Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I rise in opposition to the rule and to this underlying bill, and I will tell you that it gives me no satisfaction to vote against a bill that has so many things that are important to my State in terms of gulf coast recovery and the relief effort after the hurricanes.

But I cannot in good conscience vote for a bill that is going to do unspeakable harm to our troops in the field and to our national security. I want to point out the fiscal fantasy also in this bill. I want to point out one item. There is $15 million in this bill for rice farmers in my district for salt water mitigation. That is twice the number of dollars that we needed months ago for this. So if we have that kind of bloating in the bill on one small item, I can't imagine what this $28 billion extra in the bill is all about.

This bill is fiscal fantasy, and it does unspeakable harm to our national security. For those reasons, I oppose it vehemently.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. He has been very eloquent on this subject.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I rise in opposition to this rule. I am deeply disappointed in the Rules Committee and its actions yesterday by limiting the number of amendments that we could have taken to the floor.

We all recognize that there is a gap, or a shortfall, in the funding that exists to help deal with our water infrastructure, and this is most pointedly affecting our small rural and disadvantaged communities; but I have to say the actions of the Rules Committee and the majority on the Rules Committee really disappoint me, because what we have seen now is politics trumping practical policy.

Sure, we don't agree on Davis-Bacon, and having an up-and-down vote is fine, but that is a political vote. We are all frozen in our positions. But we could have taken a chance to protect our small and disadvantaged communities by creating some exemptions.

I had hoped to offer two amendments to this bill yesterday, and they were not ruled in order for the bill. One would have exempted small, disadvantaged communities as defined by law from Davis-Bacon big labor provisions in the bill. This would have given our small communities a chance to access these funds. What good are the funds if the communities can't get to them?

The gentlelady across the aisle here says, talk to local leaders. I can tell you, I have spoken to local leaders, Democrat and Republican alike, those who favor labor and those who don't, in my communities across my district, which is largely rural; and they have uniformly told me that these Davis-Bacon provisions and this State revolving loan fund will really put a burden on our small communities. It will inflate the costs by 20 to 25 percent.

So on the one hand we are saying, yes, let's create the revolving loan fund; let's fund it. On the other hand, we are telling our small communities, no, you can't have the money, because you can't afford it. You can't afford the match. You can't afford to access this money.

Our small and rural communities are the ones that are most often in need of adequate waste water infrastructure. I have visited every community in my district.

Mr. Speaker, this is a huge need, and I want to support this underlying bill; but we could have acted responsibly. We could have created exemptions that help our small and rural and disadvantaged communities. But, no, we have chosen to play politics instead of dealing with good, practical policy.

My amendments would have put the power back in the hands of local leaders. But, no, the Federal Government, the Federal Government is the one that has to dictate and mandate all. Once again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to empower Big Labor at the expense of small disadvantaged communities and local leaders.

I have to say I am deeply disappointed. There is plenty of evidence. The CBO, as my colleague mentioned earlier, has noted that repealing Davis-Bacon, raising the threshold for projects it covers, would allow appropriators to reduce Federal funds and therefore we could get more bang for the buck. The Department of Labor, after nearly 50 years, has not developed an effective program to issue and maintain current and accurate wage determinations. It may be impractical to ever do so. There are many problems with this. We could have acted responsibly, but, no, we have chosen to play politics.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. We could have done better by the American public in putting together a bill that would create the State revolving loan funds and allow our communities to access them. But, no, we have chosen to play politics.

I urge defeat of this rule and defeat of the underlying bill.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the distinguished gentleman from the Rules Committee: Yes, it is political with regard to Davis-Bacon, strip it or leave it, but what about exemptions? Why couldn't we entertain exemptions for small, disadvantaged communities? What is the fear on your side in not allowing that to come to a floor debate?

I simply ask the question, and I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I would say that if small, disadvantaged communities cannot access the funds to repair their infrastructure, it is going to hurt the worker, and it is going to hurt the disadvantaged small community.

I would say there is a practical way to move through this with regard to policy rather than simply playing politics.

Madam Chairwoman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana, my colleague, for yielding.

Let me just say, we all recognize that there is a funding gap here, and there are many, many needs throughout our Nation with regard to repairing our water infrastructure. But on the other hand, I think it is wrong to play politics with this.

When I heard we were going to bring forward a bill to deal with our State Revolving Loan Funds, I was very happy about it. I said, yes, this is something that is very much needed in Louisiana and certainly needed for small rural, disadvantaged communities throughout our Nation.

Yet, what we have got now is a situation with the Davis-Bacon provisions inserted into this bill which is going to create significant problems.

I know we are all frozen politically on this issue, Davis-Bacon or no Davis-Bacon, depending upon which philosophical stripe you wear. But let me just say, we could have done something better coming out of committee with this bill if we would have created exemptions for poor, disadvantaged, small communities throughout the rural United States.

My fear is, with the bill as it stands, it is going to put our communities at a point where they can't access these funds.

Now our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about protecting the American worker and making sure that we are taking care of this big funding gap we have with regard to our aging water infrastructure. But on the one hand, if we create the State Revolving Loan Fund, and on the other hand, we make it unaffordable for our small and disadvantaged communities to access these funds, what good have we done?

I think we need to put aside politics and let's talk about practical policy here. Earlier this week I met with the president of our Police Jury Association, which is the equivalent of county commissioners. He told me that he was excited that we were looking at these funds for water. But when I mentioned the fact that we have Davis-Bacon provisions in the bill, he was very despondent. And he said to me, basically, that this is going to stifle our ability to repair our water infrastructure.

He estimated that it is going to add a 20-25 percent additional cost for sewer treatment facilities in his parish, Evangeline Parish, in rural Louisiana.

The bottom line is, we shouldn't be talking about inside-the-Beltway rhetoric. We need to listen to what real leaders in the real world are telling us. I would say, if Members on the other side, if you talk to those rural community leaders and find out what they need and how we can bridge this gap, you will find out that it is not by putting in Davis-Bacon provisions that will weight this bill down.

I believe Congress has a responsibility to address this growing need, but at the same time, we need to do it in a responsible way that is going to work and not something that is going to be just more political tit for tat, back and forth.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill because of the underlying provisions, the Davis-Bacon provisions, which are going to hurt small, disadvantaged communities. And ultimately, it is going to hurt the American worker.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 569 reauthorizes grants to help communities address the widespread problem in our country of sewer overflows.

As a result of inadequate or outdated wastewater infrastructure, raw sewage can overflow into rivers or back up into people's basements, and this has been a nationwide problem.

To correct these problems, local communities will have to make infrastructure investments totaling as much as $150 billion. To provide communities some assistance to meet these needs, H.R. 569 authorizes additional resources for EPA to make sewer overflow control grants to States and local communities. This was a program that was authorized before and is now needing reauthorization. I urge all Members to support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp). He is a cosponsor of this legislation and has authored similar legislation in previous Congresses.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to my friend from Tennessee, a senior member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Duncan chaired the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee in the previous Congress and has been a leader on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I thank the ranking member.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. Frankly, I am disappointed that many of the amendments my Republican colleagues and I hoped to offer today were not made in order by the Rules Committee last night.

My amendment would have provided workers the right to have their card returned if they had a change of heart. They don't have that buyer's remorse protection under current law.

There are examples in Louisiana where employees tried to get their cards back, but were informed by a regional NLRB office that they had no authority to require the return of a signed card.

Now, a cooling off period is standard in many areas of business. We allow it for purchases of homes and cars, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't think we should allow it for employees deciding whether or not they want the union as their exclusive bargaining representative in the workplace.

A few years back, a company in South Louisiana, Trico Marine, became the unwilling target of a campaign to organize the vessel personnel who service our offshore oil and gas industry in the Gulf of Mexico. Louisiana is a proud right-to-work state and many hard-working mariners quickly came forward to protest the tactics used by the union. After eight visits, one vessel officers had to have an arrest warrant issued against a union organizer.

But even more troubling, mariners were misled and told that they should sign the cards, and if they had a change of heart, they could vote their conscience in a secret ballot election. But the union's intent from the beginning was to bypass the secret ballot, gain the 50 plus one signed cards, and then publicly pressure the company to recognize them. That attempt failed and the union office has since disbanded. But that is what this legislation allows. It allows a union to gather a majority of signed cards, often under questionable circumstances, and bypass a secret ballot election where workers are free to vote their conscience in private without coercion or outside influence. This example provides some balance to the arguments made by my friends on the other side of the aisle.

And let's be straight, there are bad actors on both sides. But our number one priority here should be protecting the right of all hard- working Americans. If the system is broke, let's work together to fry to fix it. But denying workers the fundamental right to a secret ballot election isn't the answer.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in vigorous opposition to this resolution. With all due respect to my colleagues across the aisle, this resolution does not outline a new strategy for how we move forward in Iraq and it will have absolutely no impact on the current strategy. Furthermore, it is the wrong signal to send to our allies in the region and the wrong signal to send to our troops, those brave, courageous men and women in uniform who have performed magnificently and done everything that we have asked them to do.

This nonbinding resolution addresses a tactic, not an overall strategy; a tactic that the President of the United States as Commander in Chief has full constitutional authority to move with.

Now, I respect my colleagues across the aisle, and I know we all want to see a disengagement of our troops from harm's way in Iraq. But I would submit that disengagement must be done under favorable circumstances in the interests of our national security. There is no other alternative.

Let's look at what would happen with a failed policy in Iraq. Iraq is on the verge of anarchic fragmentation. There are 27 ethnic groups in Iraq. It is not as simple as a Sunni versus Shiia conflict. There are other splinter groups using violence for their own designs.

Precipitous withdrawal from Iraq will lead to unprecedented violence, spilling over into neighboring countries such as Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and we will see Shiia uprisings in Lebanon and Bahrain, which have significant Shiia populations. Jordan is already facing massive numbers of refugees coming across the border, putting strain. And Iranian influence is growing. The regime is intent on gaining hegemony in the region, exerting its influence widely throughout the Middle East and controlling oil and gas reserves to use the money to further fuel terrorism. Al Qaeda will consolidate a base to work from in western Iraq to perpetrate further transnational terrorism, and Turkey will be compelled to cross borders to deal with separatist groups.

America, dear America, will lose support of its vital allies in the region and our reputation will suffer immensely for a very long period of time, much longer than what we saw after the Vietnam conflict.

It is clear to me that security and political reconciliation in Iraq run parallel, and without halting the spiral of violence, reconciliation within Iraq will not occur. Without halting the spiral of violence, our allies in the Persian Gulf and the broader Middle East will be forced to deal with their own political disruption, rather than starting multilateral dialogue that is so essential for a longer standing peace throughout this entire region, whether we are talking about the Palestinian issues, Lebanon, Iraq or Iran. Our allies in the region, particularly, need political cover. I have heard this from numerous Arab Ambassadors whom I have had many conversations with.

The ground must be laid for multilateral diplomacy. It will not occur during a spiral of violence. Our allies in the region have given commitment that they will help with Iraqi military training, police training, as well as rebuilding of Iraq and further resources, once the stage is set with security and a move toward reconciliation.

So, if we are going to be responsible in this body, there are questions we really need to ask if we are going to formulate a strategy and work with this administration for a winning strategy in Iraq. The questions that need to be asked are these: What are the benchmarks for its Iraqi military? What are the benchmarks for the Iraqi Government, for reconciliation and for internal reform in Iraq? What are the rules of engagement for our troops who will be going over there to assist in this Baghdad security operation? What resources are available? What manpower and personnel are available to our State Department and USAID to help and assist in the reform and reconciliation process so that we can create the groundwork for diplomatic resolution? And as we look at a clear holding bill, who is going to do the holding? Who is going to do the building? These are questions that a responsible Congress should be asking, not whether or not to support this surge.

The American people voted for change. This resolution offers nothing to shape a new strategy on how to move forward successfully in Iraq. The American people deserve more from Congress, and, by God, our troops deserve more from this Congress.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend some of my constituents in Lake Charles, Louisiana for their efforts to help complete the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial. As a result of the hard work of the Chamber of Southwest Louisiana and members of the Zeta Psi Lambda Chapter of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, a model of the historic Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial will make Lake Charles its first stop on a national tour. The goal of the tour is to raise additional funding for the memorial, which is set to be erected on the National Mall in Washington, DC in 2008.

Because of Dr. King's courage, words, and actions, America is stronger and stands as a beacon of hope for people around the world. The monuments on our National Mall tell the story of our achievements as a country, but they also tell the story of our struggles. It is only fitting that Dr. King be honored with a memorial to provide a living history of his role in the civil rights movement.

Dr. King did not just talk about character, he lived it everyday. His leadership changed American life, and his legacy will continue to endure. Today, I commend the leadership of the Chamber of Southwest Louisiana and members of the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity for doing their part to ensure that Dr. King's legacy endures.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to applaud the devoted service of Donald Hoffpauir to the people of Acadia Parish. Donald recently retired following twenty-two years of dedicated work in the Acadia Parish Tax Assessor's Office, where he served as a Personal Property Manager.

Throughout his career, Donald was known as a skilled and loyal manager, always willing to assist his co-workers and the many customers who called upon the tax assessor's office.

I ask my colleagues to join me and the people of Acadia Parish in wishing Donald Hoffpauir a happy retirement, and congratulating him for his invaluable accomplishments for the state of Louisiana.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Acadiana High School Wreckin' Rams for winning the 5A Louisiana State Football Championship in the Superdome last month. The Wreckin' Rams defeated Sulphur High School 13-10 to win their first-ever state title. The victory was capped off by a last minute 32-yard field goal by Drew Alleman.

After kicking a 42-yard field goal to tie the game at 10-10, Alleman split the uprights on the game's final play to seal Acadiana's win. The championship ended a 13-2 season for the Rams.

Acadiana's coach, Ted Davidson, expressed his excitement after the game. ``This is the most competitive team I've ever coached. This

is the fifth game this year that we've won in the last 30 seconds of the game. They just refuse to lose,'' Davidson said in the Lafayette Daily Advertiser.

Madam Speaker, with this victory, Acadiana High School's Wreckin Rams have made the residents of their entire state proud. I enter into the official Congressional Record the names of these players and their coaches, and I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating them for their achievement.

State Champions: Justin Green, Dvan Alexander, Kip Jacob *,

Jeb Stefan, Louis Hollier, Jonathan Morvant, Javinas Faulk *,

Daniel August*, DJ St. Julien, Desmond Sam, Terrence Sinegal,

Tory Caudill, Brian Sinegal, Jordan Figaro *, John Dean,

Darius Eaglin *, Chris White, Kyle Ramsey, Sam Boersma *,

Jarred Evans, Chris Nguyen, Jeremy Griggs, Terrance

Broussard, Brad Melancon, Austin Romein, Jeremy Fontenot *,

Daniel Arabie, Ethan Piazza, Jordan Burt, Keevan Breaux,

Jarrid Durand, Dexter Bruno, Trent Noel, Fletcher Sanders *,

Jordan Boykin *, Jordan Himel, Chase Southerland, Lora

Parker, Whitney Duplechin, Tayla Davis, Josh Bourque, Coach

Bob Fabre, Coach Scott McCullough, Coach Ted Davidson, Cody

Labat, David Guidry, Cody Mandell, Coach Myles Casbon, Brett

Polaski, Kalen Comeaux *, Anthony Johnson, Derek Richard *,

Jeffrey Trahan, Kevin Elston, Marcus Sam *, Bobby Davidson,

Drew Alleman, Dexter Hall *, Quincy Mouton, Chance Brossette,

Donovan Gallien, Casey Latiolais *, Hunter Thibodeaux, Kyle

Hebert, Marcus Bazile, Lance Walker, Brandon Touchet *,

Sheffield Taylor *, Jordan Magee, Aaron Guidry *, Sean

McGovern, Matt Crooks, Hunter Hebert, Matt Boudreaux, Cherish

Barton, Jared Prince, Dylan Terro, Robert Montgomery *,

Taylor Wiggins, Mike Carvajal, Wilfred Journet *, Buck Smith

*, Brady Hebert *, Chris Thibodeaux *, Spencer Trahan, Jesse

Ledet, Jeremy Courville, Brent White, Brian White, Kynsi

Sonnier, Ayriell Collins, Crystal Faulk, Coach Neal Lege,

Coach Larry Breaux, Coach Gary Fontenot, Coach Chris

Mitchell, and Brandon Siner.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to applaud the devoted service of Irvin ``Choppy'' Smith to the people of Acadia Parish. Choppy recently retired following 22 years of dedicated work as the Chief Deputy in the Acadia Parish Tax Assessor's Office.

During his distinguished service to Acadia Parish, Choppy was known as a devoted public servant who always provided a warm and welcoming environment for the many parish residents that sought the service of the Tax Assessor's Office. Choppy's vast knowledge of Acadia Parish was invaluable as he assisted countless taxpayers.

Madam Speaker, it is people like Choppy Smith that continue to inspire all of us, and I ask my colleagues to join me and the people of Acadia Parish in congratulating Choppy for his invaluable accomplishments for the State of Louisiana.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such times as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 70. This resolution recognizes the outstanding 2006 record of the University of California at Santa Barbara men's soccer team as well as their triumph in winning the university's first-ever national title in soccer and only the second in any other sport.

With a 2-1 victory over the University of California at Los Angeles at the 2006 NCAA men's College Cup, the UC Santa Barbara Gauchos ended the season with a 17-7-1 record.

The two rivals, whose schools are separated by less than 100 miles, played hard despite game time temperatures of 24 degrees and a windchill of 11. Still, in a testament to their strength and senior leadership, the Gauchos overcame the weather, as well as a 7-6 mid- season record, to become only the second unseeded team since 2000 to win the national title.

Shortly after the season ended and for the second time in 3 years, UC Santa Barbara head coach Tim Vom Steeg earned the most prestigious honor a Division I coach can receive when he was named national Coach of the Year by the National Soccer Coaches Association of America. According to College Sports Television, ``in his eight seasons at the helm of UCSB, Vom Steeg has transformed a program that went 2-17-2 overall in the year prior to his arrival to a Division I power and reigning national champions.''

In the first 33 years of the program's existence, Santa Barbara had never reached the NCAA tournament but has now made five straight post- season appearances under Vom Steeg's guidance, including two trips to the College Cup.

I extend my congratulations to head coach Tim Vom Steeg and all the hardworking players, the fans, and to the University of California at Santa Barbara. I am happy to join my good friends and colleagues, Representatives Capps and Gallegly, in honoring this exceptional team and all of its accomplishments and wish all involved continued success.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 82. This resolution recognizes the 12-1 season of the University of Louisville Cardinals, as well as the come-from-behind 24-13 win over the Wake Forest Demon Deacons at the 2007 Bowl Championship Series in the Orange Bowl.

The Cardinals averaged 39 points a game and ranked second in the Nation in total offense this season, but fell behind 13-10 in the final quarter before their offense went into high gear. Touchdown drives of 81 and 71 yards on consecutive possessions sealed their first win in a major bowl since the 1991 Fiesta Bowl.

The final victory capped a storied season for the Cardinals that included a Big East championship and the school's first-ever win in a Bowl Championship Series game. I extend my congratulations to head coach Bobby Petrino and all of the hardworking players and fans and to the University of Louisville.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join my good friend and colleague, Representative Yarmuth, in honoring this exceptional team and all of its accomplishments, and wish all involved continued success. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this ill-conceived legislation will halt recent efforts to increase domestic oil and gas production and will further boost our Nation's dependence on foreign oil.

The price we pay for turning a blind eye towards our Nation's energy security is absolutely staggering. Most Americans don't realize the hidden cost of our reliance on foreign oil.

According to the National Defense Council Foundation, the cost to defend America's access to foreign oil supplies rose to nearly $137 billion in 2006.

The majority is pushing through this job-killing legislation that threatens thousands of jobs in my gulf coast district.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you firsthand, we are not talking about minimum wage jobs. Many times over minimum wage.

Furthermore, the creation of an energy slush fund with no specific wording in this legislation about how it is going to be used is fiscally irresponsible. America deserves a comprehensive bill to address our Nation's energy security. H.R. 6 is not close, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I once operated on a Vietnam veteran who then needed lifesaving drugs. But the VA program was going to make him wait for 2 weeks. He had no choice but to pay out of pocket hundreds of dollars. This is completely unacceptable. And we certainly do not want the same thing for our seniors.

I urge my colleagues to support seniors and vote ``no'' on H.R. 4 because this legislation prevents patients from getting the medication they need. When you scratch the surface, it becomes very clear that this legislation will lead to price controls and rationing. Furthermore, the idea of government negotiation is a joke.

Mr. Speaker, this limits seniors' choices, it's not going to reduce cost, and once again it's the heavy hand of government telling people what is best for them. So I urge my colleagues to support seniors and vote ``no'' on this legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 3. As a heart and lung surgeon, I've seen the power of hope and the harms caused by those who give misinformation and false hope to patients and families.

Too often, proponents of embryonic stem cell research promise an immediate cure to dying patients and their families.

From a medical standpoint, embryonic stem cells have yet to produce a single human treatment. Embryonic cells also produce tumors and cause transplant rejection.

Such techniques also raise grave ethical problems. The claim that most human embryos in fertility clinics ``will be discarded anyway'' is disingenuous. Research shows that ``the vast majority of stored embryos (88.2 percent) are being held for family building.''

Fortunately, science continues to discover more promising lines of stem cell research.

Adult stem cells have already been used to treat a growing number of human diseases.

Scientists at Harvard and Wake Forest University recently reported their success using stem cells in amniotic fluid and the placenta.

They explained that these stem cells ``remain stable for years without forming tumors.''

All Americans depend on medical breakthroughs. Federal funding for all types of stem cell research rose above $609 million last year.

It's disappointing that the Speaker would not permit a vote today to increase funding for the most productive stem cell research.

Last year, the Bartlett bill passed the Senate unanimously. It would have increased funding for embryonic stem cell research that doesn't destroy an embryo, including embryo biopsy. The current House leadership defeated it to score political points against the President.

It's irresponsible for Congress to spend scarce federal tax dollars on lines of scientific research that have proven least effective.

Evidence proves it's possible to advance stem cell research without paying biomedical firms to destroy human embryos.

Conclusion: For these reasons, I oppose H.R. 3 and urge my colleagues to oppose this bill as well.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore