Thomas Garrett

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, let the record show that I was present for the Roll Call vote 044. Had my vote registered properly, the Roll Call would have shown my ``Yea'' vote on Roll Call No. 44

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I would just, again, commend the Member from Florida, Congressman Yoho, as it relates to this opportunity. I think it is important to remember that, just like Americans, whether it was the Revolutionary War or the civil rights movement, the Chinese people have bled. They have sweated. They have paid the price for the basic human rights that we all enjoy here. And again, I would commend the American consumer to consider the reality of child labor, of exploitative policies as relates to industrial espionage, of exploitative policies that literally deprive Americans of livelihoods perpetrated by the Chinese, and to shop with that in mind until we see real reform from China. I have been frustrated heretofore with the efforts sometimes of our very own government as it relates to putting any force or its proverbial money where its mouth was to this end, but I believe there is power in the people of the United States. And so I would encourage people, again, to shop with their consciences until we see actual acts beyond words from a regime that has a history of saying and doing all the right things in public but allowing the perpetuation of horrific, horrific circumstances on their very people at home, in private.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, it is humbling to have the opportunity to stand in this Chamber to speak on so important a subject as China's role in the world in 2018. Having had the privilege also of leading American soldiers on foreign soil, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the last resort in any circumstance should be military action, and so I wish to make clear that the strong words that will follow are not directed to be a threat to the People's Republic of China but, instead, to be encouragement to the people thereof. We want peace and to work alongside all nations in a community of nations, but it is our duty, as free people, to express the basic rights inherent to our very existence in this world. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Chinese people today that we still hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--this message directed, again, to the people of China because the oppressive Communist, dictatorial regime seems hell-bent upon denying these very rights not to nations across the world aside from China, but to the very people whom they purport to serve; and in so doing, they not only oppress those people, but also perpetrate schemes that lead to a lower quality of life and enhanced threats to people across the globe. Industrial espionage costs the very livelihoods and well-being of workers in every continent of the world. Intellectual property theft isn't about the hundreds of billions of dollars stolen from those who had the wherewithal, energy, and vision to create, but about the child who won't have an opportunity to attend college because the job that his or her parent might have had has been quite literally stolen by Chinese malfeasance. Propping up a regime in North Korea that literally engages, in the year 2018, in the enslavement of their own citizens and turning a blind eye on those practices, which, Mr. Speaker, I suppose shouldn't be a surprise when you look at the human rights record of the People's Republic of China itself, I don't have time, nor do my colleagues, though I commend Congressman Yoho for this hour, to recount the number of victims of human rights violations, of prisoners of conscience, of victims of state oppression, of those who had the temerity to stand up and suggest that individuals have certain basic fundamental human rights only to reap horrific consequences underneath a totalitarian Communist regime in the People's Republic of China. But in the limited time that I have, forced abortions of human life, to the tune of tens and tens and tens of millions; Mr. Speaker, child labor laws drafted by the People's Republic of China that look wonderful on the global stage, but practices that one recent survey indicated would have the entire population of the State of Ohio worth of 10- to 14-year olds working what one recent news story characterized as 16 hours a day, 28 days a month in 2018. Their laws indicate that they have ended the practice of organ harvesting, and yet mathematical data indicates that, in China, if you are part of the ruling class, it is not hard to find that kidney, that bone marrow, that heart. This sort of oppression is foisted upon the people of China, while all too often the United States and other nations of the world turn a blind eye not in the interest of respecting cultural differences, but in the interest of our pocketbooks. We still hold these truths to be self-evident. And if I could do nothing else while I am here, Mr. Speaker, but to speak and encourage nations of the world, but, more importantly, the people oppressed by regimes such as that of the Chinese dictatorial, Communist, totalitarian state, and tell them that we understand, we have their backs, they have our support, then I will have accomplished something. I am of an age, Mr. Speaker, when one of the images permanently seared in my memory is of a lone man standing in Tiananmen Square facing down a main battle tank. And when I think of that image and then I think of the United States, I think of Patrick Henry, who not only said, ``Give me liberty or give me death,'' but also said, when someone yelled from the back of the room, ``Treason,'' ``If this be treason, make the most of it.'' I think of a 16-year-old girl in Farmville, Virginia, Barbara Johns, whose family had to move because she had the temerity, after discussing the Declaration of Independence with her uncle Vernon Johns, to question why there was a school that only White kids could attend. And I think of the charge in the Constitution of the United States not to be a perfect Union, because we are not there yet, but to be a more perfect Union. So then I contemplate my responsibility not only as a Member of this body, and it is obviously to serve the constituents of the Fifth District of Virginia in the United States of America, but also to stand up for human beings across the globe. And China, we still hold these truths to be self-evident. We will not turn a blind eye on policies that lead to forced abortions of living humans, that lead to child labor policies of 16 hours of work a day, 28 days a month of a number of kids between the ages of 10 and 14 that mirrors the population of the State of Ohio. We will not turn a blind eye to policies and public statements saying you have ended organ harvesting when all data indicates that you haven't. And then we will not turn a blind eye to the oppression of any minority, and particularly religious minorities, whether it is Falun Gong or Christians or Muslims in the west of China. So I know in this age of the internet, this age of the world wide web and global communication, that the people of China, though their government seeks to inhibit the flow of information, will hear this, and the message is simple: You are my brothers and sisters. You are human beings just like us. You have the same rights that we have. You will not be given these rights by a government but by a creator or by nature, depending on your belief structure. And if you have the courage to stand up, understand this: We will support you.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be added as a cosponsor of H.R. 756, a bill introduced by Mr. Chaffetz.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the patron of this amendment for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we have covered many things in the past year, to include tax policy, healthcare, helping eviscerate ISIS, but I would argue this is the most important moment in the time that I have been in this building. Not only is the Fourth Amendment at stake, so, too, I would argue, are due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth. We must stand strong for individual liberty and privacy. That is who we are as a nation. If we do not put the ``F'' back in FISA, it becomes ISA, and all eyes are on you.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who is my good friend, for speaking. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I will conclude. If we were to spend 5 minutes on each of the individuals murdered by the Iranian regime since that regime took power some 39 years ago, we would be here 24/7 for over a year. If we were to name each country and spend 1 day where Iran and their proxies, such as Hezbollah, have taken human life, we would literally be here for months, 1 day per country. Mr. Yoho articulated basic concepts of natural law, that people are endowed by their Creator with fundamental rights to include the right to life, the right to freedom, and the right to pursue happiness. Mr. Duncan, Mr. Rothfus, and Mr. Rohrabacher spoke to the JCPOA, and the circumstances surrounding it, how our Nation turned its back on the multibillion-dollar criminal enterprise wholly subsidized by Iran that is Hezbollah, making a bad deal, ignoring trafficking of deadly narcotics throughout the world and, indeed, in our own country to get a worse deal. I stand with my colleagues who renounce the JCPOA, and I would point out that it is my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the broad bipartisan opposition to the JCPOA, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which I have referred to repeatedly, and only somewhat jokingly, as the ``Joint Comprehensive Piece of Something, JCPOS.'' But if you want to see the JCPOA go away, the best way to do that is to empower the people of Iran to empower themselves, and that is why I thank my colleagues, one and all, for standing with me here today to speak loudly and clearly. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that people watching at home will take to social media where the youth of Iran have fomented this revolution, that hashtags such as #freeiran, #iranprotests and #iran will pick up steam, that the world can communicate with those who risk their very lives to assert their basic, fundamental, and Creator-granted rights of life, liberty, and the right to pursue happiness by showing them that we support them. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that Mr. Gohmert so articulately spoke to the role of Rouhani in Iran and the fawning Western media that speaks to his role as a moderate. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rouhani, quite literally, represents the mullahs, and so, as such, that would be as if suggesting that Mr. Goering or Mr. Goebbels was a moderate Nazi. There is nothing moderate about the leadership of this regime. So with this, I conclude: Americans have been killed by Iran or its proxies in this country, in Lebanon, in Iraq, in Kenya, and in Tanzania. People have given their lives at the hands of Iran in Australia, Argentina, Syria, Israel, Germany, the United Kingdom, in Tanzania, Malaysia, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia. It is time for this to end. Enough is enough. I would quote Edmund Burke: ``All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.'' This time we will not stand idly by. Enough is enough. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bishop). Paying Tribute to Two Oakland County Sheriff's Deputies

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Budd) for his remarks. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan) for his remarks. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, 39 years ago, a collective nightmare was foisted upon the people of the nation of Iran, and so when roughly 2 weeks ago, while on recess, I became aware of the courage manifest in the action of the Iranian people in standing up to a brutal totalitarian regime, I immediately contacted our office and suggested that we secure this Special Order hour, and reached out to a number of my colleagues, several of whom join me today, to speak loudly and clearly on behalf of the United States and the nearly 6 million people represented by myself and the individuals who will speak here today in support of those who would stand up and risk their very existence for those most basic human rights, which we as Americans take, tragically, for granted. As I stand in this well, Mr. Speaker, in cities that the bulk of Americans have never heard of, in Isfahan and Karaj and Tabriz and Mashhad and Tehran, indeed, tens of thousands stand in the face of a regime with a record of destroying not only freedom but life itself in the instance of those who would stand up and demand freedom, stand up and demand basic human rights and dignity. Mr. Speaker, to put this into perspective, if you were to take the population of the nation of Iran circa 1979 and compare it to the population of the United States circa 1941 and then align the numbers of Americans killed in combat during the entire Second World War, it would proportionally be roughly equal to the number of people who have given their lives at the hands of the brutal Iranian regime inside the borders of Iran. Think about that for a moment. Roughly 60,000 during the coup d'etat revolution in 1979, about 12,500 from 1981 to 1984, almost 33,000 during the 1988 uprising. We don't know how many were murdered in 2009, when this Nation stood silent as Iranians, brave, took to the streets to demand self-determination and toleration; that a regime should not be able to dictate how one worships, who one marries, what one believes; that people should be given basic rights to self- determination. Today, we know very little about what is going on in Iran except for the brave women and men who are confronting challenges that we, by virtue of the fortune of our birth as Americans, will hopefully never have to confront. We know that roughly 50 have been murdered; we know that roughly 3,000 are imprisoned. This time, I will not be silent. I have spoken with Iranian Americans of all different facets from a number of different groups. I ask these Iranian Americans, as well as those resisting within Iran and Iranians disbursed across the globe, to set aside their political differences and join together for the common goal of deposing a regime that murders its own sons and daughters to a tune that is comparable to the total number of American combat deaths during the Second World War. Enough is enough. Today, I stand beside an image of Habib Khabiri. Habib was the former captain of the Iranian national soccer team. He and 40 others were executed in 1984 at the Evin Prison for having the temerity to criticize their government. He was 29 years old. The evidence indicates that he was tortured before he was executed. In fact, again, as we stated earlier, over 12,000 people were executed by the Islamic Republic Security Forces just from 1981 to 1984. Next is a young woman who tragically became something of an international folk hero for those who were paying attention, in that she had the temerity to stand and protest during the Green Revolution in 2009, suggesting that the Iranian people had a right to self- determination, when she was publicly, on film, murdered in the streets, 26 years old. The United States remained silent. The second of three children from a middle class neighborhood, she had the courage to stand up and point out injustice when she saw it, and paid with her life. Indeed, the protesters with whom she marched shouted, ``America, you are either with us or with the mullahs,'' and we did not respond. Today, I am responding. This administration is responding. The Iranians, with whom I have spoken across a diverse sect of opposition, do not want tanks and bombers and missiles, nor do I, having worn the uniform of this Nation, but while we can't rule out any particular alternatives, all they ask is a word of support; that when we act legislatively in this body and in the Chamber down the hallway, we have the follow-through to ensure that our actions are backed up; that unlike the 1990s, when the Iran Sanctions Act was passed, we don't let our so-called European allies turn a blind eye as their corporate entities continue to do business with the IRGC that uses the money generated through this business not only to murder their own citizens but to fund the likes of Hezbollah, and fast forward to current day, create instability, peril, death, and destruction literally across the entire region from the Mediterranean to the Khyber Pass. There is no blind eye being turned this time. Next we see Shekar Mohammadzadeh. A nurse, she was arrested, imprisoned, and tortured for rendering medical assistance to other Iranian brothers and sisters who were brutalized by the revolutionary guards in the streets of Iran. She was tortured viciously at Evin Prison, served a significant portion of a prison sentence, 7 of 15 years, before being executed along with nearly 33,000 others circa 1988. Now, three names, three faces, three stories, probably 30 seconds to a minute on each. Let me put this into perspective, Mr. Speaker. If we were to take 5 minutes to show the pictures and speak briefly on every individual murdered by the mullah regime in Iran, we would be here for over a year going 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I don't stand here saber rattling, suggesting American military action. I stand here suggesting that what my Iranian-American friends and what people of Iranian dissent who are dissidents throughout the world have suggested to me is that if the American Government will stand up and say, ``We stand with you against these mullahs,'' that is the support that they need to continue the movement to see that there is a regime change, which leads to self-determination and democracy in Iran and the lifting of a dark cloud of terror from across the globe. Don't believe me? I was born in 1972, and I have grown up with the perpetual mention of Hezbollah. There are those who think that Hezbollah is something that has been around for a long time, but I point out today that Hezbollah is actually younger than the mullah regime; that, in fact, the mullah regime created Hezbollah; and Hezbollah has the unique distinction of being one of a very few terrorist entities that has actually killed human beings on every single inhabited continent on planet Earth. No trade with Iran, no money to the IRGC; no money to the IRGC, no money to Hezbollah; no money to Hezbollah, we have self-determination in Lebanon, we have less of an oppressive interference in Iraq, we have more stability in Syria, and we have freedom in Iran. Enough is enough. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for standing with me today, and I ask the American people and my colleagues to take the time to inform themselves about places like Isfahan and Karaj and Tabriz and Mashhad, and to think about the women and men who have the courage to walk through the threshold of a door of a home where, when they leave, they know full well they may very well not come back. The time is now, the cause is just, the mullah regime must go. Enough is enough. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Curtis).

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, 47 years ago, August 11, a baby boy was born to a mother and father in Detroit, Michigan, named Brian Terry. Some 18 years after that, Brian made a commitment to serve his country by enlisting in the United States Marine Corps, where he served 3 years honorably, including a tour of duty in harm's way in Iraq. Discharged from the Marine Corps honorably in 1994, Brian Terry followed his calling to serve by becoming a police officer. He then made another commitment not to serve just his community, but our Nation. In 2007, he joined the Customs and Border Protection. But this wasn't good enough for what his mother characterized as a brave, strong defender of people. Brian decided to join the elite Border Tactical Team of the Border Patrol unit. Seven years ago today, Brian was part of a four-person team tasked with pursuing and apprehending a ``rip'' crew. This rip crew has been alleged to be affiliated with the Mexican drug cartels. What they did was exploit those who took advantage of the unwillingness of those in leadership in this country to perform that basic, principled responsibility, which is to secure our borders. The rip crew would rob drug mules as they carried drugs across the border, but would also routinely detain and shake down those who snuck through our porous borders. This cartel-affiliated rip crew had weapons, and they used those weapons to rob, terrorize, and exploit in the worst possible ways people who were essentially invited here by our failure to do our jobs. Seven years ago today, Brian Terry and three of his colleagues set out not just to protect our border, but to protect innocent people, who came with their entire life savings, because we chose to leave that border porous. Yesterday, the House Homeland Security Committee took up H.R. 4433. H.R. 4433 is entitled Securing DHS Firearms Act of 2017. We learned during testimony on this bill that in a 2-year period, just over 200 firearms were stolen from people who worked for the Department of Homeland Security, or lost. At least one person was killed by these firearms. I would concur that that is unacceptable. I certainly support the bill, but having served in the United States Army as a leader of soldiers on deployment, all of whom were issued at least one weapon, I wonder if it literally requires an act of Congress to suggest that the DHS promulgate regulations to oversee the loss or theft of DHS supplied weapons. Yes, over 200 weapons is horrible. Yes, one life lost is horrible. But should there be an act of Congress? Because, as I recall, as a leader in the army while deployed overseas, we had protocol for dealing with lost weapons, with lost sensible items, and with lost COMSEC. We didn't need an act of Congress to tell us to promulgate it. While I support this bill, it began to make me wonder and then think of a Bible verse, Matthew 7:3: ``Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?'' Certainly it is unacceptable that over 200 weapons should be lost or stolen from DHS employees in a period of 2 years. But it is, quite literally, one-tenth of the scale of the weaponry that our government intentionally put into the stream of commerce to be used by those who would visit harm not only on their neighbors and family members south of our border, but right here on our own soil. So, weapons like this, to the quantity of over 200, were lost or stolen from members of DHS. Meanwhile, 7 years ago, weapons like this were put into the stream of commerce by our very government. Weapons like this took the lives of at least one person. Weapons like this, put into the stream of commerce by our very government, have taken, at the very least, 70 times as many lives. Yesterday, the Committee on Homeland Security promulgated a bill--an act of Congress--to address 200-some weapons like this that have cost at least one human life. And 7 years after Brian Terry set out on patrol that fateful night in Arizona, days before he was to fly home to Michigan to see his family for Christmas, nobody is talking about the weapons like this that our government intentionally placed into the stream of commerce, where we knew, to a metaphysical certainty, they would go to those who would do harm to their neighbors and their families and Americans. Seven years later, we have seen justice. The killers of Brian Terry have been arrested. The first man arrested for having shot Mr. Terry in the back with a military-style rifle, leaving him to bleed to death in the medical chopper that flew him out in an effort to save his life, had, I think, ironically, already been deported from this country seven times. The night that Brian Terry set out to protect not only the borders of this Nation, but the people who seek to enter it because we will not uphold our responsibility, the man who killed him was about robbing the very people who were coming here because we allowed it by not doing our jobs, and he had already been deported seven times. Now, we know that close to 70 people have died because we intentionally, as a nation, put into the stream of commerce military- style weapons. In fact, we have lost track of over 1,400 of the over 2,000 weapons that the Obama administration thought it would be a good idea to intentionally let go to Mexico. The weapon pictured next to me is a Barrett M-82 .50-caliber anti- personnel and -materiel rifle. There are Members of this body who have spoken on how this weapon should be illegal because, conceivably, it can take down an airplane. Why do I digress? Because that weapon was recovered in the hideout known to be used by the most notorious murderer in North America in the last 100 years: El Chapo Guzman. The United States Government watched while a weapon that some Members of this body would suggest can take down an airplane was trafficked to a man who is trafficked in death to the point where the next slide I show will blow any thinking person's mind. Many of the 160,000, roughly, deaths of civilians in Mexico can be traced directly back to this man. And we know, because it was recovered, that at least one of the military-style weapons that he received came from us. So, 7 years ago today, an American hero named Brian Terry, who had served as a law enforcement professional, as a marine in Iraq, and on the elite border tactical squadron, set out to protect America, but to also protect those who sought to enter it, whether legally or illegally. And, when he did so, he did so understanding fully, as those who take an oath to defend this Nation do, that some things in this world are worth standing, fighting, and dying for. And, tragically, 7 years ago tonight, Brian Terry made that sacrifice. I had no intention of standing and speaking on this today until H.R. 4433, the Securing DHS Firearms Act of 2017, came before the Homeland Security Committee yesterday, but it struck me as ironic. Not only did I serve in uniform as a combat arms officer for nearly 6 years, but I spent just under 10 years as a prosecutor, and I have a passion for a number of things, but foremost among these is justice. So while it gives my heart some condolence, I can't begin to imagine the feelings on the 7th anniversary of the family members of this American hero, knowing that, while the people who pulled the trigger have been convicted, the weapons that they used were provided to them by the very Nation that he died to protect. Mr. Speaker, with that, I would submit this: I have faith that in life or after life, there will always ultimately be justice. I will tell you this: In the case of those who, with intent, put the firearms into the hands of the individuals who took the life of this American hero, I hope that justice comes in this life and not the next. So, while we move about our business of promulgating laws to dictate to the DHS that they should have a policy to address the loss of firearms, I hope we don't take our eye off the ball of the very firearms that we intentionally trafficked, like the two that were recovered from the scene of the murder of Brian Terry, and that we will continue until we find it to seek justice for this man and act in a manner such that there are no more Brian Terry tragedies going forward. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address this Chamber and, indeed, America about the challenges that we face at this time in our country. There are many. Some exist within this Nation, some exist overseas, and some have many answers being batted around in Washington; whereas, others have nearly none. One of those challenges that has hamstrung our youngest generation is the massive, dark cloud of student loan debt. When our colleague, Senator Sanders, from the other side of the aisle addressed student loan debt during the Presidential campaign last year, he was correct in identifying a problem. The way that he chose to address it I would disagree with, as he suggested that we should provide for people something from the government. I would suggest that the people should provide for themselves. There are two schools of thought, one that the people rely on the government, and one that the government should rely on the people. So how do you address this massive black cloud of student loan debt that is handicapping our youngest and most creative generation? That is something that we have started to do today with the filing of H.R. 4584, the Student Security Act. I speak to you tonight about a brighter future, a future where individuals are empowered to make decisions for themselves and where they can escape this looming cloud of debt so they might be free to do things that we have, heretofore, perhaps taken for granted in this country, like buy a new car, like start a family, or, in the words of former Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, move out of mom and dad's basement. But the most important thing that they are not able to do because of the black cloud of debt that faces them, Mr. Speaker, I would submit, is harness the creativity and the energy that is embodied by their ideas. This is a nation of ideas, and certainly when you are encumbered with over $40,000 of loan debt per person on average, you are not able to get that small business loan, and you are not able to start that new business to put those ideas into action and create jobs. In fact, a recent poll last month indicated that the majority of millennials would sacrifice their very franchise, that is the right to vote, in exchange for relief from their student loan debt. All too often, heretofore, the words ``student debt'' in the Halls of Washington have scared up images of free college. Anyone knows--even Mr. Sanders knows--that nothing is free; someone pays. But that is no excuse to ignore the problem. Why not allow individuals the option and opportunity to pay their own debt? Over 40 million Americans--myself included--are paying back $1.3 trillion in student debt, yet we have done nothing realistic to address this problem. How do you address new problems? You must address new problems with new ideas. H.R. 4584, the Student Security Act, is just that. I will stop as an aside to take a moment to thank a young man, Elliot Harding, a recent student from Charlottesville, Virginia, who came to me with this idea: What do we do as a nation if we lose the creativity of an entire generation because of this burdensome debt? Because that is what we are on the precipice of. I contemplated it and decided that this isn't something I was able to let happen on my watch. So as a result, I was all ears as he explained the idea that became student security. It is as follows: right now we know that the Social Security plan that our seniors--indeed, my very mother--rely upon to get by on a day- to-day basis is facing an imminent bankruptcy, that solvency is in question, and that by 2034, according to most estimates, there will be no solvency. That is a problem, too. Many of you at home are wondering how I moved from student loan debt to Social Security, and that is the beauty of this idea. To empower individuals to make decisions for themselves and address these very real challenges, the Student Security Act would allow a student to write off $550 of student loan debt for every month that they were willing to voluntarily forgo a Social Security benefit. The time value of money, my friends. We have forced no one to do anything. We have in no way, shape, or form changed one scintilla of the promise that is Social Security that we have made for generations to our seniors. But at the same time, we have provided an 11 percent increase in the solvency of that program, extending the life of that promise without raising taxes and without forcing a single soul to do a single thing against their will. That would translate into $6,600 per student, per year, that they were willing to voluntarily forgo receipt of Social Security benefits. The bill would cap at a maximum of $40,150 in debt relief. This would correspond to a 6-year delay in receipt of Social Security benefits, and, again, no one would be forced to do a thing, but students who sought to remove from their lives the black cloud of student loan debt would be empowered to, at their own discretion, make this decision for themselves. As they say in the TV world: But wait; there is more. We ran this program past the Congressional Budget Office and then later past the Social Security Administration. What would the impact on Social Security be when empowering people to make decisions for themselves? And, by the way, how would we defray the costs as to people who are young now, who won't invest in Social Security until later, versus the fact they are students now? The numbers are not good; they are great. We would allow cosigners on loans this option as well, to avail their children or grandchildren of these benefits should they choose to defer receipt of Social Security benefits, again to the amount of $40,150. That would begin immediately. That would also save, according to the Social Security Administration, $700 billion, while also addressing the very real needs of American students currently hamstrung by a broken college finance system. So what do we do with the Student Security Act? We are delighted to welcome Congressman Ferguson, Congressman Brat, Congressman Rokita, and Congressman Messer. We invite our colleagues from both sides of the aisle to look at this outside-the-box, dynamic new way of addressing the solvency of Social Security and the insolvency of our youngest, most creative generation. The data indicates that we would extend the viability of the Social Security program by 11 percent of what is needed to make it wholly solvent in perpetuity. That would be the equivalent of a 0.3 percent increase in the payroll tax, but without a tax increase and without taking anything from anyone without their voluntary entry into the program. It would lift the black cloud of student loan debt to the tune of over $40,000 per person in a world where 90 percent of debtors have less than $40,000 in debt, and it would return to the coffers of this indebted Nation, by the Social Security Administration's estimates, $700,000,000,000--seven-tenths of $1 trillion. So I stand here today and ask you to ask yourselves: Do you trust people to make good decisions for other people? Do you believe that people should rely on government or that government should rely on people? Do you believe that this country can harness the ideas and the vision and the energy of what is inherently the most creative generation if we are able to free these young people from burdensome debt that stops them from engaging in key life events like buying a home and buying a car and getting married and starting a business? Do you believe that we need to think outside the box to ensure that we keep the promise that is Social Security, which has been made in this country for generations? If you, like me, believe this and are a Member, I invite you to join as a patron of H.R. 4584, regardless of your party affiliation or ideology. If you, like me, as a citizen, believe this is a good idea, I invite you to speak to your Representatives. Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity not only to change how we do business, but to empower people to empower themselves to create greater opportunity and prosperity in this country by harnessing the energy and ideas of our youngest and largest living generation and to keep the promise that we have made for generation after generation and to people like my mother that Social Security will remain reliable and solvent. Again, I invite you to join on this legislation or contact your Representative and encourage them to join. H.R. 4584, the Student Security Act, is a new way of addressing an old problem that relies on the oldest solution, and that is individuals empowered to work for themselves. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, in the realm of humanity, that which is cobbled together by humans is rarely perfect. So, too, the tax reform that we undertook today is not perfect; however, it was overdue, and it is good. Candidly, any legislation contemplated that was last addressed when I weighed 112 pounds and had a full head of hair is long overdue. Having said that, I can find some fault. And I would submit that it is with the confidence and belief in the leadership of this Chamber and the relevant committees that will discuss the maintenance of the historic preservation tax credit, which is included in the Senate version of this bill, that I cast my ballot today. I think that is a worthwhile investment in revitalizing downtrodden areas. I want to make my voice known publicly, loudly, and on the record. I also hope that Members of this body, on both sides of the aisle, would consider the opportunity for students to remove themselves from the dark cloud of student loan debt by virtue of reviewing the Student Security Act that will be unveiled here within the next 24 hours

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding. Madam Speaker, the last time this Nation passed major tax reform, yours truly weighed 112 pounds at the beginning of wrestling season. I had a full head of hair, I never set foot west of Mississippi, nor outside the United States of America. Madam Speaker, the last time this country addressed tax reform, the Soviet Union was welcoming a new leader named Mikhail Gorbachev. It has been too long. It is an honor to represent the Fifth District of Virginia because I think it is historically unique. I have spoken from this podium and this floor about the amazing characteristics of that particular historical region. Among the great individuals from the Fifth District of Virginia was a flawed man, an imperfect man, a slaveowner named Jefferson, who gave us a near-perfect document, named the ``Declaration of Independence.'' While not perfect, Jefferson had perfect insight, and, perhaps, you could argue he was prescient when it is said that he said: ``I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.'' It has been enlightening tonight to stand on this floor. If you are watching at home, I suppose that you can turn the volume down on C- SPAN, because I don't intend to yell, as so many others have before me. And I will tell you that it is funny to listen to my colleagues across the aisle who say: This is a 429-page bill. I would point out that saying the number of pages doesn't actually make the bill longer and that the Affordable Care Act, that they had us pass, so that we could find out what was in it, was 2,300 pages with over 20,000 pages of regulation. So there is a little disingenuity, at the very least, for them to lament the first real overhaul in our draconian tax structure in nearly two generations by suggesting that 429 pages is a long document, when such a hearty and robust undertaking is afoot. Madam Speaker, I would submit that the government needs the people and not the other way around. That is what makes us the United States of America. It is a clever ploy to attack the rich and the job creators, but let me point out the fact that 97.3 percent of taxes are paid by the top 50 percent of wage earners. So, therefore, when you attempt to cut taxes for working class people, someone who is in the 51st percentile will, indeed, receive a tax cut, but they are, by no means, rich. It is a clever ploy to attack corporations, because corporations don't have faces, but people do. And who do corporations provide jobs for? People. President Obama acknowledged that our corporate tax structure was among the most backward in the world, and it needed to be addressed, but he didn't address it. President Obama acknowledged that the Affordable Care Act had ``real problems,'' but no one on the other side of the aisle will address them. So, too, did President Clinton. That is two Presidents from the other side of the aisle in a row, but no one will address them. Instead, we will create fear and demagoguery and attack faceless corporations, because faceless corporations don't have faces, but people do. We need to stop destroying jobs and opportunity and prosperity through the demagoguery of class warfare, attacking corporations, without acknowledging that the very people who benefit from their existence are the people who have the opportunity to send their children to college, to make memories on a vacation, to pursue and achieve dreams, to marry the love of their life with the very incomes achieved by these corporations. Now, let's talk a little bit about corporations, because I know something about corporations, and we know something about corporations in Virginia's Fifth District. Dan River Mills stood in Danville, Virginia--a company started in 1881. It closed its doors in 2006. In 2008, the smokestacks from Dan River Mills that had been a symbol not only of the skyline of that once thriving town, but also an identifying factor in the landscape of the city, were torn down as jobs went away. Another corporation, Burlington Industries, Klopman Mills, in Pittsylvania County, hurt Virginia, and prospered from 1940 through 2007. When they left, over 1,000 jobs went with them as well. And the real estate for the property that once employed generation after generation, sending innumerable children to college, and fulfilling the humble dreams of working class Virginians, sold for a paltry $750,000. Vaughan-Bassett Furniture--and I would commend to anyone watching at home, the book ``Factory Man,'' by Beth Macy, which chronicles John Bassett, III's struggle to keep 700 furniture jobs in this country, in my district--that corporation changed people's lives and gave them jobs. Lane Manufacturing, for generations it was a tradition--in my part of the world, at least--that a young woman, prior to being married, might receive a Lane cedar chest--a hope chest. In fact, no less an iconoclast than Shirley Temple was used to peddle Lane cedar chests as something that would be an aspirational goal for a young, working class woman, as she set forth on pursuing the dreams of her life. From 1902, until just about 15 or 20 years ago, hundreds and hundreds of jobs, in Alta Vista, Campbell County, Virginia, left. Broyhill. So many companies--some still around--all shadows of their former selves, as corporate money and jobs went offshore. And why? Because we have incentivized the departure of the very means by which our families have prospered and done so in order to vilify an entity incapable of defending itself, while neglecting to understand that the beneficiaries of the opportunity created thereby were their very neighbors and those who, in their demagoguery, they said they worked to protect. Last year, in Danville, Virginia, the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, who is still there--God bless them--had a cookout for the employees of Goodyear Tire, and the family members, thereof, and anybody who had ever worked for Goodyear Tire. They thought maybe there would be 800 or 1,000 people who attended this cookout. By the time it was over with, you couldn't get a pack of hotdog buns from a Food Lion within 30 miles, because that 1,000 people became 2,000 people, and became 3,000 people, and became nearly 4,000 people. These people didn't come to eat a hotdog with Goodyear Tire. They came to eat a hotdog with their family, their friends, and their community. I stood last week at Piedmont Precision Machine Company, in Danville Pittsylvania. I looked at $1.6 million worth of new equipment that allowed this American small business to continue to compete with competitors abroad. And the rich man, who owned the company, said: Tom, I am going to have to take a loan to pay my taxes. But if you pass this bill, we will make some money, I will get more equipment, and we are going to hire some more people. So understand that people don't come to eat hot dogs with Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, they come to eat hot dogs with their family members, their community, and people who have seen generation after generation receive opportunity, by virtue of their hard work, and opportunity provided by the very entities vilified by our opponents, without acknowledging the beneficiaries of the opportunity they provide are the very ones they purport to protect. So Piedmont Precision Machine Company toils on. We work to attract more employers in Danville and Pittsylvania, and Henry County, and Martinsville area. Maybe Kyocera is going to come. We hope so. We think that if we get those jobs, we think that we might be able to move manufacturing jobs in high-tech to southside Virginia from Northern Virginia and California. But what I am hearing from the job creators is they want to see this thing get done. And when those jobs come from California, Northern Virginia, China, and India to Campbell County, Bedford County, Lunenburg County, and Mecklenburg County, it will be because we acted in a brave, bold manner, despite the divisive rhetoric that denies the reality that people benefit from opportunity, and opportunity is best provided, not by the government, but by people of initiative. Now, I have heard so much rhetoric about what you oppose if you support this tax bill, so let's see if we can't flip that shoe onto the other foot. If you oppose this bill, you oppose lowering rates for working and middle-income families, while retaining the highest rate. That doesn't sound like a tax cut for the rich to me. If you oppose this bill, you literally oppose doubling nearly the standard deduction from $6,350 to $12,000 for an individual filer; and you oppose, if you oppose this bill, doubling the standard deduction from $12,700 to $24,000 for a married couple. Why would people oppose that? Do they think the government can make better decisions with the money they earn than they can? If you oppose this bill, then you oppose simplifying the Tax Code by eliminating years of carve-out deductions made for special interests. Quite literally, a convoluted Tax Code benefits who? Tax attorneys and accountants. I suppose that the other side of the Chamber is the party that has a vested interest in keeping tax attorneys and accountants at work. I want to see people in Mecklenburg County at work. If you oppose this bill, you oppose establishing a family tax credit; you oppose raising the child credit by $600 per child; and you oppose establishing a new credit of $300 per family member so that you might be able to help your mom, dad, aunt, uncle, or a disabled relative, who you choose to help in your home. Why would people oppose that? If you oppose this bill, you oppose reducing small business taxes to the lowest rate since the Second World War. If you oppose this bill, you oppose establishing a super low nonpercent rate for small startup businesses making less than $75,000 a year in income. Why would you oppose startups? If you oppose this bill, you oppose removing incentives that drive businesses to take money and jobs overseas. Don't talk to me about that. We know something about that in Virginia's Fifth. So, finally, let me submit this: for the folks at home, who are smart enough to figure this out on their own, if you pay $100 more because a deduction is eliminated and your taxes are cut by $1,000 or more, as would be the case for a family of four making $58,000 a year, that is not a tax increase. I have never, to my knowledge, other than the United States Army, worked for anything resembling a corporate entity in my life, but I know a lot of human beings who have, and I have seen what happens when we, through our divisive rhetoric, drive them away. This isn't about corporations. This isn't about the rich. This is about human beings. I think it was succinctly summarized, if perhaps by accident, by my colleague in the other Chamber, Senator Schumer, who said: It is our research that indicates that if you pass this, some people's taxes might go up by 2023. Think hard. What that acknowledges is that between now and then, people's taxes go down. While Mr. Jefferson also said that: The fruits of the working class are safest when the assembly is not in session. I would submit that if indeed these problems exist, they should work with us to improve our Tax Code, which hasn't been touched since I literally weighed 112 pounds and had a full head of hair, and to start being part of the solution and stop being part of the problem. Again, the government depends upon Americans, not Americans upon the government.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Madam Speaker, I was unable to be in Washington, DC. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 613, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 614, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 615.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be in Washington, DC. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 607, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 608, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 609.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, Congressman Mitchell, for his leadership in this amazingly important area, and also to point out the bipartisan nature of this bill not only, Mr. Speaker, to you, but to those people who might be watching at home at a time when it seems that we can't agree on anything, here we have an agreement in a College Transparency Act in how to ensure a better investment for the futures of our children. Now, there are those who have opposed this bill, and I can't really wrap my brain around it, Mr. Speaker. Someone suggested that this might grow government. But that is absolutely not true. As a matter of fact, the data that would be made available in this act is already collected. But the problem is that that data is collected, and then it is siloed and accessible only to institutions or government entities and not to the end user. That strikes me as illogical, at best, and stupid, at worst. Someone says it burdens colleges with data collection requirements, yet, again, the data is already being collected. What about personal privacy? Does it disclose individuals' private information? Well, if it did, I wouldn't be standing here today extolling the virtues of this bill which I cosponsored and Mr. Mitchell sponsors that support it again across the aisle to include the likes of the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Polis, from Colorado. Instead of disclosing personal data of individuals, it discloses metadata of groups so what we would learn, for example, is that individuals who majored in X at college Y had an employment rate of Z, and that their earning potential was A as opposed to another university where it might be B. What more pertinent information, Mr. Speaker, could there be to young people as they seek to choose an area of study and a place to engage in that area of study than their likelihood of success based on those who have done the same thing at the same college or university before them? So we have addressed some of the things that this bill doesn't do, but let's speak briefly about what it does do. Without any ability to articulately argue, this bill increases transparency. When you step aside from the realm of national security, I can think of no reason that the Federal or State or local government should be in the business of collecting data that they don't share with the citizens who put them in office or the people who fund their endeavors. Indeed, this isn't national security, unless you contemplate the fact that right now our children attend universities deprived of information that might help them make better choices. So this increases transparency. It creates informed consumers. It allows individuals to decide for themselves which college or university might offer a program that they are interested in, is the best investment of their time, and perhaps their or their parents' or the government's money. It informs payers to that very end, whether that payer is the student, a family member, or the State of which they are a resident. It gives us a return on the investment. The fact that this data has been collected low these many years, and it took the leadership of Mr. Mitchell and good folks like Jared Polis working across the aisle to get us to this point, is lamentable, but we have the opportunity in the College Transparency Act to correct these wrongs, not to reburden our universities with more data collection requirements, but to take the data that is already being collected and give it to the end users, the students. So it is with that that I again offer a hearty congratulations to Congressman Mitchell, a begrudging ``I wish I had thought of that,'' and I implore my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that while we already collect this data, we do not disseminate it where it would be most useful, and that is to the end users. I hope that all can find a way to join us from both parties in supporting this commonsense measure, the College Transparency Act. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the president of the University of Virginia in my district. University of Virginia, Office of the President, Charlottesville, VA, June 1, 2017. Hon. Tom Garrett, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Garrett: On behalf of the University of Virginia (UVA), I thank you for your co-sponsorship of the College Transparency Act. I appreciate your support of transparency, good data, and enhanced consumer information in higher education, as well as the bipartisan efforts that led to the creation of this bill. The College Transparency Act is a step in the right direction for improving federal data, which is currently limited, and at times, inaccurate. Improving data helps students and families with the important decisions associated with choosing a college, and also helps institutions of higher education improve student success. The Association of Public and Land Grant Universities, for which I serve as the Chair of the Council of Presidents, compiled case studies showing the importance of this type of data for improving student outcomes. I look forward to working with you, in your influential position as a member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, on this issue and many others as Congress moves forward with reauthorizing the Higher Education Act. Once again, thank you for your dedicated support of UVA. Very truly yours, Teresa Sullivan, President.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I would note that institutions from the University of Virginia to the entire Virginia community college system have endorsed this commonsense piece of legislation. It is a shame we haven't done it sooner. Let us not miss the opportunity to pass this now.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, invested in developing young men of sterling character who played by the rules and exhibited good sportsmanship, the Woodberry Forest School's Head Football Coach and Athletics Director Red Caughron and his wife Cathy founded the Woodberry Forest School Sports Camp, in 1967, on the philosophy, ``that a man must build himself mentally, physically, and socially each day to be well-rounded . . . by one philosophy, the conviction that the primary value of sports is their contribution to a boy's moral and physical growth.'' Under the direction of Mr. and Mrs. Caughron and eight counselors, the first session of the Woodberry Forest School Sports Camp had forty- two campers who practiced and competed in a wide range of team sports. In the twenty-five years successive years, Mr. and Mrs. Caughron and the camp's staff developed a series of programs that instilled the value of teamwork in young men age eleven to fourteen, and provided specialized instruction in the sports in which each camper excelled at individually. Following Mr. and Mrs. Caughron's retirement from the day-to-day operations of the Woodberry Forest School Sports Camp, each of the succeeding camp directors; Richard ``Dick'' Glover; Bill and Debbie Davis; Richard Wright; Clint and Elaine Alexander; Amy Blundin, Matt Blundin, and Frazier Stowers; have worked with hundreds of camp counselors; nearly all of whom have been students, alumni, or faculty members of Woodberry Forest School to grow the program while maintaining the camp's core values. During the Woodberry Forest School Sports Camp's fifty-year history, hundreds of campers have gone on to become students and then graduates of the Woodberry Forest School, and today, I would like to pay tribute to, and show my gratitude for Red and Cathy Caughron, the Woodberry Forest School Sports Camp's directors, counselors and the thousands of campers whose lives have been enriched by the selfless dedication that Mr. and Mrs. Caughron exhibited by founding Woodberry Forest School Sports Camp, fifty years ago, this year.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel. Mr. Speaker, today, I think, represents the culmination of a series of wonderful bipartisan efforts that, while on their face to those who are not initiated may seem to deal with disparate subjects insofar as they stem from Iranian ballistic missiles to Hezbollah's use of humans as shields, are, in effect, dealing with the same subject. Mr. Speaker, one can't separate Hezbollah from Iran. In fact, Hezbollah was born only a few short years after the Iranian Revolution, which brought such heartache that the loss of life in Iran, adjusted for population, mirrors that of the entire loss of life by the United States in combat during the entire Second World War. These are innocent Iranians killed by their own government, Mr. Speaker. And we see, also, that the Hezbollah forces in Israel, Lebanon, and, indeed, around the world quite literally have continued to use human shields. My friend and colleague from California, Congressman Rohrabacher, said that Hezbollah actions had degenerated to the point where they were using human shields. While I hold Mr. Rohrabacher in great esteem, I would submit that they haven't degenerated, because that implies at some point that Hezbollah didn't engage in such reprehensible behavior. So the bipartisan actions led by Ranking Member Engel and Chairman Royce today bring us to where, indeed, we need to be by virtue of the reality of the world in which we live. Hezbollah does not exist but for the largess of Iran and the monies funneled by the Iranian regime. The Hezbollah missiles, which Member Frankel eloquently spoke of, are, indeed, Iranian missiles, and the ICBMs that Iran is developing that we seek to curtail stem from a failure to include a prohibition on ICBM development in the JCPOA under which this Congress and this administration now labor. I would note for the Record, for the Members, and for those who might be viewing at home that U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929 of 2010, which included signatures from the Russians and the Chinese, said that Iran was forbidden from engaging in missile development. The JCPOA says Iran is asked not to engage in this.