Scott Garrett

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman leading tonight's discussion on the floor. As we do so, we think about the people back at home and across this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are hurting. Americans are hurting because they are out of work, Americans are hurting because they lost jobs, they find they can't find new jobs. Families are hurting because of this. Families, Mr. Speaker, are also hurting because they are waiting for other fellow family members to be able to join them here in this country through the legal immigration process. They are patiently going through all the processes that we have set up in this country to process it, and they are hurting as they wait for their family members to join them.

As we come here to the floor today as Members of Congress, we understand that this government has to ensure that everyone plays by the rules, including this administration.

As Members of Congress, we are obligated to uphold the Constitution, and that is exactly what this House has done by defunding the President's unconstitutional actions in which he granted amnesty. Added to that, he provided working permits to over 5 million illegal immigrants, thereby creating additional problems for those Americans who are out of work and creating additional problems for those Americans who are waiting for their fellow family members to come into this country through the legal immigration process.

Mr. Speaker, the House has done its job. We have acted. We have fully funded--this is important--we have fully funded the Department of Homeland Security while at the same time undoing the damage the President's unprecedented executive amnesty is having on our Republic and, more important, on our American families.

The President's actions to grant de facto amnesty has broad-reaching consequences for many of my constituents and constituents all across the United States as well.

It is unfair. It is not only unfair, it is irresponsible to divert resources away from legal applications of those who, as I said before, are patiently waiting and going through the legal process of immigration to give it to those who have broken the law.

It is also reckless to reward those who have blatantly broken the law with work permits, allowing them to compete directly with those Americans and those American families who are hurting because they are out of work today and are finding themselves in a hard position to find work.

So because of this, Mr. Speaker, I call on our Senators who are blocking a vote on the bill: do not turn your backs on the millions of Americans who are struggling to find work, do not turn your back on those who have immigrated here legally, and do not turn your back on those who are still waiting to try to immigrate into this country legally as well.

It is time, Mr. Speaker, for the Senate to act. It is time for the Senate to end its obstruction. It is time to move this bill.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 250th anniversary of St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church, located in West Milford, New Jersey. St. Joseph's parish dates back to 1765, making it one of the oldest and longest lasting parishes in New Jersey.

As we look back on the past 250 years, we recognize that the world has changed drastically. Throughout these changes St. Joseph's church has remained a beacon of faith for their community. The parishioners of St. Joseph's Church come together every week to worship, promote faith, care for the less fortunate, and serve their local community. Their commitment to one another, and to the wider community, is exceptional.

I congratulate St. Joseph's on this impressive anniversary. It is an honor to represent the people of West Milford and to commend St. Joseph's parish for all they do as they seek to make our community a better place.

Mr. Speaker, for approximately the past six years, innocent customers of three failed broker-dealers--the securities firms of Bernie Madoff, Allan Stanford, and McGill, Smith, have been unfairly victimized time and time again despite the existence of remedial legislation enacted by Congress for the specific purpose of protecting such customers.

Initially these customers were victimized by the nefarious fraudsters, whose Ponzi schemes caused the failure of several securities firms and resulted in financial devastation for so many. Next, these customers were victimized by the Securities Investor Protection

Corporation (SIPC) and their henchmen, whose antics, behavior, and positions were the antithesis of investor protection--financial self interest and preservation clearly appeared to be their guiding mantra. Finally, when SIPC sought the Court's blessing for its wrongful conduct and breach of trust, the court's bizarre deference to SIPC and their blatant misapplication of the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) resulted in a perverted process and erroneous interpretations of SIPA, which, further victimized these customers by depriving them of the financial protections and benefits mandated by SIPA and exposed them to draconian claw-back lawsuits seeking to strip them of what few remaining assets they might still possess.

Examples abound supporting these conclusions. If someone walked into a securities firm and purchased a stock or a bond, who would believe that such a person would not be considered a ``customer'' and would be denied basic Congressionally created customer protections? Why would a customer of a failed securities house, one who had no knowledge of a Ponzi scheme operated by the broker-dealer, be subjected to costly litigation to defend the returns their account statements told them they had earned from their investments? Why would a customer of a broker-dealer receive a monthly ``account statement'', purporting to evidence their financial position at the firm, and later the parties charged with protecting the rights of those customers be allowed to disregard those statements and eliminate all stated returns in the account? And who could have ever anticipated that this same entity would elect to adopt a ``valuation'' methodology patently designed to provide the lowest values to the customers in order to maximize its own bank accounts and resources? While these results seem fanciful and far fetched, they are the realities that innocent customers of these three broker dealers have had to endure.

While the courts are charged with the responsibility of interpreting statutes, that function properly involves determining Congressional intent. If, as here, the Courts have misinterpreted that intent, it is then the role of Congress to reaffirm what it actually meant and to clarify how Congress meant to achieve the desired results. Thus the Garrett-Maloney bill is not an attempt to rewrite SIPA retroactively. Rather it is intended to reaffirm what Congress meant all along--the protection of innocent customers who have been defrauded by a dishonest broker-dealer.

When Congress reconvenes in January, we will expeditiously address these important issues--victims have been victimized for too long. Victims will receive what they are due. Victims who had no actual knowledge of the frauds will be extricated from the harassing ``claw back'' lawsuits. Much progress was made on these issues during the past two years--numerous hearings were held and support for the Garrett- Maloney bill is now robust and bipartisan. Addressing these issues, and providing appropriate remedies for the victims, will be a top priority in January, indeed an urgent one.