Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I first would like to start off by saying that I'm only here this afternoon because of a concern for an algae bloom that continues to grow off my coast. It's called red tide. It causes economic damage. It causes quality of life damage. It's also harmful to the fisheries.

I also understand that the majority is not really comfortable the way we constructed this amendment. I do want to say for the record that I've had a lot of support from Kathy Castor and Vern Buchanan on working, trying to get more research dollars on red tide.

Currently, NOAA has a program, a peer-reviewed program, that moneys are appropriated to that then are used for research all around the country on red tide and harmful algae blooms. This amendment would then fully fund to $30 million a year those research projects.

I spoke earlier to the chairman of the committee, and we talked about how we can move this ball down the road, how we can move forward on trying to get those research dollars up. It has a significant impact for our communities. The chairman was kind enough to agree to speak on this and to work with me and to work with my colleagues on ensuring that we at least have the discussion about making sure the research dollars are there.

I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your remarks, and I do apologize for the last minute on this. We've been kind of trying to look through the language and understand completely what was there and what we need to do. We're going to continue to work through the authorizing committee as well. I appreciate the chairman's support.

Offered By: Mr. Mack

Amendment No. 44: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I want to rise to thank the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Bishop, for reserving time today so that we can discuss the Constitution, the cornerstone of our Republic and freedoms we cherish.

Mr. Speaker, as Members of this body, all of us are sworn to uphold and protect the principles outlined in the Constitution. Yet, all too often, we routinely find ourselves coming to this floor to vote for measures that directly assault the freedoms outlined in it. We too often consider legislation that contradicts the Constitution's core principles of individual freedom together with limited government.

However, make no mistake: Congress isn't the only culprit. It is much more widespread than that. The Constitution is a document of limited, delegated powers for all branches of government. However, we have an executive branch, whether a Republican or Democratic administration, that often looks for ways to grow beyond its constitutionally defined boundaries. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, my constituents are regularly impacted by Federal agencies with legions of bureaucrats who implement regulation upon regulation, each dealing a blow to their pocketbook and very often their liberty.

Again and again, we see the Federal Government taking more power away from the States, effectively leading them to become gigantic, castrated counties solely accountable to Washington, DC. This is wrong and we must take steps to begin rolling back the tide.

Finally, we have the judiciary which, under the principle of checks and balances, is supposed to be the final safeguard of our constitutional liberties. But just last summer, across the street, five people in black robes overturned established constitutional principles by reinterpreting the fifth amendment and the essence of private property rights. No, Mr. Speaker, these examples show that this isn't simply a congressional problem, this is a national problem.

With that, I urge my colleagues to take a moment to remind themselves just why it is they are here. We must remember that we are a body of limited, enumerated powers. We are the first line of defense for our Constitution. As James Madison said, we are the ``guardians of . . . (the) rights and liberties'' of our citizens. In doing so, we must be willing to question the merits of every bill.

We must be willing to conduct effective and rigorous oversight of the administration's activities. We must be sure to question any initiative that would seek to limit and constrain the rights of the individual and the States. The Constitution is the guide for doing just that. By checking our actions against what is outlined in the Constitution, we'll know when our deeds overstep their limits.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I came to Washington on a platform of freedom--the freedom that is promised to every citizen of the United States in our Constitution. The freedom that makes our Nation a beacon of liberty for the rest of the world.

Through the work of the Constitution Caucus and others in this Chamber, I believe that we can get there--to the Founders' intent: a federal government of limited powers which respects and protects the individuals' various freedoms. We should all heed the words of our Nation's first President, who said, ``(t)he Constitution is the guide which I will never abandon.''

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, while we in this Chamber can debate in freedom, and the American people can hear and see our every word, thanks to a free press, in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, the only thing that people can see or hear are the things that Hugo Chavez lets his media print and broadcast.

Freedom of the press died in Venezuela on May 27, 2007, when Chavez shut down RCTV. This was just the latest in a long line of actions to snuff out free press, free speech, and free thought. By shutting down the largest and oldest TV network in the country, Chavez is sending a message to all other media that he has the power to do anything he wants to with radio and television stations in Venezuela.

The government is targeting opposition voices because of their massive reach, appeal, and influence throughout the country. Chavez said: ``I am going to go after those who resist the revolution and eliminate them one by one.'' This was in reference to one of the only remaining independent voices left in Venezuela.

As the window of independent media in Venezuela closes, Voice of America will play a critical role in getting the truth out about what is happening in the country.

Voice of America must provide and create additional programs. With targeted funding, Voice of America can have an even greater ability and capability to broadcast longer with more programming. Voice of America serves as a significant counter to Chavez's propaganda being exported to Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Cuba.

My amendment would significantly grant the Broadcasting Board of Governors the tools to increase broadcasting to Venezuela and Latin America.

Chavez's communist plans for the future do not include independent media and freedom of the press. We must recognize the war on terrorism is in our backyard. The gang of countries lining up with Chavez is powerful: Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and others, together with the likes of Iran.

We must recognize a serious threat to our national security. In fact, just this morning, Chavez announced plans to visit Iran in a few weeks, following a long courtship between the two countries.

The window of freedom is closing fast. We cannot turn our backs on the people of Venezuela. We must do more to promote freedom inside Venezuela.

America has always been a beacon of freedom in our hemisphere. Now we must be the pillar of hope for the people of Venezuela and our friends and neighbors in Latin America who fear Hugo Chavez and his communist revolution.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairwoman for accepting the amendment.

Venezuela is going down the wrong path, and I think this will help us set a new course so the people of Venezuela can continue to enjoy the freedom and democracy they deserve.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to share a few thoughts on the Homeland Security bill and, more specifically, the Davis-Bacon expansion that is contained within this legislation. This is an important bill for our Nation--one that we all should be able to support; unfortunately, instead of solely funding our national security needs, the Majority wants to use this bill as an opportunity to fund union security.

I view the issue like this: You are either for the taxpayer, or you are against the taxpayer; you are either for small business, or you are against it; you are either for free markets, or you are against them; you are either for open competition and freedom, or you are against it. With this bill, it is pretty certain where the Majority comes down on those very basic questions. In the end, the American taxpayer will be the loser if these provisions are allowed to be signed into law.

With the poison pill of the Davis-Bacon provisions, this becomes unacceptable legislation. Our friends across the aisle--in their rush to pass giveaways to unions--are saddling the American people with needlessly higher costs. Put simply, this policy is a throwback to failed Depression-era economic policy.

Since this Congress convened, Mr. Speaker, Democrats have been trying to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility. But how can they realistically claim that title with this sort of policy? In reality, they are quickly showing themselves, once again, to be the party of anti-competition and bad policy. Instead of inserting bad law into a critical bill, Democrats should be leading the way by removing Davis- Bacon from all Federal law.

Countless studies have shown that action would truly save the taxpayers' money. In fact,

if we were to repeal Davis-Bacon, the Congressional Budget Office has said we would save at least $10.5 billion over 10 years for taxpayers. A separate study showed that number to be as high as $2 billion per year. The vast majority of our Nation's workforce is non-unionized and our policies should reflect that. We need to be working to ensure there is fair and open competition for government grants--not rewards for Big Labor.

All this leads to the question: Why wouldn't we remove this law from the books? With the amendment to strike Davis-Bacon from this bill, which I am proud to cosponsor with several of my colleagues, we are seeking to take a first step in making sure this law doesn't expand any further.

So, Mr. Chairman, I stand up in support of this amendment, in support of good fiscal policy, and in support of the taxpayers. Expanding this law will only once again throw more costs on the backs of hard-working Americans. You cannot say you are for fiscal responsibility and free markets while at the same time promoting policies that lead to the exact opposite. Try as they might, the Majority cannot have it both ways. The American people deserve better.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to Florida Gulf Coast University Women's Basketball team on their remarkable season. As the national runner-up in Division II women's basketball, the team has become an inspiration to Southwest Florida, and everyone in our community is incredibly proud of their accomplishments.

The Eagles success is made even more amazing because Florida Gulf Coast University is Florida's newest University, having opened its doors just 10 short years ago.

This year, the Eagles set a remarkable school record with 34 wins and only one loss, making them an elite group of NCAA student athletes. Head Coach Karl Smesko and his team deserve our congratulations. They not only won on the court, but with their passion and dedication they have also won Southwest Florida's admiration and respect.

Florida Gulf Coast University is an integral part of our community, and their success in academics and athletics is second to none.

Congratulations to all the coaches and players that worked so hard and achieved so much: Karl Smesko, head coach; LeAnn Freeland, assistant coach; Ebonie Halliburton, assistant coach; Bryan Crislip, assistant coach; Kim Balduzzi, Candace Carreras, Jen Conely, Delia De LaTorre, Chelsea Dermyer, Ashley Haegele, Adrianne McNally, Alex Nelson, Amanda Pierce, Kate Schrader, Steffi Sorensen, Princess Stewart and Angel Woods.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time, and I also want to say that I appreciate the way the committee has worked on a very important issue.

I think all of us understand and recognize that the Clean Water State Revolving Fund is so important to all of our communities. And let's face it, we work for the people back home.

But it is concerning to me that when you have such a positive piece of legislation that can have such a tremendous effect on people's lives back in our districts, that you would add the Davis-Bacon requirements into this.

A few minutes ago we heard from the majority leader that he finds it strange that over here you will have people voting against a minimum wage, and then voting against Davis-Bacon.

Well, it is kind of simple. We believe that, or at least I believe, that competition, the free market, should dictate these projects, not government; that government shouldn't be coming in saying this is how much you are going to pay your employees, or this is how much you are going to have to pay for projects.

And including the Davis-Bacon requirements into this only puts, it makes it so that States like mine have a hard time voting for a piece of legislation that will add, will bring the cost of the construction projects up.

At a time when our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are talking about being fiscally responsible, what they are really committed to, as we heard earlier, their commitment is to raising taxes and spending more money.

I would like to see us, in the future, when we have such a good piece of legislation, one that almost everyone can support, that we do not get in the habit that it appears to be now of payback of some sort to labor and to the unions. It just isn't right. The American people deserve better.

Madam Speaker. I rise today to express my strong support for our country's troops as they defend our freedoms and protect our national security.

Today we are debating a non-binding resolution that threatens to undermine the morale of the very troops who are at the tip of the spear defending our shores. This resolution does a disservice to the very troops some in this body are pledging to support by voting for this today.

President George W. Bush has proposed sending additional troops to Iraq to give those currently in the field the necessary manpower and resources to win the war. In addition, the President has put in place a new leadership team and a new strategy in Iraq.

While we all know that mistakes have been made in the war in Iraq, I am inclined to support the President's new plan. But make no mistake: there must be new benchmarks, clearly defined goals, and we need to see real results soon.

Some in this body are using this resolution today as a first step to defund the troops in the field. Madam Speaker, choking off the funding for American troops serving in harm's way will do nothing more than embolden our enemies and ensure defeat.

Throughout our nation's history, millions of men and women have served the United States in times of crisis and need in the armed services. These men and women--and the soldiers currently in the theater of combat--have made sacrifices that must not ever be forgotten.

Madam Speaker, instead of debating non-binding resolutions that threaten to undermine morale and embolden our enemies, we should be helping our troops by making sure they have the support and resources they need to defend our country by fighting our enemies overseas. Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to reject this political gimmick and vote against this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to call attention to a gathering storm in our own backyard.

Last week, Venezuela's self-proclaimed Communist President Hugo Chavez was granted free rein to accelerate changes in all areas of society by presidential decree.

This action, granted to him by the National Assembly, which is completely under his control, is putting Venezuela on a rapid path toward dictatorship.

Venezuelan lawmakers unanimously gave President Chavez sweeping powers to legislate by decree and impose his radical vision of a socialist state in the mold of Castro's Cuba.

The new law gives Chavez more power than he has ever had in 8 years as president.

And, based upon his own words and statements, he plans to use this power to nationalize many privately held companies, snuff out political dissent, and remove term limits, thereby allowing him to serve indefinitely as president.

Madam Speaker, some of my colleagues on both the left and the right argue that Chavez was democratically elected and that he and his quest for his Bolivarian Revolution are no threat to the Western Hemisphere.

For example, last week in response to the new law, Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere Tom Shannon said, and I quote from an interview with the Associated Press, ``the enabling law isn't anything new in Venezuela. It's something valid under the constitution. As with any tool of democracy, it depends how it is used. At the end of the day, it's not a question for the United States or for other countries, but for Venezuela.''

But I vehemently disagree with this statement and the hands-off- approach-to-Chavez sentiment. The mere holding of elections is not enough.

Venezuela with Chavez at the helm is on a glidepath towards a dictatorship disguised as a democracy.

Madam Speaker, we should all be concerned about the direction President Chavez is taking his country. Any leader who tries to tighten his grip on power by destroying the institutions of democracy, curtailing press freedom, and using his office to intimidate pro- democracy opponents is setting in motion a dangerous process with potentially ominous consequences.

During almost every speech Chavez gives, he says it is ``socialism or death.'' Madam Speaker, it is time to realize Chavez must be taken seriously. We must refocus our efforts in Latin America and defeat this gathering storm.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the goals and ideals of National Alzheimer's Awareness month. It is during this month that we recognize the millions of Americans who have succumbed to this devastating disease, as well as their loved ones and caretakers. It is also a time to renew our commitment to advancing the research efforts aimed at preventing and combating Alzheimer's disease.

As America's Baby Boomer generation ages, the need to find a cure for this disease is more urgent than ever. There is groundbreaking work being done at our Nation's premier research universities, the National Institutes of Health, as well as the Department of Veterans Affairs, to further understand how Alzheimer's affects the brain. We must continue to support this cutting edge research to combat and prevent the debilitating effects of this disease.

Far too many Americans are faced with what Nancy Reagan called the ``long, long goodbye.'' Over 4 million Americans are living with Alzheimer's and it is estimated that in the next 50 years that number will likely triple. These numbers do not take into account the countless family members, loved ones, and caretakers who shoulder the burden to ensure that patients are able to live out their days with as much dignity and comfort as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my thoughts and concerns regarding the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act (H.R. 5825). As a strong conservative, I believe in national security, independent courts that follow the law, strong legislative oversight, and individual responsibility.

While this legislation is an important and effective tool for combating and winning the war on terrorism, I believe it is the duty of this body to err on the side of freedom and the constitutional protections the American people cherish and deserve.

The history of a government with unchecked power is a history of tyrannical governments. Unchecked power caused civilized people to write the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. At its crux, the Constitution ensures the separation of powers and confirms the Founding Fathers' belief that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Five years ago, this Nation suffered the deadliest terrorist attack in our Nation's history. This attack was an act of war and Congress came together to provide law enforcement and intelligence officials with sweeping powers to increase intelligence-gathering abilities and information sharing in the name of fighting terrorism. This was a wise and prudent choice. However, due to the legitimate concerns raised about the powers we put into the hands of government and the need to be mindful of the liberty we are sworn to uphold, Congress remained vigilant in maintaining appropriate checks and balances.

Under this Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act, the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) will continue to exist alongside the wiretapping regime established by this Act. You will have two programs--one on the books and the other not. While I strongly support the War on Terror and our president, this legislation would allow any American president to turn to the TSP if this Act unduly constrains their efforts. This is not checks and balances, but rather, an end-run around the basic principles of the rule of law.

This legislation allows any president virtually unlimited power to intercept the communications of every American on his word alone. For example, the bill eliminates FISA's warrant requirement for electronic surveillance whenever the president certifies that the United States has been the subject of a terrorist attack and identifies the terrorist organizations or their affiliates believed to be responsible. But, as we all know, for the indefinite future, the United States will be targeted by terrorists and the enemies of freedom. Further, the bill allows for the surveillance and physical searches of any American homes or businesses for 90 days if there is an ``armed attack'', a term undefined in the bill, against the United States territory.

Some have characterized the TSP as an irresponsible reaction. While I support intercepting terrorists' communications, Congress must ensure that checks and balances are included and proper oversight is maintained. But this legislation will prevent Congress from exercising that critical oversight.

History tells us that in times of war or conflict, government is all too willing to ask its citizens to sacrifice liberty in the name of security. America witnessed it during World War II with the immoral internment of Japanese Americans. But our children and grandchildren deserve a future that cherishes both their security and their liberty, not one at the expense of the other. It is our duty to protect that balance and I can only hope that when this legislation emerges from conference and is enacted into law that we will have fulfilled that responsibility.

President Reagan once said, ``Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation. . . .''

Mr. Speaker, the War on Terror must be fought and it will be won. But, as we prosecute this war, we must understand that it is our generation's time and responsibility to defend freedom. While our brave young men and women in the military are fighting for liberty around the globe, this Congress must honor their sacrifice and the cornerstone of the United States by defending freedom here at home.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the resolution that is in front of us. Hugo Chavez every step of the way has gone against the grain when it comes to the ideals that we believe in as Americans. The ideals of freedom and democracy, liberty, the rule of law, and the trusting of people.

Hugo Chavez from the beginning has tried to make an enemy of the United States. In his own words, he talks about anti-American, anti- freedom. In his own words, out of his own mouth. Today's resolution is about drug trafficking.

Over 30 percent of the cocaine that comes into the United States comes through Venezuela. That is a huge number. We can no longer allow Hugo Chavez to manipulate the minds and the hearts and the dreams of not only his own people, but the people of the United States.

Mr. Chairman, whether it is siding with Iran in trying to purchase military aircraft and weapons, his desire for nuclear technology, trying to intimidate the media in his own country, Hugo Chavez is not a friend of the United States.

In fact, he is doing everything he can to turn away from freedom and democracy. I strongly support the resolution in front of us. I hope that Hugo Chavez will wake up and understand that it is better to be a friend with the United States, it is better to be a friend and believer in the ideals of freedom, security and prosperity. I hope one day that he will understand that he has made major mistakes and that it is time to come back to what was once a Venezuela that believed in freedom and democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006, offered by my friend, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin.

I have said time and again that America's long-term freedom, security and prosperity goes hand-in-hand with restoring fiscal discipline in Washington. The people of Southwest Florida and the rest of the nation deserve a government that taxes less, spends less and regulates less. With this legislation, we will move closer to that goal. Congress and the President will be able to work together to rein in the federal budget deficit--an anchor tethered to our otherwise strong economy that needs addressing.

Moreover, if used properly, the Line Item Veto can be a positive and important tool to help ensure taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely and on the key services people need.

Mr. Speaker, we should not be fooled by those who believe we are ceding budgetary authority over to the Executive Branch, for it is Congress that has the ultimate say on any White House proposal. Instead, we are simply increasing our avenues for ways to cut down spending. Additionally, clear limits will be placed on what the President is, and is not, allowed to do. Rest assured, the power of the purse--and its maintenance--will continue to rest solely with the United States Congress.

It is upon those principles I respectfully request my colleagues in the House stand together and take an important step in passing this bill authorizing the Line Item Veto. I look forward to the prospect of it being used in the fight to reign in the cost, size and scope of Washington.

Mr. Chairman, competition is the backbone of innovation. Competition has enabled the Internet and scores of new technologies to be introduced to the marketplace, and it has changed the way we live, work and play.

Mr. Chairman, the COPE Act will ensure that competition and innovation continue to flourish. It will eliminate needless government barriers and has shown that the expansion of new technology and innovation comes when competition is alive and well.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this piece of legislation. It will help drive prices down. It will help companies invest in future technology that will help make our lives better.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you, I want to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage the esteemed chairman of the subcommittee in a colloquy concerning language and funding for the health of Florida's ecosystem.

Mr. Chairman, south Florida has experienced numerous challenging issues related to Lake Okeechobee, the quantity and quality of the water coming through the Caloosahatchee River and the Everglades. This unique ecosystem and the economy surrounding it deserve the necessary resources to ensure the continuing and lasting health of our region.

Mr. Chairman, I believe it is critical that several projects be funded to maintain the health on the region's ecosystem. The first of these projects includes the modified water project to remove the unnatural barrier of US-41. The completion of this project would restore most of the natural flow of the Everglades from Lake Okeechobee.

Second, the use of ASRs, aquifer storage and recovery systems, in the water management of the lake is a critical and innovative need that will help bridge the gap between short- and long-term goals.

Third, recent reports have raised serious concerns about the integrity of the dike surrounding Lake Okeechobee. The Federal Government must not allow the critical dike to fail.

Finally, it is imperative that the United States Senate follow the lead of the House and finally pass the WRDA legislation. WRDA has several billion dollars of these important projects. The United States Government made a commitment to restore the Everglades. This House has worked to keep our commitment, and it is time for the United States Senate to act. Thankfully, with the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio, I am sure the Energy and Water Subcommittee on Appropriations will continue to be steadfast in its support of restoring south Florida's ecosystem.

I thank the gentleman for those remarks and his leadership on this issue. Obviously, he understands that the issues are vital to the well-being of my home State and a place where he likes to visit. I look forward to continuing to work with him.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Tiahrt