Another example of waste, FEMA spent almost $900 million to store nearly 25,000 manufactured homes around the country mainly because they prohibited themselves from putting them in flood plains, such as New Orleans. In addition, FEMA let almost 11,000 unused manufactured homes sit in open fields in Arkansas, while at the same time paying people's hotel bills of $438 per night to stay in a hotel in New York City. Further, a GAO report said 2.5 million Hurricane Katrina evacuee registrations were done, and 60 percent were done over the telephone, meaning there was no verification process at all as to who these people were who were getting these dollars. A study found that as many as 900,000 applicants used bogus Social Security numbers, duplicate Social Security numbers or false addresses and still received funding. There are other examples more numerous. As we pass this bill today and provide billions of taxpayer dollars to an agency that has practiced questionable responsibility for the funds that we appropriate, I strongly urge this body to work on methods to hold FEMA even more accountable, to a higher standard of level of accountability. There has been too much waste, fraud and abuse in these very important areas of homeland security and dealing with natural disasters. We can and must do a better job with our security dollars. I look forward to working with the chairman as we move forward to work for better oversight in these areas in this Congress and in the future. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have my amendment withdrawn because I acknowledge that it is not in order.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I join proudly with my colleagues, Mr. Fossella and Mr. Crowley from just across the river, on introducing this very important amendment. The Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, has stated that the administration will continue to champion funding based on risk and needs in order to ``ensure that our finite resources are allocated and prioritized successfully.'' UASI recipients are determined through a robust risk formula that considers three primary variables: consequences, vulnerability, and threats. Factors such as the presence of international borders, population and population density, the location of critical infrastructures, formal mutual aid cooperation, law enforcement investigations, and enforcement activities are also considered in correlation with the risk formula developed under this. These risk factors are precisely the kind of factors that should be the ones that govern more of our homeland security spending. Simply put, money needs to go where the threat is. Places like New York City and northern New Jersey are those risk areas. Our police departments, our fire departments, our emergency management officials, all these men and women are doing their best to prevent terrorist attacks and prepare for worst-case scenarios. So we here in Congress should do our best to see that those in the most risky areas get the tools they need to keep America safe.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I would be glad to yield.

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this late evening, dedicated defender of the Constitution, to engage, as we do each Thursday evening, part of the Congressional Constitution Caucus, as we go into this Memorial Day weekend work period. Tonight I am here to discuss a topic that has been in the media for some time of late, earmarks and the appropriate role that your tax dollars and the Federal Government should have with them. I am here to inject just another thought into this discussion. While Members enjoy the opportunity to brag about all the money that they bring home to their districts through earmarks, you have to ask the question, is the process of earmarking really the best for all parties involved, for the States, for the districts, for the projects, for the people who eventually receive those monies? Remember this: Money for earmarks is not new money we order to be printed from the Bureau of Engraving every time we pass an appropriation bill. It is, of course, simply dollars that have been taken from the Treasury, money that has been collected from Federal taxes, money that has been raised, obviously, by the hardearned taxpayers back home and sent to Washington D.C. Also, those listening to a dialogue also have to remember that it is simply not a dollar-for-dollar cycle. Some of that money that we spent is spent on fees and expenses and Federal employees' salaries. The Federal Government, as big as ours is, believe it or not, is expensive to run. Finally, money is not distributed to all the States evenly or in proportion to those States. For example, I come from the State of New Jersey. A hardworking person in our State works all day, earns his money, raises a dollar, sends that dollar to Washington D.C., hoping to return back to the State of New Jersey, in equal amount, a dollar for purposes in that State. Instead, New Jersey receives only 54 cents on the dollar. That, my friends, is the dollars and cents of the issue. Now, let me bring you a little bit closer to home in terms of the mission of our caucus and what we are talking about tonight. That is the question of who really is best able to decide how these dollars are spent? Now, when you think about it, when you send your tax dollars to Washington, you back at home lose all control over it, even if it is spent on what you would say is the intended best purpose or interest. This is just a little brief history or discussion on how it all works. It is spent here in D.C. Requests are submitted. They are vetted in committee, discussed on the floor, amended by Members from all over the country, way far away from where that issue may be back in your hometown, negotiating in conference with the Senate, and then, if you are lucky, maybe a little sliver of that comes back to your own district. But this money they ultimately receive might not fund your community's greatest priority or need. It might just simply be funding a project that is, well, politically popular here in D.C. or simply a project that is able to make its way through the system. I am here to promote that there might be a better way to do this. But, you know, I don't really have to do that because our Founding Fathers were the ones to set out what the best way was. The 10th amendment really does that for us. This, of course, is the amendment that limits the powers of the Federal Government; all those powers not delegated specifically to the Federal Government are retained by the States respectively. That is where the best allocation of those dollars would be. The Founding Fathers understood, which explains why they authored this amendment, that decisions are most effectively made at the most local level possible, that the types of projects that earmarks usually fund, roads, bridges, environmental projects, would be better served if it is money that was kept in State in the first place. The decision on how those dollars are spent would be made by the local residents right there at home. Here in Washington, those decisions are made by bureaucrats through layers of red tape with political consequences always in mind. But at back at home, those decisions are made for what is best for the people back up there. In closing, let me just mention this, that limited government really isn't just an ideology of policy wonks here in Washington or politicians any place; it isn't just an idea that was proposed by some rich white men over 200 years ago in this country when it was discovered by our Nation. It is a system of government that will have the best results for all for whom government is supposed to serve, the people who gave it the authority to act in their interest in the first place. With that, I come to a conclusion and to wish everyone a safe return after this Memorial Day weekend.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise again this afternoon for what I believe is a commonsense and important amendment to the legislation before us; commonsense simply because at the end of the day all the amendment does is to say we should be enforcing the current law. As it stands right now, 8 U.S.A., section 1183, states that an affidavit must be filed by a sponsor of an incoming alien to the country. That affidavit is a legally binding guarantee on the part of the sponsor that the immigrant that they are sponsoring will not become a ``public charge.'' What I am citing here is nothing new. This public charge requirement goes all the way back to immigration policy of the 1880s. So what this amendment does today is simply restate that in strong terms saying that no funds appropriated under this act, under the Food Stamp Program, will be spent in noncompliance of current Federal law. The reason we do this is to reinforce the fact that the laws on the books should be enforced. And, secondly, it addresses another point as well. Some people might argue that there is not enough money in the Food Stamp Program for all of the needs that are out there, and we can debate that from one side to the other. But if you honestly believe that there isn't enough money out there for the entire Food Stamp Program, I think we all agree from both sides of the aisle that the money in the program should be going to the people that it was intended for in compliance with the statute and in compliance with current law. So on that, I will conclude by saying we are asking nothing more than the Food Stamp Program currently in existence today comply with the laws set forth. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for his comments, and I will then conclude my remarks simply by saying that this is an issue that has already been addressed in the Senate, somewhat extensively, pointing out the egregious examples in the past where extraordinary numbers of Federal employees have gone on international conferences. So what the amendment simply does, at the end of the day, is put a finite number on that. In this bill it limits it down to 50 conferees to attend any international conference. We believe that is a reasonable number. We believe that any agency will be able to live within those numbers, and again I appreciate the chairman's acceptance of this amendment. While those on each side of the aisle may differ on how we got there, I think that most Members of this body agree that our deficit is far too high. That is why the amendment I am offering is a commonsense approach to help limit spending and abuse of all of our constituent's hard-earned tax dollars. My amendment will limit the number of Federal employees that are sent to international conferences funded under this bill to 50. The amendment also limits that dollar amount that can be spent to $8.2 million, which is the level spent in FY01. We have seen about a 25 percent increase between then and FY05, far too great an increase while we are operating with such high deficits. Recently there has been a trend by our government to send a far excessive amount of staff to these international conferences, costing taxpayers millions of extra dollars. While like all of my colleagues, I understand the importance of staff, I am simply seeking to make sure that only essential staff are utilized during these expensive foreign conferences. While one more staffer here, and one more staffer there doesn't sound like much, it could mean one more shift a worker in my district has to work instead of being home with his family. Due to my limited time I won't bore the floor with all the egregious examples. But I will note that unfortunately these conferences are a pattern of excess government. This amendment has passed in various appropriations bills and is an excellent way to show this body's commitment to fiscal responsibility. I urge all of my colleagues' support.

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

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I will not use my entire 5 minutes. This is an amendment on an appropriations bill that we have seen in some other ones that have passed previously, and it goes to the issue of how we have addressed over the last couple of days spending. Regardless of which side of the aisle that you may come from, I think Members from both sides of the aisle will agree with one thing, and that is that our deficits are too high. When we are spending our taxpayers' dollars, we must be ever vigilant to be sure we are spending them wisely. Again, this amendment is a commonsense limitation on those hard-earned tax dollars.

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to enter into a colloquy with the gentlemen from Texas, the chairman of the subcommittee. Also, before I begin, I just want to thank the chairman for all of your hard work that you put into the committee and into this bill, and all of the members of the committee. And may I also echo the words as far as those members of the committee and the staff who do not normally get their names mentioned on the floor for their work; as the former chairman, I know there are many people behind the scenes that do not get recognized and I appreciate your recognizing those people of your committee. Mr. Chairman, at this time I also want to voice my strong support of the Farm and Ranchland Preservation Program. The chairman may know that I grew up on my family farm in the State of New Jersey; it is the Garden State. We are the most densely populated State in the country. And for that reason, trying to preserve open space and farmland was one of the main reasons why I went into government 12 years ago on the state level and here in the Congress as well. And so I support strongly The National Farm and Ranchland Preservation Program and its work to contain, to preserve environmentally sensitive pieces of property in the Fifth Congressional District. It is my hope that the chairman would continue to work closely with myself and the Department of Agriculture, so that we can move forward to see to it that as much of this property can be preserved for future generations.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentlemen for his support.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I appreciate that, and I will be very brief, just to say that Members on both sides of the aisle may disagree on exactly how we got to this point, but I think most people will agree that our deficit in this country is too high. If people watched TV last night and watched the debates on the floor with regard to our budget, there was much disagreement on our spending levels and the like. But one thing we all came to agreement on at the end of the evening is that we are spending too much and that when we spend too much it creates a deficit. So when we can at an appropriate time try to limit and rein in those spendings, I think that is an appropriate and common sense approach to do that. To do that we have this amendment. This amendment is basically to say that when Federal agencies travel overseas on international conferences there should be some limit as to how many members and their staff goes. The amendment picks out a reasonable number and that is 50. No one would disagree with the fact that we should attend international conferences and no one would disagree with the fact that we should allow staff to go to them. Our amendment simply says that only essential staff should attend those conferences, and we therefore set a limited number. I appreciate the fact that the chairman has agreed to this amendment in past legislation, and I certainly appreciate the fact that the amendment once again is agreed to by the chairman at this point in time as well. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a hero and a patriot who was killed while defending our Nation in Iraq. Army Specialist Armer N. Burkart died this week when an improvised explosive device exploded near his vehicle. This brave 26-year-old soldier was serving as a gunner with the 1st Battalion of the 10th Division based at Fort Drum in New York. Prior to this tour in Iraq, Specialist Burkart served for nearly a year in Afghanistan. Specialist Burkart's father, John, says that Armer ``was proud to be in the Army. He volunteered for combat. . .he had a nice safe position which he chose to give up.'' This extraordinary young man had always wanted to be in the Army, following in his grandfathers' tradition of military service in the Navy. In fact, even as a high school student, he served in the ROTC. America should be grateful for Armer Burkart's honorable service, and we should all remember the heroism of the other men and women who have been serving by his side. America should also be grateful to the loving families these servicemen and women leave behind. Our thoughts and prayers go out to Specialist Burkart's wife, father, and younger brother, as they do to the others who selflessly give of their family time that our Nation and our world may be safe and free.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this, the RSC budget, simply because I care. I care about my constituents, the family budget. I care about American taxpayers everywhere. I care about the fact that they send their money to an overly bloated Federal Government. I care about growing our economy. I care also about the fact that we are growing deficits instead. Over the last several hours now, we have heard Members from both sides of the aisle agree on one thing, and that is that we need to reduce Federal spending, lower our deficits, balance the budget. This budget plan will do that. At the end of the day when all the rhetorical smoke clears, we are left with the fact that deficits will burden our children. My kids, your kids, our grandkids, American taxpayers today will all be burdened. So we can no longer simply afford to push this issue off into the future. We need to address it now. I have the honor to serve on the Budget Committee and on the RSC as well, and I am not going to stand here and say that this is a perfect budget. But I will say it is a good budget, a budget that will do what it says it will do, rein in Federal spending, get us to a balanced budget. And anyone who wishes to reduce deficits should support this, the RSC budget.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, like many proud parents this spring, I will be attending with my family the joyous occasion of watching my oldest daughter graduate high school. Unfortunately, due to this, I regret to inform you that I will be unable to participate in afternoon votes on Thursday, May 11, 2006. I wish to submit the following statement as to my position on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 that I am proud to support and would have given a strong yeah vote had personal matters not called my away from our nation's capital. I commend this body, including the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, for their work on crafting this authorization for our Department of Defense that will protect our troops as they ensure for the safety and security of Americans and our allies at home and abroad. The men and women serving and who have served in our armed forces are true American heroes. We must do what we can to give them the tools to win the War on Terrorism and win it safely. My heart and prayers go out to all who risk so much defending our liberties and freedoms. I wish all a safe and speedy return home to their friends and families.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight and I begin by commending the gentleman from Utah for his efforts every week as we take part in the process of bringing back to the American people the importance of the U.S. Constitution as part of the Constitution Caucus. At this point I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas to make a point with regard to his very important legislation that he was referring to, H.R. 3499.