Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I will try to remember that expression of Mr. Jefferson. Mr. Jefferson addressed the issue of education. One of the points of the Constitutional Caucus is to take a look at what does the Constitution actually say as to what the role of the Federal Government is. As we discuss education, we should ask: Is the role of the Federal Government in the area of education? I would hazard a guess it is not. Thomas Jefferson was asked that question as a Founding Father of this country. He was asked the question: Why is it the Federal Government is not involved in education? His response to that question was: as soon as the Constitution is amended to include language giving us that power, we will be involved in education. Of course, the Constitution has never been amended to allow the Federal Government to involve itself in education. Neither the word ``education'' nor ``school'' is anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. With that being said, no one here, not the gentleman from Utah, the gentleman from Texas, nor the gentlewoman from North Carolina would ever make the statement that education is not important. We all agree about the importance of quality education in all 50 States. We just believe there is a better way, and that is return control of education to the local authorities, local school boards, and to the parents. One of the problems when we look at the issues out there, people put a test of importance on the issue. Just because an issue is important, does that mean that the Federal Government should become involved? Again, I would look back to what the Founders said. There was never a test of importance by the Founding Fathers as far as the Constitution is concerned. They did not say if something is important, therefore the Federal Government should become involved. Rather, is it constitutional? Each night here, when we pull out our card to vote, we should ask ourselves: Is it in the Constitution? Is it constitutional? In the area of education, it is not. We have lost control of education from the State level to the Federal level. Lest anyone think that we are doing a better job of this, I refer them back to the 1960s when the ESEA, Elementary Secondary Education Act, was first put into place, when education standards in this country were some of the highest. Since that time, the Federal Government's role has increased dramatically, and we have seen where that has brought us. The level of education in this country, unfortunately, has gone down. That is why I am a proud supporter of H.R. 3499. It will return control to the people who are in the best position to exercise that authority: parents, local school boards, localities, and the States. I know also when you talk to those people who are on the front line, they will tell us of all of their frustration they have dealing with Federal mandates and with all of the Federal strings and controls. In New Jersey, I asked exactly how much money are you getting from the Federal Government. In our State, I don't know how it is in other States, we get around three cents on the dollar from the Federal Government. In return for those three pennies, the Federal Government is basically exercising all of this control, all of this regulation that the local school board must comply with or else. And that is why H.R. 3499 is so important. H.R. 3499 will return that authority back to the local school board. They will be in the position to say do we have to comply with these Federal regulations or not. I would hazard to guess in many instances local school boards will tell their legislators, we do not want to have to comply with all these Federal regulations. We do not want the legislation to go in that direction. I conclude by reminding this House and the Federal Government that we should look to the U.S. Constitution for direction, is it constitutional in the area of education, and leave it to the appropriate parties. I again commend the gentleman from Texas for his excellent work in moving in that direction.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this legislation, and I congratulate the gentleman from California for your work. It is critical that we scrutinize lobbying activities to help restore the confidence of the American people in their government. And this bill makes real progress addressing some recent high-profile scandals that have basically rocked American confidence in government. In fact, it includes one of the proposals I introduced several months ago requiring lobbyists to itemize their reports so we know how much money lobbyists spend on Members and their staff. You know, we do this in campaign finance, and the same openness should apply to these transactions. And I thank the gentleman for including that proposal in this package. But, you know, looking at lobbyists and lobbying reforms is only part of the process. We have to look also at the way we behave as well in this House. In particular, Congress must address earmarks. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is my fervent hope that we would not simply stop with earmark reform for appropriation bills. As authorization bills and tax bills often include infamous and egregious earmarks, we should seek to make these processes open and honest as well. Again, I am not opposed to earmarks in general. I think that the legislative branch has a role to play in this area. It is not simply an area for the executive branch to play. But it is an area where the transparency and the light of day should shine on all earmarks. Transparency will then make sure that the good ones rise to the top and actually will be passed and the other ones which are not so good will obviously fall by the wayside. If I may add one other comment, Mr. Chairman. As this legislation goes through the process, I am a little bit concerned about GSEs and government-sponsored entities, and I would commend the gentleman to look as it goes through the process as we revisit this in conference.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to join in celebrating the anniversary of Israel's independence. Israel is one of America's closest allies. We rely on her good will in our War on Terror. We enjoy mutually beneficial economic agreements. And, we value Israel as the only functioning democracy in the world's most volatile region. On May 14, 1948, or the fifth day of the month of Iyar, which is the Hebrew date of the formal establishment of the State, members of the ``provisional government'' read and signed a Declaration of Independence in Tel Aviv. After decades of no homeland, the State of Israel was finally returned to the Jewish people. This year will mark the 58th anniversary of ``Yom Ha'atzmaut'' or Independence Day. Yom Ha'atzmaut in Israel is always preceded by Yom Hazikaron-- Memorial Day for the Fallen Soldiers. The message of linking these two days is clear: Israelis owe their independence--the very existence of the State--to the soldiers who sacrificed their lives for it, a sentiment not lost on Americans. The official transition from Yom Hazikaron to Yom Ha'atzmaut is a moving event that takes place a few minutes after sundown with a ceremony on Mount Herzl in Jerusalem in which the flag is raised from half staff to the top of the pole. The President of Israel delivers a speech of congratulations, and soldiers representing the army, navy, and air force parade with their flags. I wish our good companion, Israel, safety and security, prosperity and good fortune over the upcoming year. I vow to continue standing with you and working to ensure that the friendship between our two great nations remains strong.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a true leader and visionary, the Honorable Eleanore Nissley of Ridgewood, New Jersey. Eleanore is being honored for her outstanding civic contributions by the Center for Civic Responsibility next week. It is an honor richly deserved and long overdue. Eleanore Nissley has been a shining star in New Jersey politics and community life for 40 years. She served as Bergen County's Republican Committeewoman and has offered her talents and political acumen to candidates and campaigns at every level. In fact, given the integral role Mrs. Nissley has played in New Jersey politics, the New Jersey Federation of Republican Women named her Woman of the Year. Her longtime friend and President of the NJFRW, Dot Romaine calls Eleanore ``the epitome of the Republican woman.'' A native of Rutherford and an avid sports fan, Eleanore has served on the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission and the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority. Eleanore also gives her time and energy to the Boy Scouts, and she serves on the Board of Directors for the Interchange Bank. One would think, Mr. Speaker, with all that Eleanore Nissley gives to her community that she hasn't a spare moment to herself. But, in fact, Mrs. Nissley's business abilities are equally renowned. And, Eleanore is committed first and foremost to her family. The mother of four and grandmother of many, Eleanore always finds time to devote to her loving lineage. I am pleased beyond words, Mr. Speaker, to take this opportunity to add my thanks and praise to this chorus as well. Eleanore Nissley has time and time again given me advice and counsel that is priceless. I value Eleanore's friendship. And, I look forward to years of working with her to make North Jersey an even better place to live and work and raise a family.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to, first of all, commend the work of a gentleman from whom we will be hearing shortly, the gentleman from Utah, for his efforts to come to the floor on a regular basis to lead the charge of the Constitutional Caucus to return the focus of this House and also the American public on what our Founding Fathers intended, and that is the basis of this country, the U.S. Constitution; and also to rise to commend the work of a Member from Texas who has just previously spoken on his efforts toward that goal and his aim on his legislation that he spoke to previously just a few moments ago on setting up a Sunset Commission in order to try to rein in this ever-growing government that we have today. We know this government has been growing over recent years. If we can go back to 1925 when then-President Calvin Coolidge said then, when the government was as small as it was at that point in time, he said, quote, government is growing, quote, to encumber the national government beyond its wisdom to comprehend or its ability to reach alternatives and to advocate for the people, end quote. Even then in 1925, Calvin Coolidge realized the government had far exceeded the merits the Founding Fathers intended for this country. Today we see it as well. Today, of course, we have official reports to confirm the same thing. GAO recently came out with a report and certified and stated that the GAO cannot certify the government's financial records for the last 8 years in a row. They say there are weak accounting practices, mismeasurements and mismanagement of assets and liability and costs. We see that today. Why is this that we see this? Because of certain problems in different areas. The size of government has grown tremendously, we have cause to understand. There is a sense today that a larger government will meet the requirements of the citizens today because one size fits all. We know that in practical life that does not ring true, nor does it ring true when we have a country today of over 300 million people and a government that has tried to meet it with one-size-fits-all philosophy. We see it also in a sense that a government is not like a business. You know, in the private sector, there are certain economies of scale. As a business grows bigger, there are economies of scale that makes it more efficient. That is not the case with the government. There are no such economies of scale. Instead, there is a lacking of coordination. There is an overlapping of agencies, and, again, what we have to do is look to recent GAO reports that just recently came out. This case, in the case of FEMA, overlapping of the agencies, of other agencies, mismanagement in the agencies, we saw that this agency could not deal with the circumstances that came before it. Our Founding Fathers understood this. Thomas Jefferson realized that as the government grows, he said, quote, the natural process of things in government is for liberty to yield and for government to gain ground. Government has gained ground in too many specific areas, and our liberty has been yielding. Again, I commend the gentleman from Texas for his efforts to try to rein in that size of the government. I would just make some suggestions as we go forward with that piece of legislation. What we need to do, I believe, is make sure that legislation has some real teeth to it to be able to get the job done. We know that there is already outside organizations that are always looking at the Federal Government to see to it whether it is being efficient or not. We need an agency within the Federal Government that will have teeth, be able to get the job done. It needs more than just to analyze it. One of the ways we can do that is to have that Sunset Commission have a BRAC-like formula to it so that way it will be easier for the proposals to come to Congress, just like we did with the BRAC Commission to have simply an up-or-down vote on those agencies that are no longer doing their job and those agencies are just simply not getting the job done. But we have to go a little bit further than that, because we are not simply looking at duplication of services and efficiencies. We also have to add one additional criteria to that BRAC-like commission for the Sunset Commission. That is a very fundamental one, and that is the question, are the agencies that this Commission is going to be looking at, are the agencies doing something that they have the legal right to do? That is to say, do they have the constitutional right to do what they are doing right now? You know, it is not enough to say that it is efficient. It is not enough to say that it is not duplicating services someplace else. It has to be legal in what it is doing. When Members of Congress come to vote each day on floor, we bring out these little cards, and we put them in the little slot here. I think every Member of Congress every time he votes should be asking that question: Is it legal, is it constitutional? And that is exactly what the Sunset Commission should be doing as well. I will just conclude on this, Mr. Speaker. A former Member from years ago, Barry Goldwater, came to speak once, and he said that when he came to Washington, he did not come to Washington to make it more efficient or to streamline it. He came to Washington to eliminate it. The Founding Fathers had the exact same idea. They did not mean that our Federal Government should be simply an inefficient government of exceeding abilities of powers, but should be a limited one by our Constitution. That is what the Constitutional Caucus is all about. That is what the Sunset Commission can do as well. I applaud the Member for advocating that and moving along with that legislation.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for H.R. 3127, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, of which I am a cosponsor. This Act authorizes the President to offer further assistance to the African Union Mission in Sudan to protect civilians and humanitarian operations. It also provides the President the authority to impose sanctions on those individuals who have committed acts of genocide and calls on the international community to contribute more aid to end this horrific crisis. The United States and our allies must do whatever we can to help end the atrocities that have been occurring in the Darfur region of the Sudan over the last four years. During that time over 400,000 southern Sudanese Christians have been massacred and over 1.6 million people have been permanently displaced from their homes. To this day, the Sudanese government in the north is continuing to attempt to ``ethnically cleanse'' this area of its Christian population. These serious violations of international human rights and law--not to mention, plain human decency--must be stopped. The rest of the world must put pressure on the individuals and institutions involved to put an immediate end to these crimes without regard to their economic or political interests in the area. Human life must be the guiding factor. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues, Chris Smith and Donald Payne, both of whom are from my home state of New Jersey. I also thank Chairman Hyde for his tireless efforts on this legislation as well and ask that all of my colleagues support H.R. 3127, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Utah who just spoke previously, a fellow member of the Congressional Constitutional Caucus, who had indicated that we come to this floor on a regular basis to address what the Founding Fathers intended with the American public and the other Members of this body, their intention for the framework of the Constitution and the framework of the government of the various levels. James Madison stated in Federalist Papers No. 45 that the role of the Federal Government is limited and defined, whereas that of the States and the people, their powers are broad and numerous. To remind this body, the caucus' function primarily is to focus upon the 10th amendment to the Constitution, which in essence says that all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government are retained by the States and the people respectively. When you read that and when you think about that, it is really pretty simple what the founders were trying to do there. And when the Constitution was ratified in 1787, they probably thought it was pretty simple, too. They thought they had probably in place a plan that would be existing for future generations would understand that the role of the Federal Government would be limited, that the sovereignty of the States and of the people would be respected. They probably thought to themselves that there is probably no way that they could have written it even more clearly than they did; that future Congresses should follow suit, should be ones to limit what the Federal Government does, and to retain to the people and the States what their responsibilities are. Unfortunately, if you simply look out any of the windows of this building on this growing city that we have before us in Washington, D.C., you see representative of what is a growing Federal Government in all facets of our life. I am sure that our founding fathers would be disappointed in the largesse of the government, the excessive spending, the number of line items that is now in the budget. As a matter of fact, the budget is something that we were just debating and discussing on the floor of this House for a number of hours. I serve on the Budget Committee and have the opportunity to discuss it there as well. What would our Founding Fathers think if they were to see our spending levels today? Would they ask the question that I think we all should be asking: Is it inconsistent the size and scope that the government has grown to today? Is it inconsistent in the nature of the spending that the government has grown to today? If the Founding Fathers were with us today, I think they would give us a resounding no to what we are doing. They would say that it is inconsistent, that we have grown too large. But we are all leaving here now and going back to our districts. Many Members will be going back and using this time to get involved with the media. We are actually in a 24/7 media cycle in this country now with the advent of all the communications that we have, whether it is in press and press releases or whether it is going on the radio or TV or e-mail. Many Members use this as an opportunity simply to go back to their district and to brag about all the money that the Federal Government is spending, all the new areas that they are enveloping as far as their responsibilities, just as the one that the gentleman from Utah was just talking about as far as the delineation of wetlands and how it impacts upon the people back at home. Maybe this is exactly what our Founding Fathers feared, that we have grown so far apart from where the money comes from and where it is spent. Their goal was that the money should be spent closest to the people. That way, the people would have the greatest voice in how it was going to be spent. Unfortunately, we have just the opposite today. The inverse is true instead. Let me just give you a couple examples that come to mind. Think about your local board of education and the schooling. Parents know who their teachers are, parents know who the principals are, parents know who the board of education is in their town that run their schools. But do parents know who the bureaucrats are down here in Washington, D.C. that now control education dollars that go back to those schools? People back at home know about the pothole in their front streets, people back at home know the name of their local mayor who may be responsible for making sure that street is paved. But do people know who the bureaucrats are in the U.S. Department of Transportation who are responsible for the transportation dollars that may or may not get back to their town to fix their potholes, but may instead go to someplace as the infamous bridge to nowhere? Maybe this is exactly what our Founding Fathers were thinking of when they were looking at a government so far away across a broad ocean in England, and realizing that that English government was no longer connected to our government here, and so that is why they put the limits on it that they did. We could go down with other examples, with the growing deficit that we have today, with the subpar service that we have in such agencies as FEMA, and ad infinitum as far as this goes, as far as the overgrowth and the problems that they have. I just simply ask that our Members do this, and I think that the American public should be asking that their Members do as well: Is what we do the best for the schools? Best for medicine? Best for care best? For bridges? Best for all other services? Is it in line with what our constitutional framework says and what our Founding Fathers intended?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee, and I come to the floor today to speak to a very important issue, and that is the issue of port security. I have been listening to the debate, and much of the debate is on the positive impacts that this budget will have on the economy and on the family budget, which is where the focus should always be in our lives here and not so much on the Federal budget. The positive impact that this budget will mean is it will have more money in the family budget, more money that the families have to decide where they want to spend it, as opposed to where Washington wants to spend it. But let me suggest, as secure as a family can be in their economic situation, that truly is of no moment if they are not secure at home and in their business from a physical point of view, if we do not have strong homeland security in all that we do, if economic security does not rise to that merit of importance. That is why I support what we have done in this House and in this Chamber and in this conference and in this budget with regard to homeland security and with regard to border security as well. When it comes to the overall perspective of homeland security, look at what we are doing in this budget. While other aspects maybe have been frozen, as far as spending on homeland security, we are seeing a 3.8 percent increase in spending; and that is as it should be because we are setting the priority in the right manner. Now, I do represent the Fifth Congressional District of the State of New Jersey, the nice part of New Jersey, the very top of it, from river to river, from the Hudson River to the Delaware River. My district is one that lives in the shadows of the Twin Towers and 9/11. Mine is a district that overlooks the Hudson River. Mine is a district that overlooks that river with two significant ports, Port of Newark and Port of Elizabeth. So anything that occurs with regard to homeland security is of paramount interest to my security. Anything that occurs with regard to our ports obviously is of paramount interest in my district as well, whether it is the fact that the people in my district work at those ports or that the containers come through our district. What happens there is important. What happens overall to our security is important in my district. What happens overall to security of our borders is important, but the ports are the gateway into this country; and for that reason, we have to do everything we can to make sure they are secure. This budget does do that. As I say, a 3.8 percent increase in homeland security, plus specifically on ports, we are seeing the Container Port Security program, that is the CPS program, has grown from $61 million in fiscal year 2004 to $137 million in fiscal year 2006. What does that mean? That means an average annual increase of 49.9 percent, almost a 50 percent annual increase, in port security, appropriately setting where the priorities should be. Really, Mr. Chairman, that comes down to what we are talking about here. What this budget does do is set priorities. It sets priorities in what is important, economic security, homeland security; and I congratulate the chairman for setting the appropriate points.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. And if the gentlewoman will yield. After anyone, a State or a family or the Federal Government sets its priorities, the second half of the equation then must be what are the items that don't rise to that level of a significant priority? Where are those areas, again as Mr. Hensarling referred to that we can begin to say maybe we should not be spending all the money that we have been in the past. And I would humbly suggest a couple that I would at least suggest that may not be the top priorities. Some of the areas where we could see some savings, for example, the Great Ape Conservation program, the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation program, the African Elephant Conservation program. Certain areas and important issues, I am sure, but when you compare them against making sure our veterans have the TRICARE services they need, I would say they pale in comparison. How about the exchanges with Historic Whaling and Trading Partners program, or the Native Hawaiian Vocational Educational program, or the Native Hawaii Health Care program, for that matter.

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Just for a quick point. I don't normally do this, but I would reference you to The New York Times and today's edition, because they verify that too. You can't go by what their headlines say, because their headline is a little misleading. But they did an article in the business section in The New York Times today saying who benefitted from the tax cuts that this Republican-led GOP Congress and this administration passed. And if you get beyond the headlines and you dig down into the weeds, even The New York Times admits that the benefits to them are to the middle class and the lower class, as opposed to the higher incomes, as the other side would argue.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for this opportunity. I applaud her for being here not only tonight, but on so many nights when you bring these important issues to the American public. I will be brief, and I just want to go back to one of your very first comments that you made as you began this night's program. You started out by saying, ``I do not know whether people who are listening here tonight are going to be interested on this debate on the budget or whether they are not. Some people are going to be interested, other people are not.'' I think the debate that we have here in Congress when it comes down to the Federal budget in reality is absolutely no different than the debate that goes around the kitchen table in the families across America, once, twice, three times a month with regard to the family budget. That is really all we are doing here, is we are just one large family, the American family and the American family budget. You know, back at home right now, as I say, once or twice a month, people probably sit down as I do with the household checkbook, and you sit there with a stack of bills on the one side and you write out the checks to pay for them, whether it is the electric bill or the gas bill or other utility bills, the rent or the mortgage or other expenses that you have, maybe some more luxurious items, going out to eat or buying videos or other luxuries, a new car or what have you. And, at the end of it, at the end of that evening as you write out that check, you hope that you are able to write out that last check and that there was money in your checking account to pay for all those necessary and extra bills. But if there was not, if at the end of it you look at it and you say, ``Gee, there just is not enough money going around this month,'' what does the American family have to do with their budget? What they have to do is set priorities, set boundaries, set parameters, set a limit as to what they are able to do next month in their budget. This is nothing different than what the Founding Fathers of this country said. Madison said in Federalist Number 45 that: The powers of the Federal Government are few and limited, but the powers of the States and the people are numerous and indefinite. For that reason, we come to the Budget Committee and the budget process here in the Federal level realizing that those are limits on us and what we have to do so that we can protect the American family budget. So I applaud you for doing what needs to be done here, and we can discuss later today and at other times, what are those priorities, and what are those waste, fraud, and abuse, as Mr. Hensarling has addressed in the past, that we must do to cut out so we put more priorities back into the family budget.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. When we talk about the Federal budget, sometimes the numbers are just so large that it goes out of our sphere of understanding, as I was referencing before our conversation with regard to the family budget and the dollars that they spend there, but at the end of the day the issue has really come down to the exact same thing, and that is, are you taking in as much money, income, your paycheck, what have you, through Federal tax revenues as you are paying out at the end of the day? Do you have a balanced budget? Do you have a paycheck? That is a problem for the American family. This is a problem for the States, as well as the gentlewoman knows I come from the great State of New Jersey, and people from New Jersey know right now our State is having a difficult time with the State budget. Other people are looking in and they realize we are having a difficult time with the State budget. We have a new Governor who is trying to deal with this issue. As a matter of fact, in the State of New Jersey, we are looking at a $6 billion shortfall in revenue coming in. What that means is that we have less money coming in than is going out at the end of the day for the State treasurer when he writes out his checkbook at the end of each day. But what the State of New Jersey has to do now, of course, is the same thing as the family budget. That is, they have to set priorities, boundaries or limits, but so, too, does the Federal Government. The Federal Government is basically on some of the items that you have already raised. We have to decide what are the priorities of the Federal Government. I think one major word that you described for almost all of them is security: homeland security, economic security. In the area of homeland security, if you look at the budget that came out of the Budget Committee that I serve on, we are planning to spend a 3.8 percent increase in homeland security to make sure that Americans at home feel more secure, that our borders are secure, that the Department of Homeland Security and the people that work for them have adequate money in order to get the job done. Another area, of course, for us in the area of security is defense. We want to make sure that we are able to protect our Nation, protect the freedoms and the liberties that our Fore Fathers have fought and other generations have fought since that time. For that reason, in this budget, we will be seeing a 7 percent increase in defense. Veterans, of course, is another area that this budget does not skimp on at all, and I think the gentleman from Texas gave some of the numbers before as far as the policy and the goals of this administration and of this Republican Congress to make sure that our veterans are adequately taken care of and protected. So this budget does continue what this Republican Congress has done in the past. It sets out what the appropriate priorities have got to be for this Congress and for this Nation, and once we establish those priorities, we can establish our spending.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield back.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Normally, the press and the media would say that if you had unemployment under 6 percent that you are doing good. We have seen because of the actions of this Republican Congress in cutting the taxes and returning the money to the family budget, as opposed to keeping it here in Washington for the Federal budget, we now see unemployment in this Nation around 4.7 percent. Normally, the press and the national media would say if you have growth in the economy of around 2 percent that you would be doing good. Well, we, of course, know that because of those tax cuts that you referenced just a moment ago, we have seen the growth in the economy of over 3 percent for the last 11 straight quarters. So it is because of this pro-growth economic policy you just set forth that we are seeing the economy grow. And by having a strong national economy, obviously it is helping the revenue stream on this side and obviously it also affects the family budget.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. If the gentleman has yielded.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong and enthusiastic favor of H. Res. 744, which expresses support for the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 as the blueprint for lasting peace in Northern Ireland and support for continued police reform in Northern Ireland as a critical element in the peace process. Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have been a strong supporter of reinforcing the strong ties between Ireland and the United States. As a member of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Irish Affairs, one of my top goals is the achievement of peace, justice, human rights, and political stability in Northern Ireland. Since the completion of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, the U.S. has worked with all interested parties to help with its implementation. With over 40 million Americans being of Irish heritage, it is vital that the United States continue to play an active role in this process and contribute both the political and economic support needed to ensure that peace continues in Northern Ireland. Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize the efforts of the involved parties who are working daily to make the promise of the Good Friday Agreement a reality. In recent months, there has been a promising softening of the Unionist position with relatively more favorable comments toward the Agreement. And, of course, the Sinn Fein has backed and overseen the IRA's abandonment of its armed campaign. These are exciting steps toward a sustained and lasting peace in Northern Ireland. And, I remain very hopeful that the parties can make further progress toward a fully functioning government that operates in regular order to meet the needs of the Irish people. I commend the Irish people on all of its successes and hard work and encourage all of my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the State of Israel for once again serving as a model to the Middle East region of what a successful democracy should be. With the threat of severe violence from their neighbors, Israelis proudly went to the polls to take part in the single most important part of any government-- expressing one's voice through the vote. I offer my congratulations to all who were successful in yesterday's elections. You have the will of the people, and more importantly, the responsibility to protect and defend both the land and the people of Israel. In the coming months and years, you will have many important decisions relating to security and defense that you will need to make. I urge you to resist external political pressures and do what needs to be done to maintain the physical integrity of Israel and uphold the security of your people. As a Congressman, I vow to continue to do what I can to work with the State of Israel and help one of America's closest allies and I look forward to working with the new Israeli government.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 185th anniversary of Greek independence and to pay tribute to the contributions of Greek Americans to the American melting pot. In 1821, an underground rebellion began by Greeks who had been living for generations under occupied rule by the Ottoman Turks for over 400 years. The War for Independence ended roughly 7 years later, when Greece achieved its liberation with the Treaty of Andrianople. Only then, were Greek citizens able to fully celebrate their culture, their religion, and their democratic heritage. And, it was that rich philosophical history on which our Founding Fathers drew inspiration. When drafting our Constitution over 200 years ago, many ideas came from the world's first democracy in Ancient Greece. Greece has long been one of the United States' closest allies. Fighting alongside America in every war of the 20th Century, Greece continues to offer strong support with the current War on Terrorism. With over 3 million Greek Americans living in the U.S. today, Greek culture still plays an important role in communities all across the Nation. Public service organizations, like AHEPA's Chapter 453 in Wyckoff, New Jersey, are committed to being positive participants in our society. And, it has been an honor to work with them over the past several months. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Americans to recognize Greek Independence Day and the valuable contributions that so many Greeks and Greek Americans have made to our country.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, we are on the floor tonight to discuss a supplemental emergency appropriation, supplemental meaning that we are adding to something to complete it or to bring it to fruition. An emergency, just ran out and grabbed the dictionary, meaning an unexpected serious occurrence or situation urgently requiring prompt action. Well, unfortunately, the language in the bill in this area of additional foreign aid is not an unexpected situation or emergent. That is just not my opinion. That is actually the opinion of the committee itself. The language that we seek to strike is approximately $15 million in additional foreign aid, $5 million to expand public diplomacy information programs relating to Iran, and $10 million in democracy funds for the promotion of democracy, governance, human rights, independent media, and the rule of law in Iran. Iran is certainly not an ally of this Nation that we are here tonight to seek assistance of $15 million. Again, not my opinion, that it is not an ally of this country. This administration itself called Iran part of the Axis of Evil. Iran, who wants to wipe Israel off the map of the world; Iran, who wants to assist Hamas in any way they possibly can; Iran, who neglects and fails to listen to the world's heed and continues to expand its nuclear program. And yet tonight we have a supplemental program of approximately $15 million to assist that nation. Again, I say that this is not my opinion, that this is not an emergency situation. The committee in its report says that it is disappointed in the Department of State's failure to provide adequate and timely justification of the emergency nature of these funds. If the State Department then cannot supply us and cannot supply the committee with the very information that it needs to say that this truly is an emergency situation, why then is this House considering providing an additional $15 million to support Iran? The rest of the supplemental obviously has worthwhile programs in it. We are trying to assist our men and women overseas who find themselves in harm's way as we speak here tonight with military assistance. We are trying to assist those people down in the gulf coast to rebuild their lives with Katrina aid. But, at the same time, we have articles such as this added to this Christmas tree list, if you will, of programs to the supplemental bill that do not meet the criteria of an emergency situation. So, Mr. Chairman, I would say that we should strike the language in the bill that would delete $5 million for public diplomacy and $10 million for economic support fund for Iran. Point of Order

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, if I may have a colloquy with the chairman?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the efforts to allow the United States Capitol rotunda to be used for the annual ceremony commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust. This period of genocide against the Jewish race remains one of the darkest stains on the history of humanity. It is vitally important that we take time each year to remember the victims of this horrific event. The people of the United States must never forget the tragic actions spurred by hatred, bigotry and extremism. Having this ceremony at our Capitol rotunda is both important and symbolic. We are the beacon of democracy and freedom for the world and have been defenders of the oppressed throughout history. Our brave young men heroically crossed the Atlantic to fend off and defeat the Nazis who were bent on racial imperialism. It is fitting at this center of our Federal Government that we express our deepest gratitude to the veterans of World War II and pay our respects to all the innocent victims of the Holocaust we were not able to save. My heart and prayers go out to all the victims of the Holocaust-- those who did not survive, those who did and the families of all. Each went through an unimaginable experience, one that no one should ever have to undergo. As both a Member of Congress and as a private citizen possessing a strong faith, I vow to always remember and respect those who suffered such a tragic fate and I support this body's efforts to do the same. May we as a people never forgot those who have suffered nor ever let such an occurrence happen again.