WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Scott Garrett (NJ-05), Chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, today voted for a number of bills before the Financial Services Committee to preserve the ability of American families to access credit and invest for their future:
“Around dinner tables throughout the country, middle and lower income American families discuss their retirement savings as they plan for the future. Unfortunately, many provisions of Dodd-Frank and proposed rules by the Obama Administration are putting more government, more red tape, and more bureaucracy between these people and their financial goals. Today our committee passed a number of bills—many with bipartisan support—to ensure that everyone can access credit, get good financial advice, and invest for retirement.”
The House Financial Services Committee passed the following bills today:
H.R. 414, the “Burdensome Data Collection Relief Act”
H.R. 957, the “Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection-Inspector General Reform Act of 2015”
H.R. 1090, the “Retail Investor Protection Act”
H.R. 1266, the “Financial Product Safety Commission Act of 2015”
H.R. 2769, the “Risk-Based Capital Study Act of 2015”
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Scott Garrett (NJ-05), a senior member of the House Budget Committee, issued the following statement after opposing the Continuing Resolution:
“Continuing Resolution is Washington, D.C. language for a bloated spending bill full of the same failed policies, blown budgets, and extraneous expenses that are burying our children and grandchildren in mountains of debt. Hardworking New Jersey families are sick of business as usual in Washington, and I refuse to vote for more government spending while our national debt is quickly approaching $20 trillion and crippling economic recovery.”
WATCH: Rep. Scott Garrett honors Staff Sergeant Joseph D’Augustine
before a vote to re-name the Waldwick Post Office after the fallen Marine.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House of Representatives today unanimously passed legislation to re-name the United States Post Office building located at 1 Walter Hammond Place in Waldwick, NJ the “Staff Sergeant Joseph D’Augustine Post Office Building” in honor of the fallen Marine. Having passed the House and Senate, the legislation will now go to President Obama for his signature.
“To protect our freedom, our liberty, and our way of life, a brave few answer the call of duty and stand between the United States and those who wish to do us harm. I’m privileged to honor one of those individuals here today,” said Garrett. “While nothing will ever heal the loss of Staff Sergeant D’Augustine, today’s vote will ensure that the residents of Waldwick will always remember the ultimate sacrifice made by one of their native sons.”
Staff Sergeant Joseph D’Augustine was killed in action in the Helmand province of Afghanistan on March 27, 2012. D’Augustine, a 2001 Waldwick High School graduate, was assigned to the 8th Engineer Support Battalion of the 2nd Marine Logistics Group out of Camp Lejune and was a specialist trained to dismantle bombs and land mines. D’Augustine was on his fourth tour of duty overseas and his second in Afghanistan.
Garrett introduced legislation to re-name the post office in 2012 during the 112th Congress, again in 2013 during the 113th Congress, and earlier this year during the 114th Congress. All Members of the New Jersey Congressional Delegation are cosponsors of Garrett’s bill.
On September 17, 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention completed their arduous work and signed the document designed to restore liberty to the citizens of a new nation. Though Constitution Day should be a cause for celebration for what the American people have accomplished, this year it served as a reminder of what can be lost when the Constitution is cast aside.
The Iran deal that is about to be implemented has the approval of the president but has circumvented the Constitution’s treaty clause. As a result, the American people have been delivered a bad deal that calls into question the security of the United States, Israel and the global community.
Fearing that a poorly negotiated treaty could threaten American national security, the drafters of the Constitution decided to share the treaty power amongst the executive and legislative branches. The Constitution states that “The President ... shall have power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of Senators present concur...” The Founders determined that to avoid being taken advantage of by foreign powers and deter threats to the Union, a super majority of the Senate would be required to ratify treaties.
Though diplomacy was thought to be an executive function, proper scrutiny of treaties was required to avoid committing the United States to a bad deal. In fact, Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist 75 that Congress has a duty to verify what the president has agreed to in the name of the American people. And James Wilson stated, “neither the President nor the Senate, solely can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people.”
However with the Iran nuclear deal, the so-called Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 was signed into law and required a two-thirds majority to block the administration’s treaty. I opposed this framework because it turned the Senate’s ratification power on its head. In other words, the framework placed great trust with the president to negotiate an effective deal, without verification.
As a member of the Iran Sanctions Conference Committee in 2010, I have long supported strict sanctions against the dangerous totalitarian Iranian regime. The sanctions implemented by Congress were designed to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions and force a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The sanctions were working; Iran had an inflation rate of 35 percent, the value of its currency was failing, its oil exports and trade revenues were plummeting, and its monetary reserves were dwindling. Having no other choice, Iran came to the negotiating table.
Yet, the American people were delivered a bad deal.
They were delivered a deal that does not require the destruction of Iranian uranium enrichment machines.
They were delivered a deal that does not allow for anytime, anywhere inspections and allows Iran to object to delay inspections for as long as 24 days.
They were delivered a deal that allows Iran to pursue the capability to develop weapons grade nuclear material.
They were delivered a deal that rewards Iran by allowing it to gain access to the global financial system and receive $100 billion in unfrozen assets.
And that is just what is known. The Obama administration, in violation of federal law, has refused to produce all documents related to the side deals that establish how the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will verify that Iran lives up to its end of the bargain. While Congress is in the dark about the specifics of these side deals, Congress is well aware of Iran’s history to cheat and evade nuclear inspections. Congress is also aware of Iran’s history holding Americans hostage, crushing the Green Revolution, and calling for the destruction of the United States and Israel.
The past 228 years of American history serve as a testament to the wisdom, effectiveness and durability of our great charter. The Founders foresaw the danger of centralizing power, and the recent Iran deal is a manifestation of their worst national security fears. If the president’s signature had not been the end of negotiations but a precursor to close Senate scrutiny, we may have ended up with a deal that holds Iran accountable and destroys its ability to threaten the U.S. and her allies.
Rep. Scott Garrett, R-5th Dist., of Wantage, represents portions of Sussex, Warren, Bergen and Passaic counties. He is the chairman of the Congressional Constitution Caucus.Read More
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Scott Garrett (NJ-05), Chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, today introduced H.R. 3557, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) Transparency and Accountability Act, to bring much-needed transparency and accountability to the FSOC.
“The Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) is one of the most notorious examples of the kind of secretive and unaccountable government bodies that could only be a creation of Washington, D.C. The Dodd-Frank Act vested the FSOC with the authority to designate nonbank financial institutions as “too big to fail,” essentially giving them unprecedented authority over an entire sector of the U.S. economy without adequate checks and balances.
“The Council continues to hold closed-door meetings, refuses to publish substantive transcripts, and stonewalls requests from the people’s representatives when we need more information about its operations. No agency should be allowed to operate above the law in this way, and my bill will shed some much-needed light on this shadowy government body.”
Garrett’s legislation would:
A previous version of the legislation passed the House Financial Services Committee in June, 2014.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Scott Garrett (NJ-05), Chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, issued the following statement as the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) begins their September meeting:
“As the ridiculous amount of attention on this week’s FOMC meeting proves, the performance of our economy and the financial markets is increasingly dependent on a group of unelected bureaucrats at the Federal Reserve. Chair Yellen and her predecessors claim that the Fed’s monetary policy decisions are based upon objective criteria, yet traders, lenders, economists, and other market participants anxiously wait to probe and dissect every word in the FOMC statement.
“There is a problem when more Americans are looking to a secret Fed meeting for economic indicators than the actual financial markets. We need to scale back the undue influence that the Federal Reserve and other central bankers have on our economy by following what has worked in the past: a rules-based monetary policy that fosters greater certainty and leads to longer periods of sustained economic growth.”
Garrett Speech on Federal Reserve Policy at American Principles Project’s Jackson Hole Summit
Reps. Garrett, Capuano Introduce Bill to Limit Fed’s Bailout Authority
Garrett: Today's Hearing Again Proves Fed's Lack of Transparency
H.R. 113, The Federal Reserve Accountability and Transparency Act of 2015
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Scott Garrett (NJ-05) issued the following statement after voting against the nuclear arms deal with Iran:
“Today I voted against this terrible Iran nuclear deal. If enacted, this deal will give Iran sanctions relief and a path to obtaining a nuclear weapon while jeopardizing the security of the United States and its allies. It will allow Iran to generate weapons grade nuclear materials in 15 years, possess intercontinental ballistic missiles in eight years, and receive a multi-billion dollar financial windfall in sanctions relief to fund their nuclear program.
“As a member of the special committee that implemented sanctions on Iran, I understand the severity of this situation. The Obama Administration failed the American people, it failed our allies around the world, and it failed future generations that will live in a more dangerous world with a nuclear-armed Iran. This fight isn’t over. I will continue to do everything in my power to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of known terrorists.”
By Rep. Scott Garrett
President Obama repeatedly told the American people that no deal with Iran is better than a bad deal. Despite that promise, this week the House will be voting on the president’s deal that will give Iran sanctions relief while jeopardizing the security of the United States and its allies. I will be voting “no.”
This deal will not make the world a safer place; it will start a countdown until Iran has nuclear weapons.
To be clear, Iran is one of only three countries in the world that is considered a sponsor of terrorism by the U.S. Department of State. Their repeated call for the destruction of the United States, Israel, and our way of life has been consistent for decades. Iran cannot be allowed to continue any nuclear proliferation despite their claims it is only for peaceful purposes. In no way does this totalitarian regime deserve our trust or the financial windfall they are about to receive if this deal is implemented. The primary goal of negotiating a deal with Iran should have been ending their nuclear program once and for all.
As a member of the special committee that implemented sanctions on Iran, I understand the severity of this situation. The sanctions that are being lifted with this deal were designed to be a non-violent tool to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions and force a peaceful resolution.
In short, the sanctions were working. They crippled Iran’s economy and forced them to come to the negotiating table. President Obama had the necessary leverage to achieve his stated goal, and he should have sought a peaceful nonproliferation treaty. Instead of using the tools at his disposal, the president has come to Congress and the American people with a flawed and dangerous deal.
When critics decry the deal, President Obama argues that this is the only alternative to war. This simply is not true. If the United States walked away from negotiations—as the president promised he would be willing to do—the sanctions would stay firmly in place, leaving Iran more desperate than ever to compromise. Instead, desperate to come to a deal, the administration agreed to terms that gave Iran everything they wanted and more.
In addition to hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctions relief, Iran will be able to generate weapons-grade nuclear materials in 15 years and obtain intercontinental ballistic missiles in just eight years. They will be able to do this essentially uninterrupted because Iran can object to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and dispute the inspections in front of a resolution panel—a process that can take up to 24 days.
Additionally, the existence of side deals confirmed by the administration in late July between the IAEA and Iran is extremely concerning. These side deals have not been submitted to Congress and therefore have not been properly vetted and reviewed. Congress must have full access to all these documents as they may include vital components to the overall deal. And finally, Iran is not required to fully dismantle existing bomb-making technology. Rather, they are allowed to continue their enrichment capabilities.
This deal also requests that the United States and the other negotiating nations help develop, modernize and protect Iran’s nuclear program. This is unacceptable. These measures include cooperating with Iran to modernize reactors, acquire fuel, exchange technology, and assist with additional research. I recently introduced a bill that would ensure that no U.S. resources—including military assistance—will be used to help Iran’s nuclear program.
Supporting this deal would mean putting trust in an Iranian regime that has repeatedly called for the destruction of the United States and its allies. It would mean further destabilizing an increasingly volatile Middle East region. And it would mean—on the anniversary of the most horrific terrorist attack in our country’s history—empowering the largest state sponsor of terrorism.
This deal fails the American people, it fails our allies around the world, and it fails future generations that will live in a more dangerous world because of a nuclear-armed Iran. This fight isn’t over. I will continue to do everything in my power to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of this tyrannical regime.
Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) represents New Jersey’s 5th congressional district in the United States House of Representatives, encompassing portions of northern and western New Jersey, including Bergen County.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Scott Garrett (NJ-05), Chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, delivered the following opening remarks at a Joint Oversight & Investigations/Capital Markets Subcommittee hearing entitled “Preserving Retirement Security and Investment Choices for All Americans”:
Congressman Scott Garrett’s opening remarks as prepared for delivery:
JACKSON HOLE, WY – Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, delivered a speech on the role of the Federal Reserve and the need for reform of the central bank at the American Principles Project’s Jackson Hole Summit:
Key Points from the Speech:
Full remarks as prepared for delivery:
Thank you, Steve (Lonegan) for that kind introduction and for the opportunity to participate today. When my staff told me that I had been invited to Jackson Hole in late August to talk about the Federal Reserve, I thought: “Wow, how nice of Janet Yellen to invite me to their annual symposium – she must really like what I have been saying about the Fed!” Needless to say, I wasn’t terribly surprised when I found out that indeed I had not been invited to the Federal Reserve’s annual event, but instead had been invited to this great summit, which is producing way more good ideas than that central banker cocktail party happening on the other side of town. So I want to thank the American Principles Project, and in particular my friend Steve Lonegan, for this great event that will put forth constructive ideas on how we can fix a broken system and hopefully move the ball forward with much-needed reform of the Federal Reserve system.
Fed is broken and needs reform
We’ve heard a lot of great commentary so far today about how the Federal Reserve has gone off the rails. As a member of the Financial Services Committee and someone who has sat through countless hearings with Fed officials, I continue to be extremely frustrated not just by the missteps – and there have been many – that the Fed has taken in recent years, but more importantly by the Fed’s complete lack of accountability to the American people.
This is particularly disturbing when you consider that by any measure, the Fed is a far more powerful central bank and regulator than it was before the financial crisis of 2008. With the passage of the 2,300 page Dodd-Frank Act, the Fed was granted an unprecedented amount of new authority; unfortunately there has not been a corresponding increase in accountability and transparency at the Fed.
From my point of view, the Federal Reserve’s most serious issues can be defined in three distinct ways:
Issue #1 – Lack of a Rules-Based Monetary Policy
A common theme that I will talk about today is the lack of transparency at the Federal Reserve, an issue that has existed for some time with regards to the monetary policy decisions made by the Federal Open Market Committee (“FOMC”). Since the Fed began unconventional measures during the financial crisis to stabilize the financial system, it has maintained a zero-interest-rate-policy, its balance sheet has ballooned to $4.5 trillion, and it has bought assets – such as mortgage backed securities guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – that it historically has not purchased. Chair Yellen – and her predecessor Chairman Bernanke – have consistently claimed that monetary policy decisions made by the Fed are “data dependent” and thus based upon objective criteria.
But what data is she referring to? Nobody quite knows the answer to that. If the Fed truly made its decisions based off of easily discernible data, why do traders, lenders, economists, and other market participants probe and dissect every word that comes out in an FOMC statement? Why do people still glue themselves to their television screens at 2pm on the day of an FOMC meeting to see what it is the Fed has decided? The reason is that there are no objective or transparent data metrics that the Fed uses in order to make these decisions, and no amount of press conferences by the Chair can change the fact that monetary policy is whatever the members of the FOMC say it is.
Imagine if a bank overseen by the Fed operated in such a manner – what do you think the Fed would do if a bank told them that they couldn’t see the calculations they use in the mortgage underwriting process, but promised the Fed that they existed? The Fed would fine them, penalize them, maybe even send out a nice press release about how they’re cracking down on the banks. But the Fed continues to get away with a rudderless monetary policy that has gotten us to the unsustainable point we are at today
So how do we fix this? How do we provide more certainty to the market regarding FOMC decisions, and thus give people some kind of idea for what to base their economic decisions off of?
Here, we have a bit of history that we can look to. In the early 1980’s, the Fed moved away from the discretionary and reactionary monetary policy of the 1960’s and 1970’s and towards a more rule-based and structured policy. This shift in policy coincided with what came to be called the Great Moderation—from the mid 1980’s until that early 2000’s—a period of high growth, low unemployment, and declining interest rates. As the economist Allan Meltzer said earlier this year, “The main lesson is that following a rule or a quasi-rule…produced…the best periods in Federal Reserve history.”
The evidence is clear: Following some kind of monetary rule creates greater certainty for the broader economy and can lead to longer periods of sustained growth. The Fed needs to get back to what has worked in the past and move away from the discretionary and subjective Fed decisions that unfortunately we have become accustomed to.
Issue #2 – Fed Regulatory Authority Greatly Expanded
Aside from its role as the nation’s central bank, the Fed of course is also the most powerful regulator within the financial system
Even though the Fed utterly failed in this role in the years leading up to the financial crisis, the Dodd-Frank Act inexplicably gave the Fed even more authority to regulate the financial system including, for the first time, granting the Fed powers to become the primary regulator for non-banks such as asset managers, insurance companies, and others that could potentially fall under the Fed’s umbrella. This is despite the fact that the Fed was well equipped in the years leading up to 2008 to anticipate that a crisis was coming and act accordingly, and yet failed to do so.
The Fed employs countless economists from some of the nation’s top schools, and had hundreds of regulatory staff on-site at some of the nation’s largest banks prior to 2008, even raising the regulatory rating of at least one megabank from “fair” to “satisfactory” in 2006 – only two years before they would need billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars to stay afloat!
And how many times did we hear Ben Bernanke say that the problems in the subprime market were “contained” and did not threaten the broader economy? What were all the economists at the Fed doing when their own agency was inflating a housing bubble by keeping interest rates too low for too long? The Fed had all the authority and brainpower in the world, yet still was unable to appreciate the scope of the problems in the financial system leading up to 2008.
But in Washington, DC failure tends to get rewarded handsomely and so now we have to deal with an even more powerful Fed and all of the threats that it poses. In the wake of Dodd-Frank, the Fed has stood at the forefront of major rulemakings, impacting our entire country’s entire financial system and economy. Yet, most if not all of the Fed’s rulemakings have lacked even a rudimentary cost/benefit analysis that helps Congress and the public better understand the effect such rules have on growth and employment.
And I find it quite amusing when the Fed tells the institutions it supervises to adopt policies that it is unwilling to adopt for itself. For example, last year Fed Governor Dan Tarullo lectured banks about the need to change their “culture” and to not adopt a “check the box” mentality when it comes to compliance.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
It’s the Fed that needs to change its culture and stop “checking the box” when it churns out new rules – the Fed needs to involve the public more in its regulatory processes and actually conduct a robust cost/benefit analysis for each new rule that it proposes.
Beyond the obvious concerns over transparency and process, the Fed’s expanded regulatory powers have also made it an even more conflicted regulator when you take into account the various roles and responsibilities it now has.
The question I would pose is now that the Fed has become the primary regulatory of certain insurance companies in addition to banks—(which it already oversees) how could that potentially affect monetary policy decisions in the future?
Let me put it this way: Almost 15 years ago, economists Robert Litan and Charles Calomiris warned about the conflicts that already exist within the Fed model, writing that weakness in the financial sector could tempt the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates low, even though a rate rise may be the best course of action for the broader economy. For example, if the banking system was going through a period of weakness, the Fed may be inclined or pressured to lower interest rates as a means to protect the safety and soundness of the banks that it regulates, even though that may be harmful in the long term to the broader economy
So we need to ask ourselves now that the Fed regulates both banks (which could benefit from a declining interest rate environment) and certain insurance companies (which could benefit in a rising interest rate environment), how could that possibly impact monetary policy decisions? What if Fed actions to lower interest rates directly impacted the safety and soundness of insurance companies that it oversees? What happens if one day the Fed begins to regulate asset managers, hedge funds, or others? What kind of conflicts could that create between the regulatory function of the Fed and monetary policy?
I do not believe there to be a good clear answer here, only to say that granting the Fed more power to regulate non-bank institutions was a bad idea to begin with, and is an authority that should ultimately be repealed.
Issue #3 – Fed Influence at FSOC and the FSB
Even with all of this newfound power, the Fed is still exploiting other methods to increase its power over our economy.
For the last several years, the Fed has exerted its influence and hijacked the agenda at two unaccountable regulatory bodies run by unelected bureaucrats – the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) and the Financial Stability Board (FSB). FSOC of course was created by the Dodd-Frank Act and consists of all the major financial regulators, including the Fed.
But instead of using its authority to help coordinate rulemakings between agencies or identifying actual risks to the financial system, FSOC has been busy designated certain companies as “too big to fail”, and thus subjecting them to oversight from the Federal Reserve. The Fed is of course not silent in this process; in fact in many ways the Fed – along with the Treasury Department – has been running the agenda at FSOC in order to give itself more power.
Earlier this year, Governor Tarullo – who is seen as the driving force behind all of this – declared that “We are all macroprudentialists now”, thus making the case that the Federal Reserve should have authority that extends well beyond the banking system. And when the Fed or Treasury are unable to convince their fellow FSOC members to move in a certain direction, they take their case overseas to the FSB, which is a 35-member committee dominated by central bankers established in the wake of the financial crisis.
If the Fed is a black box, then the FSB is a black hole – its operations are extremely opaque and there is no public record of any its deliberations, or the data used in making decisions. Perhaps this is why the FSB – no doubt egged on by the Fed – made the decision to designate U.S. insurers Prudential, AIG, and Metlife as “global systemically important” financial instituions before FSOC made its own determination.
U.S. institutions were denied any kind of due process or ability to contest those designations by a foreign body, and once FSB acted, the writing was on the wall for FSOC to do the same. So in essence you have an unaccountable and non-transparent international body making decisions for how U.S. firms should be regulated
Where exactly, does our Constitution or our system of law allow for this?
Nobody at the Fed or in this Administration has a good answer for that, and that is why Congress is taking action to rein in the Fed and every regulatory body they have co-opted to further advance their harmful agenda.
What Congress Should Do
As Chairman of the Capital Markets subcommittee on House Financial Services, I have taken a personal interest in this issue as it has become clear to me that the Federal Reserve and its international cohorts wish to create a “new world order” that will consist of central bank-dominated regulatory regimes that do not recognize or appreciate the role that capital markets play in the American economy.
As the old joke goes – a central banker is a person who looks at something work in the real world and asks, “I wonder if that would work in theory?”
Many of these bankers that are seeking more authority come from the insulated world of academia and do not have any experience in what you and I would refer to as “the real world”. They’ve never worked at a startup company and experienced how difficult it is to raise capital; they’ve never put their own capital at risk in order to take an idea or a business to the next level; and they only see the world through the lens of banking; everything else (that is, the capital markets) is too “risky” for them and must be brought under greater control.
So clearly, we need to scale back the undue influence that the Federal Reserve and other central bankers now have on our economy. The first step in this process is to bring the Fed out of the darkness and into the light in order to make it more accountable to the American public and to Congress.
To that end, our Committee advanced two bills last month that will take the first step towards improving the Fed
The first of these bills - the Centennial Monetary Commission Act of 2015 – would establish a commission that would, amongst other things:
I believe this legislation is a fantastic idea! Given that it was recommendations from a similar body – the National Monetary Commission – that ultimately created the Federal Reserve in 1913, it is only sensible that Congress would authorize a thorough examination of the 100+ history of the Fed to see what has worked and what has not in terms of monetary policy.
The second of these bills – the Fed Oversight Reform and Modernization (or “FORM”) Act would shine a light on both the Fed’s monetary function and their regulatory role as well. For example, the legislation would require the Federal Reserve to generate a monetary policy rule, and benchmark it against the “Taylor Rule”, the most widely known and respected rule known for monetary policy.
Despite what detractors of the legislation say, the bill does not include a Congressionally-mandated policy rule, and this is not Congress’ way of determining monetary policy. The Fed would be free to create whatever rule they see fit – they would just have to tell the public what that rule is so it would provide at least a minimum level of transparency and predictability for the Fed’s actions.
The FORM Act also brings the Fed’s regulatory processes out from the shadows by:
The legislation also makes some much needed reforms to the Fed’s emergency lending powers under Section 13(3), an issue that was ostensibly addressed by Dodd-Frank but which still needs further action.
It is hard to think of an issue under our Committee’s jurisdiction that I more urgent or necessary to promote a strong and vibrant economy
So as our Committee and the House of Representatives continue to move the ball forward with reform of the Fed, I welcome and look forward to the continued input of the American Principles Project and from those of you who are here today. I think we must all recognize though that given the current occupant of the White House, this is not something that is likely to happen next month or even next year, but laying the groundwork for future reform is important and we will continue to do so.
Groups like the American Principles Project will have a major role in ensuring that future administrations make Fed reform a primary component of their economic platform.
Thank you for your time and for the invitation to be here today.
2232 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
On January 3, 2013, Congressman Scott Garrett was sworn in to the United States House of Representatives, representing New Jersey’s 5th Congressional District. Since his election to Congress in 2002, Scott has burnished himself with a reputation as a leading advocate of tax relief and pro-growth economic policies, earning him awards and accolades from a number of national taxpayer and small business groups.
As a senior member of the House Budget Committee, Scott is on the frontline of House Republican efforts to rein in runaway government spending and shrink our country’s ballooning national debt.
A member of the House Financial Services Committee since his election to Congress, Scott has been at the forefront of public policy deliberations dealing with issues related to the financial services industry, developing considerable expertise in areas ranging from securities and finance to insurance and regulatory oversight.
At the beginning of the 112th Congress, Scott was selected to serve as the Chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Market and Government-Sponsored Enterprises. In this role, Scott presides over the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In addition, the subcommittee also handles all matters related to capital markets activities such as business capital formation and venture capital, as well as derivative instruments.
As founder and Chairman of the Congressional Constitution Caucus, Scott is highly respected among his House colleagues as an authority on constitutional issues. Founded in 2005, the Constitution Caucus provides an effective forum for education on constitutional principles and discussion on the appropriate limitations of congressional action.
Born in Englewood, Scott has spent much of his life living in North Jersey, which has instilled in him a great appreciation for the outdoors. He is a leading proponent of preserving open space and protecting such natural treasures as the Highlands, the Musconetcong River and the Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge.
Prior to his election to Congress, Scott served in the New Jersey General Assembly from 1990 to 2002, as the senior Assemblyman for the 24th Legislative District, Assistant Majority Leader, and Chairman of the Banking and Insurance Committee. During his tenure, he also served on the Education, Transportation, Agriculture & Natural Resources Committees, as well as the Joint Committee on Public Schools.
Scott earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from Montclair State University and his Juris Doctor from Rutgers School of Law – Camden.
Scott resides in Wantage Township in Sussex County with his wife, Mary Ellen, and their two daughters, Jennifer and Brittany.
Retweeted by repgarrett
Later today, the House will take up my bill to make SEC filings simpler and more useful for average Main Street investors.
Retweeted by repgarrett
Retweeted by repgarrett
In case of outage, keep these handy. #HurricaneJoaquin JCP&L: 800-544-4877 PSE&G: 800-436-7734 O&R: 877-434-4100 Sussex Rural: 877-504-6463
Retweeted by repgarrett
Retweeted by repgarrett
How does the SEC expect average Americans to take the time to make thoughtful financial investments when the average annual report from public
It looks like Hurricane Joaquin could possibly hit New Jersey this weekend. I wanted to pass along some phone numbers to keep handy in case you
Continuing Resolution is Washington, D.C. language for a bloated spending bill full of the same failed policies, blown budgets, and extraneous
Thanks to the New Jersey members of the Cancer Action Network for stopping by my office yesterday during your annual trip to Capitol Hill!
In case you missed it, here is my appearance on CNBC's Power Lunch from earlier this afternoon. https://youtu.be/wagvQ6YsYys