Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

Amendment No. 22: Page 129, after line 22, insert the

following:

``(4) Prohibition of pass-through of cost of allocations.--

The Director shall, by regulation, prohibit each enterprise

from--

``(A) treating the costs to the enterprise of making the

allocations required under paragraph (1) as a regular

business expense of the enterprise; and

``(B) redirecting such costs, through increased charges or

fees, or decreased premiums, or in any other manner, to the

originators of mortgages purchased or securitized by the

enterprise.''.

Offered By: Mr. Garrett

Amendment No. 24: Strike all after the enacting clause and

insert the following:

I am deeply disappointed that the Democratic leadership has chosen to bring up H.R. 1700, the COPS Improvement Act of 2007, under suspension. While the Committee on Judiciary reported the bill out without objection, I am concerned that the hundreds of Members not on the committee will not have any opportunity to offer any improvements to the bill.

Had I been allowed the opportunity, I would have introduced an amendment to more fairly allot grants by State. According to last year's funding statistics, small States received a disproportionate amount of funds. In fact, in some cases small States have received more funds than States more than five times their population. For instance, Alabama gets more assistance than California.

My home State, New Jersey, a densely populated State nestled between the major metropolitan centers of New York City and Philadelphia and also home to a heavily trafficked drug corridor and its own inner- cities, receives less than 2 percent of all grants.

As if this imbalance weren't bad enough, the Office Management and Budget's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) graded COPS as ``not performing: results not demonstrated.'' The bill authorizes $1.15 billion for this program next fiscal year and another $4.6 billion over the next 4 years. With so much taxpayer money at stake, and so few positive results demonstrated, why is the House missing this opportunity to fully consider how we might improve a program that is failing despite its good intentions?

The people of New Jersey watch a disproportionate share of their Federal taxes go to Washington to carry out this unproven program in other States. And for these reasons, I regret that I simply could not support this bill on the floor today.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend Frank Leone on the occasion of his 80th birthday for his extraordinary public service.

Frank Leone's service to his country, his community, and his neighbors dates back to World War II when he was drafted into the U.S. Navy. He served as a flight deck crewman on the aircraft carrier USS Kearsarge, a ship his father had helped to build during the war. He remains an active member of the Oakland American Legion and Franklin Lakes VFW.

In 1954, Frank Leone moved to Oakland and became an active part of that Bergen County community. He ran for mayor in 1960 and was elected to the Borough Council in 1963. He served as the president of the Chamber of Commerce for 12 years. Frank Leone also served as Civil Defense Director and Emergency Management Coordinator. His long record of extraordinary service to his community was honored in 2001 as the Grand Marshal of Oakland's Memorial Day Parade.

In 1965, President Lyndon Baines Johnson appointed Frank Leone as Oakland Postmaster. Today, he is the last active postmaster in the Nation appointed by the President of the United States. He has served in various State and national offices of the National Association of Postmasters.

Frank Leone is a shining example of citizenship and dedication to your community. It is an honor to share in the celebration of his 80th birthday.

Madam Speaker, I rise to praise some of the most under-valued public servants in our society: American nurses. They are ever-present at every stage of our lives--at our birth, through childhood illnesses and adult traumas, and in our final days. Yet, while people remember the doctor who delivered their children or cared for their aging parents, they rarely remember the friendly, caring individuals who stayed by their side while busy doctors made rounds.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, registered nurses constitute the largest segment of the health care workforce, with more than 2.4 million jobs in 2006. And, they are projected to create the second largest number of new jobs amongst all occupations. Yet, the demand for nurses is far outstripping the supply and many parts of the Nation--from the most urban inner city to the most remote rural community--are experiencing extraordinary nursing shortages.

Nursing is a noble profession, but one which is too often upstaged by other health care professionals and too often given little credit for the enormous role played in sustaining the high quality of American health care. As we celebrate National Nurses Week this week, let us all take a moment to thank the nurses in our hospitals and doctors' offices, nursing homes and hospices, and all throughout our communities for all their tremendous service.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed in today's rule that barred the House from considering a common-sense amendment that I brought to the committee.

The text of my amendment was substantially from H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2005, which passed the House by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority in the 109th Congress.

One of the 9/11 Commission's primary recommendations was to ensure that all federal government grants for homeland security be allotted by risk and need. To this day, however, nearly 40 percent of all grants are handed out merely by virtue of their location. The House has time and time again passed legislation to streamline the grant process and reduce the mandatory minimum percentage given to each state.

While the House did pass such language in H.R. 1, the Senate had yet to take up this legislation. Until the President signs into law legislation correcting this oversight, we should not pass up an opportunity to make our nation more secure. But that is what the Democrats are doing today. We must reiterate this critical policy change at each and every opportunity.

The constituents of the fifth district of New Jersey know too well the repercussions of failing to provide for strong homeland security. Many of them lost loved ones on 9/11 and they expect our country to prepare for any such future disaster. As long as grants continue to go to low-priority wasteful projects, our most at-risk citizens will be vulnerable.

Madam Speaker, today is an historic day for the people of Northern Ireland. A day that has been years in the making and which heralds a new era of peace. Today in Belfast, parliament opened with the swearing in of Unionist and Sinn Fein members side-by-side.

I congratulate Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness on their new roles as first minister and deputy first minister of the assembly. Today is proof that despite decades of violence, two previously bitter enemies can sit down and work through their differences peacefully through representative government.

Nine years ago, the Good Friday Agreement envisioned this day. The work to cement that achievement has been difficult but it has been accomplished through negotiation and compromise.

Certainly, today is not the end of disagreement, but it is the beginning of settling things politically and not militarily. Today is possible because both sides have recognized that violence is not productive, that killing benefits neither side. The children of Northern Ireland can now grow up in a country where hate is not a virtue.

What the people of Northern Ireland have accomplished today is an example for areas around the world suffering with internal conflict. A people who were once at war with one another have freely elected leaders who will work to solve problems peacefully.

Again, I congratulate the people of Northern Ireland on this historic occasion. It is a day to remember and in which they should take pride.

Mr. Speaker, despite the hopes of the other side of the aisle, the constituents in my district are pretty smart people. When they were paying a little over $2 a gallon for gasoline a year or so ago and now they're paying upwards of $3 per gallon, they know that's an increase out of their pocket. Likewise, when it comes to taxes, when they see that they are paying so much for their taxes now on the Federal level now, and after this package goes through on the other side of the aisle, they will be paying upwards to $3,000 or more. They know, they're smart enough to realize that's a tax increase as well.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have to look to outside nonpartisan groups they call them, really nonpartisan liberal think tanks I think is the best term, for those think tanks to say that these are not tax increases when they really are. When your taxes go up from this year to the next year to the next year, that is a tax increase.

They talk about the budget planning process and say, don't worry, it only comes at the end of the budget. Well, you know, regular families plan during the entire budget. If you have a weekly budget for your food allotment, you want to make sure you have food at the end of the week. If you're doing a monthly budget, you plan the entire month. If you have a yearly budget or a 5-year budget as this is, you do it in the entire 5 years. And under the Democrats' budget, your taxes during the course of that time will go up. In New Jersey, you're looking at a $3,000 or more tax increase.

When it comes to Social Security, my constituents are also very smart and loud when they say, ``Keep your hands off of my Social Security.'' The Republican plan does that. The Republican plan stops the raid on Social Security, and it does so without a tax increase.

Now, there is some rumor I am hearing by some Democrats on the other side of the aisle that they may support our motion to recommit. But mind you, mark my words, if they support this motion to recommit, it will be as disingenuous as their support and their comments and other things they have done in the past this year. When they said that they were going to curtail spending, what did they actually do? They increased spending by over 11 percent in this budget. When they said they weren't going to raise your taxes, what did they do? They increased your taxes by $392 billion. And when they said that they were going to solve the AMT problem, what did they do? They did not solve it at all.

Support this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Because you referred to my comments.

When you said that you planned this in the budget, are your comments referring to reserve accounts?

If the gentleman will yield.

I understand what you're saying, the first part, that those are the heart-felt policy statements of your budget. But are you referring then to the other side of the equation, to the reserve accounts that are spoken of in the budget as far as, I will use the term, for paying for those?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 291, honoring those brave officers who have paid the ultimate price in the line of duty.

May 15th marks the 44th annual Peace Officers' Memorial Day and to mark the occasion, law enforcement officers from around the Nation will gather here in Washington, D.C. This visit will include a gathering here on the Capitol lawn to pay their respects to their fallen comrades.

All of these officers--both those who have passed and those who carry on today--deserve our gratitude and our respect, But, during this time of remembrance, I would like to especially recognize those 72 brave officers who were lost on September 11, 2001, the single deadliest day in law enforcement history. Thirty-seven of those lost were officers of the New York/New Jersey Port Authority and we are eternally indebted to them for their bravery and sacrifice on that tragic day. The memory of their service and the sacrifice their families have made on our behalf should be always in our thoughts.

In our great Nation, there are 870,000 sworn law enforcement officers who risk their lives daily to ensure the safety of their neighbors. Every 53 hours one of these officers is killed in the line of duty. It is in their memory that we gather each May to pay our respects to the fallen and to honor this noble profession.

Many thanks go to the law enforcement officers in New Jersey, here at the United States Capitol, and around the United States. We thank you for your service and join you in honoring your fallen comrades.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Just a couple of points and then I will yield.

I agree with the gentleman that in some respects, perhaps, this body should not be engaged in micromanaging various aspects of the Federal Government where we do not have expertise.

Earlier today, and in just the past week, we had a complete debate on that subject of whether this body, all 535 Members, were in appropriate position to micromanage the war, and I think some of us thought that we were not in the best position but that we should have, just as you are suggesting here, the trained professionals, the experts, the people on the field who are engaged in this activity on a daily basis make those decisions.

So I would agree with the gentleman there. And if we were to have consistency, then we should not be engaged in that matter and we should not be engaged in this case.

Let me make my second point and that is this: It is not incumbent upon the gentleman from California to be the expert in these areas that he is raising questions about. The underlying bill is not the gentleman from California's bill. It is the majority party's bill. It is your bill. You are coming to the floor making the case, or I should say the other side of the aisle, as I am speaking to the Chair, making the case that we should be spending all this money on these programs. So it is incumbent upon the offerer of the underlying legislation to make the case why we should be doing it and have the information why each one of these is justified so that when either the gentleman from California or Georgia raises the legitimate question, the same question that we are going to get when we go back to our constituents and are asked why did we vote on it, he should be making the justification for that.

With that, I will yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I, too, echo the words of my colleagues who are in support of the overall funding of the National Science Foundation, and I offer this amendment to H.R. 1867, which I hope will provide incentives for the NSF to identify waste and any abuse within the Agency, but also, very importantly, to help identify those programs which are either underperforming or simply just not working.

I believe this legislation will help be a model of fiscal responsibility. It is similar to the legislation we just heard from in two respects. H.R. 1867 authorizes the National Science Foundation to increase their spending, which goes to the point of the gentleman from Michigan was saying before, by 7 percent, and again in 2009 and 2010.

The point we must make here, though, is inflation has remained constant during this same time period at around 3 percent. So when we purport to be so concerned about the taxpayers' dollars and the debt we are leaving our children, which I just heard from the gentleman from the other side of the aisle previously, how can we justify programmic increases for research that are actually more than twice the rate of inflation?

As I referenced before, when I go back to my constituents back at home in town hall meetings and the like, they are not seeing 7 percent increases in their wages and salaries. They are not seeing a doubling of their incomes and their family household incomes. They may be seeing that as far as their expenses are concerned. They are seeing all other sorts of increases in spending, such as gasoline prices and the like that they have to put up with, but they are not seeing the increases in income and expenditures that we are seeing in this bill.

I will comment on one comment that the gentleman from the other side of the aisle made before as far as being consistent. I think we heard the American public on this past election day. The American public is concerned about overspending by Congress. They want us to prioritize where our dollars go. They want to make sure that we are spending every dime efficiently and appropriately.

I have yet, however, to hear one suggestion from the other side of the aisle, either here on the floor or on the Budget Committee, on which I serve with some of the gentleman on the other side of the aisle, as to where we with can make some of those cuts. Instead, what we are seeing is a continual increase in spending.

Another point to make as well: Time after time our constituents come to our office quoting the discrepancy between authorization levels and appropriation levels. It is my hope that instead of having to disappoint them once again, that we set realistic authorization levels that may actually be realistic to the appropriation levels that come down the line. Let's be realistic, both on what we can do for our constituents and also what the appropriators may be doing with this bill later on.

I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, because it is our duty simply as stewards of our constituents' money, the taxpayers' dollars, as we step forward to make an honest assessment of what we can afford and should afford the American taxpayer.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the other side of the aisle has mischaracterized what this amendment does when they speak of cuts and pullbacks from science and the Foundation. Nothing of the kind is in this amendment. Instead, we will still be increasing spending this year and next year and next year and next year up to $20.87 billion for these appropriated expenditures on the National Science Foundation, instead of $20.97 billion.

I am very much concerned about education and science and our research. Let me just add, I am also concerned about the education of our youth. My constituents are just as concerned about educating their kids and being able to afford to send their kids to college and how do they pay for that? My constituents are concerned about the health care and the medical expenditures for their families and how do they pay for that? My constituents are concerned about the housing for their family and loved ones, and how do they pay for that?

They are not seeing a 7 percent increase in their wages and salaries, even though each and every one of those things are just as vitally important to them as it is that we spend money on overall Science Foundation research in the United States of America.

This amendment would not cut spending by a dime. This amendment would simply limit the growth rate from 7 percent down to 6.5 percent. The last amendment was seeing it go down from 7 percent to 6 percent. This would be even less, from 7 to 6.5 percent. You would still be seeing a growth year after year after year. The NSF would still be allowed to expend their dollars on those critical areas that my friend from Georgia and the Members on the other side of the aisle are so concerned about for the betterment of this country.

I would implore the Members on the other side of the aisle that if we are to be consistent when we talk about the overall spending and revenue side for this Congress, that we stop doing what the other side of the aisle has done. They have only looked at the revenue side of the equation so far in the last 3 or 4 months, giving us the largest tax increase in America's history on the other hand, but have done absolutely nothing for the American public when it says how are we going to set priorities for the American public and what we spend money on, and how are we going to try to rein in spending for the American public as well. I think we need to do it on both sides.

Finally, regarding what the gentleman from Michigan said, I agree with him. If we can do it across the board for all of the other programs, I am right in line with him, and I support him on that endeavor as well. Let's start here, and I will be the first one to cosponsor any of his amendments to do likewise, decreasing the overall increases of spending that this government has.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, just beginning where the last comment on the last bill ended up, I appreciate the gentleman pointing out that this side did support a doubling of the NSF, and I was probably one of those who was there to support the increase; so no one, I think, can take the position that we are not uniformly as a body or as a party opposed to the general notion of increasing, making significant increases to applied research or general research, I should say, by the NSF.

What we can ask, though, is after the last election, has the American voter spoken with regard to the overall growth in Federal spending in all areas, whether it is in science and health care, whether it is in the war, for veterans or other areas; should we not look at each one individually and decide some should go up, some should remain the same, and some should go up at a slightly different way? That is what we are suggesting in the last amendment, simply that they should go up at a slightly different arc than they are in the underlying bill, 6.5 percent instead of 7 percent.

In the amendment before us right now, we look to see what is the underlying mission of the NSF. If we look at their mission statement, we see it is: ``To promote the progress of science, advance the national health, prosperity and welfare and secure the national defense.''

But during these tough fiscal times, both at the Federal level and at the family level, as I pointed out before, Congress must exercise good stewardship over every penny of taxpayers' dollars. This includes helping the NSF to focus on its priority projects.

Just as the gentleman from Georgia indicated, he has been visited by a number of people from various groups dealing with health issues, so have I; people with serious health issues like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and diabetes. They come and ask what are we doing and how are we prioritizing for their concerns within the NSF.

The amendment before you simply says can we find more than a quarter million dollars to fund research on such programs as reproductive aging symptoms of midlife Bangladeshi immigrants, but not more funding for research projects which might bring progress and eventually cures for some of the serious illnesses we have already heard about on the floor?

In addition, how can we justify research like the diet and social stratification of ancient cultures when here at home current medical research is so desperately needed?

Now, I understand that the point has been already made that we do not specifically itemize in the authorization bills each one of these specific programs, but these are, as the gentleman knows, programs which have already been authorized in the past and are continuing under the law right now into 2007 and 2008.

So doesn't it behoove us here in Congress to make a statement, to make a stand and say that at least in several of these areas we can make a position that our limited dollars should not be going to those areas, but instead we would make the position that they should be going for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes and cancer research and some other areas that we have previously spoken about?

So I encourage my colleagues, do not only exercise good stewardship over the taxpayers' dollars, but in essence to also ensure that worthy projects receive the funding they deserve within that noble mission that I set forth at the beginning, ``To promote the progress of science, advance the national health, prosperity and welfare and secure the national defense.''

Mr. Chairman, again, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman is a doctor and I am not going to ask him for his medical expertise because, as you say, that is not our role here to delve into these things but to simply raise the questions.

I will tell you this, that when I come back to my constituents and they tell me about their health concerns, whether it is menopause or cancer or otherwise, their first concern is how are they going to address their own health needs, how are they going to address their health care costs and what are we doing here about it. Their second question is what research are we doing here at home for these areas.

The study that you reference, reproductive aging and symptoms experienced at midlife among Bangladeshi immigrants, sedentees, and white London neighbors does not, of course, as the gentleman knows, look to those issues here at home, but rather elsewhere.

My constituents will raise the question, is that the first priority or should that be the first priority of the NSF. I am not an expert, I am not a doctor like the gentleman, so I cannot suggest that that is the most important one, but my constituents will certainly raise that question for me, and my constituents will certainly be consistent, as the gentleman from Georgia says, and that we should make sure that those dollars are spent here on their own health concerns first.

Offered By: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

Amendment No. 10: At the end of section 3, add the

following new subsection:

(h) Limitation.--None of the funds authorized under this

section may be used for research related to--

(1) the reproductive aging and symptom experience at

midlife among Bangladeshi Immigrants, Sedentees, and White

London Neighbors; and

(2) the diet and social stratification in ancient Puerto

Rico.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend two outstanding public servants who have dedicated themselves to the people of the State of New Jersey through their work with the New Jersey State Law Enforcement Officers Association.

Debbie Ferroni has been working with the Association since 1989 as its Executive Administrator. Jerry Leavy, the Association's President, says that he's not embarrassed to

say that though he is the President, it's Debbie that does all the work. In 1994, Debbie was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. Several times during her battle with this debilitating disease, Debbie has had to be hospitalized or homebound. Each time, she has demanded her work be brought to her home and she always showed more concern for the men and women the Association serves than for her own health.

Robert Criss has been a part of the Association since 1991. He retired as a Captain from the Highland Park Police Department in 1999. His first-hand knowledge of the needs of the law enforcement officers the Association serves has made him an invaluable volunteer. And, by all accounts, Bob Criss volunteers ``excessive amounts of time'' to this work, perhaps most importantly as the Chair of the Youth and Child Identification program.

The New Jersey State Law Enforcement Officers Association will be seventy years old next year. Its members serve the people of New Jersey as Federal, State, county, and municipal law enforcement officers, special police, and auxiliaries. It is the outstanding commitment of people like Debbie Ferroni and Bob Criss that allows the Association to serve these brave officers so well.

As it does each year, this past weekend, the Association honored several of its members for their valor and bravery in the line of duty. I join the Association in the pride they show for these officers and I am proud to honor Debbie and Bob for their sense of duty as well.

Madam Speaker, I rise to commend the community of Glen Rock for joining together to fight underage drinking, which, according to the National Institutes of Health, results in the deaths of approximately 5,000 people under the age of 21 each year.

Many Glen Rock high school students face a destructive rite of passage called the Keg Race. The Class of 2007 is expected to consume 107 kegs of beer before graduation day in June. While no one has yet died as a result of this under-culture of house parties and drinking, the community has come together to try to put an end to this practice before some irreversible damage is done.

Regrettably, this is not a problem isolated to the community of Glen Rock. A 2003 study by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism noted that by the time they have reached the eighth grade, nearly half of all adolescents have had at least one drink and more than one in five reports having been ``drunk.'' About a third of all high school seniors report engaging in binge drinking--that is, having at least five or more drinks in a single occasion--within two weeks of being asked as part of the report.

Elected leaders, spiritual leaders, and parents are joining together to form a web of support for each other and for community young people to help break this cycle of underage drinking in Glen Rock. And, I commend their efforts and hope other communities will follow their lead.

Madam Speaker, I am encouraged by the continued development of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education programs in the United States as we seek to stay competitive at the global level. While H.R. 362 and 363 attempt to boost these endeavors, we have to examine at what cost and whether

that cost is commensurate with what they accomplish. H.R. 363 alone would cost $1.25 billion over 5 years and H.R. 362 represents an expenditure of $1.5 billion over 5 years.

Oddly, these duplicative bills seek to establish programs that are already in existence and expand others that have yet to show a return on their original investment. As outlined by the Statement of Administrative Policy, ``the Academic Competitiveness Council has identified 105 existing STEM education programs spending over $3 billion annually, including 45 programs that support training of STEM teachers, and found that very few of these programs demonstrated evidence-based effectiveness.''

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to pour more money into programs that are simply not working. I have continued to support successful legislation like loan forgiveness for science and math teachers to encourage development in this field. I also encourage individual states to look into programs like that in New Jersey's Core Curriculum Content standards, which I was proud to work on in the New Jersey Assembly. Under this program, students are taught the highest level of math and science while also providing development of pre- engineering and design and equipping students with modern computer literacy.

Out of a sense of responsibility to our Nation's next generation, I could not in good conscience support these expensive, bureaucracy-laden bills. I will continue to support measures that are proven to work while upholding states' Constitutional right to design STEM programs which work well for them and their students.