Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to pay tribute to Hackettstown Community Hospital as a model of an exceptional healthcare resource serving the rapidly growing, multigenerational population of Warren County and the city of Hackettstown, NJ for over 30 years. Hackettstown Community Hospital is taking steps to make the transition into a Regional Hospital Center in response to evolving health care needs of northwest New Jersey residents. Investments have been made to provide additional state-of-the-art technology and services essential in diagnosing and treating the two leading causes of death: cancer and heart disease. Recent statistics show, the residents of Warren and Sussex counties have a higher cancer incidence rate than the rate for the entire state of New Jersey. Hackettstown Community Hospital's new Cancer Center will meet this critical demand for specialized cancer services, offering the area's first radiation oncology program and a new chemotherapy/infusion therapy center. And with a substantial increase in the number of patients seeking cardiac care, Hackettstown Community Hospital plans a new Low-Risk Cardiac Catheterization (Angiography) Laboratory offering its patients extensive diagnostic, treatment and rehabilitation services for patients with cardiac distress to long-term cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary illnesses. I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in paying tribute to Hackettstown Community Hospital for the excellent care it provides for the citizens of northwest New Jersey and for its continued success in its efforts to become a leading Regional Hospital Center.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I think that message right up there says it all: ``America Speaks.'' And America spoke very loudly and correctly on November 2, 2004. November 2, 2004, was really a great day not only for the Republican Party but for the American people in this country as well. President Bush won reelection by over 3.5 million votes on that day, becoming the first Presidential candidate to win more than 50 percent of the vote since 1988. The Republican majority also maintained the majority in both the House and the Senate, while also gaining seats in both Chambers. For House Republicans, that means this cycle Republicans made history by increasing their majority two cycles in a row. This historic game proves the critics' claims that the House was up for grabs and there was a general discontent among American voters with the Republican leadership false. Those arguments were all wrong. Republicans won 22 of the 39 so-called hotly contested seats. Yes, on November 2 the voters confirmed that the agenda of this Republican-led Congress is in fact best for America and what the Americans want; that the Americans are for tax relief for American families and hard-working Americans everywhere; that they realize that their economic and growth policies of these last several years are right for America; that our job creation and pro-growth policies have worked. Perhaps more importantly, they realize that America's security is best in the hands of the Republican President and this Congress. So I want to congratulate not only the President but also these newly elected Members of Congress today that made this historic feat possible. And I look forward to working with them as they come in January to be sworn in to further the successes in the 109th Congress. Because we must deliver on the confident hope of millions of American voters across this country. We are going to be faced with enormous challenges ahead; and in a bipartisan effort, we must really support behind this agenda. So I welcome two new Members to this Congress. John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., of the southern tier of the western New York region was elected to the 29th Congressional District in New York, and he is one of those great new Members. Now, Kuhl's past experiences will bring a wealth of information and experience to this Congress. It includes three consecutive terms in the New York State Assembly and election to the State senate in 1986. There he was appointed to the senate as assistant majority leader for house operations back in 1995. He also served as senate chairman of the senate Standing Committee on Agriculture in 1987 through 1999 when he was then appointed chairman of the senate Standing Committee on Education. He served as chairman of that committee up until 2003 when he was appointed chairman of the senate Standing Committee on Transportation. Kuhl is also a former State chairman of ALEC, a group that I am familiar with, that is the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group for States rights, and vice chairman of the National Conference of State Legislatures, that is the NCSL. In addition to this, he is a member of the senate Select Committee on Interstate Cooperation, the New York State Early Intervention Coordinating Council, the NCSL assembly on State issues, their committee on education, and their assembly on Federal issues and their committee on education, labor and workforce development. Also another national organization, the CSG, the Council of State Governments' Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, and the CSG Eastern Regional Conference Committee on Economic Affairs. With all of this we know that he is going to be a valued addition to this Congress, and we welcome Congressman Kuhl. I would also like to welcome newly elected Representative Thelma Drake. Ms. Drake served as a delegate in the Virginia house for 9 years to represent the people of the 87th district. She is also a Realtor with RE/MAX Allegiance Realty's Hampton Roads home team, and she has worked as a Realtor in real estate for over 20 years. Drake also served on the house finance, the general laws, rules and commerce and labor committees; and as a long-standing member of that committee on general laws she served as chairman of its subcommittee on housing and also as chairman of the finance tax preference committee. In addition, she has held a leadership position in that Republican house majority. In addition to all this as well, she has served as chairman of the Virginia housing commission, is a member of the mayor's task force on ocean view, and is a board member of the Virginia Zoological Society, and also a recipient of the John Marshall Alliance for Leadership and Property Rights. We welcome Ms. Drake. Her background and skills will be an asset to the House. As we have heard of all of the accomplishments of all the Members and the Members that we are about to hear as well, these accomplished individuals to the Republican freshman class of 2005 is a strong loop and will remain committed to working in the House of Representatives promoting the values of the American people, and I welcome you all.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the fabric of American history is woven with the hearts of Patriots. Since the colonists' first landing on American soil centuries ago, courageous men and women have toiled, sacrificed, and persevered to build a legacy of freedom and hope for future generations. While the public contributions of some have been widely lauded, the silent service of countless others is known only in the freedom that we as Americans continue to cherish. Margaret Jean Wales O'Rourke was one such unheralded patriot. Born on August 24, 1922, Margaret grew up in Saddle River, New Jersey. She became a nurse and spent time serving at St. Albans Hospital in Long Island, New York. In 1943, in the midst of World War II, Margaret answered her country's call and traveled to California to work as a nurse in the San Leandro Naval Hospital. While in San Leandro, Margaret met Charles Arthur O'Rourke, the man who would become her husband. A fellow-patriot, Charles was born on December 19, 1923, and joined the Navy in 1942 at the tender age of 18. He spent several years at sea serving in the South Pacific during World War II. Charles and Margaret completed their time in the Navy in 1946. They married and settled in Ramsey, New Jersey. Although their tours of duty were over, however, their service to country did not end. The O'Rourke's had three children: Thomas, Shirl, and Barbara. Thomas carried on the O'Rourke military tradition and joined the United States Marine Corps in 1966. He remained in the Marines until 1974, serving as a Cobra pilot in Vietnam. Today, Thomas's son and Margaret and Arthur's grandson, United States Marine Corps Major Kevin Thomas O'Rourke, continues his family's military heritage, serving as an F-18 pilot in Iraq. Margaret passed away on August 20, 2004. Her course in life took her farther than she may have anticipated, and her legacy will surely be more enduring than she ever could have imagined. Through their dedication to protecting and preserving liberty, three generations of O'Rourke's have now become part of the tapestry of America. While Margaret's life on earth has passed, her gift to all of us will endure. I honor Margaret's memory, and her service to the United States of America.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of this body's effort to preserve the sacred institution of marriage. Children are best served when they are raised and influenced by a mom and a dad, and marriage must continue to be the institution to best raise children and not simply for the desires of adults. Mr. Speaker, I am the youngest of four boys who feel we were blessed to have a mom that we could look to for her loving and nurturing ways, and a dad to be there, well, when boys will be boys, to know that we had a dad. And now I am a dad today with a wife and two young girls of my own, two young girls who are blessed to know that they can look to their mom when they need a mom, and they know that they can look to have a dad there when they need a male influence in their lives. Marriage exists for the well-being of children. It is the only institution that gives kids a mom and a dad. Where do grownups get the right to give their own desires higher priority? If we redefine marriage, it will harm everyone, especially the children. It will legally repudiate the idea that marriage has anything to do with a family, and will legally embrace the idea that marriage is just an arrangement for the convenience of the grownups. Now, I am here today to support what is best for the kids. The ideal situation for a child is to grow up with a mom and a dad in a loving, committed marriage. Mothers are better able to provide certain lessons than fathers can, and fathers in turn can provide role models in ways that moms simply cannot. I think it is time that we rip away all the rhetoric that we have heard and know that this debate comes down to this: it is a choice of being what is in the best interests of our children over the choice of what is in the best interests of a select few adults. The choice is clear. I urge all Members to support our children by supporting the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in proud support of H.R. 2028, the Pledge Protection Act, introduced by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin). We are here today because, once again, activist judges have taken it upon themselves to dictate law in this country, believing they know better than all Americans, they know better than the State legislatures or the Federal legislature, and they know better than the Founding Fathers themselves, they think. The Pledge Protection Act defends the constitutionality of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance by simply restricting the jurisdictions of some lower Federal courts. This body here is more than within our bounds to limit the role of Federal court jurisdiction. The power of Congress is granted in article III of the Constitution. The clause states, ``The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.'' Accordingly, the Constitution provides that the lower courts are entirely creatures of Congress, as is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Just as this Congress is checked every so often by the power of the Presidential veto, and we are checked every 2 years by re-elections, we in turn have the ability to check or rein in abusive and out-of-line courts. The Pledge closely reflects the noblest intentions of our Founding Fathers and the inspiration that has led to the creation of this great Nation, and that is why I can confidently say that nothing in the reciting of the Pledge discriminates against any religious minorities or abuses any rights. The phrase ``under God'' simply acknowledges that our Founding Fathers, who were leaders in the fight for our independence and the authors of our Nation's framework, did so with the inspiration and their belief in a divine being. We all know this House starts each morning with the Pledge as we begin our business, and I believe that right should not be taken away from the children of this country as well.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, in an effort to obtain a first-hand perspective on the conditions is the newly liberated nation of Iraq, to visit with and pay tribute to our Nation's uniformed sons and daughters serving there and to share insight with officials of the newly established government, I will be leaving for Iraq tonight as part of a bipartisan congressional visit. If I had been able to cast my vote, I would have been a proud supporter of the H.R. 1308 conference report, the All-American Tax Relief Act of 2003. This bill will extend important tax provisions including the $1,000 per child tax credit, marriage tax relief, the expanded 10-percent income tax bracket and one year of additional relief from the alternative minimum tax (AMT). I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation in order to prevent a tax increase on hard-working American families.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, in 10 years of majority, Republicans have made a difference and a difference not by over- legislating but by having confidence and faith in the American people and the American individual. My Republican colleagues and I believe that it is the individual American and not the government who can best improve their lives. Financial decision-making is best done by the family and not by the Federal government. The taxpayers' money belongs in the taxpayers' pockets. They work hard for it, and they know how to spend it best. Republicans created across-the-board tax cuts for working Americans, giving them a greater chance to spend and to save their money as they deem fit, giving them options, giving them independence. The benefits of our tax relief have rolled on to jump-start the economy, with 1.7 million new jobs this past year, with the current unemployment rate lower than the average rates of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s combined. Mr. Speaker, in the next 10 years, the Republicans will continue to respect the American individual and, in turn, build on our successes and on the success of this great Nation.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, the war in Iraq is one that we all understand is not easily won. The enemy does not play by our rules of engagement. They have no conscience, they have no decency, they have no moral compass. Yet the same anger, arrogance, and ignorance that fuels these terrorists who have lashed out at citizens across the globe is now, according to John Kerry, a sign of the Iraqi people's ``frustration'' with the Bush administration. Yes, there are pockets of resistance within Iraq, but Kerry's assertion that the Iraqis are acting out in political dissension with the Bush administration's military strategy is ludicrous. Madam Speaker, Iraqis are not lashing out through political activism, they are shooting American soldiers. They are killing the very same people who have come to help them. Mr. Kerry should be more focused on reality and less on political rhetoric. Our soldiers have risked it all to liberate Iraq and the Iraqi people.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

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. Over the last few days, I have heard colleagues from both sides of the aisle address the financial situation that our government finds itself in with regard to the budget deficits and our level of spending. Mr. Chairman, while people may disagree on each side of the aisle on exactly how we got to this point, how we got here, I think most Members will agree that we are, in fact, spending too much money. That is why I am proposing today a very simple amendment, a common- sense approach, I think, to help limit the amount of money that the government spends of our constituents' hard-earned tax dollars. My amendment will simply do this: It will limit the number of Federal employees that are sent to international conferences funded under this bill to 50. Recently there has been a trend, unfortunately, by various government agencies to send far in excess of this number of staff to international conferences, costing taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars. Like all of my colleagues, I understand the importance of staff, both on a personal level and on an agency level, but I think we have an obligation to our citizens back at home to do all we can to rein things in. Let me just take a moment to cite one example. Back in 2002, a U.S. agency sent 236 people to an international AIDS conference in Barcelona, Spain. These employees were sent at a cost of $3.6 million of taxpayers' funds. Someone pointed out after I raised this point earlier how much treatment and how many individuals could have been treated with that $3.6 million had we not sent so many people. Due to my limited time here right now, I am not going to go into other examples of excesses as far as employees and staff being sent to these conferences; I am just going to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment, to support the limited number to 50, a number that we have done on voice vote on a previous bill, on the foreign ops bill, a number that was also concurred with by the Secretary of HHS as well as in his own directive to his employees. So I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond. Many times in this House we do things for symbolic purposes, and I am not suggesting that this legislation is being done for symbolic purposes, but I do have to raise the question, as I did earlier, as to just what extent this bill may be successful if everything goes right. As I indicated before, we are spending at $82 million. That translates into around the addition of one new guidance counselor in every county in my State. So we have to question really are we providing any new services to the majority of kids, or are we just lifting up hopes and also the expectations of future calls for greater spending on these programs? As to the aspect of additional harm that may come from this, that is the very nature of the question that I raise here. We have yet to hear of any testimony in this body as to what is the nature of the benefits of this, from academic institutions, parents or otherwise, how this may benefit the students. Anecdotally we may have some, but I would think before we get into such a critical area as dealing with the mental state of our kids that we would want to have that information on hand.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There is probably no more serious topic that we could be discussing this evening than we are right now when we are discussing suicide, especially when we are discussing suicide of young people. It is a serious topic, and it is an emotional topic. Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, I heard someone say in the Chamber that this House, as we move along and make changes, we do not always make large changes or great changes at one time; we may only be making changes incrementally. And my response to that was I am all in favor of incrementally moving the agenda along, just so long as we are moving it in the right direction and not in the wrong direction, a harmful direction, or a hurtful direction. I want to be moving the agenda along in a direction that is guided by facts and thought and planning and not by emotion. We just heard that this bill is moving along in an expedited fashion, and that is true. We are here tonight on a bill, on a piece of legislation, spending $82 million that would create two new Federal programs that never existed before, a new technical center that will deal with this issue as well; and yet there has never been an opportunity for input, discussion, a vote, or consideration in a committee. This bill has never gone in this House to a committee for a hearing, for a complete markup in a formal manner. If you are a parent and you have thoughts on this topic, you are concerned about your children or other children in your community, you have not had the opportunity to have your say, to have your feelings, to have your thoughts heard in a committee on this subject. If you are an expert in this field, a psychologist, psychiatrist, mental health association or the like, and you have thoughts about what would be best for our children or what would be harmful to our children, you too have not had the opportunity to have your thoughts or your opinions heard in a formal committee manner. So it is correct when we hear that this legislation is moving in an expedited format, without the committee process and already to the floor. Now, before this bill came up, we were talking about another topic, and I heard a lot of talk about the deficit and what grave financial straits we are in. I hope they continue with those feelings when we consider a bill that is $82 million in the making for the first 3 years, and how much after that no one knows. There was an article today in National Review that addresses this piece of legislation. It says, ``Occasionally a bill hits Capitol Hill over which there is remarkably little debate. This bill is an extreme example of that. Actually, according to news reports, there is no debating the bill, which provides additional Federal funding for suicide prevention programs in U.S. schools.'' It goes on, ``Well, of course if you are against suicide, you are for the bill; right?'' Well, we really do not know. I am certainly against suicide. Everyone in this House is against suicide. But are we all for the bill? Are parents all for the bill? Are the experts all for the bill? The article goes on to point out that, ``No, the experts are not all for the bill.'' The Journal of the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry have reported on this topic of suicide prevention programs, such as this bill addresses, and they reported, ``Suicide awareness programs in schools have not been shown to be effective either in reducing suicidal behavior or in increasing help-seeking behavior. Most kids who take their own lives are mentally ill. They need help, help that a school suicide prevention program is not going to provide them.'' ``For some of the children, these new federally funded programs,'' as it says in the article, ``would reach awareness, putting ideas in their already normally confused adolescent heads.'' Conclusion: ``Such programs,'' as we are talking about tonight, ``could actually be harmful.'' Let me go back to the issue of family and the like. We have to ask: Is this yet again another encroachment on the family, on the parent- child relationship, one in which the Federal Government should at least ask for input and thought before we start creating new Federal programs on this level? In the end, are these programs, we should be asking ourselves, more harmful than helpful? The experts seem to indicate more harmful. Another expert, David Shaffer, M.D., Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons, talking on the subject and doing research at Columbia University supported by grants for the Centers for Disease Control, suggests that ``case findings that involve giving lessons or lectures about suicide either to encourage suicidal students to identify themselves or to teach other students or teachers how to identify the suicidal teenager is not effective, and in some instances may undermine protective attitudes about suicide.'' Furthermore, from Dr. Shaffer and others, ``self-identified attempters were less likely to approve of these programs, and there was little evidence that the programs were successful in influencing their views. There was some evidence that previous attempters were more upset by the programs than nonattempters were.'' Again, the experts are showing that these programs that we are now spending money on may be more harmful than good. There was a case several years ago in Michigan where a second grade boy killed himself in the spring of the year, the day after watching a film in a suicide prevention class such as what we are talking about today. People who knew the young boy said that he was a happy child who had just been accepted into the school's gifted and talented program, and he was not depressed at all at the time of his death. Many think that he was merely mimicking what he saw in the movie in the suicide prevention program and had no intention to die. In the movie, the boy who tries to hang himself to commit suicide is rescued by his friends. In real life, that did not occur, and the 8-year-old boy, having attended a suicide prevention program, killed himself. As a parent, one also has to ask, where does the time come to do all these things in our schools? We already ask of our teachers so much, to teach all the curriculum already. Now we are adding an additional burden on the schools as well. I have talked to parents who have had their kids in public schools and have taken them out and either put them into private schools, Catholic schools, parochial schools, or home schooling. When I ask them why they do it, they say, because they realize the public schools are no longer focused on what they are supposed to be focusing on, and that is educating their kids. Instead, they are involved in so much other social programming, such as this. So we have to ask ourselves this question as well: Does this program address the needs of our schools as being able to fulfill their obligation to teach our kids? Next, we have to ask the question: Is this enough money, $82 million? Now, to me, that sounds like a lot of money; but if we are talking across the entire country for a 3-year period of time, I hazard a guess that next year and the year after that that people will be coming back and saying this was just a drop in the bucket and that we will have to spend even more. I figured it out just briefly in my head sitting over there earlier. This would provide my county in New Jersey maybe one new counselor, if it was spread evenly across the country. One counselor for my entire county. What about all the schools in that county? Will they not be looking for assistance as well, all the other services in the county? $82 million is not going to go that far. Now, it is set up as a 3-year program. In actuality, the bill that I am looking at talks about how much money we spend for the first 3 years; but if we look at the fine print, it details $7 million one year, $16 million the next year, and $25 million the next year. That is 3 years. But thereafter it says ``and such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2008 and 2009.'' So, in reality, it is saying we know how much it is going to cost for the first 3 years, but after that it is anybody's question, as people come back asking for more. In the end, suicide is an emotional topic. The legislation we are dealing with today is an emotional topic. It is one that deserves our thoughtful time, it is one that deserves input from parents and experts alike, and so, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would recommend to vote against this bill, or, better yet, to allow this bill to go back to committee for further consideration. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again I have to say it, the topic that we are dealing with is an extremely emotional one; and I take nothing away from what the sponsors are attempting to do with this legislation. And I take nothing away from the families that have suffered from the pains and arrows of going through this. All I say is that the best method of addressing this issue was perhaps, not perhaps, absolutely not followed in this procedure, that the parents in our communities have the right to have their say to make sure that we have the best system of taking care of their kids; that the experts, the doctors, the academies, have the right to have their say as to what are the best procedures as far as addressing the issue of suicide in schools. Finally, it ultimately falls upon our families and our parents to make sure that we are bringing our kids up in the correct manner. This legislation does not address that at all. This legislation simply expands once again the size and the scope of the Federal Government into an area where we have not heard any testimony tonight and never had the opportunity to hear testimony in the past to say whether this system will do more harm than good. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest a ``no'' on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the amendment would address those concerns, or the points the gentleman raises, and I share his concerns there. This applies to those that would come under this act, and that such conferences as those could very well conceivably be coming under the other act, like State Department and the like.

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

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, while those on both sides of the aisle may disagree exactly how we got here today, I think most of us, myself included, would say that, as far as the Federal budget is concerned, we are spending too much and the deficit is too high. That is why I am offering an amendment that is, I think, a commonsense approach to help limit spending and the abuse that our constituents at home complain about. I will say this: when I go home to my town hall meetings, so many times constituents ask me, why in the world is Congress spending so much money on this or that particular program. In short, my amendment will limit the number of Federal employees that are able to be sent to international conferences to 50. Recently, there has been a trend in our government to send far in excess of the amount of staff to these international conferences, costing our taxpayers millions and millions of extra dollars. This amendment would simply put a cap on that number. Now, like my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on this, I understand the importance of staff in our daily routines. I am simply saying that we should send the essential staff, those necessary in order to get the job done. Let me just give a couple of quick examples here why I bring up this amendment. In this year, 2004, in a conference that was in Thailand for an AIDS conference, over 130 Federal employees of the U.S. Government were sent to this conference. Had my amendment been in place at that time, and been able to limit the amount of employees, Federal employees that went over there, we would have saved millions of dollars. To put it in the context of dollars and cents, we could have provided a dose of nevirapine, which is an AIDS preventive medicine which provides benefits to babies, to over 216,616 newborns in Africa. Over almost a quarter of a million dosages could have been provided had we had a cap on people going there. Another example, 2002: the U.S. sent 236 people to a conference in Barcelona, Spain. These employees were sent at a cost of $3.6 million. Again, my people at home, the constituents at home, ask why do we spend so much money. Due to the limited amount of time I have right now on this amendment, I cannot go into more of the examples we have seen in past experience as far as excessive numbers of Federal employees going overseas to Federal conferences. I would simply urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense and important amendment to make a limit as to the amount of people we send over. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to extend my warmest commendation to Rachel Heath for her nearly 22 years of service to the Borough of Franklin, New Jersey. For the past 22 years, Rachel has worked for the people of Franklin in various capacities--as Welfare Director, Accounts Payable Clerk, Deputy Clerk, and, for the past eight years, Borough Clerk and Administrator. Though the job titles varied, all of the positions shared one element in common: service to the citizens of Franklin. As Welfare Director, Rachel aided residents in obtaining much-needed assistance to help them through difficult times. As Accounts Payable Clerk, Rachel helped ensure that the borough's finances ran smoothly. And during her time in the borough Clerk's office--first as Deputy Clerk and then as Borough Clerk and Administrator--Rachel handled everything from pet licenses to marriage licenses, birth certificates to death certificates, voting registration to elections oversight. While all of these accomplishments are certainly noteworthy, perhaps the most remarkable tribute to Rachel is that she did these things while raising four children and being a wife to her husband of almost 35 years, Thomas. In and of itself, the work of a wife and mother goes well beyond a full-time job, yet Rachel found the strength and ability to serve both her family and her community. As Rachel concludes one chapter of her life and commences the next, I applaud her past service and wish her a future filled with continued success.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, for months now, critics of the war in Iraq have asked the question: Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Recently former Vice President Al Gore said that none have been found in Iraq. Just as he was wrong when he said he was the inventor of the Internet, he is wrong on this point as well. Recently, Charles Duelfer, the head of the Iraq Survey Group, reported the finding of 12 mustard and sarin gas shells in various locations in Iraq. Intelligence sources say that these are still extremely dangerous shells. Mr. Duelfer also reported that terrorists in Iraq are trying to tap into the Iraqi WMD intellectual capital. They are keenly interested in developing chemical weapons in there and also in Afghanistan. So where are the weapons of mass destruction? Where they have always been, in the Iraqi area, within the reach of terrorists, a threat to U.S. troops, the region, and the world community as well.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. This amendment, and furthermore any move that would raise taxes on American workers and businesses, is going to reverse the positive effects of the progrowth economic initiatives that this House passed just last year. Those initiatives were the largest tax relief since Ronald Reagan. The U.S. economy is strong, it is growing stronger, and it is proving that the Republicans' clear, comprehensive progrowth agenda is working for America. This Republican-led Congress understands that the best way to expand the economy and further great jobs is simply to leave more money in the hands of the people who earned it. Now, if the Democrats do not believe this, all they have to do is look at the negative effects that States such as California, the Democrats there have spent with the tax-and-spend policies, it has had on that State. California's tax and regulatory structure crippled that State. In 1 month alone, California lost 21,000 jobs, more than any other State, more than the rest of the country combined. When you compare that to other States, the once invincible California economy was suffering from competitiveness crisis. Simply this, when taxes are raised, businesses leave, and jobs and wages are lost, negatively affecting the economy. This week in my home State of New Jersey, the Democratic Governor, Jim McGreevey, passed what he is calling the millionaire's tax, a tax increase on New Jersey taxpayers. It is set to increase the marginal tax rate by 41 percent, the fifth highest now in the country. It is really a Robin Hood-like grab Democratic Governor Jim McGreevey has taken from these taxpayers, money that the Federal tax relief measures that we passed before restored to them, that were put in place by this Republican Congress to spur the economy along. The Democratic Governor, Jim McGreevey justified his scheme of this millionaire's tax by saying, ``I will only tax that which the rich have gotten back from the Bush tax cuts.'' Well, now the gentleman from Wisconsin wants to eliminate that Bush tax cut altogether. So I ask, when is enough enough? The Democrats really are speaking from both sides of this argument, and they have shown their true colors: if given an inch, they will take a mile. The small business owners of New Jersey, they are the ones who have spurred on the economy, and it was due to the tax cuts initiative of last year. And now under this initiative in our own State, they would lose the State tax cuts, and now by the initiatives on the other side of the aisle, they would lose the Federal tax cuts as well. So I say to the Democrats in my home State of New Jersey in Trenton, and the Democrats in Washington as well, I say stop killing the Nation's economic recovery. No more taxes. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic Governor of New Jersey's, Mr. McGreevey, move to take away this tax savings will wreak havoc on the positive economic upswing that is occurring right now in my home State of New Jersey. As a matter of fact, the Center For Policy Research in New Jersey has shown that the tax cuts that we are talking about now will result in 28,000 jobs lost in the next 5 years, proving that this tax hike will only hurt the people of New Jersey. Today, many of the new jobs that are created in New Jersey are by employers that were fleeing to the other States' higher tax levels. Businesses will flee now out of New Jersey, just as businesses fled out of California. With this amendment on the other side of the aisle, we will now be raising taxes across the entire country, and the question will be, where are we telling businesses to flee to, then? I would ask the sponsor of this amendment and Governor McGreevey, the Democrats in New Jersey as well, to take a look at the crippling effects that their policies have had in New Jersey and California and to say let us have some common sense to leave our economic recovery alone and let the people keep their own money. I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I agree with the position made from the other side of the aisle when they make reference to a statement on the Statue of Liberty that we are a nation of immigrants and we have an obligation to welcome immigrants to this Nation in the past, in the present, and in the future. But this amendment does not change that at all. I would ask the other side who says that we should not be thwarting municipalities, counties, or State governments with their own decisions and their own prerogatives on these areas when it is under the Constitution the prerogative of Congress to set immigration policy. Would the other side of the aisle say that we should allow the municipalities to do the reverse? Some municipalities want to set up sanctuaries. Should we allow other municipalities to thwart all immigration into their town altogether? If we are going to let municipalities rule immigration, I guess you would say that they should have that authority. What rule of law then should we allow municipalities to decide on their own where Congress has the obligation? Should we allow the Civil Rights Act of the 1960s to be decided by the municipalities and be rewarded by the municipalities if they were to thwart those, even though Congress has clearly set down what the delineations of the Civil Rights Act is? I say no. The Constitution clearly says immigration is the authority of Congress to set forth. We have set forth in the past, and we shall in the future, and the municipalities shall not thwart them.